Debates of Feb. 5th, 2024

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear: What the member opposite is doing is quite malicious. What he is trying to do is to exploit situations where people may not understand details of our parliamentary procedure to create a false impression about where Conservatives stand on the issue.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, he is saying that I am trying to be malicious, and members are not supposed to infer that any member is not acting in an honourable way. If the member is saying that I am being malicious just because I am pointing out what he did, then he should just answer the question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is a point of order because it is an inference of intent. I actually did react right away to the hon. member's use of the word. Therefore, I recommend that a more judicious wording would be appropriate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would have expected a thicker skin from that member, especially given what he says about other members.

Here is the point: He is, through this line of argumentation, trying to exploit what may be a gap in some people's understanding of the mechanics of the parliamentary process. The way the process works is that when we are voting non-confidence in the government, we are voting non-confidence in the government. Through that vote, we are expressing the fact that we do not have confidence in the government.

Of course, if we go through the budget, we would find there are specific measures we would maintain, and there are specific measures we would change or alter in some way, naturally. We have been clear, and we will continue to be clear that we do not have confidence in the NDP-Liberal coalition. We do not have confidence in it because of the damage it is doing in this country and, in part, because of its failure to actually deliver the support Ukraine requires.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are being disruptive, and not necessarily in a good way. They are relentlessly harping on the carbon tax, almost to the point of obsession, and that makes me worry for the future.

If that party takes power in Canada, how is Canada going to be able to sign even the simplest little international treaty? What will international relations with the rest of the world be like? I am worried about that, because we have before us an incredibly simple bill. I wanted to comment on that.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is asking how a Conservative government would possibly carry out international relations if it does not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. It is very simple: We will not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. We will negotiate to ensure that agreements we sign do not include a carbon tax.

In this particular case, I think it would be very simple. I have no proof of this, but I suspect that this provision on carbon pricing and carbon leakage is only in this agreement because the Government of Canada wanted it to be in there for political reasons. If we had a Conservative government and a Conservative trade minister saying that we actually did not want a carbon tax in the agreement, I suspect the government of Ukraine would say it was no problem and let us focus on getting weapons into the hands of soldiers who need them to defend their country.

I think that standing up for our principles at home and abroad will be entirely uncomplicated for international relations.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I keep coming back to something in these debates, and it is just so disheartening. I do not understand it. This is not a debate about the carbon tax. This is a debate about the fact that the leader of Ukraine has asked us to sign this agreement to see that Ukrainians get the help they need.

I am hearing from Ukrainians who are being forced to flee their country. They are coming to Canada. The commitment I made to them is that I would do all that I could, in my position, to fight for the rights of Ukrainians at this time.

Can the member share why this is turning into a political issue for the Conservatives, when Ukrainians and the leader of Ukraine are asking for this to be put through?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. If the member is serious about supporting Ukraine and all of its needs, I wish it were her and not her NDP colleague who had been on the committee at the time we considered my amendments. When I put forward my amendments, which would have facilitated more weapons going to Ukraine, the NDP joined with the Liberals in order to block those amendments from going forward. It was her colleague from Edmonton Strathcona who spoke out against giving lethal weapons to Ukraine. The NDP record, in terms of giving weapons to Ukrainian soldiers, is decidedly terrible. I would like us to come together in the House.

I would add as well that the NDP has a long history of opposing trade deals. In the past, the NDP has always opposed trade deals. I would never say that because it opposed a trade deal with another country, it does not like, does not support or does not want to have good relations with the country. I respect the fact that New Democrats have come to different conclusions than I have about trade in general, which is why they generally vote against trade deals. However, I think they would understand that anytime we consider a trade deal, we have to consider the particulars of what is in the trade deal. We cannot just say that we like the country with which it is negotiated, so we will pass it. We have to look at the details.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party position has consistently been to vehemently oppose a carbon tax, so it is not surprising that we would oppose a carbon tax in a trade deal. What is surprising is the consistent and deliberate pro-Russian energy policy of the Liberal Party. Because we cannot build a pipeline in this country, we imported $400 million of Russian natural gas into Canada in 2021 because of a pro-Russian Liberal energy policy.

I wonder if the member can comment on the impact that unwillingness to sell Canadian oil and gas to the international market has on Russian sales of oil and gas around the world.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, of course, that Canada produces commodities that Russia also produces, so we are in a unique position to displace those commodities. We are in a relatively unique position to reduce the world's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

It is not just Russia. We could give many examples of dictator oil around the world. We could talk about the Burmese regime and how the government's failure to apply sanctions on the Burmese junta, consistent with what our American ally has done, is allowing investments in the Burmese energy sector, which are fuelling that country's campaign of aggression against its own population.

In many of these cases, we see how the Liberal government is willing to turn a blind eye to the advancement of dictator oil instead of supporting Canadian energy development. It makes no sense. Canadian energy development is good for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, but, more importantly, it is good for the advancement of peace, justice and freedom around the world.

If we could do something that is good for Canadian workers and good for the advancement of peace, freedom and justice around the world, it is a no-brainer, yet the Liberals, because of their extreme green ideology, are opposing Canadian oil and gas development and are trying to insert carbon tax poison pills into trade deals. It makes no sense. We need a government that puts the Canadian national interest and the cause of freedom ahead of extreme green ideology.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, that is more shameless “Consplaining” from the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is incredible to watch Conservatives twist themselves into knots to try to justify their shameful vote against Ukraine.

My questions for the member are simple: Who does their vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement satisfy or make happy? Who asked the Conservative members to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? It was not one of their constituents. It was not the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or anybody else. Who asked them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Parm Gill on becoming a Conservative. I know he will ask very good questions in the House.

This is a matter of looking at the details of the agreement, which the member clearly is not even familiar with. I read out details that he claimed did not exist. I think it is the responsibility of legislators to know what is in legislation they are voting on. I doubt that the member has even read the agreement. If he read it, he would know that the section I read obliges Canada to promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage.

Conservatives are opposed to that and are supportive of Ukraine. When it comes to supporting Ukraine, the Liberal government should be focusing on delivering weapons, not just making announcements, but actually following up and giving Ukraine the weapons it needs in order to secure victory.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise here today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I have already spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to speak once again, more briefly, about some of the highlights so far.

First, I would like to mention once again that the Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over a million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. When Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Shortly after that recognition in 1995, Canada signed an early foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, with Ukraine, so we have always supported attempts to strengthen our trade with Ukraine.

The NDP supports this free trade agreement, and our primary concerns centre on the fact that negotiations began before Parliament had an opportunity to have input on our negotiation priorities and how quickly the bill came before us after the agreement was signed. Following accepted practices would not have delayed this agreement or the bill, but could have made it better for both parties. I am happy to say that the minister seems to have changed her behaviour by following proper protocols and practices of the House when announcing imminent negotiations for a new free trade agreement with Ecuador, so I hope that practice will continue in the future.

Returning to the Ukraine free trade agreement, we have heard repeatedly from Ukraine how important this new agreement would be to the country and how important it would be to rebuild Ukraine once Russia is defeated and this war is over. President Zelenskyy signed this agreement when he was here in Ottawa last September. Ambassador Yuliya Kovaliv, who came before the international trade committee, of which I am a member, emphasized repeatedly how beneficial this agreement would be to Ukraine and to Canada.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which brings together all national, provincial and local Ukrainian Canadian organizations, has pleaded for parliamentarians to support Ukraine by passing the bill quickly and unanimously. Instead, we have seen the Conservatives oppose the bill at every turn using all sorts of tactics to delay its passage. I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and when we were debating the bill the Conservatives tried to introduce amendments that were clearly out of the scope of the bill and, indeed, out of the scope of any free trade agreement. They emphasized what we should be doing to give aid to Ukraine. This is a free trade agreement between two countries; it is not about giving aid to countries. Acceptance of those amendments not only would have delayed the bill, but would have required renegotiation of the free trade agreement, adding months to the process for no benefit when Ukraine is pleading for quick action.

We just voted on another Conservative amendment to the bill that would have removed a small mention of carbon pricing in the environment chapter, a mention that put no requirement on either party to bring in carbon pricing or raise carbon pricing. It simply mentioned the fact that both countries agreed that carbon pricing was a good thing, and Ukraine has had carbon pricing longer than Canada. Again, if the amendment had succeeded, it would have sent negotiators back to the bargaining table, all for no reason.

When the Conservatives forced all of us to vote in every line item in supplementary estimates in December, a vote-a-thon of over 30 hours that cost over $2 billion to Canadian taxpayers, they voted against all other support for Ukraine, including Operation Unifier, where the Canadian Armed Forces are helping Ukrainian armed forces.

The Conservative opposition to support for Ukraine, including the delaying tactics on the bill before us, has not gone unnoticed by Ukraine. Two weeks ago I happened to meet with the consul general for Ukraine in Edmonton, who covers western Canada, and he specifically brought up his deep concerns with the actions of the Conservatives on this file. This is a representative of the Ukrainian government. He pointed out that Ukrainians are fighting and dying, not just for their own freedom, but for democracies all across Europe and around the world, and he pleaded with me to pass on the message that Ukraine needs the full support of all its allies.

Canada, because of its huge Ukrainian diaspora, is one of the most important of those allies. The consul general was mystified and dismayed by the lack of support from the Conservatives on this bill. Therefore, I asked to speak today to pass on his plea, from his government and his entire country to every member here, to pass this bill unanimously and to pass it quickly without delay. I am going to stop early in this speech because I am the last speaker and I hope that this debate will collapse so that we can get to the vote on this bill and pass it right away and help Ukraine by doing what Ukraine has asked us to do.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the chance to rise and ask the hon. member across the way about this agreement. I know we are generally in agreement in this House, with the exception of the Conservatives, on supporting Ukraine and supporting it through trade deals. What has not been talked about a lot in the House is the benefit to Canada of a deal like this. Canada is importing animal fats and vegetable oils from Ukraine and iron and steel where they have expertise in heavy casting, which is used for our agricultural, rail and electrical equipment. Could the member comment on the benefit to the Canadian economy of having a free trade deal with Ukraine?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, free trade agreements, or fair trade agreements as we like to promote them in the NDP, are beneficial to both parties. They have to be, or nobody would sign them. The reason Ukraine would like us to sign this bill, as the ambassador put it when she was before the international trade committee, is that it would benefit Ukrainian businesses. It benefits Canadian business owners who are working to help rebuild Ukraine after this war is over. It benefits all of us, and that is the reason we negotiate free trade agreements with countries. This is a revamping of an earlier free trade agreement that was done in 2017. I remember speaking to it then.

Therefore, these free trade agreements are solely designed to be beneficial for both countries. We can disagree on minor details within those bills and the NDP has concerns about some of the investor-state dispute mechanisms in this bill, but we want to support Ukraine. We are voting very much in favour of it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us what the international fallout might be if we were not to vote unanimously in favour of this agreement.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that Ukraine is looking to the world for support in its struggle against Russia. It is looking to the world for fighting the war now and rebuilding later. What is noticed around the world is when countries have divisions within their parliaments and legislatures with respect to support for Ukraine. We are seeing that in the United States. This is very concerning to Ukrainians and they are very concerned about seeing the same pattern here in Canada. They really want to see unanimous support to show the rest of the world that we are behind Ukraine.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, right now we are voting on a bill to implement an agreement. To my knowledge, members of Parliament are never included in the process of negotiating agreements. We are presented with a fait accompli.

Since we cannot amend agreements, what does my colleague think of the attempts that we are seeing in the House to amend agreements and policies, instead of voting on a bill?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I would rather we have a culture in this place where Parliament is asked about free trade agreements and negotiations before they happen, which is what I mentioned in my speech about the minister telling us here in Parliament when her team is going into negotiations with another country, in this case Ecuador, so that we can look at that situation and say what our priorities should be for Canadians and Canadian workers. That way we can have an influence over the negotiations and give advice to the negotiators before things happen. As the member said, we are just simply presented with a fait accompli, and we have to vote yea or nay on that. I think we should have more say before negotiations start and we should have a proper amount of time to examine the bill before this debate happens, and that, I am hoping, will happen in the future.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued before, that there is no other trade deal that Canada has that has implemented a carbon tax in it. I would argue, and it is a very reasonable argument that can be made, that what Ukraine does not need is a carbon tax; what it does need are weapons.

When Bill C-57 went to committee, the member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan proposed amendments to the bill that would expedite the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and yet the NDP voted against that amendment to the bill. My question is: Why?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question.

I would first say that there is nothing in this free trade agreement that forces a carbon tax or carbon pricing on Ukraine. Ukraine already has that. However, there is a statement in the agreement that says that nothing in this agreement will force either of the two countries to change their environmental policies or laws. That is just a false argument from the start.

Second, we had an amendment about Canada providing more military support and armaments to Ukraine. I voted against that for two reasons. One, it was totally out of the scope of the bill and so we could not really listen to that; we could not hear it. Two, this is a free trade agreement. It is about setting the rules between two countries on how they trade with each other. It is not about sending aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine needs armaments. I remember the very first day of the war that President Zelenskyy said, “I need ammunition, not a ride”. However, this is a totally separate question. If we had voted in favour of that amendment, it would have sent the whole agreement back to the negotiating table, and it would have set it back weeks or months, who knows how long. Of course, I voted against that.

Ukraine wanted this bill passed as it was, it wanted it passed unanimously, and I am proud to say that is what I am doing.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy hearing Conservatives say, “Mr. Speaker, what Ukraine does not need”. However, what Ukrainians do not need is the member for Barrie—Innisfil telling them what they need. Ukraine does not need that. What Ukrainians need is for the member for Barrie—Innisfil to actually start listening to them when they tell him what they need.

A lot of this discussion has been on the carbon tax specifically. I could not help but notice that yesterday even the darling of the alt-right, Elon Musk, tweeted out, “The only action needed to solve climate change is a carbon tax.” Even Elon Musk is jumping on board and saying the same thing.

When it comes to the carbon tax, how out of touch are these Conservatives?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I saw that tweet from Elon Musk, and I would disagree with him in saying that it is not the only thing we need, but it is the first thing we need. It is the easiest, cheapest way to bring down our emissions and help solve the climate crisis. We will need to do everything else, but that is the first thing we need to do.

We have had it in British Columbia for over a decade and it has worked, despite what Conservatives say, and despite Conservatives telling my constituents that we should get rid of the federal carbon tax to help my constituents; we do not pay a federal carbon tax in British Columbia. However, it is an essential part of any country's fight and any jurisdiction's fight against climate change.

I am boggled by the fact that the Conservatives do not get that. I am happy that Elon Musk gets it, because I do not agree with everything Elon Musk says. It is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to fight climate change, and we need to do it and everything else.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fear I may disappoint my colleagues, because I will not be talking about the carbon tax.

It is often said that the desire to appear clever stops us from actually becoming clever. That is what I will try to show today. I want to comment on Bill C‑57, which seeks to review the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but I will talk about it in a different way.

For centuries, people around the globe have heard Hamlet asking one of the big questions: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” That is the way he put it, but I will rephrase the question: “To be, or to appear to be, that is the question”. In other words, is it better to be or to appear to be?

When it comes to free trade, Canada seems to have made up its mind. It has chosen to appear to be. When I think of “appearing to be”, the word that comes to mind is “minimum”, meaning the very least, the bare minimum. The agreement does not say that this is the minimum that we want. It says it is the minimum that we are going to agree on.

Last weekend, an article in La Presse caught my attention. The headline read: “Is Canada doing the minimum for Ukraine?” The article quoted authors Justin Massie and Nicolas‑François Perron, who argued that Canada's primary objective is to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. That is a quality it shares with golden retrievers. I am just throwing that in for those in the know.

The authors also proved that Canada was doing the bare minimum, favouring actions that look good over those that actually work. In their chapter of a book that is soon to be published—in French, I should mention—by the Presses de l'Université Laval, they scrutinize the help Canada has offered to Kyiv. The authors argue that, far from being a leader in the pro-NATO camp, Ottawa is content to echo the positions of its allies and offer “very modest” military support to Ukraine. They write that “Canada's desired objective has more to do with being perceived as a reliable ally than any other consideration, including Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression”. We need to be clear on that. We are debating the free trade agreement, but it seems like much ado about nothing.

The authors also say that Canada's policy is to project a certain image—surprise, surprise—and that waving the maple leaf flag is its main objective. That reminds us that Canada's foreign policy is a bit half-baked. In terms of total aid provided to Ukraine as a share of GDP, Canada is basically a big Portugal. Well ahead of Canada are Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia and Portugal. So much for impressing others.

Canada has provided significant financial aid in the form of loans. However, if we consider overall aid, including financial, humanitarian and military aid, as a share of GDP, Canada ranks 31st out of 39 countries. Quite honestly, we are currently debating the smallest of details right now. As I was saying, Canada is basically a big Portugal, but we need to be careful. According to those experts, Ottawa is doing just enough in Ukraine to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. They say that this level of action will result in very few political consequences. Basically, that is all that is expected from Canada in its current state. This is not a government priority. One of the experts believes that the government is “more interested in provincial jurisdictions than its own”. That is a subject that the Bloc Québécois cares about. That expert also said that Canada does not have a very good track record.

There is nothing new so far. Since 2015, Canada's foreign affairs policy seems to have been vague and opportunistic at best. All the same, there are a few things in the bill worth noting. Of the 30 chapters, 11 are new and were not in the 2017 agreement. I should point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that managed to get the only amendments to the bill adopted, thanks to my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The agreement is supposed to help people try to curb corruption. They know a thing or two about that. It is no secret that, before Russia invaded, Ukraine ranked pretty poorly on that score.

In any case, the agreement aims to create voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation so that people can set guidelines for themselves. Frankly, this is a pipe dream. It is not going to happen. The agreement says that it is inviting the countries to work together towards respecting each other's laws. Once again, this is the bare minimum, and no one is reinventing the wheel. Basically, this is the goal in the areas of labour, the environment, gender equality, human rights and corruption. Right now, labour, the environment and human rights are not the main concerns in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that is where we are at, and it comes off as a bit of a lecture.

Despite its statement of principle, there is no plan for Canada to meet its commitments, which is problematic, or at the very least unimpressive. It is important to understand that Ukraine is a marginal trading partner for Canada. We are talking about 0.2% of $760 billion. In other words, we are talking a lot about very little in terms of trade. In reality, the revised agreement will have little impact on Canada and Quebec.

As I said at the start, everything I have just laid out over the past few minutes shows that we are still in the land of appearances. To appear is to be on show. Speaking of being on show, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made an appearance in Ukraine last weekend to talk about issues that matter to her. To be on show is the bare minimum of taking action. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. The risk is low. We are going to try to avoid pointless debates on the carbon tax, which our colleagues are so obsessed with, and focus on offering our assistance to the extent that the bill allows. However, I want to make it clear that, while we may be a reliable ally, reliability is the bare minimum required to be an ally.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Even though I do not agree with everything he said, his speech was very eloquent. It is a pleasure to hear arguments and a speech that is well thought out.

In his speech, he demonstrated how one can be critical of a bill and still support it. I would like him to elaborate on that.