Bill C-31 (Historical)

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

This enactment implements the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, done at Kyiv on July 11, 2016.
The general provisions of the enactment set out rules of interpretation and specify that no recourse may 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 the Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada.
Part 1 approves the Agreement, provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of the Agreement, and gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with the Agreement.
Part 2 amends certain Acts to bring them into conformity with Canada’s obligations under the Agreement.
Part 3 contains coordinating amendments and the coming into force provision.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise in support of this bill. I am pleased to speak in support of an agreement that would further cement the positive relations Canada has enjoyed with Ukraine over many years. As an Alberta MP, and in the context of this bill, I would like to take the opportunity to appreciate and highlight the many contributions of the Ukrainian community, especially in Alberta, where we celebrate that community on an annual basis. The contributions of the community to the Alberta economy and the Canadian economy as a whole are very important.

I am very pleased that there is cross-partisan support for this agreement. Trade, especially in countries that have gone through periods of economic crisis or political disruption, is one of the best ways Canada can help them into the next phase of their development.

When we look at what Ukraine has gone through in the last few years, we all have to pause and recognize the significance of the ability of a country like Canada to enter into a free trade agreement with it. Since the election of the new government in Ukraine, under President Poroshenko, in 2004, Ukraine has begun necessary reforms to stimulate economic growth, including taking steps to address corruption and introducing measures to create a more positive business environment.

This agreement is the logical next step in the acceleration and development of Ukraine's economy. I want to note some of the highlights that would support all Canadian businesses. My ask of the government, much as it was when I rose in support of the Canada-EU free trade agreement, is that the government work with our trade commissioners and economic development agencies to put forward a plan on how Canadian businesses can take advantage of this free trade agreement in an expeditious manner.

One of the key provisions I support, and that I know many businesses will as well, is the elimination of tariffs on 86% of Canadian exports, with the balance of tariff concessions to be implemented over a period of up to seven years. This includes the elimination by Ukraine of tariffs on all Canadian exports of industrial products, fish, and seafood and the elimination of the vast majority of Ukraine's agricultural tariffs. Key products benefiting from either immediate or eventual duty-free access include beef, certain pulses, grains, canola oil, processed food, animal feed, frozen fish, caviar, certain articles of iron and steel, industrial machinery, articles of plastics, and cosmetics. This is certainly going to provide a lot of opportunity for Canadian agricultural producers.

My hope is that some of the established mechanisms will allow agricultural producers to innovate to tailor some of their products for new markets. I want to give a shout-out to the Saskatchewan Trade & Export Partnership and the Canadian Beef Centre of Excellence as examples. There are a lot of programs, centres of excellence, and services that different governments have invested in overtime to help businesses connect with the opportunities presented by new free trade agreements. My hope, in the event this agreement actually passes into law, is that governments will then focus their attention on those business-to-business links.

The agreement also contains a range of disciplines and commitments pertaining to non-tariff measures that will help ensure that market access gains are not constrained by unjustified trade barriers. The agreement also contains commitments related to trade facilitation designed to reduce red tape at the border.

The digital economy component is interesting too. The chapter in this free trade agreement on electronic commerce obliges both Canada and the Ukraine not to levy customs duties or other charges on digital products that are transmitted electronically. This is a very interesting provision, given that it reflects the new reality in trade. It is a good thing for Canada to be on the forefront of these types of trade agreements as they relate to international best practices.

I would like to take a few moments to talk about why I think trade is so important in terms of the political context in Ukraine. I want to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Etobicoke Centre, who has really been a champion of the rights of Ukraine, in addition to some of the other members of my caucus.

We had a committee study this summer by our immigration committee. I would just like to set the context for why this agreement is so important. When a country is given economic opportunity, it gives people and civil society there the opportunity to grow.

We had representatives from the community testify at our committee. Our report notes the following:

The Committee heard about the situation in Ukraine, a country that has gone from having no internally displaced persons to having 1.8 million over a two-year period as a result of the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia and ongoing conflict in the Donbass region. According to Aleksandr Galkin, Director, The Right to Protection, the IDPs [internally displaced people] need permanent housing and employment opportunities, and those receiving government pensions need income security. [A representative]...with the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), explained that a return to the rebel-held areas is fraught with danger, where anyone who expressed critical opinions about rebels is at risk; there are documented examples of writers and others appearing on blacklists and being detained, tortured, and disappeared. Witnesses also explained that residents living along or close to the “contact line” have very limited access to humanitarian and medical aid, due to security reasons and a ban on cargo deliveries.

Two witnesses,..Ukrainian-government sympathizers shared their personal stories of capture and arrest, torture of all kinds, and impunity for abuses in the rebel-controlled areas. The Committee also heard from [a witness], apprehended and tortured in Crimea, forced to testify against innocent people and sentenced to forced labour. Both men implored the Committee to remember the people still held in captivity and to fight for their release....

Witness also suggested...maintaining sanctions against Russia, continued or increased support for the OSCE and the OSCE special monitoring mission, continued support as election observers, and help to find a political solution to the conflict. Further, Canada could provide aid to help integrate IDPs, to rebuild institutions such as the media that have been destroyed by the conflict, and to battle corruption. Training to police officers and border guards and support to civil society organizations were also recommended areas for Canada's support.

I wanted to read that excerpt from the committee, because it sets the context for why it is so important for trade agreements like this to be signed with countries like Ukraine. We already have a diaspora community that is very well integrated in Canada. There are a lot of Ukrainian diaspora-led businesses that will see natural trade opportunities under this agreement, but more importantly, this in some way will help to rebuild the economy of Ukraine, as it has gone through exceptionally hard circumstances.

We all have moments in our lives in this place when we pause and reflect on the gravity of our role. For anyone who sat through the committee hearings, the testimony presented by these witnesses was harrowing. It was truly disturbing to know some of the human rights abuses that have happened in Ukraine over the last couple of years.

I really think Canada has a duty beyond trade to stand against the human rights abuses that are happening there and stand against the illegal occupation of Crimea. Certainly trade is one way to do that. It sends a message to the international community that Canada is at the forefront of protecting these rights.

I feel that we have had a lot of support from the diaspora community. I have heard it over and over again as I have travelled across Alberta. This is a really positive sign to the international community that Canada gets it and is standing up for what is right.

With that, I am happy to take questions.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle noted that this is one of the few times we have had a trade agreement that everyone agrees is the right thing to do. Part of the reason is respect for the Ukrainian Canadian community and its tremendous contributions not only in Alberta but right across the country.

In the second part of her speech, she referenced what is going on inside Ukraine. We must remember the context of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine. It began with the reneging on a free trade association agreement with the European Union by the former president puppet controlled by Mr. Putin. Students went into the streets and were brutally beaten in the central square in Kiev. It became known as the revolution of dignity. It was the first time in the history of the EU that protestors carrying the European Union flag, and all that it symbolized, the respect for universal human rights and democratic rights, were snipered. People carrying the European Union flag, for the first time in European Union history, were shot and killed for symbolically carrying those values.

I wonder if my colleague could expand on how that has impacted our decision to come together as a House of Commons, as a Parliament, to sign on to this free trade agreement to help Ukraine at this very difficult time.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has my deep respect for his passion and commitment to moving the yardstick forward on this issue.

What a timely question. We are in an era when there is a movement toward protectionism and isolationism when it comes to trade, and that should concern the global community. When I think about where humanity has come since the end of World War II, we have had decades of peace in Europe, which for the entire history of our species, virtually, had been at war. While there could be improvements in the EU in terms of its efficacy or its scope, the reality is that the European Union has, through economic growth, through the development of infrastructure, brought economic opportunity and hope to regions of the world that had been at war.

My colleague talked about Ukraine being removed from that network that was designed to provide stability and economic growth. That would absolutely be an act of aggression, because we know that economic opportunity and stability creates peace. It would absolutely be the worst thing to isolate a country and its people from the opportunities that are created. I would protest that. Any of us would. It is wrong. This agreement is a step in the right direction for the international community. It is the antithesis of that behaviour.

As we stand here and debate this trade agreement, it is important to put it in the global context of this protectionist desire. My colleague opposite so beautifully talked about what the benefits of trade can do. It is more than just the exchange of goods. It is the development of economic opportunity and peace.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the NDP is happy to support this trade agreement, in contrast to the Canada-Europe deal, is that it does not contain investor-state provisions that would allow foreign investors to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations, and policies through special, secretive commercial tribunals, as opposed to the regular Canadian court system that all other Canadians, and indeed foreigners, would have access to in this country.

I wonder if the member for Calgary Nose Hill could explain to the House why the Conservatives think it is important to include investor-state provisions in CETA.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a larger question here. The world has gone crazy in terms of how political affiliation relates to a party's political, ideological position on trade.

I look at some of the discussion being had with our neighbours to the south, and I become very concerned about the thickening of borders and the desire to remove or step out of free trade agreements. The reality is, we are two generations removed from conflict in the western world. For a large part, that is due to the fact that we have opened our borders to trade. We have opened our borders to the exchange of goods and ideas. To me, that is a very positive thing. That is what creates economic stability, that is what creates economic opportunity, and that allows for peace.

I find it very weird that the NDP, which in the last Parliament did support the EU free trade agreement, has reversed its position. It is now almost reflective of the new American government's position on trade. I find that very strange.

I look forward to further debate on that.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the third time and passed.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

The NDP is pleased to support the Canada-Ukraine agreement, because it is actually about trade. Canada currently runs a modest trade surplus with Ukraine, and we see a real potential for this deal, by removing tariffs to build upon that trade relationship to create jobs in Canada, and to make a contribution to the economy of the Ukraine as well. This is exactly the kind of agreement that the NDP is happy to support.

As members know, we are opposed to the agreement between Canada and the European Union. With the European Union, Canada currently runs a massive trade deficit, which would likely be enlarged by the agreement that would be a detraction from our economy and from employment in our country. That trade deficit is even larger, if we assume that the United Kingdom will be removed from the agreement as a result of Brexit.

There is a real contrast between these two agreements, in terms of the trade relationships that exist and that the agreements would likely amplify. However, an even bigger distinction has to do with the non-trade aspects of the Canada-Europe deal. The Canada-Europe agreement would extend the duration of pharmaceutical patents, which would drive up the price of prescription drugs for provincial health care systems, as well as for individual Canadians.

We are very pleased to note that those provisions are not present in the Canada-Ukraine deal, which gives us comfort in supporting it. We also note that the Canada-Europe agreement includes investor-state provisions, which empower foreign investors to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations, and public policies, not in the regular court system, but in a special set of commercial tribunals to which most other sectors of society do not have access.

Again, we are very pleased with the fact that the Canada-Ukraine agreement does not include these pernicious investor-state provisions. Again, this makes us quite comfortable in supporting it.

Before question period, I asked the member for Calgary Nose Hill about why the Conservatives believe it is so important to have investor-state provisions in the Canada-Europe agreement. Given that Canada and Europe both have well-functioning court systems, it is not obvious to me why we would need to set up these special tribunals for Canadian investors in Europe, or European investors in Canada. I did not get much of an answer to this question from the member for Calgary Nose Hill. There really was not an explanation as to why the Conservatives, or the Liberal government, for that matter, feel it is important to have investor-state provisions in the Canada-Europe deal.

However, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, in response, did suggest that the NDP not reflexively supporting anything and everything called a free trade agreement somehow puts us in the same camp as the Trump administration, and challenged me to explain our positions on trade vis-à-vis those of President Trump. I would like to take the opportunity to address that.

Mr. Trump has identified several real problems that exist with American trade. He has called attention to the problem of Chinese steel, produced in violation of internationally recognized environmental and labour standards, being dumped into the U.S. market, to the detriment of the American steel industry and American steelworkers.

We have exactly the same problem here in Canada with Chinese steel being dumped into our markets. My sense is that we need to work with the United States, and indeed with the Trump administration, to formulate a North America solution for this problem. If we do not do that, if the United States acts alone against Chinese steel dumping, a lot of that steel will be diverted into the Canadian market, which would hurt our industry and our steelworkers even more.

Worse yet, if Canada allows itself to be a conduit for dumped Chinese steel, we could make ourselves a target for American trade retaliation. That would be disastrous, given that our steel industries are quite integrated across the Canada-U.S. border, and given that the steel trade is quite large and balanced between our two countries.

As someone who serves on the all-party steel caucus, I am going to try to work toward a North American solution to the problem of Chinese steel dumping rather than running the risk of Canada falling victim to the Trump administration's efforts to address this quite real and serious problem.

Now, on the topic of steel dumping, this is an issue with Ukraine as well. Ukraine has quite a significant steel industry, but, unfortunately, it does not have the kind of labour and environmental standards that all countries should respect. There is a problem with the dumping of Ukrainian steel as well. A few months ago, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal renewed anti-dumping duties on Ukrainian steel in recognition that the problem persists.

This is an issue that gives me some pause with the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. However, I am still confident in supporting it, because this deal importantly allows Canada to continue with trade remedy policies. This agreement does not impair our ability to apply anti-dumping and countervailing duties when necessary against Ukrainian steel. I think this agreement safeguards our industry and allows the Canadian government to continue to offset unfair competitive advantages achieved in Ukraine by violating internationally recognized labour and environmental standards. That is an important thing.

On the topic of dealing with the Trump administration on trade policy, in a much broader way, Trump has suggested renegotiating NAFTA. This is clearly a threat to Canada in some ways, but it is also an opportunity. I would note that there are aspects of NAFTA that are problematic, that do not work well for Canada, and that we should seek to fix in any potential renegotiation.

I spoke earlier about investor-state provisions and the problems created when we empower foreign investors to directly challenge policies that allegedly deprive them of some potential profit. We have seen a lot of those problems play out under NAFTA. We have the famous AbitibiBowater case. That company shut down its last pulp and paper mill in Newfoundland and Labrador. In response, the provincial government reclaimed water rights that it had given to AbitibiBowater to operate those mills. The company turned around and sued Canada under NAFTA for the loss of those water rights, even though it was not using them anymore to produce pulp and paper in that province.

The former Conservative government ended up paying AbitibiBowater millions of dollars to settle that. Clearly, investor-state provisions are a problem, and clearly chapter 11 is a part of NAFTA that is not working. I think very high on the Canadian agenda in any renegotiation of NAFTA needs to be to remove chapter 11.

We have also had a lot of debates in the House about pipelines, about being able to export Canadian resources to different markets. NAFTA actually restricts that through the proportionality clause. It locks Canada in to making a certain proportion of our energy resources, not just oil and gas, but also electricity, available to the United States. Removing the proportionality clause from NAFTA is another thing that Canada needs to be pushing for in our negotiations with the Trump administration.

A lot of Canadians are fearful of this whole idea of renegotiation of NAFTA. There is a sense that if it does not work out, if Trump tears up NAFTA, then we will not have anything, that our whole trade relationship with the United States will be at risk. Happily, if we get into that eventuality, we still have the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, which is a deal that is much more similar to the agreement we are currently debating with Ukraine. It is an agreement that removes tariffs. It is an agreement that gives us tariff-free access to the U.S. market without including these pernicious investor-state provisions.

Given that we can fall back on the original Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, Canada should be quite bold and should push quite hard in renegotiating NAFTA to fix it and remove those elements we do not like, because as I said, the alternative is something much better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, because it is healthy for both Ukraine and Canada.

I was so pleased that the President of Ukraine gave a speech in this beautiful chamber. In his speech he talked about building on the relationship between our two countries. He also made reference to the idea of a trade agreement.

One could be proud that we have this legislation before us today. Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, all Canadians, in fact, will be quite pleased with the passage of this legislation.

The member is trying to justify why he is voting for this agreement but not for the European trade agreement. I would remind the member that the NDP has voted against other trade agreements that did not have what he referenced, which is the ability to sue.

I am going to take this at face value. The reason New Democrats are going to vote for this legislation is much in the same way as I just indicated. Would the member not agree with that?

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would note that NDP members have said very clearly and consistently for a long time that we object to investor-state provisions in trade agreements. When we are presented with trade agreements that do not include those provisions, we are much more likely to be able to support them. There are other provisions in trade agreements we would also look at and that would also affect our decision.

Whereas the Liberals and the Conservatives will automatically and reflexively support anything that is called a free trade agreement without weighing the pros and cons, how it will affect different sectors, or what other elements it includes, the NDP takes a very cautious, case-by-case approach. We try to evaluate the specific provisions of an agreement. We look at how it will affect different parts of our economy. We make the decision that way.

That is how middle-class Canadians, who the member references, would want our government to consider trade agreements. That is the approach we have taken in this case. Based on those types of careful deliberations, we are pleased to support the Canada-Ukraine agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-31, the legislation that would implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. As members may have heard, the NDP supports the bill, and I will be speaking in favour of it.

First of all, I and the rest of my colleagues are very much in favour of strengthening Canada's trading relationships with the rest of the world. We in Canada are a trading nation.

Second, as other speakers have mentioned here today, Canada and Ukraine have a long-standing friendship. It is in both countries' interest to promote peaceful ways to maintain that important relationship.

Third, this agreement will benefit Canadian exporters without negatively impacting important Canadian values, such as labour rights and environmental protections.

Getting back to some general comments on trade, we in the NDP are very much in favour of trade agreements with other countries, as I mentioned and as my colleague for Regina—Lewvan just said. We have supported two of the three bills on trade agreements that have been brought before this Parliament.

We support agreements that actually benefit Canadian workers and the general public, as opposed to CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, which has the investor-state provisions just mentioned and which would raise the cost of pharmaceutical products in Canada. These are things that would not benefit Canadians in general.

I am happy to say that for Bill C-31, the government actually respected the usual practice of tabling the bill 21 days after signing the agreement so that parties could have some time to evaluate it, unlike what it did with CETA, which it tabled at more or less at the same time it signed the treaty.

Bill C-31 would eliminate tariffs on 86% of Canadian exports to Ukraine and would eliminate almost all tariffs on Ukrainian exports to Canada. Many Canadian exporters, including those trading in steel, machinery, agricultural products, such as beef, pork, and canola, and fish, all products Canada excels in producing and trades extensively in, will benefit from the elimination of these tariffs.

We are happy to support this agreement, because it has a strong labour chapter with comprehensive and enforceable provisions. This could really improve labour standards in Ukraine. The NDP obviously likes trade agreements that improve labour standards around the world and generally opposes those that bring labour standards down to the lowest common denominator.

As an ecologist, I am pleased to also see that this agreement has a strong environment chapter, with commitments to not lowering levels of protection. Again, we do not want to join the rest of the world and move things down to the lowest common denominator. We want to bring the standards around the world up to our standards here in Canada.

I, and many others, have been disappointed with several of the major agreements Canada has signed that have investor-state dispute mechanisms. They include CETA, which I just mentioned, and the TPP, which has not come before us but has been debated here. They have dispute mechanisms that allow foreign corporations to sue the federal government, provincial governments, and municipal governments when they bring in legislation to help protect our environment or our social values. Canadians are tired of hearing news stories about legal actions that cost Canadians hundreds of millions of dollars because we have chosen to protect our clean air and water.

Canadians are also in favour of provisions that protect some level of local procurement. My colleague for Kootenay—Columbia mentioned that mayors and councils like to buy local and promote local businesses. It is heartening to see that open access to municipal procurements and school board procurements are not part of this agreement.

I mentioned earlier Canada's long friendship and close ties with Ukraine. There are 1.3 million Ukrainian Canadians living in this country. Canada was the first western country to recognize the independence of Ukraine in 1991. This agreement offers an opportunity to strengthen that relationship.

As we all know, Ukraine is suffering tumultuous times and facing Russian aggression on its borders. When the crisis developed in 2014, the NDP firmly supported Ukraine and called on the federal government for more financial aid for Ukraine and stronger sanctions against Russia. This agreement sends an important signal to the world, and to Ukraine and Russia in particular, that Canada supports Ukraine and seeks to promote peace and prosperity in the region.

I would like to conclude with a quote from Zenon Potoczny, the president of the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, who said:

This agreement will create additional jobs for citizens in both countries and lay new foundations for trade, growth, and investment. It also sends a very powerful message to the rest of the world that Ukraine is open for business, and Canada again lends a supportive hand to Ukraine.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems everyone today is behind this particular trade agreement with Ukraine.

To turn our attention to other trade agreements, we have heard comments about some of the ones that have come before the House that the member has not liked quite as well. I wonder if he has any comments about upcoming NAFTA renegotiations and what he would like to see happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, one of the obvious things I and the rest of my colleagues in the NDP would like to see if NAFTA is opened for renegotiation is the elimination of the chapter 11 investor-state dispute mechanism.

We see news reports of California companies suing Canada or a province for hundreds of millions of dollars because we have chosen to protect our export of water. Things like that really affect Canadians, and that is what we do not like to see in these free trade agreements. We are all about trade, but we would like to be able to protect our environment. When we do, we want to be able to protect ourselves from flagrant litigation by foreign companies against our governments. Not only the federal government but provincial governments, cities, and towns can be sued. That is one of the main things we would like to see changed in NAFTA.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could speak to the conditions in Ukraine. We all support this trade agreement, but how can we help with the Ukrainian refugee issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I say, Canada and Ukraine have a long-standing relationship. We want to protect Ukraine. We want to see it prosper and return to a peaceful state.

There are many issues in and around Ukraine, especially with Russian aggression on its borders. Through mechanisms such as this, we can provide some assistance to Ukraine, both financially and by helping Ukraine grow its economy and get conditions within the country back to a stable level. That is how we will help protect Ukraine. It is a very complex, difficult situation, but this agreement is one of the things we can do to help, in our way, to bring peace and stability to that region.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my colleague can talk more about the environmental benefits of this trade agreement and also about what is at risk when the Government of Canada signs trade deals in which investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms are included that encourage lawsuits against Canada when our environmental standards are higher than those of the countries with which we sign trade agreements.