Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I want to thank Senator Wetston for answering my question on the absence of human rights provisions in this agreement. I also want to thank Senator Saint-Germain for her incisive observations on this bill, which I share, for the most part. For example, I agreed with Senator Saint-Germain the day before yesterday when she said:

Trading with the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied by Israel supports the development and illegal expansion of those territories to the detriment of the Palestinian economy.

I believe this is fundamental.

In the debate on free trade with Israel, I also agree with Senator Saint-Germain when she said that it is necessary, and I quote:

 . . . that trade policy is carried out in keeping with its principles and duties with respect to fundamental rights.

Colleagues, at the end of my speech I will move an amendment to the purpose clause in this bill, adding a brief reference to human rights, modelled on what both Canada and Israel have already committed to in other similar and current agreements, including the agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States and Canada, formerly NAFTA, and Canada’s free trade agreement with Colombia as well as Israel’s agreement with the European Union.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and other human rights watchdog associations have noted that after Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank in 1967, the Israeli government began and continues to involve private businesses in establishing settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. So the issue of labour and human rights observance is highly relevant to the bill before us, as is the case in the examples I share today.

I note that the 2017 EU-Israel Association Agreement contains a human rights provision, which is used to monitor for possible human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian territory. There have been findings of human rights violations that are in breach of international human rights law and norms. Including a reference to human rights in this bill is consistent with Canada’s commitment in practice and in law to an international governance order that promotes and protects universal human rights.

Please consider that clause 3(d) of the existing purpose clause that I propose we amend has a number of verbs conveying a higher level of obligation than the verb “build” that is in proposed clause 3(d), the one part of the bill that I propose we amend. The purpose clause is not long, so I will summarize key text in the purpose clause noting where my amendment would be placed, and I invite you to consider that the intent and values already set out in the purpose clause are not undermined or distorted by the proposed amendment.

In fact, this amendment would allow for implementation of this agreement consistent with other parts of the purpose clause and with what Canada does in other current trade agreements.

By amending subclause (d) on page 2 of Bill C-85, the words in Section 4, the purpose clause of the act, are untouched because my proposed amendment is to add “and human rights,” and in French, “les droits de la personne” — to subclause (d) of the purpose clause so that it would read:

The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which, as elaborated more specifically through its provisions, are to

(a) strengthen the bilateral commercial relationship between Canada and the State of Israel;

(b) improve access to the Israeli market for Canadian businesses by reducing and eliminating tariffs, addressing non-tariff barriers, enhancing cooperation and increasing transparency in regulatory matters;

(c) ensure a high level of environmental protection through comprehensive and legally-binding commitments;

And this is the clause that I propose to amend:

(d) build on the respective international commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour —

And then I propose that we add, “and human rights matters;” and

(e) promote gender equality and encourage women’s economic empowerment and the use of voluntary corporate social responsibility standards and principles, as well as promote access for small and medium-sized enterprises to the opportunities created by the Agreement.

Colleagues, by adding the words “and human rights” to subclause (d) of clause 4 of the existing purpose clause, we would not be adding to existing international human rights commitments but simply acknowledging the existing commitments already made by Canada and Israel with both countries having ratified all the same human rights instruments for decades.

Colleagues, you may have noticed that the amendment I am proposing now is different from what was initially discussed. This is because, after further discussion with colleagues and reviewing additional legal advice, I approached the purpose clause with a fresh perspective that led me to the decision to propose the addition of three words in English and five words in French to an existing subclause rather than adding an entirely new clause. This amendment simply clarifies that both countries will build on existing labour and human rights commitments.

To put this motion in context, let’s take a quick look at three other current agreements, one that Israel has made with the European Union and two that Canada has made with other countries. In the EU-Israel Association Agreement in force in 2017, article 2 stipulates:

Relations between the Parties, as well as all the provisions of the Agreement itself, shall be based on respect for human rights and democratic principles, which guides their internal and international policy and constitutes an essential element of this Agreement.

In the agreement between Canada and Colombia, there is an agreement concerning annual reports on human rights and free trade between Canada and the Republic of Colombia wherein each country has committed to drafting an annual report for tabling in their respective legislatures on the effects on human rights in both Canada and Colombia of measures taken under the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement that replaced NAFTA last year contains article 23.3 that goes into considerable detail, but the key comparison is to note the strong obligatory language in this article:

Each Party shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the following rights. . .

And it goes on to list freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labour, the effective abolition of child labour and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Colleagues, I think you can see from these examples that I am not proposing any such obligatory language because this is not the time for Canada to go back to the table on this particular trade deal, but it is timely and appropriate for Canada to be consistent and to acknowledge existing human rights agreements ratified by both Canada and Israel as a means of strengthening the purpose of the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement.

By comparison, each of the word-for-word examples from three other current agreements that I have quoted to you is more stringent than what I am proposing for Bill C-85. No one has been able to explain why the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement does not include any reference to human rights. But surely the implementation goals of the agreement are, in fact, strengthened by clarifying that the purpose of this agreement, as would be set out in an amended section 4 of the act, would include to build on the respective international commitments of Canada and the State of Israel on labour and human rights matters.