Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 501 - 600 of 851
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me just say—and I hope you won't mind if I quibble about words; I'm a former journalist—I would never call our relationship with a country like Iran a game, particularly since Canadians, like Mrs. Mombeini, are trapped in that. Canada has a very strong position when it comes to Iran. We are very forceful in our relationship and in the limits we place on that relationship, and that's the right thing to do.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
Thank you for the question, Mr. Saini.
As an anglophone who is also trying to improve her French, I would like to start by congratulating you on your French.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I hope that you agree, Ms. Laverdière. I think you are the only francophone here, but perhaps someone else is as well.
Mr. Saini, I quite agree with you. For Canada, the rules-based international order is a very important principle; it is so more than ever today. For our country, the G7 summit is a wonderful opportunity to work with our allies in support of the rules-based international order, and also to talk about the matter with Canadians.
For us as parliamentarians, the reason for that need is very clear, but for Canadians, the matter has no real impact on their daily lives. The summit really is an opportunity for us to stress the importance of the international institutions for all Canadians and for the entire world.
I will go back to the first question. Illegal tariffs on steel and aluminum are another example of the importance of a rules-based international order and of the importance of organizations like the World Trade Organization, the WTO, that Canada supports.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Particularly when I am outside Canada or talking with colleagues from other countries about the Rohingya issue, it makes me really proud to be Canadian because, if anything, our government has support for a strong position on the Rohingya from the opposition parties on both the left and the right, and if anything I feel from the opposition parties the idea that Canada should be doing even more.
As Canada's foreign affairs minister, that's a great position to be in. I think we may be the only country in the world, certainly the only non-Muslim majority country in the world, where there is such a strong and united national sense that these people, among the most wretched in the world, deserve our country's strong support.
I'm sure that the other members of Parliament who are gathered around this table have all experienced what I have, which is strong support in my own constituency. People come up to me on the street and thank me for the strong position Canada is taking on this issue.
If Canadians are listening to the proceedings of this committee—I don't know how many are, Chair, but maybe a few—I would like to say thank you, and thank you, Canada. I think it shows one of the great qualities of our country.
Michael, I've spoken already a little about the announcement that we made about 10 days ago, of Canada's stepped-up action in support of the Rohingya, the $300 million over three years. Maybe I can speak a little about our effort to ensure accountability for those who are responsible for—I agree with you, Michael—crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing.
I spoke this morning on the Rohingya issue with one of my new friends on the international scene, Minister Ali, the foreign minister of Bangladesh. We are developing a very strong partnership with Bangladesh. Minister Ali and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, will be coming to Canada for the outreach session of the G7 summit. We agreed that we would spend some time talking about the Rohingya issue.
Canada is leading the creation of a contact group of countries. The permanent representatives to the UN will be meeting in New York this week to get some collective action on the Rohingya.
I would also like to thank Japan and my colleague, foreign minister Taro Kono. As the sole Asian country that is a member of the G7, I think it is able to play and is playing a particularly useful role in this issue. I've spoken about it often with Minister Kono. I spoke with him on Tuesday about the Rohingya issue and ways in which Japan is working directly in conversation with Myanmar to try to push the issue from that direction.
On the accountability front, people here are aware that we have sanctioned the general who we believe is directly responsible for these atrocious acts. I think it's also worth pointing out—and this is something that was particularly appalling to me and I think may not be widely appreciated—when I was in Cox's Bazar a month ago, I met with Rohingya refugees who had arrived there just a week earlier. This atrocity is ongoing. Rohingya are continuing to flee across the border to Bangladesh, and a person has to be in a truly dreadful situation to choose this very difficult thing of becoming a refugee, of walking to what is certainly the people of—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I have to stop now? Okay. I'm sorry. I care a lot about the Rohingya, Bob.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, thank you for the question.
You have touched on a lot of issues and I am going to make some quick comments before I talk about Bill C-47.
First of all, I would like to thank you and the NDP for your support for the strong actions that Canada took last week. This morning, I talked to Jagmeet Singh and thanked him directly. This is really a national issue and I am very pleased that we have a position that one might compare to a Team Canada.
When I was in Washington yesterday and Monday, people told me that they were astonished to see that we can deal with issues in a nonpartisan fashion. I agree with you that the Rohingya situation, is really important, and, as I have already said, it is an issue where I feel that Canada can make a difference.
Thank you for bringing up the issue of Yemen. It is also a very grave humanitarian crisis, and Canada is actively involved in the matter.
You mentioned Bill C-47 and I also want to thank the committee for its work on that bill. As you know, our government made the decision to improve the act. Perhaps we have not done all the things that our critics would like us to have done, but we have made some very serious changes and I feel that they have improved the act. This is a demonstration of the importance of committee work.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You specifically brought up the matter of trade with the Americans not needing a permit. As you said, our commercial and security ties with the United States are special. Canada and the United States are partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and in the North American Aerospace Defence Command, or NORAD. We also have an industrial base and a defence base that are integrated. At this moment, it is more important than ever to focus on that reality.
The ATT does not exclude an accelerated procedure for assessing and authorizing exports to certain countries. For example, controlled items circulate freely among the countries of the Benelux union.
I also want to emphasize something that is very important for me. The changes we made in Bill C-47 have strengthened the act for various reasons. We have written the ATT criteria directly into the Canadian legislation. We have included a legal obligation for the government to be able to use export permits for arms that would violate those criteria. These are serious changes and I am proud of them.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Borys, for that question. I would like to take this opportunity to really thank you for your commitment over many, many years to the Ukraine issue. Something that perhaps not everyone is familiar with is the fact that you have been speaking up for the Crimean Tatars for many, many years. This is a group of people who have experienced severe repression for a very long time. They are among the chief victims of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea. I'm grateful to you for your support for them. I think it is really important that Canada stands up for them, as we do.
I'm also glad you mentioned Jens Stoltenberg's comments. I do think he is a person with whom Canada has a very close connection. In fact, I think he was one of the first people who called to congratulate me when I became foreign minister of Canada. We have a very close conversation with him.
I think it's useful to use this moment at committee to be sure that Canadians appreciate just how much Canada is contributing today to NATO and to the support of our friends and allies in Europe.
Canada is, as you mentioned, Borys, one of the four lead countries of the enhanced forward presence mission in Poland and the Baltic States. We are the lead country in Latvia. That is something that's appreciated not only by Latvia but across the region. Last week the Prime Minister of Estonia was here, and he made that point explicitly to me. He said that Canadian women and men are in Latvia but that supports all of us; we really, really appreciate it.
Canada is present in Romania, and the Unifier mission in Ukraine is a very important symbol of Canada's support for Ukraine. It also has tremendous practical value in training the Ukrainian men and women in uniform. I think there could be no better confirmation of the value of our work there than the fact that Sweden has now chosen to join us and will be sending Swedish troops to join the Canadians in that training mission. That is a really good sign that what we're doing really helps.
I mentioned in my remarks the significance of inviting foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin to be a guest and to speak directly with the G7 foreign ministers. We began the G7 foreign ministers meeting with a breakfast in my house. It was ministers only. After a beginning conversation among the ministers, Pavlo joined us and was able to speak very directly to the G7 foreign ministers about the situation in Ukraine. I heard from many of my G7 colleagues how much they valued being able to have such a direct conversation with Minister Klimkin. It was really a moment when we heard very strong support from the G7 for Ukraine. That was reflected in the statement by the G7 foreign ministers. I know that this is an issue that will be raised at the leaders summit.
I met with Secretary Mike Pompeo in Washington on Monday. We also discussed the issue of Ukraine and ways that Canada and the United States can work together on it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Anita, for your work on the committee. Like Borys, you're a person who has been committed to these issues for many years. I'm really grateful for that and I appreciate your expertise.
You're right that the situation in Venezuela has been a particular focus for the government. Again, I'd like to take this opportunity to share with members of the committee, but also with Canadians more generally, the extent to which Canadian leadership on this issue is very much appreciated throughout our hemisphere. There are only two G7 countries in our hemisphere. Canada is one of them. The fact that Canada is devoting so much focused attention to the situation in Venezuela, and the fact that Canada is such an energetic member of the Lima group means a great deal to Venezuelans who are suffering a loss of their democratic and human rights. I think it also is very heartening to our other friends and allies in the hemisphere, who see that Canada is not only with them in principle, but that we are really prepared to devote the sweat equity to act on the principles that bring together the members of the Organization of American States.
Our meeting of the OAS on Monday.... As I said, David was there with me. We're lucky to have him in the department because of his deep expertise in Latin America. I've heard a lot of people praising you for that, David, so thank you very much.
It was an important meeting. It was an opportunity for the members of the Lima group to speak directly to the Venezuelan government, to the Venezuelan foreign minister, and to make clear our absolute commitment to democracy for the people of Venezuela.
I think that having that sort of a direct exchange has a real impact. Again, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank, in particular, our Caribbean friends, for whom this can be a particularly difficult issue. They are joining us. We share democratic values with many of our long-time Canadian friends in the Caribbean, and I would really like to thank those who are joining us in the work of the Lima group. That's particularly important. This again—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm going to have to stop talking. I'm sorry.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the question, Jati.
Actually, this gives me an opportunity to acknowledge another official, Mark Gwozdecky. He is the director of policy in the department. As I was walking in here, I was asking Mark how we are doing on some of the issues in the communiqué.
Indeed, this has been a focus of Canadian foreign policy for some time and a major theme in our G7 year. As you mentioned, the G7 foreign ministers met shortly after the Salisbury attack, which was yet another gross violation of international norms by Russia. In fact, the G7 was able to act before the foreign ministers' meeting with a strong G7 statement in solidarity with our British partners and allies, condemning this attack.
I know that was very much appreciated by the United Kingdom, and I think a very powerful message was sent following tet Salisbury attack by the very strong action by the international community, including Canada, in expelling Russian diplomats in response. I think that demonstration of international unity was very powerful and was an example of Canada using our G7 presidency this year to really play a leadership role in bringing together that coalition and in supporting democracy and the sovereignty of our allies.
I thank this committee for its work on the Magnitsky legislation, which I mentioned earlier. That, of course, has been an important additional tool, which we have in our diplomatic tool box and have been able to use with regard to our policy towards Russia.
Canada has been very closely engaged and supportive of our partners, the Netherlands and Australia, in the recent report about the MH17 tragedy, another important example. As we have discussed with regard to the Rohingya, this is an example of the importance of the rules-based order, the importance of gathering evidence, and the importance and value of establishing accountability. It is an issue that Canada is following very closely and will continue to follow closely. I think it is an important issue, which is emerging during this, our G7 presidency year.
I'd just like to make a final point, which was certainly an element of the G7 foreign ministers meeting and I expect will be an important issue when the G7 leaders meet very soon, and that is the importance of standing up for and defending our democracies against foreign interference. Something that we are encountering, particularly from Russia, is a very orchestrated attempt to undermine our democratic institutions from the inside and to undermine the credibility and effectiveness of how our democracies work. It's very important for us as Canadians to be aware of this issue and to work hard to stand up for our democracies. I intentionally say “us as Canadians”, not just as parliamentarians.
It's an issue that I discussed with the Prime Minister of Estonia last week, and he brought with him his official who is specifically in charge of countering cyber-threats from Russia. This official said that it may be easier in Estonia than in other countries because their public is very prepared for this and has the natural defences. I think that is a lesson that all of the democracies can and must learn from countries like our partners in the Baltic States and from countries like Ukraine. This is a threat that may have begun in the Baltic States and in Ukraine, but it is very much an issue for us here in Canada.
I think it's an important issue for the world's leading industrial democracies—that's what the G7 is—to be addressing. We are seeing that action, and Canada is very much playing a leading role there.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm delighted you asked that question, because the cuts to funding for election monitoring were actually cuts made by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.
I want to assure members of this committee and all Canadians that our government is absolutely committed to restoring the funding for election monitoring. Ukraine—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on, hang on, hang on—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—I didn't cut you off, Garnett. Hang on, hang on—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I haven't finished my answer.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, I have not finished my answer.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, no, I'm going to finish my answer, please.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm sorry, I'm sorry—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I think the mike has to be cut off, please.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
I'm happy to take your questions, but I'd ask you to behave as the other members of the committee do and listen to the answer.
I am glad to take this opportunity here to make an absolute commitment to all Canadians and to the people of Ukraine that Canada will be energetically engaged in election monitoring in Ukraine next year. The elections in Ukraine next year are an absolutely critical moment, and we will be there.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me be very clear on the direction of that question.
We have a feminist Prime Minister. I'm a feminist, and I'm proud that we have a feminist foreign policy. I believe it is an absolute right of women to control their bodies. I believe that sexual and reproductive health for women is their right. I believe that is a right for Canadian women, and I am proud to stand up for women around the world to have that right.
We, sadly, are living in a time when the sexual and reproductive rights of women in some countries in the world are being limited. That is wrong. As you know, Canada has stepped up its support for sexual and reproductive health for women in part to fill that void. That is something our government is extremely proud to do. If the Conservative Party believes that a woman should not have control of her own body, whether she is Canadian or a citizen of any other country, I would be quite delighted to take that position to the voters of Canada.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I again want to address the underlying point which is being insinuated and pushed there, and I would like Canadians to be very aware of the tendency of that question. Again, if the Conservative Party of Canada wants to stand up for Canadian voters and say that it is a party which is opposed to a woman's right to choose in Canada, that it is a party which is opposed to support for sexual and reproductive health of women around the world, I would be delighted to take that issue to the ballot box.
I also want to say in this year, the year of #MeToo, the year when the people of Ireland—the women of Ireland, but the people of Ireland—have spoken up in a free and open ballot for a woman's right to choose, I am extremely proud to be very, very clear about our government's support for choice. Again, I would be delighted to have the Conservative Party, rather than make insinuations if you are opposed to abortion, if you want to limit a woman's right to choose in Canada or around the world, please come out and say it clearly.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me say first of all I do think that as members of this committee, while we may disagree about issues like a woman's right to choose, we all do strongly agree on the importance of defending and standing up for Canadian democracy, and I would like to commend my colleague Karina Gould for the great work she has been doing in that space. I really believe this is important to get the legislation right. It's also absolutely important to have the right public conversation about this.
As I said in my earlier answer in referring to the conversation with the Estonian prime minister, a lot of this is about Canada having the right laws. A lot of this is about Canada having the tools to detect and fight back against cyber-interference, and that's an area that Minister Goodale is working at very effectively.
A big part of this, as well, is public consciousness and public awareness. This is an area where I think we, as members of Parliament, all have a shared responsibility to have a conversation with Canadians, to have a conversation with our constituents, and to be sure that we are all prepared to push back against that interference.
I want to say one last thing. I had the privilege of being with the Prime Minister at the bilateral meeting today with Emmanuel Macron. I think the French election was an example of a very enlightened public and a very enlightened and responsible media pushing back against foreign interference. I'd like to congratulate the people of France. We can learn a lot from them.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for asking me another question in French.
I have already talked about feminism and about the importance of having a feminist international policy.
Our government's policy on the issue is based on a number of factors. One of them is Canada's feminist international assistance policy, that my colleague Ms. Bibeau is promoting. This major strategy has already changed the lives of women and girls around the world. Internationally, there is a lot of interest in that strategy. A number of countries are closely following what Canada is doing in this area and they are very interested.
We also have initiatives dealing with women, peace and security, such as the Elsie initiative on women in peace operations. Canada is actively working to ensure that there will be more women in United Nations peace operations. Canada is working with a number of international partners on that structural change, and I see the start of a change here.
The G7 summit will be another opportunity for Canada to raise questions about women and gender equality. The meeting of the gender equality advisory council will provide a very significant opportunity in this regard.
As I announced during the G7 Foreign and Security Ministers' meeting, Cecilia Malmström and I have decided to call a meeting in September to bring together all the women foreign affairs ministers in the world. The meeting is raising a lot of interest. In fact, during the G7 Foreign and Security Ministers' meeting, we had dinner with a small group of foreign affairs ministers who are women. I invited the other G7 foreign affairs ministers, including Federica Mogherini, a woman, of course, and she joined us.
Taro Kono, Japan's Foreign Affairs Minister, decided to join us. He found the meeting so interesting that, on Tuesday, he asked me if he could attend the meeting of women foreign affairs ministers. I said yes of course, and that I was going to invite all the women foreign affairs ministers in the world, plus the G7 ministers, whether they are women or not. This is a very important feature of our foreign policy.
Let me give you another example. Mr. Morrison was with me in Washington at the meeting of the Organization of American States, the OAS. One of the participants was Costa Rica's new Minister of Foreign Affairs. She is the country's first female Minister of Foreign Affairs. She explained to us that the government of Costa Rica had decided to have a cabinet based on gender equality. During the meeting, she told me that she had been inspired by our prime minister's 2015 decision to do the same thing.
So we need to understand that an example from Canada can have an effect on the entire world.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Don't make us miss the vote, Bob. We'll all be in trouble with our whips.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I would like to thank our chair and the committee for the opportunity to join you all here today. I have some prepared remarks, a few things I'd like to say off the top.
Before I begin, I would like to introduce two outstanding Canadian public servants who are here with me. I think everyone in Canada now knows Steve Verheul. I was about to say that he is our chief negotiator of CETA, which he is, but right now, significantly, he is our chief negotiator of NAFTA. Thank you for being here with us, Steve.
With me also is David Morrison, who has recently been named our associate deputy minister of Global Affairs. David has been doing terrific work on a number of files, but most particularly he's a Latin America expert and has been leading our effort on Venezuela.
Muchas gracias, David.
For the Albertans here, he's from Lethbridge.
Mr. Chair, honourable members, thank you for inviting me to speak to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development about how our government is delivering on its foreign policy priorities. Last June, in the House of Commons, I presented Canada's priorities in terms of foreign policy. The very essence of those priorities is the fact that they are founded on the importance of maintaining a stable and rule-based international order.
Our government is capitalizing on Canada's global presence, which is long-standing tradition, to speak with a strong voice in order to defend intolerance and nativism, while addressing the legitimate concerns of individuals who feel overwhelmed by globalization. This means that constructive leadership is needed in the established world order and with our partners to promote peace, security and prosperity around the world.
Mr. Chair, that is exactly what our government is doing.
At the United Nations, the G7, the G20, the OAS, the World Trade Organization, in the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, and NATO, to name just a few, Canada today is engaging creatively to navigate the complexities of today's world.
We are doing so, Mr. Chair, not only in word but also in deed. We have shown that Canada can lead and assemble partners to find solutions to the world's most pressing global challenges.
In October, in Toronto, I hosted the third ministerial meeting of the Lima Group on Venezuela. Foreign ministers from over a dozen countries convened to discuss steps needed for a peaceful return to democracy and to relieve the terrible suffering of the Venezuelan people. I repeated this message once again two weeks ago in Chile at the fourth Lima Group meeting, as well as the importance that Canada's sanctions against Venezuela have in our efforts to achieve these goals.
The issue of Venezuela was further extensively discussed at the North American foreign ministers meeting last Friday in Mexico City. We may be holding another meeting of the Lima Group in Lima next week. That's under discussion. Just a couple of hours ago I spoke with the Peruvian foreign minister about that possibility.
With the United States, Canada also recently hosted the Vancouver foreign ministers meeting on security and stability on the Korean peninsula. This was an essential opportunity for the international community to demonstrate unity against and opposition to North Korea's dangerous and illegal actions and to work together to strengthen diplomatic efforts towards a secure, prosperous, and denuclearized Korean peninsula.
Likewise, on Myanmar, I'm proud of Canada's leadership and cross-party support for that leadership. Too often in diplomacy, it is said that words do not matter, but they do. It is significant that Canada was one of the first countries to denounce the crimes against humanity and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya.
Since the beginning of 2017, Canada has contributed $37.5 million to help address the needs of affected people in Myanmar and Bangladesh. This includes $12.5 million the government contributed to match the donations of generous and concerned Canadians. I would really like to thank and congratulate all the Canadians who took part in that. That is why we have appointed Bob Rae, a friend and an exemplary Canadian, as special envoy. As a non-Muslim-majority country, it's particularly important that Canada speak out in defence of this persecuted Muslim minority.
When it comes to Ukraine, I was delighted to travel to Kiev in December and to meet with President Poroshenko, Prime Minister Groysman, and Foreign Minister Klimkin.
I conveyed our unwavering support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and spoke about our recent addition of Ukraine to the automatic firearms country control list, something that the Ukrainians thanked me for.
Last June I also said we would take strong steps to ensure that all human beings are treated with dignity and respect, based on our strong commitment to pluralism, human rights, and the rule of law. Since then, we adopted the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act—and thank you to everyone around this table for the support for that measure—to enable Canada to take action against individuals who commit serious violations of human rights and those who engage in significant acts of corruption anywhere in the world.
I want to thank all the members of this committee for your important work on this legislation. It truly would not have happened without this committee's leadership, a very important contribution.
We will continue to firmly denounce any kind of injustice and intolerance around the world, as we have done in places such as Yemen, Chechnya and Iran in recent months.
You also heard me talk about women and girls. As I said in June, it is important for a prime minister and a government to proudly self-identify as feminists.That actually marked an historic milestone.
Women's rights are human rights, and they are at the heart of our foreign policy. That is why we are determined to promote a feminist and ambitious foreign policy. That commitment is at the heart of Canada's feminist international aid policy, which was launched in June by my colleague Marie-Claude Bibeau, Minister of International Development and La Francophonie, and at the heart of Canada's new national action plan dedicated to women, peace and security, which I announced last November.
I know that the contribution of several committee members here today was a great help in developing those policies. So I would like to thank them once again.
At the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference held in November, in Vancouver, Canada launched the Elsie Initiative on women's participation in peace operations. The initiative's goal is not only to ensure that women can participate fully in peacekeeping operations around the world, but also to guarantee that good conditions are in place for their long-term participation. The Elsie Initiative is designed to improve the overall effectiveness of United Nations operations. We are hearing from experts from a number of countries this month to determine that the next steps will be.
Our reputation as a country with clear and cherished democratic values that stands for human rights is strong. We must continue to be a global leader and keep working hard to protect these values and rights.
On that point, I would like to directly address an issue that has received important scrutiny in Canada: arms exports. Last summer we became aware of media reports on the possible misuse of Canadian-made vehicles in security operations in Saudi Arabia's eastern province. At that time, I asked officials at Global Affairs Canada to conduct a full and thorough investigation of these reports. Today I can confirm that officials at Global Affairs found no conclusive evidence that Canadian-made vehicles were used in human rights violations. That was the independent, objective opinion of our public service and the advice given to me as minister.
That experience did, however, cause me to pause and re-examine Canada's export permit system. My conclusion is that Canada can and must do better. Canada is not alone in the world in taking stock of how we allow and monitor the export of arms and of the considerations that go into these decisions. I have spoken with my counterparts in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, among others, whose countries have all recently, in one way or another, questioned how arms are exported.
I am proud of the important commitment that our government made with Bill C-47. This would amend the Export and Import Permits Act to allow Canada to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. This is the first treaty to tackle the illicit trade in conventional weapons, and it sets an essential standard for the international community.
It is long overdue that Canada joins many of our NATO and G7 partners by acceding to the ATT. We have heard support for the arms trade treaty from civil society, NGOs, and Canadians. We also heard the clear desire to do better. We need to be ambitious and strengthen Bill C-47. We had originally planned to place the criteria by which exports are judged, including human rights, into regulation, but we heard from committee members and civil society that they would like to see the Arms Trade Treaty criteria placed directly into legislation. This would include the consideration of peace and security, human rights, and gender-based violence. I can say today that the government would welcome this.
Going further than that, our government is today announcing its support for the inclusion of a substantial risk clause in Canadian law. Such a clause would mean that our government and future governments would not allow the export of a controlled good if there were a substantial risk that it could be used to commit human rights violations. A substantial risk clause would mean that Global Affairs Canada would need to ensure, before the export of controlled goods, that we have a high level of confidence that controlled exports will not be used to commit human rights abuses.
That is an important decision because it will have an impact on the way Canada regulates arms sales, but it's the right thing to do. Canadians are deeply committed to human rights for everyone, and they rightly expect exported goods not to be used to violate human rights.
I want things to be very clear. I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to Canada's controlled goods exports.
This is a significant decision. It will mean changes in how Canada regulates the selling of weapons. This is the right thing to do. Canadians fundamentally care about human rights for all, and Canadians rightly expect that exports will not be used to violate human rights.
Let me be clear: from this day forward I want us to hold ourselves to a higher standard on the export of controlled goods from Canada.
I would also like to provide further clarity on one point. As a matter of broad principle, Canada will honour pre-existing contracts to the greatest extent possible. We can all understand and appreciate the fundamental importance of being able to trust Canada. We also understand the inherent importance of providing stability and certainty. Canada is a trusted partner around the world, and people must continue to be sure of the high worth of our word and our commitments. The world needs to know that an agreement with Canada endures beyond elections. This is important not only for international partners but also for Canadian companies and Canadian workers, who need to know they will be able to follow through on plans into which they invest their time and resources.
These two amendments will also provide clarity to industry by laying out the government's and Canadians' expectations for our export control process. We will work with Canadian industry to continue to provide it with appropriate guidance.
Mr. Chair, let me now turn to trade for one moment.
When it comes to NAFTA, we continue to work hard on the bread-and-butter trade issues at the negotiating table. Our goal is greater competitiveness, investment certainty, and growth in North America.
At the most recent round of talks in Montreal, we put forward some creative ideas with the view to establishing a constructive dialogue on certain key issues, including the rules of origin, investment dispute settlement, and ongoing modernization of the agreement. Serious challenges do remain, particularly with regard to the United States' unconventional proposal. As the Prime Minister said yesterday in Chicago, our objective is a good deal, not just any deal.
At the negotiating table, Canada always takes a facts-based approach. We are always polite and we are adept at seeking creative solutions and win-win-win compromises, but we are also resolute. Canada will only accept an agreement if it is in our national interest and respects Canadian values.
Finally, Mr. Chair, let me conclude with a few words about one of Canada's signature priorities for this year, our G7 presidency. This is a great opportunity for us to speak with a strong voice on the international stage.
During its G7 presidency in 2018, Canada will mobilize its counterparts on global issues requiring immediate attention, including by investing in economic growth that benefits everyone, by preparing for the jobs of the future, by working together on climate, ocean and clean energy changes, and by building a more peaceful and safer world. More specifically, we will promote gender equality and women's empowerment, and we will ensure that a gender-based analysis is conducted for each aspect of our presidency.
Mr. Chair, I will conclude by saying that, within G7 and the international community as a whole, Canada is continuing to defend a rule-based national order and to look for ways to strengthen it. We do this at every opportunity, while explicitly taking into account the relationship between peace, common prosperity, open trade and human rights.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for that question, Garnett, if I may, and you're welcome to call me Chrystia if you like. We can be a little more informal here than in the House.
Let me first clarify the matter of timing of my appearance today. I apologize for not having brought that up at the beginning. I'd like to thank everyone for being willing to meet today rather than last Thursday. I am aware that this appearance was scheduled for last Thursday. As I think people know, we had a last-minute decision to hold a meeting of the North American foreign ministers in Mexico City on the Friday.
This was a meeting that we had long sought to schedule. It seemed to me, given developments in the world and in North America, that there was great value in the three foreign ministers of the North American countries coming together, and when quite quickly it became apparent that the end of last week was a time that would accommodate Rex and Luis, the U.S Secretary of State and the Mexican secretary of state, it seemed to me that the right thing to do was to go ahead with that meeting. I apologize to everyone for everyone having to change their schedules. I'm sorry some people couldn't be here, but it was truly about my being able to get to Mexico City for that meeting.
On the NAFTA negotiations, I do also want, Garnett, to thank you and thank opposition parties, as I want to thank all Canadians, for the Team Canada approach we have brought to these negotiations. As you all know, we have both NDP and Conservative members, as well as business, labour, and indigenous representation on my NAFTA council. I think our Team Canada approach is serving us extremely well. I really want to thank everybody, especially opposition colleagues, for that approach.
When it comes to the progressive elements that we have put forward, in my view our core progressive ideas are in the labour, environmental, gender, and indigenous chapters. Each of those chapters is different and speaks to a different need in a different part of the agreement.
The indigenous chapter is certainly the first time Canada has put forward an indigenous chapter in a trade agreement—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You asked me a question about the progressive elements, and I'd like to answer that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Garnett, I'm answering. I am.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's certainly the first time Canada has put forward an indigenous chapter. We thought it was the first time an indigenous chapter was put forward in a trade agreement, but I was talking about this with New Zealand, and they think there appears to be one between New Zealand and Taiwan, because of some ethnic relations between their indigenous peoples. It is new ground for Canada, and I'm very proud that we're putting that forward.
When it comes to the labour and environmental chapters, it is our belief—and labour organizations agree with us—that the labour proposal we have put forward is the strongest and most progressive labour proposal Canada has ever advanced in a trade negotiation. This is a set of proposals that would bite, and that would do the important work.
I spoke in my comments about our support for globalization. At the same time, we appreciate that globalization has left some people behind. It's not fair for Canadian workers to be exposed to a race to the bottom, to be facing other countries where labour and environmental standards are lower. Our labour chapter and our environmental chapter are very much designed and have the intent of protecting our workers against that.
When it comes to the gender chapter, I'm glad that you referred to the chapter that we have in our agreement with Chile. That really is ground-breaking. This chapter very much builds on that work. Our proposals do, in any case. None of these are closed chapters, so it's important to talk about the Canadian proposals here.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Garnett, the reality is that China is today the world's second-largest economy. It's a country with which we already have a very significant trading relationship, and with which many countries in the world have a significant trading relationship. The existence and the importance of China is a fact, and certainly, as someone who cares very deeply about issues like our canola trade, I am very aware of the significance of China's relationship with Canada.
It is the duty of any Canadian government to have a strong and meaningful relationship with the world's second-largest economy. That is something our country is working hard to build.
That said, it is also the case—and this is something which we expressed very clearly in our meetings with Chinese officials—that in many ways and in many areas Canadian values and the Canadian political system differ very strongly from the political system of China. That is a reality as well, and that is something we all should be very clear about.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I've been very clear on the question of the Canadian political system and Canadian political values vis-à-vis those of other countries. Let me say one thing very clearly for all Canadians: I really think, particularly at this moment in the history of the world, that something Canada is poised to do and that Canadians really believe in is to speak up for persecuted ethnic and religious minorities around the world. That's something I'm personally very committed to doing, and I believe we have strong cross-party support for doing that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the issue of the persecution of the Rohingya is one of particular concern for this government and for Canadians. I have been really proud of the cross-party support for the Government of Canada in focusing on that issue.
As I said in my remarks, in the world today there is a particular significance and importance for us as a non-majority Muslim country to be focused on the oppression of this Muslim minority, which is one of the most persecuted groups in the world. I said in my remarks that words matter, and I think it's important for us to be clear that what is happening to the Rohingya is ethnic cleansing. These are crimes against humanity.
It's also really important that the people committing these atrocities understand that personal accountability will happen. That is something the international community is pushing for, and it is something Canada stands behind very strongly.
You mentioned the Prime Minister's special envoy, Bob Rae. Bob's appointment to look into this issue—to travel to Myanmar, to travel to Rakhine State—is a very important part of our commitment to being engaged and to speaking up for the Rohingya.
I would like to say in conclusion that I have been really proud of the commitment of our Parliament broadly—of all the parties in Parliament—to these persecuted people, but even more proud of the commitment of Canadians. All of us knew there was a real desire among Canadians for the Government of Canada to match donations to support the Rohingya, and Canadians responded to that magnificently. We're a great country, and I think we're never greater than when we're speaking up for some of the world's most persecuted people.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
All of us can be proud of the Ottawa treaty. We celebrated together its 20th anniversary last year. That was a great Canadian international accomplishment and has made a significant difference in the world. Given the devastation caused by land mines, anything we can do to have fewer of them in use means that there are fewer mutilated people and fewer dead people in the world.
That is why we were really proud on December 4 to announce an additional $12 million to pursue our goal of ridding the world of anti-personnel land mines. Men and boys are disproportionately the group who are the direct victims of land mines, but it tends to fall to women and girls to care for them, so we are applying our gender-based analysis to dealing with the impact of land mines.
In terms of where the funding is going to go, we are focusing on Syria; Ukraine, because as members of the committee know, among its many afflictions, the Donbass region is afflicted with land mines; Colombia; Cambodia; and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. In this project, we're working with trusted international partners.
I see Anita nodding, because she has worked around the world so much.
The land mine issue is really something on which the international community recognizes Canadian leadership, and we should all be proud to build on that 20-year legacy. I certainly am.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Ms. Laverdière, I would like to begin by thanking you personally for your work on the export file. As I already said, we will listen to you, and we are prepared to use the amendments you talked about. Thank you for your contribution.
As for the Philippines, export permits come under my jurisdiction. As I said yesterday and today, we have not received an application for an export permit, and human rights are important to us. In the case of an application for an export permit, we are fully prepared to carry out a rigorous analysis. I will sign a permit only once a rigorous analysis has been conducted.
You also talked about an investigation by the International Criminal Court into the Philippines. I welcome that investigation, which is an important step.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
As I already said, I can only talk about my responsibilities.
As minister of foreign affairs, I am responsible for signing—or not—export permits. We have not received an export application. I want to be very clear, and it's important for people to understand that, if we receive an application for an export permit to the Philippines, we will take human rights into account, as they are a very important issue for Canada. The Prime Minister and I have discussed our concerns in that area regarding the Philippines.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I was very precise, and intentionally so, in my language. When the media reports appeared, what I said was that I instructed the department and our objective and independent public service—of which, Hélène, you were once a distinguished member—to do a thorough analysis. The report that I received from our public service was that there was no conclusive evidence of the use of Canadian weapons in the commission of human rights violations. That is the advice that I received, as minister.
We believe in a fact-based approach and we believe in relying on the counsel of our public service.
That said, as I said in my remarks, the issue raised some concerns for me. As I have announced today, that is why I think that now is the time for Canada to move to a more rigorous system of control over arms exports going forward.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I will have to ask the department representatives for it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I agree with you on many of the issues, but I don't fully share your opinion on what you just discussed. I think the additions and amendments I announced today are a major improvement. I think it is very important for Canada that our government decided to join that treaty and it's a major improvement in terms of our export regulations.
As for our ties with the United States in defence, as you are well aware, that country is one of Canada's important strategic allies. That relationship is important to us, as well as to our American counterparts. We are allied, we share a border and we are both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Jati, for that question.
As you know, I currently represent a very urban riding, but I was born and raised in a very rural one, so I understand that question, and I think it is a very important one. I'm delighted to have this opportunity to offer some clarity on that issue.
Bill C-47 will make changes to the process for importing and exporting controlled goods to and from Canada. It does not affect domestic gun control regulation and it does not affect the domestic trade in arms. The Firearms Act falls under Public Safety, so admirably and effectively managed by our friend Minister Goodale. This is not the purview of Global Affairs Canada. We have quite enough on our plate without that.
Bill C-47 does not create any form of new registry for gun ownership. Let me be very clear on that. Record-keeping obligations in the Export and Import Permits Act have existed since 1947, and Bill C-47 does not change the system that Canadians already know.
Let me quote from the the Arms Trade Treaty preamble, which acknowledges, and I quote:
the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law
I know that there have been some concerns about that issue, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity to absolutely put those concerns to rest, so thank you for that question.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm glad to be on the record about that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We were very pleased just a few weeks ago to co-host with the United States the summit on peace and security on the Korean peninsula. This is one of the most pressing issues in the world today. North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile tests are a breach of international law and pose a dangerous security threat for the entire world. Our summit meeting in Vancouver was an opportunity to show international solidarity and international resolve around that important issue. It was a very important opportunity for us, the assembled foreign ministers, to assert together that a diplomatic solution is both possible and essential in this crisis.
We were very pleased to host the meeting in Vancouver for a number of reasons, not least among them that Canada is the proud home to one of the largest Korean diaspora communities anywhere in the world. As MP for University—Rosedale, Toronto's Koreatown is in my riding. We do have a special interest and responsibility. As our B.C. colleagues know, we are a Pacific nation, so we are particularly engaged in this issue.
One additional important purpose and value of that meeting was to show our support for our partner, South Korea. Minister Kang, South Korea's foreign minister, is an excellent, extremely effective foreign minister. While we in Canada certainly are concerned about what is happening in North Korea, we're concerned because of the threat to the world. Of all the countries in the world, South Korea is most directly exposed. It's very important for us to be showing solidarity and support for South Korea. This was a very good opportunity to do so.
We were very glad to host the meeting. I thank our colleagues from Global Affairs. They did a fantastic job pulling it together at what, by the standards of these sorts of summits, is very short notice. This is going to be an issue in which Canada will continue to be very urgently engaged.
Finally, the timing of the meeting turned out to be very fortuitous, because it happened just as North and South Korea were able to engage in talking about and working together on the Olympics. All the participants in the meeting were able to speak about the value of that engagement as admittedly a very small step, but a positive step.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
And “Go, Canada, Go”, for our athletes at the Olympics.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Ms. Vandenbeld.
I'll start by responding to your preamble.
The work we have all been doing together on Bill C-47 is a real example—and Mr. Chair, let me address you also—of how a parliamentary committee can do really important work in improving legislation. As I said, this is not the first time this committee has had a real impact on the work of the government. The Magnitsky report is another example of the way this committee's work has shaped our government policy. That's the way parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, and I would like to thank the committee, and the witnesses who come before the committee, for being so effective. It's made a real difference to what we're doing as a country.
Regarding the theme you and I are flighting for—women, the country and security—I absolutely agree with you. I also want to congratulate you, Ms. Vandenbeld, on the work you are doing, not only in Canada, but also in Kosovo, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Congo. I think that those life experiences enrich your life both as an MP and as a member of this committee; that's very clear to me. It is very useful for Canada to have a woman with those kinds of experiences.
For our government, including women in everything we do in terms of peace and security issues is a priority. We talked about that at the peacekeeping summit in Vancouver, and it was only the beginning. I am certain that our plan to include more women in peacekeeping operations will make a huge difference for Canada, for the world and for the United Nations.
There will be a lot of work, and it won't be easy. However, this is important work, and we now have a plan. We have the support of many countries around the world. I know that this work is necessary, and I am sure we will manage to do it
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let me, in that case, just say we need to do precisely what you suggest in your question.
I very much agree, and I think at this point we have a pretty broad national consensus around the fact—which is now proven by quite a rich historical experience and empirical studies—that when we include women in peace and security processes, when we have women engaged in peacekeeping, and when we have women engaged in policing, we have better outcomes. It's the right thing to do because it's fair and it's in line with our values, but it also leads to better results, and that is why Canada is so proud to be championing this.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I worry, John, that you're trying to get me in trouble with François-Philippe, my friend who is my benchmate in the House of Commons. We all have to try to stay in our own lanes.
Let me say on behalf of the government that as the Prime Minister has announced, we were very pleased to be able to reach an agreement in principle on the CPTPP. Canada is absolutely committed to this deal, and we are very pleased particularly with the changes that we were able to achieve in the final months of negotiation.
I think the additional protections on the cultural exemption are very valuable for Canada. I'm very pleased with the changes on the IP front, and we have some additional opportunities for Canadian autos that I think make this a better deal. Our government is enthusiastic about it and committed to it. I'll leave the details to François-Philippe, but you have that assurance from me.
We are very mindful. Speaking on the agriculture file, no one, I think, knows it better than Steve Verheul. We're very mindful of the additional opportunities, particularly in the Japanese market. This is great news, in particular for Canadian ranchers.
I'll let you finish your....
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We're very mindful of the opportunities for Canadian agriculture, in particular, I would say, for Canadian ranchers. We're also mindful that this first mover advantage is very valuable.
I think we saw that with the Korea trade deal. The fact that Canada fell behind really meant that our ranchers and our pork producers were at a disadvantage, which they're still fighting to make up.
There are some great opportunities there, and I look forward to seeing Canadian farmers and ranchers take advantage of them.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
You are rightly familiar with the dairy access that is granted under CPTPP, because that, of course, was negotiated by the previous Conservative government. Steve and I and our negotiating team work very closely with our stakeholders, very much including the supply-managed sector, when it comes to the NAFTA negotiation. We are very aware of the concerns and the very legitimate needs of our supply-managed sector.
When it comes to the NAFTA negotiation, as I said in my opening remarks, we are making good progress on what I would describe as the modernization chapters, areas such as cutting red tape, such as electronic forms at the border, such as our small and medium-sized business chapter, which we have closed. We've closed that chapter, the competition chapter, and the anti-corruption chapter, so we're making really good progress there. As you will know from working with business people, those are really important chapters. We actually found in our—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on; I'm going to get there, okay? I want to give you the context.
In our consultations ahead of the NAFTA negotiation, at the beginning of the negotiation we found that 40% of Canadian exporters do not use their NAFTA preferences. That's a really big number, and what that tells us is both that the red tape involved in claiming those preferences is very high and probably that the delta between the NAFTA preferences and the WTO rate is smaller than it was when NAFTA was first negotiated. As a result, we're focusing a lot on those modernization areas and we're making meaningful progress there.
That said, there are other areas where significant differences remain. The sector you've alluded to is one of them.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Mark, and I'd really like to thank the whole committee for being here. As Mark said, a Monday in the middle of August is not generally a time when intense committee hearings are held, and the fact that you've brought us together here I take as a sign of your really hard work and the real commitment that every member of this committee has to a great outcome for your constituents and Canadians in these talks. It's a privilege and an honour for me to be here to speak to you, and I want to thank everyone who is here. As Mark has pointed out, it's a pretty full room for a summertime committee meeting, which I also think speaks to how consequential these talks are for Canadians.
I'd like to make some opening remarks, and then I'd be happy to answer your questions.
I'd like to start by acknowledging that we're gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin.
Trade is about people. It's about creating the best possible conditions for growth, jobs, and prosperity for individuals and working families. That is why we are modernizing the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA. That is why we are seizing this opportunity to make what is already a good agreement, even better. The North American free trade area is now the biggest economic zone in the world. Together, Canada, the United States, and Mexico account for a quarter of the world's GDP, with just 7% of its population.
Since 1994, trade among NAFTA partners has roughly tripled, making this a $19-trillion regional market representing 470 million consumers. Thanks to NAFTA, Canada's economy is 2.5% larger than it would otherwise be. It's as though Canada has been receiving a $20-billion cheque every year since NAFTA was ratified. Thanks to NAFTA, North America's economy is highly integrated, making our companies more competitive in the global marketplace and creating more jobs on our continent.
These historic NAFTA negotiations are to begin in two days. We're keen to get to work, not least because we know that uncertainty is never good for our economy.
At every opportunity we've explained to our southern friends—and many of you have been part of that effort—that Canada is the largest export market for two-thirds of U.S. states, and America's biggest overall customer by far. Indeed, Canada buys more from the U.S. than China, the U.K., and Japan combined. I think quite a few of us have uttered that sentence in recent months.
Our American partners have been listening. Today they understand, as we do, that our relationship, the greatest economic partnership in the world, is balanced and mutually beneficial. To wit, in 2016 Canada and the United States traded $635.1 billion U.S. in goods and services. That exchange was almost perfectly reciprocal. In fact, the United States ran a slight surplus with us of $8.1 billion U.S.—less than 1.5% of our total trade. So it's very, very balanced.
We've also been working energetically with our Mexican friends. I'd like to welcome the Mexican ambassador, my friend Dionisio, whose birthday we celebrated at lunch in Mexico City, together with the foreign minister and Minister of Economy and trade. The relationship has, of course, also included regular conversations between Prime Minister Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto.
Most importantly, we have been listening to Canadians. As of today, we have sought and received more than 21,000 submissions of Canadians' views and concerns about NAFTA. That includes contributions from 16 academics and think tanks, 158 associations, and 55 businesses and corporations.
The Canadian objectives I will now outline are built on these extensive consultations. This process is just beginning. Our negotiations with our NAFTA partners will be informed by continuous consultations with Canadians.
Here are some of Canada's core objectives.
First, we aim to modernize NAFTA. The agreement is 23 years old. The global, North American, and Canadian economies have been transformed in that time by the technology revolution. NAFTA needs to address this in a way that will ensures that we will continue to have a vibrant and internationally competitive technology sector and that all sectors of our economy can reap the full benefits of the digital revolution.
Second, NAFTA should be made more progressive. We will be informed here by the ideas in CETA, the most progressive trade deal in history, launched by Conservatives and completed, proudly, by our government.
In particular, we can make NAFTA more progressive, first, by bringing strong labour safeguards into the core of the agreement; second, by integrating enhanced environmental provisions to ensure no NAFTA country weakens environmental protection to attract investment, for example, and to fully support efforts to address climate change; third, by adding a new chapter on gender rights, in keeping with our commitment to gender equality; fourth, by adding an indigenous chapter, in line with our commitment to improving our relationship with indigenous peoples; and, finally, by reforming the investor-state dispute settlement process, to ensure that governments have an unassailable right to regulate in the public interest.
One reason that these progressive elements are so important, in particular with respect to the environment and labour, is that they are how we guarantee that the modernized NAFTA will be not only an exemplary free trade deal, but also a fair trade deal. Canadians broadly support free trade. Their enthusiasm wavers, however, when trade agreements put our workers at an unfair disadvantage because of the high standards that we rightly demand. Instead, we must pursue progressive trade agreements that benefit all sides and help workers both at home and abroad enjoy higher wages and better conditions.
Third, this negotiation is a valuable opportunity to make life easier for business people on both sides of the border by cutting red tape and harmonizing regulations. We share the U.S. administration's desire to free our companies from needless bureaucracy, and this negotiation is a welcome chance to act on that goal.
Fourth, Canada will seek a freer market for government procurement, a significant accomplishment in CETA. Local-content provisions for major government contracts are political junk food, superficially appetizing, but unhealthy in the long run. Procurement liberalization can go hand in hand with further regulatory harmonization.
Fifth, we want to make the movement of professionals easier, which is increasingly critical to companies' ability to innovate across blended supply chains. NAFTA's chapter 16, which addresses temporary entry for business people, should be renewed and expanded to reflect the needs of our businesses. Here again, CETA provides a model.
Sixth, Canada will uphold and preserve elements in NAFTA that Canadians deem key to our national interest, including a process to ensure that anti-dumping and countervailing duties are only applied fairly when truly warranted; the exception in the agreement to preserve Canadian culture; and Canada's system of supply management.
In all of these discussions, we will come to the table with goodwill and Canada's characteristic ability and willingness to seek compromise and find win-win solutions. But we are committed to a good deal, not just any deal.
So, I would like to say to Canadians today what I will say to our negotiating partners on Wednesday: Our approach in these talks will be in keeping with our national character, hard-working, fact-based, cordial, and guided by the spirit of goodwill and the pursuit of compromise. We also know that there is no contradiction between being polite and being strong. It is no accident that hockey is our national sport.
These negotiations are a deeply serious and profoundly consequential moment for all of us. Trade deals always matter. Done right, they are a vehicle for helping to create more well-paid jobs for the middle class.
Preparing for these negotiations has already united us as a country. I've been astounded and moved by the extremely high level of support and collaboration I and my team have received from business, from labour, from civil society, from every level of government, and from many of you around this table even though we are not all members of the same political party. Time and again Canadians across the country have told me how proud they are to be Canadian at this moment in time and how committed they are to doing everything they can do to help in these consequential negotiations.
Our bipartisan NAFTA Council is evidence of this, and all Canadians are truly fortunate that in these talks we will be represented by the best trade negotiators in the world. Canada's trade officials are internationally renowned for their prowess, and it is a privilege for me to work with this outstanding team of Canadian public servants. Let me take this moment to acknowledge the great Canadians who are sitting alongside me and with whom the committee will have a chance to speak directly later on: Tim Sargent, our deputy minister for trade; Steve Verheul, our chief negotiator for CETA, who is very familiar to many people in this room; and Martin Moen, who is also working very hard on the softwood file in his spare time.
As I said, these talks are profoundly consequential. There may be some dramatic moments ahead, yet I am deeply optimistic about the final outcome.
That is due to this fundamental reality: the Canada-U.S. economic relationship is the most significant, mutually beneficial, and effective anywhere in the world. We know that, and our American neighbours know it too.
Based on those very strong economic fundamentals, I am essentially optimistic going into these negotiations. Together with this fantastic team of trade negotiators, we're going to work very hard and we're going to get a great deal for Canadians.
Thank you, and I'm happy now to take your questions.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Randy, for that, as usual, highly informed question.
I do want to start by thanking you personally for your work, and also thanking parties on the other side of the House. I really am grateful for the way that, particularly south of the border, we've been working together to advance Canadian national interests. I'm glad that you share with me acknowledging the excellence of our negotiators. It's true also that having Kirsten Hillman in Washington is an advantage. I'm not going to claim any credit for the excellence of our public service, particularly in that space.
I know that Gerry, sitting next to you, interacted a lot with Steve as agriculture minister.
I believe, Gerry, you won't contradict me when I say that we share—well, you might on some things—the highest regard for our trade negotiators. It's really, really important.
I just also want to pause on one thing that you mentioned, Randy, that I agree with very strongly. One of the particular aspects of this negotiation that is different from previous big deals Canada has been involved in is that it is not a greenfield negotiation. In a greenfield trade agreement, of course you want it to work because it has the possibility of bringing great benefit to Canadians. But as I said in my remarks this morning, this is more like renovating a house that you're still living in. That makes it a really delicate operation. A great deal of our economy is based on the existing NAFTA, and that is something that we heard in our consultations leading up to this moment. Canadians are very aware of that, and I want to assure the committee that I and the team are very aware of the delicacy of what we are engaged in.
You asked about the consultations, so let me start by saying that we've been focused on two things. One is working hard with our partners and raising their awareness.
We've been working hard with our Mexican partners, and I thank you, Dionisio, for being here. We've been focused very particularly on outreach to the U.S., which you've been a part of.
I just want to remind people that we've had 185 visits to the U.S. We've reached 300 U.S. decision-makers, 200 members of Congress, 50 governors and lieutenant-governors. On our outreach to Canadians, we've had more than 22,500 submissions from Canadians, as well as contributions from academics, think tanks, 158 associations, and 55 corporations.
As I said in my remarks earlier today, our intention is that the consultation with Canadians will be ongoing throughout the talks. The model here is very much like that for CETA, and that's why I'm turning to Steve. I think the CETA effort has an unprecedented number of stakeholder tables and ongoing consultations, and we're going to continue with that practice. Let me say that in those consultations, labour, environment, indigenous groups, and women will very much be included. I think people are aware of the NAFTA Council that we have set up.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Have I run out of time?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the question.
All of us have a stake in trade and a great trading relationship with the United States, but for your New Brunswick constituency, I think the relationship is particularly engaged and important. The relationship between New Brunswick and Maine is absolutely essential. You know that 38,500 Maine jobs depend directly on trade with Canada, and Canada by far is Maine's largest export market.
As we're talking about the New Brunswick-Maine relationship, I do want to offer a particular shout-out to Governor LePage of Maine. I have been in close contact with him. I often speak with him on the phone. He is an influential voice in this administration and understands very, very well the intense and interconnected relationship between Maine and Canada. He understands it in detail. He happens to have a personal background in the forestry sector that really informs his point of view in a very useful way, and I have found him to be a fantastic advocate of the relationship and its importance for Maine. I have also found him, not solely in conversation with him but also in his advocacy in Washington, to be very good at explaining a key element of our economic relationship with the United States, which is that we build things together. That is a key element that can sometimes be missed. People can think of trade as something simply being made in one country and sold to another, but the Canadian and U.S. economies are so closely integrated that we actually make things together. An input is produced in Canada and sold to the United States. More work is done on that input. It goes across the border, and that happens over and over and over again in the course of the creation of so many products. We're familiar with that from the auto industry, from manufacturing, but it's also very true in New Brunswick's trade with the United States.
That is why your question is so important, because something that we have done successfully is to make it possible for us to have that kind of a closely integrated and very effective commercial relationship. A core objective for Canada is not only to maintain that relationship, but as I said in my remarks, to also use this negotiation as a real opportunity to make that kind of work even easier.
One of the things we have heard again and again in our consultations, including when I was in Edmonton on Friday speaking to people from the agricultural sector, is that cutting red tape and making it easier to trade is something that Canadians really really see as a concrete and useful outcome. Indeed, one useful thing that we have heard repeatedly from this U.S. administration, both in direct conversations and publicly, is the real desire to cut red tape to make it easier for businesses to do business.
I think that cutting red tape and making our economic connection even easier is going to be one of our chief goals and is something that Canadians across the country, very much including New Brunswick, are very keen for us to achieve.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question.
It is a real service to Canada and to your constituents, Tracey, that you're on this committee, and I know that you know very well and that you represent a constituency that understands and is involved in this trading relationship as much as any part of our country is. I know you speak from a very informed place.
On supply management, as I have said repeatedly and as I said in our remarks today, our government is fully committed to supply management. There is something we have said both in public and in private to our American partners and it bears repeating today as an important point to underscore. That is about the balanced and mutually beneficial nature of Canada's overall trading relationship with the United States. It is truly reciprocal. When it comes to dairy, the United States sells us far more than we sell them. It is—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
And that is why it's important to point out to them, as we do both in private and in public, that when it comes to dairy, today the balance of trade is 5:1 in the U.S.'s favour. I would call that already a pretty good deal, and both I and my negotiators, who have great experience particularly in the agricultural sector, are very aware of that.
Something else that is very important, and that again we point out in public at the table and in our private conversations, is that when it comes to dairy, Canada has our system of supply management for supporting the interests of our producers. The U.S. clearly does not have supply management, but the U.S. has its own system for supporting dairy producers in the United States.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Dairy producers in the U.S. are beneficiaries of an extensive web of government supports. That is the reality as well. We remind our American partners of that fact when we enter into this conversation, but I think it's also worth pointing out to Canadians, because I have noticed that in some of the Canadian discussions—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay, but let me, Tracey, just finish this.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm speaking now particularly to our journalist friends. Something that I feel may sometimes be missing from the public discourse in Canada is a full appreciation of the extent to which the U.S. dairy sector also benefits from an extensive network of subsidies. Their way of doing it is different from ours, but there are significant government supports.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
As I said in my remarks earlier today, Canada takes a strong interest in improving and making more progressive investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. That is something that we were very proud to push hard on in CETA and is definitely an area that we are interested in pursuing here. In particular, of paramount importance is preserving a sovereign, democratically elected government's right to regulate.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'd like to thank you for your work, Ms. Lapointe, as well as your question, which is a very important one.
Not only are the provinces and territories involved in the NAFTA negotiations, but they are also at the centre of our trade relationship with the United States. As everyone knows, a number of issues and challenges affect the Canada-U.S. relationship. We continue to work closely with our provincial and territorial friends and counterparts.
As you highlighted, Quebec has a special role to play given its extensive relationship with the United States and Quebec's importance to the U.S. On that point, I have told the U.S. administration on numerous occasions that the electricity for Trump Tower is supplied by Quebec. It's key that our American counterparts never forget the importance of those economic ties.
As I mentioned, we consulted Canadians quite widely, including the provinces and territories, and those consultations will continue throughout the negotiation process. The CETA negotiations proved that Canada was stronger when the provinces, territories, municipalities, and federal government all worked together. The strongest team we can have is one that truly represents Canada.
Quebec played a special and very key role during the CETA negotiations, and, once again, I want to thank the province for that. On Thursday, I discussed NAFTA with my provincial and territorial counterparts, highlighting the federal government's approach and our desire for continued co-operation. Many provinces and territories are sending their experts and officials to Washington for the first round of negotiations, and that will be incredibly beneficial.
Mr. Hoback indicated that state governors play a very significant role and have a lot to bring to the table. I feel the same way. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that governors have a solid grasp of the economy because they are closer to the day-to-day reality in the country.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
The provinces and territories played a key role in the CETA negotiations. Lessons were learned, and they will inform the NAFTA negotiations.
This is important for a number of reasons. For one, because we are in constant consultation with the provinces, we've gained a lot of information that will help us during the negotiations.
Another reason the role of the provinces and territories is so important is that they've developed vital ties with our partners and therefore have the potential to exert influence. What we saw during the CETA negotiations was how Quebec was able to influence the governments of France and Belgium, particularly in the case of the Walloons.
As for ties with the U.S., the provinces and territories have formed their own relationships. Quebec, for instance, has worked a great deal with the State of New York.
Thank you.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the question, Peter, and for your very hard work on this file.
I strongly agree with the direction of your question. I also represent a diverse riding, as, I'm sure, many of us do. My riding in particular has very strong Portuguese and Italian communities, and there's been a lot of enthusiasm around CETA, which is going to enter into force on September 21, and we're so happy about that. It presents real opportunities for those communities in Canada to build even closer relationships with the communities in the countries they have come from, and also to use their cultural ties to build some economic benefit for both the EU and Canada.
I really agree with you that our relationship with the U.S. presents many opportunities of a very similar nature. When I am speaking to Americans, I like to say that we're not just friends and neighbours but that so many of us are relatives. It's hard to find a Canadian—and in some of the border areas of the U.S., it's hard to find an American—who doesn't have a close personal human connection with Canada. I think that's one of the reasons that our trading relationship has over time been so strong and so effective.
The former U.S. ambassador to Canada liked to tell a story about how when he travelled around Canada he would say, “So, do you guys do a lot of foreign trade with companies?”, and they would say, “Oh no, we only trade with the United States.” I think that anecdote tells a lot about how Canadians view trade with our biggest trading partner and neighbour.
When it comes to opportunities, you referred specifically to small and medium-sized enterprises. I think that is an important area to focus on. In the consultations I've personally done—and I know my negotiators have had the same experience—including in Edmonton on Friday, I have heard the same message that for those enterprises the red tape is a particular obstacle. We've even heard from people who have said they don't bother using the NAFTA preferences because it's so much of a hassle to fill out all the forms. One of our core objectives—and I think this has particular relevance for small and medium-sized businesses—will be to use these negotiations to cut red tape, to continue the really good work we've already been doing on harmonizing regulations, and to make this trading relationship even more frictionless.
Again here, I do want to emphasize that we see some real opportunity here in our negotiating approach, because this is really consistent with something we have heard in public and in private from this U.S. administration, which is that it is focused on cutting red tape and on making life easier for businesses, and that this is an opportunity for it to do just that.
When I was with the Prime Minister in Rhode Island at the governors' meeting, there was a lot of emphasis from the governors on exactly that point. They said, “Let's use this as a big opportunity to cut red tape to make things easier for businesses.”
I think Mark wants me to stop talking now.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I raised it directly with the foreign minister. He acknowledged that I had raised it, so let's hope that creates some opportunity—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I do want to say this. I know we're here to talk about NAFTA, but that is an important case. We as a government have been very focused on it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I was glad to have an opportunity to raise it. What I did say to the foreign minister was that this was an issue of great concern to Canadians, and concern particularly to Canadian businesses.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
There are two questions embedded in that, and let me take them in turn.
When it comes to the labour and environmental chapters, I'm glad to hear Conservative support for our government pushing very hard in these areas. I think that holds real opportunity for Canada. I am very pleased with the progress we've made there in CETA, a deal that is actually going to be provisionally applied in a few weeks.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on. That gives it particular value. It's particularly useful in trade negotiations to refer to a trade deal that is actually in force, not to something that is simply written on a piece of paper.
I'm aware of those provisions that were negotiated in the TPP, and I think they're very interesting. We will also use some of the ideas from the TPP, very much including some of the labour and environmental ideas, which have particular value because there was some U.S. input on them. However, I would point out that the TPP is a deal that this U.S. administration has rejected. We need to be aware and mindful of that.
Also, when it comes to the TPP, we need to realize that embedded in the body of that agreement—and I know you know this very well—is a provision according to which the agreement cannot enter into force. Even if the TPP 11 parties were all to ratify that agreement, it would not enter into force without U.S. ratification. All of our conversations about the TPP need to be based on that fundamental reality.
I do want to say, though, that I was in Manila last week and had very good conversations with many of our TPP 11 partners, including Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—Singapore, and Vietnam. We are very pleased to be part of continued discussions among that group. Canada absolutely sees the opportunities in the Asia-Pacific, and we are pursuing them energetically.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I share those concerns. The softwood lumber issue is absolutely a key issue. It's—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's a priority of mine and of our government. In fact, I was speaking about the issue less than 12 hours ago with some key representatives of the B.C. industry, and as I mentioned, Martin Moen is my partner in crime on this particular file.
We are very engaged with the U.S. on softwood lumber. We want a good deal and we think that is achievable, but we don't want just any deal, and the Americans know that. We want a deal that is good for Canadians.
I think at the moment that the softwood lumber negotiations will continue in parallel with the NAFTA negotiations, as has historically been the case. We are open to other modalities, but for now I think they'll continue in parallel.
Thanks.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question, Kyle.
You're absolutely right that the auto sector, which is so important for your constituency, is important for all of Canada. The concerns of the auto sector, including those of car parts manufacturers like NAPA, and those of labour, are an absolute priority for us in our NAFTA negotiations.
I want to make one other point, because Gerry asked me about softwood lumber and I didn't have enough time to answer. I'll just say quickly on softwood that I do want to highlight what an engaged partner Wilbur Ross has been in those conversations. He has really gotten immersed in the detail of the file, has really been personally involved, and I really appreciate that.
On autos, we are consulting very actively and energetically, and are going to continue those consultations as the negotiations progress. We are talking to the big auto companies. We're talking to the car parts suppliers at multiple levels. As you know, it's a really complicated industry. I'm very pleased that Linda is serving on our council, and also, a really important piece for us is talking to labour. Labour understands the auto parts sector very well and has an important perspective.
One of the incredibly important things that our auto sector brings to the NAFTA conversation and that will be an issue that Canada will keep bringing up at the negotiating table is the extent to which our trade with the United States is really integrated and sophisticated. Flavio Volpe likes to say that we make things together. Don Walker likes to say that too about Magna, right? And that is really the point, that our relationship, particularly in a complex and highly integrated sector like auto parts, is really all about a highly integrated sector that works. One of the things that we are really going to focus on in the negotiations is being aware of the complexity of that economic relationship and ensuring that is reflected in the negotiations. We're going to work hard to make the trade there even easier.
There's something else for which I do want to really thank all the Canadians who work in the auto sector. Randy spoke right at the beginning about the work we have all been doing in reaching out to our partners and colleagues south of the border. That has also been a sector-to-sector outreach, and I think some of the most effective conversations that have been happening to date have been between Canadians and Americans who build things together. People in the auto sector have been particularly effective in having that dialogue and in ensuring that their American partners are fully aware of how important NAFTA is as a foundation for that very effective, integrated economic relationship.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for those questions.
As you raised dairy, I can't resist asking whether Max Bernier is also with the program here.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist.
I was very clear in my speech earlier this morning, in my opening remarks here, and in my answer already that our government supports supply management. I think from the questions here that we are now hearing cross-party consensus on this. What is very important is how we frame this issue, both for our American partners and for Canadians. It's important to remind our American partners that in the dairy trade they already benefit 5:1. It's important to remind them also that while supply management is our system for supporting our dairy producers, they have their own systems for subsidizing and supporting their dairy producers. Again, as I mentioned in response to an earlier question, it's particularly important to underscore that in the Canadian public discourse. Those will be the points that we'll be making, and we're very clear on our position on that.
You asked about container sizes. Again, we're very aware of the value and importance of flexibility there. I would also put that in the category of how important it is for us to cut red tape and make trade easier. Certainly I believe that one of the objectives we share with the U.S. administration is that governments should not be creating unnecessary impediments or frictions that make business more difficult. We really see NAFTA as an opportunity to act and improve on that.
You mentioned the carbon tax. I think this may be one of points on which we have to have a friendly disagreement on both sides of the house.
Have I run out of time?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm sorry, Tracey, because of the echo in the room I didn't exactly get your last point. Could you repeat the climate change point?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
I thank you for that question.
Something that our government is very proud to have done is to ratify the outstanding ILO conventions. Labour is very important to us, and those conventions are a very important way for Canada to be part of an international community of commitment to high labour standards. The ratification of those conventions was part of our CETA negotiation process, so the ILO conventions, in our experience already, can be part of a trade discussion.
Certainly, in negotiating with our NAFTA partners, we are going to share with them the value that we believe those conventions have, and the value that they have for all economies.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
As I said in my remarks, we do really see some opportunity, and it was great to hear that the Conservatives support strong labour protections in trade agreements too—they did; don't laugh, Gerry, it's true—and I see some real opportunity here to raise the bar on labour across North America.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you for the question.
First, I'd like to underscore something the chair said. Of course, talks with the Americans are a government responsibility, but that responsibility also falls on Parliament and all of its members. I know that the committee members have already done a lot of work on this issue, and I'd like to thank you for that. I'd also like to point out, however, that that is just the beginning. We still have a tremendous amount of work to do.
As you know, the legislative process in the U.S. is absolutely critical during trade deal negotiations, and you, as members of Parliament, have a unique and important relationship with your American counterparts. I want to thank you for all your efforts so far and urge you to keep them up. This is just the beginning. We have a long road ahead.
You asked about the work that had begun in January. Having already spoken at length about the consultations, I'd like to point something else out: our work did not start in January or February but, rather, last summer, before the U.S. elections.
As Minister of International Trade, I had asked department officials to put together materials on NAFTA. We saw that NAFTA had become an election issue during the campaign in the U.S. I want to make that clear because I think it's important for Canadians to know just how much Canada has been preparing. We've been at it for over a year. For me, negotiations have always been like exams: preparation is the most important thing. I want to thank our officials for the work they started more than a year ago.
I'd also like to make another point about our discussions with the Americans. I think that we, as Canadians, understand how the U.S. system works better than anyone, aside from the Americans themselves.
Okay, that's it, sorry.
I have just one last thing to say.
We realize that it is not just relationships with Washington or the White House, with the president and members of cabinet, that matter. While those relationships are indeed essential, those at other levels are important as well. The entire Canadian team, which includes our companies, has endeavoured to work with their U.S. counterparts at all levels, and that is extremely important.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much, Chairman.
Thank you very much, members of the committee. I think we've all been busy. I think the trade committee has been one of the busiest, most active, and most energetic committees, and I thank you very much for that work. It's really important.
I want to introduce my officials. You've just been hearing from Marvin, who is working on the trade agreement that I think is close to the hearts of all Canadians. Everyone knows the famous Steve Verheul, of CETA fame. I don't know if people have had the chance to meet the terrific new deputy minister of trade, Tim Sargent. We are very lucky to have him. For people who don't know Tim, he comes to International Trade from the Department of Finance and brings to the trade files a very strong economics and financial background. I think that's extremely valuable to have in our department.
Thank you very much, Tim.
I'm going to make a few opening remarks, and then I look forward taking your questions.
I am very pleased to speak to you today in support of CETA, the Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada and the European Union, and the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. These are two historic trade agreements for everyone, and I know many honourable members have worked hard on both agreements.
Our government believes strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion the open society and open global trade. However, we cannot ignore the reality that, today, we are living in the most protectionist environment I have experienced in my lifetime, probably the most protectionist environment since the Second World War.
The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, CUFTA, are historic trade agreements for everyone. I know everyone in this room has worked very hard on both.
Our government, and I personally, believe very strongly in an open global economy, and we will continue to champion the open society and open global trade, but none of us here, and no Canadian, can ignore the fact that today we are living in the most protectionist environment I have experienced in my lifetime, probably the most protectionist environment since the Second World War, if not earlier.
There's a reason for that. A lot of people feel that 21st century global capitalism just isn't working for them. This very big anxiety is manifesting itself, among other things, in a powerful backlash against globalization. For those of us who support the open society, it is incredibly important not to be in denial about the power of these sentiments that are sweeping so much of the Western industrialized world.
Mark opened up our conversation by saying that Canada is a trading nation, and I know we all understand that profoundly. Those of us who really understand that in our core can be tempted to believe that the issue is only one of rhetoric and that if only we were better at talking about how valuable trade is and how costly protectionism is, everything would resolve itself. I think that is not going to be enough. We need to look more deeply than that and understand that this powerful wave of populist anti-globalization sentiment that we're seeing around the world is based in the real, very concrete experience of so many people, particularly in Western industrialized countries, including our own.
When we look at the sources of anxiety that people have, that sense of a hollowed-out middle class, I think we also have to appreciate that the answer has to be about more than trade deals, because the anxiety is about more than trade deals, even if that is where the anger is sometimes directed.
What people are worried about, and I think rightly, is the impact of 21st century global capitalism. The concerns people have, their economic concerns, their concerns for themselves, for their retirement, and for the jobs their children will have or not have are very real, and we need to address them. That is why I feel a central part of our ability to be effective on the trade file, of my ability to be an effective trade minister, comes from other parts of our government's agenda. It is why I am so proud to be part of a government whose first action was to cut taxes for the middle class.
I am proud that we raised taxes on the 1%. That element of fairness is so important to Canadians. We are very proud to have created the Canada child benefit for the families most in need and to have boosted CPP for our seniors.
We are making essential investments every day that strengthen and support our middle class, and it is because of those investments, that broader economic framework, that we can proudly say that in Canada, unlike in very many countries today, we do have broad public support for the open society. We are open to trade and open to immigration.
CETA is one of the most progressive trade agreements ever negotiated. It will help redefine what trade can and should be. It will lead to increased prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic, and create well-paying middle-class jobs, which is our priority objective.
With CETA, Canada is raising the bar and establishing more inclusive trade and higher standards for how global economies must function in the 21st century. This agreement that we are examining today cements the paramount right of democratically elected governments to regulate in the interest of our citizens, to regulate the environment, labour standards, and in defence of the public sector.
When it comes to CETA, this is the most progressive trade agreement that has ever been negotiated. Well done, Steve. CETA will help—is already helping—to redefine what trade agreements can and should be. CETA will lead to increased prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic and create well-paying middle-class jobs.
Canada is raising the bar with CETA. With this agreement we're establishing more inclusive trade and higher standards for how globalization should work in the 21st century. The agreement that we are talking about today crucially cements the paramount right of democratically elected governments to regulate in the interest of our citizens to protect the environment, to protect labour standards, and to defend the public sector. Those are key elements, something I am very proud of. We're proud to have made these changes to CETA since coming into office, and we will continue to champion progressive trade policies.
As our Prime Minister said about CETA:
That leadership that we were able to show between Canada and Europe is not just something that will reassure our own citizens but should be an example to the world of how we can move forward on trade deals that do genuinely benefit everyone.
And the benefits really are clear.
I want to mention a couple of examples of companies that will benefit from CETA, because while it can be fun for us to talk about policy, I think it's really important to bring it back to actual humans we are helping with our work.
Take Vancouver's Corinex, which will now be able to bid and compete for contracts and provide its consulting and communications services to EU clients on a fully competitive basis, or Northland Power from Toronto, the city I represent, with its clean and green power projects that will now be able to expand even further into Europe, where it has a strong footprint, or one of my personal favourites, Manitobah Mukluks, the Métis-founded business based in Winnipeg, whose mukluks are currently subject to a 17% tariff in Europe. That tariff will go down to zero after CETA comes into force. It's clear, Mr. Chair, that CETA will translate into increased profits and market opportunities for Canadian businesses of all sizes, in all sectors, and in every part of the country.
Now let me speak for a few moments about CUFTA, which I know you were speaking about earlier.
This is an agreement that has great personal significance to me as a Ukrainian Canadian. I was thinking about it this week, because Tuesday was the day when we gathered to commemorate the very bitter anniversary of the Holodomor, the artificial famine created by Stalin in Ukraine. That was a moving reminder for me of the very deep connections between Canada and Ukraine. Although I expect to face fierce questioning from you all—not from Gerry, though—it was a reminder for me that in our country we have support across party lines for Ukraine. Linda Duncan was there representing the NDP and Peter Kent was there representing the Conservatives.
It was a great personal honour for me on July 11 this summer to sign the free trade agreement with Ukraine in Kiev. My Ukrainian counterpart Stepan Kubiv signed it on behalf of Ukraine.
Canada and Ukraine understand the importance of trade and of developing our economic relationship for the prosperity of people in both countries, but the agreement is also a further affirmation of the strategic partnership between Canada and Ukraine. It's a very concrete way that we can support a country that is fighting very bravely for its independence and for its democracy and that has deep historic ties with our own country.
I should also say that signing the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement this year is a nice historical moment, since it's the 125th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian immigrants in Canada.
Actually, they arrived in my home province, in Alberta, but there are a lot in your province too, Randy.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
What is even more important, if Canada is to ratify both of these agreements, is that we will also send an essential signal to the international community, that in an era of nativism and protectionism, Canada stands for the open society and for open trade.
Mr. Chair, if Canada is to ratify both of these agreements, we will be sending an essential and very distinctive message to the world this year that in an era of rising nativism, of rising protectionism, Canada is a country that stands for the open society and for open trade, and that we are a trading nation and we understand that good progressive trade agreements build prosperity for our middle class and the people working hard to join it.
I want to thank everyone for listening to me just now, and for working so hard to make sure that we continue to be an open society.
Merci.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Absolutely not. Probably the elements of our work on CETA.... I want to back up and say on CETA that one of the things I think is so exemplary about this deal is it shows that Canada can be strongest when we can have a change of party and government but continue to work in the national interest. The Prime Minister and I are very happy to acknowledge in particular the work of the former prime minister, Stephen Harper, in setting CETA in motion. As you know, in opposition, we were very proud to support it.
Having said that, I'm perhaps proudest of all, on a personal note, of the changes we made to make this agreement more progressive. When we formed government, one of the first things we learned was that CETA, this very important agreement we championed in opposition, was actually stalled—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
No; let me finish, please, and then I'm happy to take more questions.
CETA was concluded at a technical level in September 2014. From that time to November 2015, when we formed government and took office, there was no progress. The finalization of the legal scrub was stalled, and that was because the Europeans had come to the conclusion that the old-school ISDS provisions in the old-school CETA were not something Europe could support. They weren't something European civil society could support, and they weren't something that progressive Europeans could support.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
We looked at it, and I agreed. I thought they were exactly right. ISDS has been around for a long time. I think that now is the time to build a more progressive system, something in which the right of states to regulate is fully enshrined—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Hang on.
In addition to making this a better agreement in substance, the changes that we made to the ISDS provisions were essential to getting CETA done on a practical level. I made those changes because they were the right thing to do, but had we not made them, this agreement would still be in legal purgatory in the offices of the European Commission.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Gerry, that is simply untrue.
It was the European Commission that put forward its investment court proposal. This was something that was a concern of the governments of Germany, France—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—the Netherlands, and Italy. This agreement would not have happened had we not made the changes to ISDS.
Let me also say—and I think it's good for the committee to know this—the progressive direction that we have moved in with CETA is something that we are rolling out across all of our trade agreements. It's something we believe in and that we're proud to champion.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
—she's very close to the Ukrainian market. I think that a desire you and I share, and I hope everyone around this table, is to do as much business with Ukraine as possible.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Results: 501 - 600 of 851 | Page: 6 of 9

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data