Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Motion in Amendment Negatived
May 9, 2019
Therefore, honourable senators, in amendment, I move:
That Bill C-85 be not now read a third time, but that it be amended in clause 3, on page 2,
(a)by adding to line 9 after the word “labour” the words “and human rights”.
I hope you will agree that an issue of such importance is worthy of a standing vote and at least one of you will stand with me to cause such a vote to be held on this proposed human rights amendment to Bill C-85.
Thank you, meegwetch.
In amendment, it was moved by the Honourable Senator McPhedran, seconded by the Honourable Senator Gagné, that Bill C-85 be not read a third time — may I dispense?
Senator Boehm, on debate.
Thank you very much, Senator McPhedran, for introducing the amendment, and I know you and I have had conversations on this. I wanted to put my perspective on the record.
What this bill does, of course, is enact the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement, which is a negotiated agreement between two states parties.
The purpose is set out, as Senator McPhedran has said in the purpose clause, and there are various clauses and subclauses there.
The subclauses refer to chapters within the actual agreement. Chapter 11 refers to trade and environment. Trade and labour, or labour, is handled in chapter 12. Gender and gender equality in chapter 13. There is no chapter on human rights in the agreement.
In my experience in my previous life, the joy of working with Israel was always that, as two mature democracies, we could have full and frank discussions on human rights, which we do. We do that at the head of government level, at senior officials and ministers levels. It includes discussions on the occupied territories, on what is beyond the green line, on Gaza, on what is happening in neighbouring countries. I would submit that discussion is full and, in fact, quite fulsome.
In my view, I do not think that an amendment is necessary in subclause (d), because subclause (d) was put in there and approved in the other place to introduce the labour element, which refers, in fact, to chapter 12, trade and labour, in the actual agreement. I just wanted to get my views on the record. Thank you.
Senator Boehm, would you take a question?
Certainly.
Thank you. I know in your previous life you would have had experience at least dealing with free trade agreements. I’m concerned that it’s very difficult to amend a free trade agreement when countries, like Canada and Israel in this case, decide they’re going to either update a trade agreement or create a new one, whatever the case may be. Both countries have delegates working together to make this free trade agreement. If we amended it, would Israel not also have to amend it?
My understanding is that there are challenges and that, in Parliament, we either accept the free trade agreement or we reject the free trade agreement. It’s very challenging to actually amend a free trade agreement.
Thank you for the question, Senator Cordy. In fact, countries have different ways of legislatively enabling free trade agreements. The point I was trying to make is that there is no human rights chapter in here. Were there to be one, then Israel would enact it, we have negotiated it with Israel.
To signal now what we’re signalling, or that’s the intention, that there should be more discussion on human rights, I would say that we have those discussions already. Adding human rights now in the purpose, as Senator McPhedran has indicated, might send a bit of a confusing note as to what we’re actually trying to achieve in giving legislative approval to an agreement that will become a law between two countries.
I’d like to ask a question of the senator. Would he accept one?
Yes, of course.
I support your perspective that we don’t isolate human rights all the time. We work at it as and when we can. That’s always been the Canadian approach.
Would you not agree with me that we have started to use the term “human rights” and “embedded,” but it’s not meaningless if it isn’t implemented in some way and translated. I support your premise. My difference is this: When we support labour rights, when we put in gender equality, when we talk about the environment, the economy, and about jobs, those are aspects of human rights. We already have built in the levers to determine what is appropriate and what is within our concepts of furthering human rights in every chapter of that agreement.
Thank you for the question, Senator Andreychuk. I do, in fact, agree with you. I was just looking at the various chapters, and in each — certainly the one on labour and gender — there are suggestions there for expansion and for deepening the dialogue and, in fact, having panels to discuss these matters.
Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
I will ask one more time. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
I see one senator rising. The motion is defeated.
