Bill C-57

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine

This enactment implements the Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, done at Ottawa on September 22, 2023.
Among other things, the enactment
(a) sets out rules of interpretation;
(b) specifies that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of that Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada;
(c) approves that Agreement;
(d) provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of that Agreement;
(e) gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with that Agreement;
(f) requires the Minister for International Trade to ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in the Agreement; and
(g) amends certain Acts to give effect to Canada’s obligations under that Agreement.
Finally, the enactment repeals the Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act that was enacted in 2017.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Canada has been there to provide assistance, whether military, humanitarian or financial. My colleague's question about the need for heating fuel in winter is obviously a very important one. I would even go so far as to say that it is a human rights issue. Staying warm in winter is a basic necessity.

I am certain that Canada will continue to be there, as we have been since the beginning, and that we will do everything in our power to support our Ukrainian friends.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, free trade agreements are one way that Canada can not only improve the economic conditions for our businesses here but also do so on a mutual basis. In many ways, they extend preferential conditions to the recipient host country.

Like a lot of post-Soviet republics, Ukraine has struggled with establishing a strong rule-of-law system in that country and, like a lot of post-Soviet republics, has also struggled with corruption. I wonder if my hon. colleague could point to any provisions in this agreement that may assist the parties in strengthening those institutions, which are very important to establishing credible and legitimate economic relations.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, international trade agreements are one way to help countries. This agreement creates a lot of opportunities, both for Canada and for Ukraine, notably by creating good jobs for the middle class. Specific chapters have been added, such as those my colleague was discussing earlier, on trade and gender, as well as on trade and the environment. This demonstrates that provisions have been included to modernize this agreement, update it and address the new trade realities between Ukraine and Canada.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to see agreements Canada reaches with other international partners. The special context of this agreement with Ukraine, which will modernize the 2017 agreements, is the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine, our partner in the agreement.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague how this agreement will improve the economy and quality of life for Canadians, but also for Ukrainians.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

As we said earlier during our initial answers, we have been there to help Ukrainians from the start. This agreement will allow Canadian businesses to participate in the economic rebuilding of Ukraine and its recovery after Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion. With the addition of new chapters, we will be able to help women become more independent, and people will be able to come to Canada and Canadians to go to Ukraine on a temporary basis. These are two practical examples of how this agreement will help people here, in Canada, and people in Ukraine.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The trade agreement with Ukraine was done in 2015 and was originally negotiated under the Conservative government. It removed tariffs on 86% of all exports. That agreement really showed support to Ukraine when it needed it. It was there to give it a hand up. It laid the groundwork for creating perfect and good partnerships with Canada and Ukraine and for building on our relationship, which has been going on for years and years.

My riding of Prince Albert has a strong Ukrainian community. Ukrainians are very active in the community. In fact, there is a big festival coming up in a couple of weekends, at which they will be celebrating their heritage again. There are also a lot of Ukrainian refugees in the riding who contribute to our economy. They have basically fit right in and are pulling their weight. I am sure they would rather be back in Ukraine with their families, but we are glad to have them in Saskatchewan, in the riding of Prince Albert. We are making them feel at home, and we are there for them.

This new agreement lays out what I expect in a trade agreement. I am not going to lie. I was actually surprised we made an agreement while the war was ongoing, but looking at Ukraine, I thought we should think about it in a practical sense. Ukraine is going to win this war. I think everybody here believes that Ukraine will win this war. It is going to have to rebuild after the damage that Putin has caused in Ukraine. There is no question about that.

Who is in the best position to help it do that? That would be Canada. That is why we make an agreement like this. We position ourselves to be there not only during the war but also after the war to partner with the Ukrainian people to rebuild their country, to make it the modern country it can be and make it a progressive part of the EU, which I think it will ascend to one day.

We say that is what we expect out of a trade agreement. I expect a trade agreement, first of all, to take advantage of the Canadian skill sets we have. Let us look at the agriculture sector. I used to be the marketing manager in eastern and western Europe for Flexi-Coil, which was owned by Case IH at the time, and for a brief stint, Ukraine was my marketplace. It was one of the areas that I covered.

I went to Ukraine once, and its potential to grow crops was phenomenal, but it did not have the technology. We shipped it air seeders and tractors and got it new genetics. I know other companies go there with cattle genetics and dairy genetics. Canada had all these resources that we shared with Ukraine to build it up, and what did it do? It helped feed the world. Now, with this war, people in northern Africa and places like that may die of hunger because Ukraine is not there to help feed them.

In a scenario like that, with the war and the amount of damage being done, Canada can step in again on the agriculture side to be there for Ukraine, to help rebuild its agriculture sector, its food production and food manufacture. If we look at our manufacturing sector, we have some of the most efficient manufacturers in the world. They have to be. With the carbon taxes and everything they have here, they have to be efficient to compete on the global stage. They are that much better than anywhere else in the world. Canada would be a natural ally to go into Ukraine to help it rebuild its manufacturing sector and their facilities and plants.

We can look at uranium power generation and nuclear technology. Saskatchewan is where uranium is mined, and it is processed in Ontario. When we look at the facilities we have in Canada and what we offer for sale around the world, there is a great partnership to offer to the world. Canada and Ukraine working together could provide green power moving forward. That makes so much sense. I expect a free trade agreement to start to facilitate those types of partnerships and that type of growth.

When I was in western Europe this spring with the foreign affairs committee, one of the discussions was about how to rebuild Ukraine and make sure it has the skill sets, the plumbers, the electricians, the people who would go back to that country after the war to rebuild it. We have talked about how we could use the education system in Canada with the women who are here right now. How can we give them the skill sets so that when they go home, they can contribute to rebuilding their country?

That is something the province of Saskatchewan is looking at very seriously. It is saying that, through its education system, it can do that, making sure people have the proper skill sets, the technology and the know-how to do that, but they also need the resources to do it. They are going to need the lumber, the cement and all the things to finish those projects.

What of those things can come from Canada? Which items can actually be imported from Canada, or maybe from somewhere else, but where the technology and knowledge are transferred into Ukraine? I think there is a tremendous amount of potential there.

As we look at the Canadian Ukrainian community working together, just think about how that partnership can be in the world. When one sees a business that has Ukrainian strengths and Canadian strengths put together, if we think about it, it will compete anywhere in the world.

Ukrainians have one little hurdle, which is Mr. Putin. They have the war to overcome; I am amazed and maybe speechless about just how well they have done and how they have been there, pushing back the Russian forces and fighting for their country and for their people.

One thing I have to say is this: We had a staff member in my office who was from Ukraine, and when the war broke out, she left my office to go back. There is no question of the commitment from people in Ukraine to their country.

Not only Ukrainians from Ukraine but also Ukrainians from around the world are saying the exact same thing: They want to free Ukraine. They want to see their country grow and prosper. Can we give them a hand up and do that?

Can this free trade agreement actually do that? Can it give them a hand up? Can it provide the tools for a prosperous Ukraine after the war?

We need to be there. We cannot neglect things. We cannot say that there are other issues in the world, so we have to water down our support for Ukraine. No, we have to be steadfast, with our chin out, with Ukraine. We have to do what we can to get it through this crisis, this war, and get it back on its feet afterward.

I will tell everyone this: If Canada can do that, we are going to have a good ally and friend for years to come. I just see us building on those strengths. The trade agreement is a great way to do that.

In a trade agreement like this, I expect the markets to be open, with goods coming out of Ukraine. I expect goods to come out of Canada and go to Ukraine. I expect the exchange of technology, labour, knowledge and education systems.

As I said, I expect the uranium sector, the nuclear sector, to be focused on, as well as the commitment to bring that sector together, to actually grow it and to offer that technology throughout the world. We can take our strengths, bring them together and put them on the marketplace.

An FTA can do that. If it is written right, it can do all those things. One thing about an FTA, even now, for the people of Ukraine, is this: They can look at that and say, hey, if it is written right, it is a good agreement.

It is just another reason why we need to fight, to steel our resolve and actually push the Russians and Putin back and get back to some normalcy. I think this FTA could do that. I am looking forward to seeing that as a possibility.

If I look back to the riding and people of Prince Albert, they are free traders. Saskatchewan is a trading province. We export. We produce so much that we have to export. Therefore, we are always in favour of trade and good trade agreements.

With Ukraine, we have technologies that are so common and that have so many advantages we can work together on, and we can work for each other's benefit. It could be a really good relationship moving forward.

I look forward to seeing what is in this agreement. I like the idea of a trade agreement with Ukraine; I always have. I have always liked the idea of giving Ukraine a hand up and being there for them, not only during the war but also after the war. I think there is a possibility of a win-win, if it is done properly.

I think the Ukrainian people will look at us and thank us for being there, both during and after the war. I think they will thank us for being there all the time and consistently.

We have been there since the early 2000s. When the wall came down in Berlin and the Communists left, Canada was one of the first countries to actually start throwing resources into Ukraine. After the war, we will be there to help it again.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate many of the comments that the member made. I think it is fairly profound, when one thinks about what we are debating today and the impact that goes even far beyond trade. It sends a very powerful message even to Putin, in Russia.

It says a great deal for morale in Ukraine, and it says so much about Canada's general attitude toward Ukraine and wanting to see Ukraine succeed. However, Canada itself will also benefit through this particular agreement. It is an all around wonderful thing to see.

One thinks about second reading, committee stage, third reading, report stages and the Senate. Would it not be a powerful statement if we could somehow get this thing through the Senate before Christmas?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, I would say yes. We still have to see what is really in the agreement to make sure it will actually meet the requirements of Ukraine and Canada. It has to be a partnership. Any trade agreement, at the end of the day, will not work if it is not a partnership between the two countries.

I like the idea. I like the notion of Canada standing behind Ukraine and fast-tracking it, but we still have to do our due diligence as a government and as an opposition party.

I think we would have to look at this very closely. However, I think we should try to get it to committee as quickly as possible so that the committee can do its job and then go from there. If it comes out of the committee, the committee is happy with it and all parties say that is the way we should go, then we should explore those options just to show that support.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to actually get my colleague's response on cybersecurity. I enjoyed it when we co-lobbied in Washington, D.C. a number of different times. I think the possibility we have with Ukraine about cybersecurity is that it could give us very much an advantage over even our current allies, including the United States. Cybersecurity is also good for the economy in many respects, in terms of protecting businesses and public institutions, as well as a lot of different things.

What a lot of people do not know is that we punch above our weight in the video game industry, for example, in electronics and other types of new technologies. The same is the case with cybersecurity at the moment. I see this as an opportunity for us to flesh out more opportunities for young people in cybersecurity out of trade with Ukraine.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West brought up another really good example. There are so many examples showing where Canada and the Ukraine can work together and use the knowledge from Ukraine and Canada. If we package that together, it will be a great partnership.

I am no cybersecurity specialist. However, when looking at cybersecurity, I would assume that Ukraine, with what it has been going through in this war and the cyber-attacks from Russia, is probably getting up there. It probably understands and knows a lot more about the actual implications of cybersecurity in its fashion. That is knowledge we could probably use back here in Canada. I would encourage those types of exchanges to happen. If an FTA can actually facilitate that to make it even easier, that is just another reason why we should do it.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that I can top the member from Prince Albert on, but one of them is the fact that I have been to Ukraine three times. I think he referenced in his speech that he has been there once. Twenty-five per cent of the world's topsoil is in Ukraine, so I agree with all the comments that he made.

When he talks about partnership with Ukraine, could he elaborate on where those synergies especially lie? My own perspective, which I will share more about tomorrow, would be exactly in our agricultural backgrounds.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am just glad it was not about who was the better farmer.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask him that question, because I do not want to put him on the spot. He is speaking after me, so he gets the last word.

Looking at the agriculture sector in grains and oilseeds, the soil is phenomenal. The member talked about that beautiful soil. As a farm kid and somebody who grew up on a farm and farmed myself, when I was over there, I was just drooling. It has such a basket to grow crops in and a variety of crops, from beans to wheat, canola and tomatoes. I think there is probably some good technology transfer between Canada and Ukraine on tomato production. I am sure the member will talk a bit about that tomorrow when he is speaking.

On the grains and oilseeds side, as well as carbon capturing on the no-till side of things, there is some great technology there that we can share with our Ukrainian friends. If we were to look at the University of Saskatchewan or University of Guelph, the University of Saskatchewan's agronomics is phenomenal; the University of Guelph is great at genetics, especially dairy genetics.

Again, I can see all sorts of ways we can work together to not only take care of each other, business-wise, but also to feed the world.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of constituents in the democracy-loving riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

I stand proudly alongside my Conservative colleagues in our unified support for both Ukraine and Israel's right to defend their democracies from attack. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Canadians about the importance of Canada's unwavering support for a free and democratic Ukraine.

First, I want to speak to Canadians who are skeptical about the dominant narrative surrounding Ukraine, Putin and NATO. I became involved in politics under Preston Manning's Reform Party because it was standing up for people, and it was doing it against two old parties dominated by the interests of the elite. I was first elected as a member of the Canadian Alliance in a seat that had been held by Liberals for 80 years. The previous MP had put the interests of his party above his constituents. That is why I have always put the interests of my constituents first. It is why I have always stood up against the globalists.

My constituents do not support enlarging unaccountable, international bureaucracy at the expense of national and individual sovereignty. I was speaking out against agenda 2030, while con artists like Maxime Bernier were sipping champagne in Davos. I voted against the Paris Agreement while Max was hiding behind these curtains. I opposed the dangerous amendments to the international health regulations, which seek to strip out language protecting individual freedom and human rights.

For over 20 years, I have stood up for common Canadians against the systemic elitism practised by groups such as the World Economic Forum. I know what it means to oppose the dominant narrative being pushed by the elites. The CBC ombudsman recently reported on how CBC had accused me of being part of a vast right-wing international conspiracy to destroy democracy using cricket memes. When I told a group of young Conservatives that Liberals supported making dangerous drugs legal, the Liberal member for Pickering—Uxbridge accused me of spreading an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

If people question the dominant narrative, the Liberals accuse them of being a conspiracy theorist. The Liberals will call them racist. The Liberals will refuse to listen to anything they say, simply screaming “misinformation” over and over again. I have been subjected to this progressive propaganda for 20 years, but I am still here. I am speaking up for what I believe to be the truth.

If people begin questioning the dominant narrative about COVID, climate or anything else on the Liberal agenda, I want them to know that I hear them. However, let me be clear. NATO is not the United Nations. NATO is not the World Economic Forum. NATO is not a threat to Russia. NATO is the greatest defence alliance in history. As the longest-serving member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and a former chair, I have seen first-hand how Putin treats his neighbours.

I have heard directly from elected officials in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. I have heard their hopes and their dreams for their countries, dreams which could only be fulfilled through peace and security, yet their security is under constant threat from Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs who control Russia. They are under constant threats for the same reason Taiwan is under threat from the Communists who control China, for the same reason Israel is under threat from the ayatollahs who control Iran and the Hamas terrorists who occupy Gaza.

Every free and democratic country is a shining beacon of hope, exposing the corruption and the cruelty that is autocracy. Democracy is an existential threat to tyranny. Individual liberty is an existential threat to authoritarian socialism. It does not matter if it is the national, ethnic socialism of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, or the religious socialism of Hamas and Hezbollah.

As long as free and democratic countries exist, we undermine the power of tyrants. Canadians, Ukrainians, Taiwanese and Israelis, along with most people, in most of the world, just want to live a simple life. The same is true for the common people of Russia, China, Iran and Gaza.

As long as those people can look abroad and see what it is like to live freely, what it is like to vote out tired and corrupt leaders, then the survival of the tyrants is threatened. That is why they censor foreign news, culture and entertainment. That is why they lash out and attack their neighbours.

Since the people of Ukraine threw off the Communist tyrants, they have struggled to build a free and democratic country. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, former KGB goon Vladimir Putin has meddled, interfered and invaded Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Is it any wonder they seek to join NATO?

The people of Russia have nothing to fear from an expanded NATO. NATO is a defence alliance. The reason NATO exists is not to provoke war or threaten the people of Russia. NATO is not an aggressor. It exists to deter aggression.

Unfortunately, since Pierre Trudeau began to demilitarize Canada, the Liberal Party has forgotten the logic of deterrence. The reason we should be spending at least 2% of GDP on defence is so that we do not have to spend 20% on defence. Right now, 21% of Ukraine’s entire gross national product is being spent to defend its free and democratic country. Either we spend enough to deter the tyrants from attacking, or else we will spend 10 times as much fending off attacks.

While Canada must support and defend all our free and democratic allies, when it comes to Ukraine Canada has a special interest. It should be among the highest goals of any Canadian foreign policy to prevent a powerful, nuclear-armed country from dominating its smaller neighbours. We must be steadfast in shoring up international support for Ukraine.

Canada's sense of security is buttressed by three oceans and a reliable ally to the south, but just across those oceans are powerful states hungry for the resources we have in abundance. That is why it has always been our policy to fight our enemies on their ground instead of ours.

Ukraine is at the front line of the 21st century’s battle for freedom and democracy. It is our highest national interest to prevent the powerful from dominating the weak. It is our highest moral interest to prevent a fledging democracy from failing and falling to tyranny.

I ask those who may remain skeptical of Canada’s support for Ukraine to listen carefully to how Putin lies. Putin says he is fighting far right Nazis in Ukraine, Hamas says it is fighting far right Nazis in Israel, and the Prime Minister funds left-wing groups that labelled a podcast fan club as far right Nazis.

Putin accused the Jewish President of Ukraine of standing with Nazis, and the Prime Minister accused the member for Thornhill of standing with Nazis. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister is the same as Vladimir Putin. I just want Canadians who have been unfairly labelled by the Prime Minister as racist or sexist to ask themselves if it is possible Putin is doing the same thing to Ukrainians.

My colleagues across the aisle need to ask themselves if calling everyone they disagree with a far right conspiracy theorist is the most effective way to counter Russian propaganda. The most effective propaganda takes a true fact and wraps it in deceptions, which is why calling everything the government disagrees with misinformation and disinformation is so corrosive.

Free and democratic countries do not resort to censorship. We should never seek to silence dissent or freeze the bank accounts of people we disagree with. The best defence against foreign propaganda is openness and transparency, and Canada must strive to be an example to fledgling democracies such as Ukraine.

Keeping ministers in cabinet who give contracts to their friends is not the kind of example Canada should be setting. Obstructing RCMP investigations is not the kind of example Canada should be setting. Regulating foreign cultural content on the Internet is not the kind of example Canada should be setting.

It is time for Canada to return to the values of individual liberty and democracy that guided Canada through two world wars. It is time for Canada to be an example to our NATO allies and to those aspiring to join. It is time we exceeded our commitments and increased defence spending. It is time to equip Ukraine with the best resources we can build or buy.

The enemies of democracy see our very existence as a threat to their power, and they can only defeat us with weapons, but we can destroy them with words. Free trade and free markets give us the wealth we need to defend against any threat, while corruption and socialism under tyranny weakens them.

Today, the front lines in the war to preserve democracy are in Ukraine and Israel. Tomorrow it could be Taiwan. Canada must stand ready. We must fight tyranny overseas so we can bring home peace and security.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member used the word “trade”. One thing I recognize, and I think there is some merit to it, is that the importance of this whole debate goes far beyond the issue of trade; it is also in regard to Ukraine.

The previous speaker talked about the powers of this particular agreement and the benefit not only to Canada but to Ukraine, which is going through a very difficult time because of the war. Every one of us has opposed this illegal occupation and the terror that Russia is putting on Ukraine. This is a silver star that we can all look to as something of great benefit. I am pleased the member made reference to that aspect.

I am sure the member would be aware, because she was part of the Stephen Harper government, that defence military spending went just below 1% then. We have never come close to that. Does she believe Stephen Harper was wrong to let it go below 1%?