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

[Carla Qualtrough, Liberal, Delta, BC]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

In the review of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement today, many members have underscored the friendship between our two countries and the importance of support to Ukraine in light of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the ongoing Russian-backed insurgency in eastern Ukraine. As we witness renewed violence in the conflict, our hearts are with the people of Ukraine.

In spite of these challenges, Ukraine has made significant strides in its anti-corruption and reform efforts. We would like to emphasize the need to encourage the momentum toward securing Ukraine's future as a stable, democratic, and prosperous country.

The Government of Canada remains determined to deepen our bilateral ties with Ukraine to this end, including through this landmark agreement. A free trade agreement is a very valuable instrument to enhance our commercial ties and nurture a more stable, predictable trading relationship for sustainable economic growth.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is a high-quality agreement that, once implemented, would create new commercial opportunities for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses alike. This agreement would result in preferential market access for virtually all Canada-Ukraine trade. It would facilitate enhanced co-operation, improve our ability to resolve trade irritants, increase transparency in regulatory matters, and reduce transaction costs for businesses.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement addresses non-tariff barriers and would help to ensure that technical regulations relating to food safety and animal and plant health and life are not used in a discriminatory way. These provisions would help to ensure that companies can take advantage of market access and not be hindered by unjustifiable or discriminatory rules.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would contribute to the protection and enhancement of intellectual property rights, which would help to foster competitiveness, innovation, and creativity, and to combat infringements and to establish a consultative mechanism providing a way to aid in bilateral resolutions.

This agreement includes provisions on competition policy, monopolies, and state enterprises to ensure that the benefits of trade liberalization are not undermined by anti-competitive business conduct, such as collusion among competitors, or by market distortion from monopolies or state enterprises.

This would create a fair and predictable environment for Canadian businesses. This agreement addresses the needs of the 21st century economy. Provisions on e-commerce would help to facilitate e-trade by ensuring that Canadian and Ukrainian businesses and consumers would not face customs duties on electronically transmitted digital products.

Also, the agreement includes comprehensive and progressive provisions in the areas of labour, environment, transparency, and anti-corruption, as well as protections for the government's right to regulate in the public interest.

Canadians can be very proud of how this agreement would contribute to building sustainable economic growth in Ukraine. I am equally proud of the opportunities it promises to deliver to Canada and to Canadian businesses in a progressive and inclusive manner.

A key outcome of this agreement is the new market access that it would provide for goods produced and manufactured in Canada. Once the agreement is fully implemented, 99% of Canada's exports would be eligible to enter Ukraine duty free. This would put Canadian exporters on a level footing with European companies, which are already benefiting from the European free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Once implemented, the high-quality provisions of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would create opportunities across Canada and across our industrial, fish and seafood, agriculture, and agrifood sectors. These sectors are all areas where Canada offers something important to the world, and they are integral to our economy in small and large communities right across the country.

Our exports of industrial products currently face tariffs of up to 25% in Ukraine. The majority of these tariffs would be eliminated the day the agreement enters into force. Examples of goods that stand to benefit include iron, steel, industrial machinery, plastic products, cosmetics, and fish and seafood. With regard to fish and seafood, for example, the sector employs 76,000 Canadians. Exports to Ukraine in this sector face tariffs as high as 20%, which would be eliminated when the agreement takes effect.

The agreement would also create opportunities for Canada's agriculture and agrifood sector. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in 2014 Canada was the fifth-largest agricultural exporter in the world, and the agriculture and agrifood industry employed 2.2 million Canadians. Canadian exports to Ukraine in this sector faced tariffs, however, of up to 30%, the majority of which would be eliminated upon entry into force of the free trade agreement, and nearly all of the remaining ones would be eliminated within seven years. Key Canadian agricultural products that stand to benefit from this duty-free access include beef, pulses, grains, canola oil, processed foods, oilseeds, and animal feed. It is important to note that nothing in this agreement would weaken our supply-management approach for dairy, poultry, and eggs.

Western Canada already has a significant export relationship with Ukraine, which averaged almost $93 million per year over the last five years. The tariff eliminations and reductions we have secured would expand this relationship. Canadian pork exporters, for example, would be able to take advantage of unlimited duty-free access on fresh and chilled pork. Canadian exporters would also benefit from a large duty-free tariff rate quota for frozen pork and certain pork products, which currently face tariffs of up to 15%. The tariff rate quota would create meaningful new opportunities for Canadian farmers as it would exceed current Canadian exports of pork by a significant amount. It would also allow them to compete on a level playing field with competitors from across the European Union. Canadian wine producers and pulse exporters would also benefit from full tariff elimination. This would open up new opportunities for these important industries.

Canadian companies from central Canada already export to Ukraine, and exported an average of $69 million per year over the last five years. The Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement would provide new opportunities for the exporters of central Canada. For example, Ukraine would eliminate its 5% tariff immediately on maple syrup, which would provide new opportunities for the Canadian maple industry. Manufacturers in central Canada would be able to take advantage of new opportunities provided by the elimination of tariffs in this sector. The majority of these tariffs would be eliminated as soon as the agreement is implemented, which means early benefits.

Canadian exporters in Atlantic Canada already export an average of $11 million annually. Exporters from this region would also benefit, in particular as a result of the elimination of Ukrainian tariffs on fish and seafood.

Creating new commercial opportunities like these is crucial to Canada's economic success because, if done properly, our government believes that trade can raise living standards, create more jobs, increase prosperity, and help to strengthen the middle class. Canada is a trading nation, and we need access to international markets to thrive. In Canada, one in six jobs is related to exports. In 2014, there were more than 33,000 Canadian goods-exporting companies, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises. These companies understand the necessity of trade and the opportunities for trade that are generated by free trade agreements like the one we are discussing and supporting today. That is why implementing and expanding Canada's free trade agreements globally is a priority for this government.

The Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement is a tangible expression of our belief and experience that open, rules-based trade is a driver of economic opportunity and growth. By eliminating essentially all tariffs on currently traded goods between our two countries, Canada's exports would become more competitive in the Ukrainian market, a market that is very promising. Though Canada and Ukraine's bilateral merchandise trade was relatively modest in the years immediately following Ukraine's independence, our countries sought to encourage bilateral trade to complement the strong and extensive people-to-people linkages that tie our nations together. In 2015, despite ongoing challenges in Ukraine, bilateral trade between Canada and Ukraine increased to almost $300 million. Economic analysis undertaken by Global Affairs Canada projects that, once fully implemented, the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement would result in an increase of 19% in bilateral merchandise trade between our two countries over bilateral trade in 2014.

This government also recognizes the need to provide support to companies that are seeking to utilize the provisions of a new free trade agreement. In order for the benefits of free trade agreements to be fully realized, businesses need to be aware of the agreements and how we can help. This is especially important for Canada, as many of our exporters are small and medium-sized enterprises that may not have the resources to remain informed about business developments such as this.

In order to ensure that Canadian companies have the information they need to take advantage of this free trade agreement when it comes into force, the government will lead communications and outreach initiatives with business. The government will also coordinate and conduct information seminars for business audiences, organized with provincial, territorial, and private-sector partners. In addition, Canadian trade commissioners will be ready and able to assist companies seeking to expand into the Ukrainian market and will be able to advise their clients about the provisions of this free trade agreement and the opportunities.

We also know that Canadian stakeholders support this agreement. We have heard that support from provincial and territorial government representatives, Canadian companies and industry associations, and groups such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce.

Some Canadian stakeholders, such as the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, Alberta Pork, Spirits Canada, and the Canadian Meat Council have publicly also announced their support for this initiative.

We also saw more than 400 businesses attend the Canada-Ukraine Business Forum in Toronto in June of last year. The objective of this forum was to provide information on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

This level of participation gives a clear indication of the strong support that exists for this agreement in Canada and in Ukrainian business communities. The importance of our relationship with Ukraine, the benefits that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would bring, and the level of stakeholder support all indicate that this is an initiative we should move toward without delay.

Therefore, I urge all hon. members of the House to support Bill C-31, moving us closer to the realization of the economic benefits of the agreement and setting forth a clear demonstration of our ongoing commitment to deepening our partnership and our relationship with Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for her appointment. This is the first opportunity I have had to say this. I know she is probably expecting a question about religious freedom in eastern Ukraine, but instead I want to ask a slightly different type of question.

Of course, there is strategic importance to this deal as well, with our ongoing co-operation with Ukraine on a number of different levels. One of the things the Liberals did when they took office was cancel the sharing of satellite images with Ukraine. This is imagery that I know was very important to the Ukrainian military. I wonder if the member could share her thoughts on that decision, and say if the government is going to be prepared to reverse course on that and restore this important form of support to Ukraine.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate something we have heard echoed on both sides of the House for the entire time that I have been here, which is that Canada is a strong and steadfast ally of Ukraine and always has been.

I think we are all very proud of this agreement. It is progressive, which is important, because we are here to support labour, environment, and provisions on anti-corruption for Ukraine as it improves.

Furthermore, in this agreement, in recognition of the support we are giving together, services and investment are not included. In two years, we look forward to discussing those further, but we are going with a step-by-step process to ensure the success of this free trade agreement.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am voting in favour of this bill, but I want to point out an interesting fact.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is a relatively simple bilateral trade agreement, unlike the Canada-Europe agreement, for example, which makes significant amendments to intellectual property rights, gives foreign investors special rights that Canadian companies do not have, and hurts dairy producers. I represent a riding where there is a significant number of dairy farms.

Does the hon. member agree that agreements such as the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, which requires less compromise than the more comprehensive and controversial multilateral agreements, such as the TPP or the Canada-Europe agreement, are better for Canada?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the support extended by the member opposite.

This is a high-standard agreement. It is good for Canada. It is good for Ukraine. It certainly is fully satisfactory, as the member mentioned. I am going to stick with the question, actually, of the agreement itself. We were able to move very quickly. We believe there are other aspects not included in this agreement that will strengthen this as well.

With regard to CETA and TPP, we have just completed extensive consultation on TPP. The committee is reviewing that right now, and there is no question that this input will guide us as we move with our progressive trade agenda in Asia. With regard to CETA, that is being debated all week in the House of Commons, and I look forward to the support for that as well by members of the House.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me join my fellow colleagues in echoing my congratulations to my colleague on her appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

I want to follow up on the comments made by my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan with respect to his earlier question, and I want to pose a question in the context of Canada's relationship with the Ukraine.

I first want to reiterate the government's position that regardless of which political party has stood in the House to condemn it, Canada condemns most aggressively the actions of Russia with respect to its unlawful annexation of Crimea. However, notwithstanding that, Canada also takes a very strong position in making sure that we move Ukraine forward in an open, democratic, liberal fashion.

I want to ask my hon. colleague why this particular agreement and what further steps Canada will be taking in the future to ensure that Ukraine continues to move down this particular path.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement contains a review clause, which obliges parties to consider amending and expanding upon this strong foundation within two years. We want to make sure we get this right. We want to support Ukraine in every way that we can and, at the same time, of course, support Canadian small and medium-sized businesses, in particular. That is the right way to go and it seems this agreement may enjoy the full support of every member of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues asked a question regarding the sharing of satellite images with the Ukraine military and the parliamentary secretary did not respond. I am wondering if she could please answer the direct question.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to actually stay on the topic of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This is a landmark day for both of our countries. It is another shining example of the fact that we are friends and allies, steadfast and strong, not only in creating better economic opportunity but also in standing up for Ukraine and against the recent actions of Russia.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand the point the member made about only wanting to narrowly discuss the trade file, but the fact of the matter is that throughout the speeches at second reading, there was very expansive discussion with members of the government, as well as members of the opposition, about the importance of our relationship with Ukraine and the interrelationship between the economic issues and security co-operation. After all, it was a question of trade that touched off the Maidan revolution.

The third time is a charm maybe. Could the member tell us what the government's plan is with respect to sharing RADARSAT images? This would be a very clear and concrete way for the government to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to standing with our ally, Ukraine.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for reminding Canadians that as we considered this free trade agreement, we considered a much bigger picture.

As I stated in my opening comments, obviously Ukraine has been through very challenging times, but, in spite of that, it has made significant strides in anti-corruption and reform efforts. We would encourage momentum in the direction it is going through the adoption of this free trade agreement. The Government of Canada remains determined to deepen our bilateral ties with Ukraine, including through this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that the parliamentary secretary put on the record today with regard to Ukraine and trade. Trade is important for both Canada and Ukraine and it is great to see that we have come to an agreement. It was not long ago when, just a few yards away, the President of Ukraine addressed the House and talked about the importance of trade and wanting a trade agreement. There should be no surprise in the sense that we have a very rich Ukrainian heritage here in Canada, estimated at about 1.3 million people, and growing, which is a great thing.

I am wondering if the member would concur with me and many others that this trade agreement is one way of bridging the economic ties, which would not only assist Ukraine but also Canada. In essence, both countries, both great nations, can benefit from this particular agreement.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes, I would concur, Mr. Speaker, and I am hopeful that every member of this House will concur. It comes at an important time in general. I appreciate the comments around free trade agreements. This is one that is highly supportable. It is fully satisfactory to Canadians and it strengthens opportunity for our friends in Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address this very important discussion about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that, of course, we in the Conservative Party are very pleased to be supporting and I think not unfairly take a fair bit of credit for it being here today.

It also gives me an opportunity to speak more broadly about the Canada-Ukraine relationship and the importance of ongoing co-operation, and indeed some of the areas where we believe the government needs to do better when it comes to supporting our ally, Ukraine.

People watching this debate will hear members from all parties speak about the importance of that relationship and the critical contribution that the Ukrainian communities here in Canada have made to our country, but also about the ongoing opportunities for mutually beneficial exchanges, economically and on other fronts. We will hear those sentiments from all members of this House.

There are some important ways in which the government is not putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to co-operation with Ukraine, so I appreciate the opportunity to draw the attention of members of the House to those issues as well as certainly celebrating the important step forward that this marks.

If members will indulge me for a minute, I would like to make a few comments about my own constituency, because we have a very large and very active Ukrainian Canadian community in my own constituency of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I might get in trouble with some other members of my caucus if I said we are number one in terms of reflecting Ukrainian culture in Canada, but certainly we are up there. We have the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, which is an outdoor interpretive centre that provides visitors with an opportunity to learn about and understand the experience of early Ukrainian pioneers to western Canada, many of whom came at a time when multiculturalism was not recognized or appreciated in the same way that it is today. They were brave in coming to a new country, stepped out, and contributed so much to the rich, multicultural fabric of western Canada in particular, but also of our entire country.

My constituency is home to many eminent Ukrainian Canadians, including former Alberta premier Ed Stelmach, who continues to be very active and a great citizen of our community.

I personally had the opportunity to visit Ukraine in August 2016. I was there for the 25th anniversary of independence. Of course, we are celebrating this year the 150th anniversary of our country, but very much the founding of Canada is an event in our history, not an event of personal memory. Being in Ukraine and living through, in a sense, observing the emotions and the joy that people there have in their independence and how recent that experience was, how most people remember a time before independence, really hits home the importance of that national pride and how much Ukrainians have struggled in order to achieve their independence.

Ukraine and Canada are very similar. We have a great deal in common in terms of our values, our history, our diversity, our commitment to democracy. The one thing that makes us very different is that Ukraine is in a much tougher neighbourhood, and that has created all kinds of challenges, histories of occupation, ongoing occupation in eastern Ukraine, and yet the resilience of the Ukrainian people in the midst of all sorts of challenges is really inspiring for me.

We had the opportunity to hear from people about events as recent as the Maidan where young people, people of all ages risked their lives to stand for democracy, to stand up for the kinds of values that they wanted their country to embody. It is inspiring for me as a democratic politician here to see people in other countries willing to risk, willing to give their lives in order to stand up for the values they believe in.

Many of us here stand up for our values in different ways, but fortunately we are not in a position where we have to risk our lives to do so. The opportunity to interface with people who are in that situation really pushes me, and I think for other members who have not had an opportunity to have those conversations, prods them to value the things that we hold dear and to be willing to stand up and fight for them.

We have an important relationship with Ukraine. It is a relationship of shared values, it is a relationship of shared history, and that relationship is particularly evident in my constituency and the many people in my constituency who trace their origins to Ukraine.

In the history of the recent changes in Ukraine, the Maidan, the democratic movement for change that took place two years ago, the touchstone for that discussion was a trade debate. It was about the desire of the Putin regime to prevent Ukraine from having closer trading relationships with Europe.

As we move forward with this bill to implement closer trading relationships between Canada and Ukraine, it is worth thinking about in that context. These kinds of trading relations between Ukraine and countries, democracies with similar values, are very important for Ukraine as a country that is solidifying its position and its commitment to the kinds of values that we share, the kind of trade as well as security co-operation. This is important for Ukraine to continue to develop and be reflective of those values.

We speak in general about the benefits of trade and maybe I will get time to speak more broadly about the economic benefits of trade, but there is a strategic dimension to trade as well. Trade provides us with an opportunity to deepen our partnership, deepen the people-to-people connections that exist between countries with similar values.

If I can draw a parallel to another trade discussion, I think the debate around the trans-Pacific partnership was quite similar insofar as it was an agreement between like-minded democracies, generally speaking, in the Asia-Pacific area, which were trying to set the terms of trade in a way that reflected their values without allowing a situation where the terms of trade in that region were set by China. One could speak of the economic benefits of the trans-Pacific partnership, but there was also a critical strategic value that was not recognized often enough in the context of our discussion.

Similarly, we can speak about trade with Ukraine, trade and other forms of co-operation between Canada, Europe, and other countries with Ukraine as helping to ensure that Ukraine is not economically vulnerable to the kind of extortion that the Putin regime has at times tried to exert on other countries. There is a strategic importance to this deal in terms of ensuring that Ukraine is able to continue to stand for the kinds of values that we regard as important and certainly that reflects the desire that I saw in the Ukrainian people when I was there last year.

Continuing in that vein, I would like to talk about the things I think the government needs to do better on when it comes to supporting Ukraine. There are a number of policy areas and I suspect there are members of the government who agree with me on these issues and want to see the cabinet respond. We have had a change in terms of some of the cabinet positions involved in Foreign Affairs, so I hope that we will see some changes in these areas.

The government talks about the importance of our friendship with Ukraine, but it also has talked about wanting to have closer relations with Russia. We need to make sure that the relationships with the partnerships that we establish internationally are indeed reflective of our values, and that we are not making unacceptable compromises in that respect.

One of the issues that is critical here is the issue of human rights inside Russia. It is interesting for me that for many people in the Ukrainian community, a key priority is Canada being involved in the fight for improved human rights inside Russia. We can look around and see that any time a nation becomes a threat to the human rights of its own people, the government that is exacting human rights abuses against its own people will also be a threat to international peace and security. There is a continuity between the abuses of basic human rights that happen inside Russia and the abuses of human rights that are the result of Russian actions in Syria, in occupied parts of Ukraine, and in other countries.

Many people have been horrified by what the Russian government has undertaken inside Syria, but similar actions were undertaken in Chechnya and elsewhere. There is a continuity between the internal policies and the external policies. That is why it is so important for the Ukrainian community, as well as for the Russian community, that Canada take a strong position in support of the Magnitsky sanctions. Magnitsky sanctions are sanctions that target individual human rights abusers. They are named after Sergei Magnitsky, who was a Russian lawyer who was murdered. The goal of these sanctions is to individually and directly sanction people involved in human rights abuses in a way that would limit their ability to travel to undertake economic activity in other countries.

Canada can be a leader in this respect. It is important for our partnership with Ukraine, and for our commitment to our values more generally, that we have a government that stands for the Magnitsky sanctions, which is something our party supports. If I am not mistaken, it is something the government supported when it was in opposition. It is something we need to move forward on. I hope to see on that point some clear signals from the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, because this is important in standing up for our values in that region of the world.

More directly, and I have already raised this during our debate in questions and comments, we need to strengthen our military co-operation with Ukraine. Ukraine is in the middle of a foreign occupation. The Putin regime has occupied Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine.

Even some of the language that is often used around this is somewhat misleading, the language of “separatists”, or perhaps “Russian-backed separatists”. In reality, what I was told repeatedly by Ukrainians I talked to is that this is not a case of local people who are upset at the Ukrainian government. This is an issue of people sent over the border by the Russian government and not identifying themselves, at least initially, as Russian soldiers but who are clearly agents of the Russian state.

The co-operation in response to that occupation is important. On some aspects of this, there is agreement from the government. Our position is that Canada needs to do as much as we can to support Ukraine.

Under the last government, we were providing vital satellite images to Ukraine that were useful for their military activities. Canada had the resources. We were collecting these satellite images, and we were sharing that information with Ukraine. It made sense for us to do so.

Ukraine is an economic partner of Canada. It is also a key ally, so let us share that satellite imagery with Ukraine in a way that helps it succeed in its fight against, let us call them what they are, Russian-backed terrorists who are occupying Ukraine.

I want to emphasize in the strongest possible terms upgrading our military co-operation in terms of the use and sharing of those satellite images. It is of critical importance to me, to my constituents, to the opposition, and I suspect, to at least some members of the government.

We need to hear clearly from the government with respect to renewing Canada's ongoing training mission. That is obviously another issue. Clarity from the government going forward about what is going to be done is important. Any ongoing support we could provide would be valuable. I know that the contribution of Canadians has been greatly appreciated. We can make a positive difference. It is noticed and it is appreciated by Ukrainians.

One of the things we could do in terms of our ongoing co-operation with Ukraine is reinstate international initiatives around communal harmony. One of the activities undertaken by the office of religious freedom, which existed in the previous government and has since been cancelled, was supporting programs supporting communal harmony in Ukraine. Members may not be aware of the religious dimension of the occupation, but there has been a great deal of persecution of different religious communities in Russian-occupied parts of eastern Ukraine. That has been a key dimension of the repression of human rights that has taken place there.

Canada's engagement on this front, on initiatives on communal harmony, is very helpful to Ukraine. I know that the government has cancelled the office of religious freedom and has touted the alternative office it has created, but we have not actually seen the restoration of the direct involvement in key projects around the world that were making a difference in these areas. I think the model that existed was working. At the very least, let us look at reinstating some of that involvement Canada had in Ukraine, because it was positive, it was helpful, and it was certainly making a valuable difference.

Those are some key areas where we can do more. I know that members, again, across all parties, are committed to the idea of a partnership with Ukraine, but there needs to be the putting of real mettle behind that sentiment. Standing up for human rights issues inside Russia, as well as throughout the region, would mean Canada implementing its own Magnitsky act, strengthening our military co-operation with Ukraine, providing some clarity around the renewal of that training mission, restoring the sharing of satellite images, and finally, reinstating these communal harmony types of activities. I see these types of initiatives as being very positive for Ukraine.

In the remaining time I have, I will make a few comments with respect to some of the economic aspects of this agreement and the impact it will have.

As other members have mentioned before, when this agreement comes into force, we know that Canada and Ukraine will immediately eliminate duties on very close to 100%, 99.9%, and 86% of respective current imports, thereby benefiting Ukrainian and Canadian exporters and consumers. This will provide real, substantial, concrete benefits for Canada and Ukraine.

Yes, there is the friendship connection and the strategic dimension, but there are also real economic gains that will come from this partnership. Canada's GDP is expected to grow by $29.2 million under this agreement, and Ukraine's GDP would expand by $18.6 million.

There are opportunities for more expanded trade over time between Canada and Ukraine, as like-minded allies, countries with shared values, and a great deal of shared experience.

The economic benefits that come from this will be significant as well. Estimates are that Canada's exports to Ukraine would increase by $41.2 million. Canada's export gains would be broad-based, with exports of pork, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, other manufactured products, cars and parts, and chemical products being some of the key sectors affected.

There are also major potential benefits in the area of agriculture. We see those benefits, in particular, for western Canada. Our current exports from western Canada to Ukraine averaged close to $80 million between 2011 and 2013, and we certainly have every reason to believe that we are going to see some increases there as well.

Let us be clear. We know that trade produces economic benefits. We have seen the benefits across the trade deals Canada has signed throughout its history, usually signed under Conservative governments, or at least in this case, with the process started under Conservative governments.

We saw in the early debates we had on free trade with the United States many naysayers. Many people said it would be the end of our sovereignty, but look at the incredible economic benefits that have flowed from free trade with the United States.

This is another trade deal that complements so many trade deals that were signed, finalized, or at least initiated under the previous government. We just voted on a bill on the Canada-EU free trade agreement. We are seeing the moving forward of trade deals that were undertaken under the previous government.

I hope we will also see from the new government some new initiatives around trade deals, the proactive negotiation of new trade deals, as well as the continuing of trade deals that were begun under the previous government. Especially in the kind of climate we are seeing internationally, and with the debates we are having around trade, it is important that we have a government that believes in the open economy and stands up for it.

With that in mind, I am pleased to be supporting this trade deal, and I look forward to continuing to encourage the government to do more to promote our positive relationship with Ukraine.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats will be supporting the Canada–Ukraine deal as well. I appreciated in the member's speech the importance of ensuring that the friendship remains strong and that we can have a positive influence here in Canada to help Ukraine.

My question is about trade in general. Today is a perfect example of a deal, CETA, which is a large multinational deal with some losses Canada will experience in certain sectors. Then we look at this deal, a bilateral agreement, where we were able to have more comprehensive conversations. We were able to advocate for those sectors in Canada that would see the benefits, and vice versa for Ukraine. We were able to have that one-on-one conversation between two countries about the benefits of trade for both countries. That is why we see in this agreement no significant losses, because we were able to sit down one on one and have those conversations and ensure that the trade deal we were working on would benefit us all.

Does the member agree that bilateral deals such as CUFTA are better than deals like the TPP or CETA, large multinational deals that trade away intellectual property and Canadian jobs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we will be voting the same way on this bill, although that does not seem to be impeding other kinds of disagreements during the debate.

I disagree with the premise of the question. I do not think there is some inherent superiority of bilateral trade deals over multilateral trade deals. This reflects a different understanding of what a trade deal is all about. I do not mean this pejoratively, but this is sort of the Donald Trump approach to trade deals and the NDP approach to trade deals, which is that it is all about wins and losses, that we are either winning or we are losing in a trade deal, and therefore if we are negotiating smaller trade deals, we are more likely to be winning as opposed to losing.

However, trade deals are not about beating other countries in the negotiations. Trade deals are actually about expanding the space for shared prosperity. Free trade is really about extending the space for liberty and allowing individuals greater opportunity to buy and sell products from other countries. Of course, nations are involved in the negotiating process as that proceeds, but the goal really is to open opportunities for individuals as well as businesses in both countries. In cases where it is possible to negotiate larger-scale multilateral trade deals that include more countries, it is always better to pursue free trade with more countries. We can do that through bilateral deals or through multilateral deals, but it takes longer to get to more countries if we do it solely on a bilateral basis.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in Ukraine, and I will give him credit for being in a very strong Ukrainian segment of Alberta, because that is where I grew up.

In the situation in Ukraine, with the constant battling going on and the war between Russia and Ukraine, there have been many injuries to Ukrainian soldiers and Ukrainian civilians. A large number of doctors from across Canada, from coast to coast, have travelled, at their own expense, to Ukraine to assist in crucial surgery, facial reconstruction, etc.

Do you see that the federal government could play a role in assisting doctors from Canada in assisting in Ukraine? Right now it is being done at their own expense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Once again, I am sure the member meant the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Through you, Mr. Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Yes, through me, that is good. I am glad that we got that clarified.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's commitment to this topic and his interesting proposal that the government might support perhaps paying physicians and other health care professionals who want to go to other parts of the world to be involved, in this case in Ukraine. It would be a proposal worthy of consideration, but I have no doubt, on the other hand, that there are many people in Canada who are willing to make those investments personally. I certainly applaud those who are doing that. I know there are many people from my community who travel around the world to involve themselves in humanitarian types of activities like this. We are all so proud of having the kinds of communities where people are willing to step forward and invest their own time and resources in making the world around us a better place.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about the situation in Ukraine. Certainly, human rights is a concern. We know there are ongoing conflicts happening in Ukraine, so when the bill was at committee stage, I brought forward a proposal around human rights. I firmly believe, as do my NDP colleagues, that human rights should be enshrined in every trade agreement going forward. It is incredibly important that we address human rights in our own country, with our own flaws and history around human rights certainly around indigenous people. However, when we look to other countries, it is important that we have a level playing field around human rights.

I had pushed at trade committee to put a provision in place so we could receive reports on conditions inside Ukraine, with Canada being reciprocal, to ensure that the human rights of the people of Ukraine and Canada were being protected. I wonder if the member could speak to whether he would support the enshrining of human rights into trade agreements going forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for provoking a discussion on an important issue. I would not be prepared here yet to endorse the text of the member's motion. I am not a member of the trade committee, and I do not know exactly what she was proposing.

Of course, trade deals generally do include detailed discussion of environmental issues, labour rights, and other issues around human rights. It is important that they do that, certainly. That was part of our approach when we were in government, and I am sure that will continue to be par for the course in trade deals.

It may be that when we look at the details we might have disagreements about the specific mechanism for best achieving that result. I would be very interested in looking at the member's specific proposal. In principle though, our trade deals are not just trade deals in isolation. They include issues around some of these other topics that have been addressed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Vancouver East, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-31 at third reading. As my hon. colleagues will know, the New Democratic Party supported the bill at second reading, and we intend to continue supporting it at third reading.

A Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is significant for reasons beyond the opportunities it provides to Canadian exporters. The agreement symbolizes our countries' strong friendship, which is increasingly important as Ukraine continues to deal with conflict within its borders and a fragile relationship with Russia. These two issues are obviously deeply connected. In these tumultuous times, Ukraine is looking to its friends in the west. There is a strong case to be made that having a trade agreement with Ukraine is of great strategic importance. Indeed, Canada and Ukraine's friendship is often described as historic. We have spoken a lot in this place about the close socio-cultural ties between our two countries, and the strong Canadian Ukrainian communities across Canada.

Whom Canada trades with is very important and must be considered when it comes to analyzing free trade agreements. It is also important to consider the other country's record on labour and environmental rights, and how its government treats its citizens.

Canada is certainly not perfect with regard to our own human rights record. How our country has historically treated indigenous peoples is shameful. When we point our finger at other countries, it is important that we not forget our own failures with regard to respecting human rights.

Having strong labour and environmental rights is not a question of either one does or does not. It requires an ongoing commitment. These rights can be granted, but they can also be eroded without vigilant stewardship, and there is always room to strengthen them. Canada still has a way to go. CUFTA includes chapters on labour and the environment, both of which are regarded as substantive. It is positive to see that these chapters are included in the agreement. One of the big criticisms of NAFTA has been that these two important areas were left out of the main agreement. They were relegated to side agreements, almost like they were afterthoughts.

Proponents of free trade claim that trade and investment deals will increase prosperity for all citizens. It is the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats. In fact, the opposite is true. Unfortunately, with trade agreements, history has shown us that the benefits of trade are not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is quorum to continue debate. I would like you to check, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I will check with the Table.

I believe we have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Essex.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that I had to stop my speech because there were not enough Liberals in the House. In fact, I think—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, on many occasions I have been in the House when there has not been one New Democrat MP in the chamber, and I have never made reference to that. I do not think it is appropriate for members to be making reference to who is or is not in the chamber.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Anthony Rota]

There is a rule that states we are not allowed to name who is or is not in the chamber. I look to the hon. member for Winnipeg North and the hon. member for Essex who clearly broke that rule. They should both retract their comments.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comment.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comment as well.

As I was saying, it is the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats, but in fact the opposite is true. Unfortunately with trade agreements, history has shown us that the benefits of trade are not evenly distributed among all participants in the economy.

While corporate profits are soaring, wage growth in Canada since the 1970s has been stagnant. Household debt persists at record high levels while our younger generation struggles to find meaningful employment in an economy that no longer provides the stability and prosperity associated with full-time jobs that include benefits and pensions.

Looking at NAFTA, while it led to job creation in some sectors, it also devastated our manufacturing and textile sector. Let us not try to paint over that fact. Furthermore, having labour and environment in side agreements in NAFTA did not raise the standards in Mexico to the same standards as here in Canada. Again, I am pleased to see that the Canada-Ukraine agreement, which we are debating today, does not treat labour and environment with the same disregard as NAFTA did.

When we look at Ukraine, we see that the country has made a lot of progress since 2014 when it was in the grips of a civil war that killed over 9,000 Ukrainians and displaced around 1.5 million people. However, just this past week, we read about conflict breaking out again in eastern Ukraine. Thirty-five people were killed after what has been described in the media as extensive and indiscriminate shelling. There is a war going on, and it is destroying families and communities. Children have lost their parents.

I spoke earlier about how a country's human rights record is not a static thing. It changes over time. We know that in Ukraine there is still a lot of uncertainty and continued conflict. The fact is Ukraine is still at an early stage in its transition to a market economy. It has a history of political instability. It has a weak constitutional framework. It is viewed as having a weak business environment for these and many other reasons.

Canada is currently looking at whether to add Ukraine to our Automatic Firearms Country Control List. There were consultations over a year and a half ago, but the government has been mum on whether Ukraine will be added to the list or not. If it is added to the list, Canadian companies could be allowed to export certain prohibited firearms and weapons to Ukraine. Given the ongoing civil war in eastern Ukraine, I would be very concerned about Canadian weapons ending up in the wrong hands.

It is not just about today, but about tomorrow, and 10 and 20 years from now. We are hopeful that peace and stability will prevail. In the meantime, a very practical way that Canada can know with greater certainty that increased exports of Canadian goods would not negatively impact Ukraine's human rights is by requiring an annual independent review of the impact of CUFTA on human rights in both our countries. As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, I proposed this as a possible amendment to this legislation. My colleagues felt the inclusion of such a review would be seen as “an unnecessary criticism of Ukraine”.

As I said at committee, I think when we have relationships with other countries, there are sometimes difficult things that have to be addressed, and this is one of them. Human Rights Watch has noted concerns over steps by the Ukraine government to restrict freedom of information and the freedom of the media. Free trade agreements should not be a reason not to talk about differences or broach difficult subjects respectfully. In fact, as a Canadian citizen, I would expect that my government would be having these conversations as part of trade negotiations. These were the concerns I attempted to lay out before the committee.

I also attempted to have the committee hit a pause button for a moment on Bill C-31 so that we could hear from some witnesses on this legislation. Unfortunately, the committee chose not to study the bill or hear from any witnesses beyond department officials. Without commenting on the merits of this legislation, I would like to note my deep concern with this approach.

As parliamentarians and as committee members, it is our job to study the legislation that comes before us and not just rubber-stamp it. Even if witnesses support the agreement, it is incredibly helpful to hear their testimony and to have an opportunity to ask questions and learn about the issues.

For example, when the committee studied CETA, albeit briefly, even stakeholder groups that supported the agreement talked about concerns with how the agreement would be implemented and how Canadian businesses needed support with accessing potential new markets. They made recommendations that they wanted us to carry forward to the government.

I would urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to not be afraid of asking questions and listening to Canadians, even on topics where we assume there will be overwhelming agreement.

In the Prime Minister's latest mandate letter to the Minister of International Trade, he said:

If we are to tackle the real challenges we face as a country - from a struggling middle class to the threat of climate change - Canadians need to have faith in their government's honesty and willingness to listen.

I would like to take a little more time to discuss some of the feedback our committee has received over the past year on how specifically the government can better help Canadian businesses access international markets. There are important points that are relevant to our consideration of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

From the perspective of Canadian small and medium-size businesses, the signing of a new agreement is just the beginning. Having a new agreement will not magically translate into increased trade flows. Supporting markets is a big challenge. I am pleased to see this is part of the new minister's mandate letter.

Specifically, he is instructed to develop and implement a new trade and investment strategy to support Canadian businesses exporting to international markets and help Canadian jurisdictions attract global investment. In particular, I would like to see the minister's efforts really focus on supporting Canadian SMEs, not just the large companies which have more means to pursue new markets. Around 90% of Canadian SMEs do not export their goods or services. This would include micro businesses as well.

In my riding of Essex, a lot of businesses cannot even connect yet to high speed Internet. It is difficult to think of how they will connect to potential new markets in Asia, Europe, including Ukraine, if they do not even have a quality Internet connection.

We have talked a lot at the trade committee about the important role of Global Affairs Canada and what it must play in terms of engaging Canadian businesses, listening to what the non-tariff barriers are and working in close collaboration to address these issues.

I am pleased that the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce has been actively working to connect Ukrainian and Canadian businesses. There is also a role for the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service to play, and of course Export Development Canada.

I want to hear a lot more from the government on what its trade and investment strategy will include. I think too often these conversations are brushed to the side. They come as more of an afterthought after the agreement is signed.

I would also like to speak to a few more specific areas covered by the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

At second reading and at committee, I raised the issue of steel. As we know, the issue of steel dumping is one of great concern for us in Canada. It impacts my riding of Essex, as well as Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie, Regina, and many other Canadian communities. Therefore, when I saw that CUFTA would reduce tariffs on the trade of steel between our two countries, I wondered how this might impact the global steel trade and the challenges of overcapacity and dumping. It is something on which to keep an eye.

In the meantime, I would like to once again urge the government to take action on improving and strengthening Canada's trade remedy system. Canada needs to do a better job of protecting our steel industry. That means enforcing the rules and doing a better job when other countries like China are breaking the rules. Standing up for Canada's steel industry is about standing up for Canadian jobs.

The trade committee has committed to a brief study of dumping. I hope we can make room for this soon. It will be important to hear from Canadian producers and workers on how the broken trade remedy system is hurting our industry. The finance committee has already done a study of the trade remedy system, so the solutions are there. Now it is time for action.

By and large, Canada's steel sector will not stand to lose in CUFTA. In fact there are not really any losing sectors in this agreement, which is rare.

In CETA, Canada made some big concessions around pharmaceutical, intellectual property rights, and around dairy and our maritime industry. These concessions will mean a higher cost of medicine for Canadians, and they will mean our dairy sector will lose millions and our maritime sector will lose thousands of jobs.

I was surprised that Canada did not take a second look at what we gave up in CETA after the U.K. voted to leave the EU. After all, the U.K. makes up about half of Canada's market in the EU.

In TPP, Canada would be forced to make many of the same concessions. We also know TPP would hurt our auto sector. In fact, TPP is estimated to cost Canada 58,000 jobs.

Both CETA and TPP include harmful investor-state provisions that erode Canada's sovereignty. These provisions make it harder for Canada to enact and enforce environmental rules, and they can also make it harder for Canada to introduce a national pharmacare plan. Even in the TPP, a special carve out was required to allow countries to preserve their ability to regulate cigarette packaging.

The problem with mega deals like TPP and CETA is that they ask countries to make a lot of concessions in areas that extend far beyond the traditional realms of trade. For example, the TPP includes a clause barring every other TPP member state from ever adopting Canada's notice and notice system for copyright rules. Our system is widely considered to strike a fair balance that respects the rights of users to share and collaborate, while ensuring that artists are fairly compensated for their work.

Perhaps the case could be made that trade-offs required by multilateral deals are worth it, if a government is willing to take proper steps to mitigate the negative effects. These trade deals can increase inequality if proper action isn't taken to make sure they do not. In this regard, bilateral trade deals tend to require countries to make far fewer concessions. They are easier to negotiate, and they are easier to ratify and implement. This is the kind of trade that the New Democrats tend to support, trade that reduces tariffs and boosts exports.

I would also point out that CUFTA is the second trade agreement the New Democrats have supported in this parliamentary session. We also supported the trade facilitation agreement.

My colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative Parties like to spread misinformation that the NDP is somehow anti-trade because we point out the flaws in the agreements, like NAFTA and the TPP.

We do not think a trade and investment agreement is appropriate with countries that have deeply concerning records on human rights. We want to see Canada do business with good partners of strategic importance. We want to see trade deals that do not harm the interests of everyday Canadians.

I would challenge my colleagues to participate in these debates about the merits of trade and investment deals on a case-by-case basis, instead of relying on blanket statements that all trade and investment is good therefore no study or critical analysis of an agreement is needed.

On the question before us today, I have studied the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement closely. Like other trade agreements the New Democrats have supported, on balance this agreement does serve Canada's interests.

I would like to extend my appreciation to Mr. Marvin Hildebrand, chief negotiator of CUFTA, and his team for their hard work on this file. I do not doubt that our trade negotiators always have Canada's best interests in mind.

I am pleased that all parties in the House have extended their unanimous support for Bill C-31. Let us not forget that it is time to ensure that this and every trade deal works for Canadians and creates market access and benefits for Canadians that we expect.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for championing the best interests of all Canadians and, indeed, of all our trade partners when we negotiate bilateral agreements. We can see how far superior they are. We can see that when, as she mentioned, the NDP shares the very concerning shortcomings of agreements like CETA and the TPP, which take advantage of people, we know labour standards will be improved with the Ukraine under CUFTA.

I want to talk a little more about having the entrenchment of human rights in trade agreements being considered. One of the reasons we are discussing this trade agreement today is because we want a more fulsome response to human rights and our international obligations, especially when we have trade relationships.

I hope the hon. member can expand on that a little, as it is very important for all of us to be paying attention.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh does a great amount of work around human rights. The NDP firmly believes in protecting human rights around the world, not just for Canadians but we look beyond ourselves. Ukraine is a prime example of an opportunity to extend human rights and to ensure the human rights of Ukrainian people as well as Canadian people.

Unfortunately, the amendment I brought forward at committee was not adopted. The amendment was about having such a provision, as we have had in previous agreements such as the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. We really tried to enshrine that into the agreement.

It is so important, because as I mentioned in speech, in these past few weeks in eastern Ukraine the civil war has reignited. This is sparking the worst fighting they have seen since 2014-15. The Canadian government and everyone in the House has to be realistic about the potential human rights impacts of CUFTA. We of course would like to see peace and stability in Ukraine, and we continue to push for that. If the people of Ukraine are being threatened in some way, it is important that we are a strong ally to them.

Human rights should be entrenched in every agreement. When they are not a part of the agreement, it is unfortunately something that we cannot keep an eye on in a positive manner. I believe we have a responsibility to do that, and certainly in our friendship with Ukraine, it is incredibly important we do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by giving the New Democratic Party credit for supporting what we believe is a very progressive trade agreement between two countries. People of both Ukraine and Canada will benefit immensely.

The member made reference to a number of issues surrounding Ukraine. One could easily become sympathetic as to why we have this important legislation and why we need to see it pass.

My question for the member is related to trade agreements in general. It is great that the New Democrats are supporting the Ukraine trade agreement. However, I am a little surprised they are voting against CETA. Could the member tell us what is so upsetting about CETA that is not found in the Ukraine agreement?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is pleased to support the Canada-Ukraine deal. We supported the previous trade facilitation agreement. That is two agreements we have supported around trade in this session.

On the member's question with respect to CETA, when we talk about increasing the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for every Canadian, it is a serious matter. I am sure people in all of our ridings come into our offices every day, telling us they cannot afford medication. Whether they have a plan through their workplace or not, or they are supported in some way by the province, to increase the patent, to extend that two years, that did not happen in the Ukraine deal. The Ukraine deal does not address that. Therefore, 25% of the implementing legislation around CETA is with respect to changes to the intellectual property pharmaceuticals, which is of grave concern, and should be for every member in the House.

It is disappointing that Liberals at the committee level, and in the House, refuse to acknowledge the pieces in CETA that are of concern, such as the maritime jobs that would be lost, the cabotage jobs that would be lost across our country. We are seeing human rights violations on ships that are sitting in our waters because these are flags of convenience. Maritime workers from across the country have written to me about the changes in CETA around the Canada Coasting Trade Act.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon all members, but certainly the government, to look at all aspects of a trade deal, not just the positive. It is easy to only bring in the positive. When we are doing our full work around a trade deal, when we are being comprehensive, we look at both the positive and negative. Certainly, there are ways to mitigate the negative. It was very unfortunate to see in CETA that way dairy was being impacted in supply management. The compensation package that came forward was not even close to the $4.3 billion that was promised under the previous government. We see a small drop in the bucket that will not help family farms across Canada. There are many other pieces of CETA that are of grave concern.

Therefore, I would ask that around every trade agreement, parliamentarians take it upon themselves to learn about which sectors will be impacted, which communities will be impacted, and how it will impact average Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Essex for the voice she brings to the House of Commons, and to the trade committee. She does an extremely effective job of speaking out for our regular families across the country that are left aside by many of these trade deals.

Of course we are supporting the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. However, we have had a number of other trade deals referenced in the discussion taking place this afternoon. None of them are fair trade deals. None of them take as a starting point how we can improve the lives of regular families in Canada. That is part of the reason why the NDP and the member for Essex speak out against these bad trade deals that do not put in place the fair trade practices that most Canadians want to see.

For example, she referenced human rights. When we look at Mercosur and South America, they actually have poverty alleviation as part of their trade agreements. There are a number of different models that are fair trade agreements, rather than these right-wing free trade agreements that have all of the weaknesses the member for Essex has cited.

Therefore, I would like to ask the member for Essex this. What is her vision of trade for the future of Canada? How can we build trade agreements that help regular working families across the country, rather than contribute to higher drug costs and to lost jobs as she mentioned, and as we have seen consistently in the manufacturing and other sectors?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his prior work on the trade file. He has certainly been available to me at any time to have conversations about previous Parliaments and trade deals that have gone through.

This is an incredibly important question, because if we look across Canada today, we see that average Canadians, families, and people who are working hard every day feel that trade deals have not served them or worked well for them. There has been no advantage to the average Canadian worker. We look at large trade agreements, and we will be talking soon about the renegotiation of NAFTA. Some 25 years on, we have lost our textile industry in Canada. There were many people employed in that sector. Our manufacturing sector has been hit incredibly hard.

If we look at NAFTA, a previous agreement, we see some opportunities to improve. In NAFTA, labour and the environment sit in side agreements, and in CUFTA, they are enshrined in the agreement, which is so important, because it really gives teeth, an ability for people to bring forward issues around those particular chapters and ensure that people in both countries are protected under them.

When we look at Mexico as an example, we see that Mexican workers were never raised up to the standard of average North Americans as they were told they would be in NAFTA. New Democrats believe that is largely because these things are not enshrined in that agreement. In a renegotiation, it is very important that we ensure these things are included.

When we look at this trade agreement as opposed to other trade agreements, there is no ISDS clause. Other trade agreements include the investor-state dispute settlement in some shape or form. We see it kind of shifting a little, so to speak, in CETA. This has not worked well. We are the most sued developed country in the world under these provisions, so when they are not in trade deals, we are quite pleased, because that is a contentious issue, and most Canadians understand that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we begin our debate here this evening, I note that tomorrow morning the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement will be debated in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament. I issue a challenge to Speaker Parubiy, Ukraine's parliament and our colleagues to see which Parliament will pass this free trade agreement first.

This past July, as the chair of the Canada–Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group and as a Ukrainian Canadian, I had the honour of bearing witness to the historic signing of the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement in the presidential ceremonial hall in Kiev. I would like to thank our Prime Minister for including me in the delegation and, more important, for making the state visit and signing a priority for our new government. In fact, it was the Prime Minister's first one-on-one state visit of his term after his visit to the United States. This will most likely be the first free trade agreement to be ratified by our government.

Watching my fellow Ukrainian Canadian, the former minister of international trade, sign the treaty was especially poignant, as we had first met in Kiev in 1992 as young and idealistic Canadians who were intent on making a difference in the ancestral homeland of our parents and grandparents, the minister as a journalist, and I as a Canadian organizer of Rukh, Ukraine's democratic front. Twenty-five years later, the minister worked hard to make this free trade agreement a reality. Twenty-five years later, we accompanied Canada's Prime Minister for the signing of this historic agreement.

Why would the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement be a priority for our country? Our bilateral trade has been a modest $289 million on average for the past five years. Why was CUFTA's implementation specifically referred to in the previous international trade minister's mandate letter? Why would this free trade agreement be the sole such agreement to have the unanimous support of the current House? It is because not every free trade agreement is just about trade. It must be seen through various lenses, one of which is Canada's special relationship with Ukraine.

Internationally and in the House, everyone is aware of Canada and Ukraine's special relationship. However, the word “special” is not just an adjective but a term defined in an agreement in 1994, the joint declaration on the “special partnership” between Canada and Ukraine, an agreement which was reaffirmed in 2001 and again in 2008. As well, Ukraine is one of 25 countries of focus for the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA.

Although Canadians and our symbol of the maple leaf are warmly received in almost every country of the planet, there is no country where Canadians are more warmly, in fact affectionately, welcomed than in Ukraine.

Many of us literally stood shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine during the independence movement of 1988 tolasnost 1991, in the democratic revolutions, in the Orange Revolution of 2004, and in the revolution of dignity of 2014. I cannot relate to the House and the Canadian people how often during these historic events, Ukrainians, upon hearing that I was from Canada, would embrace me and say, “Thank you, Canada. Please say thank you to the people of Canada from us”.

For the past 25 years, tens of thousands of Ukrainian Canadians, as well as many of their Canadian friends, have directly engaged in building democracy in Ukraine. In many ways, my personal story of engagement in Ukraine's difficult journey toward freedom began in earnest in the summer of 1991, on the centenary of Ukrainian immigration to Canada. A group of youthful Ukrainian Canadians travelled into Ukraine's eastern Donbass region, the front line of the current Russo-Ukrainian war. It was the time of Mikhail Gorbachev's glasnost, when the Iron Curtain had been slightly drawn, allowing in the winds of change. For most in the Soviet Union, especially in the regions, it was like the wind rustling leaves at the tops of trees. We could hear it in the distance, but we could not feel it down on the ground.

Our group of Ukrainian Canadians decided to head into a region that had been among the most devastated by Soviet rule: the epicentre of the Holodomor, the genocide by famine of the Ukrainian people, a region whose churches had mostly been dynamited generations ago under Stalin's decrees; a region in which history, the past, had been destroyed and in whose libraries and schools history began with the 1917 Bolshevik revolution; a coal mining and heavily industrialized region that was also among the Soviet Union's most ecologically devastated. It was here, to a region formerly closed to westerners, that we brought Ukrainian- and Russian-language copies of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms and pamphlets describing our multicultural nation.

It was also in this region that we had a glimpse into the future. It was here that in various towns, during the span of a week, I was taken in for so-called conversations by communist party first secretaries, the local KGB, and police. At times, conversations were theoretical, sometimes quite threatening. Others were almost pleasant.

I recollect one particular incident when the police came. We had set up our little table with copies of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the police came and took me to meet with the communist first party secretary in his office. As I sat there, he was intent on showing me a model of a Lenin monument he was going to build in his town of Milove, near the Russian border, today near the front of the Russo-Ukraine war.

As I listened to him, I saw out his window that a fire truck, which looked like it was built in the fifties, had pulled up. It had a nozzle, almost like a tank turret, that it pointed at our Ukrainian Canadians standing at the little table with their Canadian flag and copies of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I was watching out of the corner of my eye, I asked the first party secretary if it would not be better to be spending resources not on this grand monument to Lenin. I said that it may well be that in the next few years, that monument may be taken down. I said that no matter how they might laud him in Moscow, would it not be better to spend those resources on local schools or to fix the potholed streets of his town?

In all of these conversations with officials, I noticed that there was a plan formulating. They spoke of how Ukraine was not really a country and that if Ukraine were to become independent, it would split up into regions. In fact, the same map was produced in different towns showing a small, truncated Ukraine, a Novorossiya, New Russia, a republic that encompassed all of Ukraine's south and east.

Later, in Luhansk, the capital of the current so-called Luhansk People's Republic, I met Don Cossacks, who had come from Russia's Rostov-on-Don, who, after selling me a Cossack hat for $10, confided to me that they were actually soldiers sent in from a Russian military unit in friendship.

As I have previously stated, my experiences are just examples of the thousands of such personal experiences of Ukrainian Canadians in Ukraine. However, the ties between Ukraine and Canada run much deeper than the personal contributions of Ukrainian Canadians over the past 25 years. Ukraine has given Canada its most precious of gifts: its people. There are 1.3 million Canadians who can trace their ancestral roots to Ukraine.

Next year marks Canada's 150th anniversary. Last year Ukrainians marked the 125th anniversary of the arrival of the first Ukrainian pioneers in Canada's Prairies. These pioneers transformed the bush of the Prairies into the golden wheat fields of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. As one travels the vastness of the Prairies, the golden paysage is regularly broken by grain elevators and the domes of Ukrainian churches. There is not a city in Canada where golden church domes do not testify to the presence of Ukrainian Canadians. They testify to the perseverance, industry, and spirituality of Ukrainian Canadians.

The ribbons of steel of the Canadian Pacific Railway bound our vast Confederation together. It was largely Ukrainian Canadians who filled that prairie vastness. Their presence countered the movement of American settlers north who, as had their southern brethren in Texas, California, and other states previously, were opposing sovereignty threats to their northern neighbour.

Canada may well have had a very different geography if not for the government's policy at the time of free land to the people in sheepskin coats. However, Ukrainian Canadians did not only transform our landscape, they gave us a deeper understanding of who we are as a nation.

The term “multiculturalism” was first used by Senator Paul Yuzyk in his maiden Senate speech in 1963. The Ukrainian Canadian committee, as the congress was called at that time, lobbied the federal government through the 1960s on this issue, a government at the time whose official policy was biculturalism. It was due to these determined efforts that former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau officially announced the federal policy of multiculturalism in 1971, thus transforming our understanding of Canada and who we are as a people.

Today, in a world of resurgent xenophobia and nativism, Canada stands as an aspirational city on the hill among liberal democracies. Our multiculturalism, our strength in diversity, is a shining example to a world of darkening chauvinism and increasing divisions.

Ukrainian Canadians' contributions to Canada both in numbers and in length of time qualify us as one of this country's founding peoples. It is why, when Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov referred to us as a “rabid diaspora” in January of last year while ranting against Canada's steadfast policy of standing with Ukraine, his denunciation was responded to by Canada's foreign minister's statement of January 27 last year in this House. Minister Dion stated:

I am so pleased...to express...the steadfast support of Canada for Ukraine, how much we deeply disagree with the invasion and interference of the Russian government in Ukraine, and also how much we will not tolerate from a Russian minister any insults against the community of Ukraine in Canada.

We owe so much to Ukrainian Canadians and we will always support them.

It must also be seen through a geopolitical lens in a world in which Ukraine has been the victim of military invasion and annexation of her territory by a Russia that does not subscribe to international treaties on the sanctity of borders, a violation of accords that have largely brought a grand peace to Europe since World War II.

It must be understood in the context of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution of dignity, a modern revolution by a people of 45 million in support of liberal democratic values and in support of their dream to be part of a multilateral European union of states with enshrined universal human and democratic rights.

Today, Russia poses the greatest geopolitical threat to liberal democracy in the west. Ukraine and her people are literally on the front line. When Putin ordered his armies to militarily invade and annex Ukrainian territory, he broke a fundamental principle of international rule of law, the sanctity of borders. We have not seen European borders changed through military force since the 1930s. Ten thousand Ukrainian soldiers, mostly volunteers, and civilians have been killed by invading Russian soldiers and their proxies. Two million Ukrainians are currently internally displaced. In annexed Crimea, Muslim Tatar leaders continue to disappear.

Why did Putin invade? It was because the people of Ukraine chose liberty and democracy. Ukraine's revolution of dignity was a revolt against a new enslavement by the kleptocratic President Yanukovych, puppet of a dictatorial Kremlin. It was the first time in the history of the European Union that people, including student demonstrators, were shot by snipers, killed while carrying the European Union flag, a symbol of the western democratic values that we cherish.

These protestors were not only a threat to the puppet President Yanukovych and Putin's revanchist imperial vision; as the Russian President watched Kiev's Maidan with hundreds of thousands of citizens building barricades, he envisioned the contagion of the revolution of dignity spreading and infecting Russians.

Since 2000, Putin has methodically dismantled Russia's nascent democracy and created a new Russian dictatorship. At least 132 investigative journalists have been silenced in Russia through murder, as well as opposition leaders such as Boris Nemtsov, symbolically assassinated outside the Kremlin walls, and FSB defectors like British citizen Litvinenko, who was gruesomely poisoned by radioactive polonium in London, England.

Glorious patriotic wars started in Chechnya in 2000, Georgia in 2005, and Ukraine in 2014. However, Russia's war against Ukraine is not only imperial revanchism; it is to create a terrifying example of Ukraine for Putin's own Russian people, as a dismembered, failed democratic state.

The Kremlin has not only declared war militarily against Ukraine, and there is not only an ongoing propaganda war, but there is a Kremlin economic war against Ukraine. Russia had been Ukraine's largest trading partner, equivalent in importance to Canada's economic relationship with the United States. At the same time that Russia invaded militarily, Putin shut down trade with Ukraine. That is why the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is of such importance. It is a clear statement of support by Canada for Ukraine at a time of Kremlin military aggression and economic war. It is not just a reaffirmation of our government's policy in regard to free trade; it is a geopolitical statement of support.

Having earlier noted the current modest levels of trade, we should not dismiss the opportunities that CUFTA would afford to the business communities of both countries, especially for small and medium-size businesses. Ukraine, with its free trade association with the EU, can be the entry point for Canadian low-cost capital investment and low manufacturing costs on the European continent, a de facto gateway into the European market. Canada can become a gateway for nascent small and medium-size Ukrainian businesses to expand and invest in Canada as an entry point into the North American market.

CUFTA is but one effective tool in a policy kit to strengthen democracy in Ukraine and to contain Putin's plan to create a democratic failed state of Ukraine. We must renew and broaden Operation Unifier, our military training mission in Ukraine. However, while standing with Ukraine, we must also strengthen our resolve to stand shoulder to shoulder with Russia's embattled, yet courageous, democratic opposition.

This past week, I received the terrible news that my friend Vladimir Kara-Murza had been hospitalized in Russia due to acute intoxication by an unknown substance—poisoning. My prayers are with Vladimir and my thoughts with his wife, Yevgeniya, and their three children.

Vladimir had testified before the foreign affairs committee in Ottawa this past spring, stating that Canadian Magnitsky sanctions for gross human rights abusers would be a pro-Russian measure. He was joined on the panel of witnesses by Zhanna Nemtsova, the daughter of the late Boris Nemtsov, also an acquaintance of mine, who had come to Canada's Parliament in 2012 in support of Magnitsky legislation and was assassinated two years ago, on February 27, and by Bill Browder, whose lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, had been tortured and killed in a Russian prison for uncovering, documenting, and reporting massive fraud against the Russian people by individuals sanctioned by President Putin.

We must join our American legislative colleagues in sanctioning gross human rights abusers by expanding our Special Economic Measures Act to build upon the U.S. Jackson-Vanik repeal and Sergei Magnitsky rule of law accountability act of 2012.

I conclude by thanking Canada on behalf of all Ukrainian Canadians. This has been freedom's shore and the land of opportunity for waves of Ukrainian immigrants for over 125 years. This is the land in which our ancestors, with their perseverance and industry, built new lives and, in building their lives, helped to build and transform our great country, Canada.

They built a future in their new homeland. However, they never forgot their ancestral roots, who they were and where they came from. The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is a hand of friendship and solidarity by Canada to a country, Ukraine, which gave its most precious resource, its human resources, its people, to us. Long may our special relationship endure.

Slava Canadi. Slava Ukraini.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to stress that Canada has always been a good friend of Ukraine. I remember when Prime Minister Harper and I attended the opening ceremony of APEC in Beijing. The first thing he said to Putin was to get out of Ukraine. That shows the Conservative Party's strong support for our good friends in Ukraine.

Economic growth is also the best way to grow a country, a region, or a community. I remember when I trained Muslim women, single parents, in Malaysia on how to start and run a small business successfully. These women saw the need for economic independence and they successfully became women entrepreneurs in their own country. SMEs are important and so is the strength of the Ukrainian community in my riding of Richmond Centre.

My question for my hon. colleague is this. How would you demonstrate that trade can help small and medium-sized entrepreneurs and businesses benefit and create jobs because of this free trade agreement?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member not to use the word “you” and to address her comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning a previous prime minister. We have a proud history of Canadian prime ministers since 1991, both Conservative and Liberal, standing shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine.

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was the first western leader to acknowledge Ukraine's independence in December 1991, a day after the referendum for independence in Ukraine.

Prime Minister Paul Martin, during the Orange Revolution, sent an unprecedented 500 electoral observers to Ukraine for the rerunning of the presidential election.

In fact, I note that a former prime minister, John Turner, headed that mission. When he was asked if he would head up that mission, he was older at that point in time and it was Christmas in Canada, and he said he would go to Ukraine to show solidarity with the people of Ukraine and celebrate with his family a little after Christmas. He said it was too important to show that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people.

The example of Prime Minister Harper was given.

I would like also to relate something I saw during the Prime Minister's state visit to Ukraine. On the first evening, there was an event and, as usual, crowds were gathering around the Prime Minister. He noticed two soldiers who had had facial reconstruction surgery done. He pointed them out to me and we walked over to them. Everyone was asking for pictures with the Prime Minister and he said he would be honoured to have a picture taken with these two Ukrainian soldiers, volunteers, who had fought on the front line in Ukraine. It is symbolic of the sort of position that all Canadian prime ministers have had with Ukraine.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a very healthy trade agreement that sets an example for us on the merits of bilateral agreements.

New Democrats always are told we dwell on the negatives with respect to trade agreements. One of the positives is the addressing of labour standards in the Ukraine. Since it sounds like my colleague is very familiar with the Ukraine, I would love to hear a little more about addressing labour standards as a way of addressing human rights and how this bilateral agreement is so important in achieving that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the NDP's support for this very important free trade agreement.

As I mentioned in my speech, this free trade agreement is not strictly about trade. Yes, it is important for trade between our two countries as it provides opportunities for investment for small and medium-sized businesses in our two countries, but it also is a show of support for Ukraine as it transforms to a fully functional democracy with all of the guarantees of democratic rights, human rights, and labour rights. We have a number of projects that Canada is funding in those areas.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really admire the work of the member for Etobicoke Centre on the Ukraine file over the years. I have learned a great deal from him. I have some Ukrainian ancestry of my own.

As we heard in the last question, there is a common misparlance in referring to the country as “the Ukraine” versus “Ukraine”. I wonder if the member could please explain to us why there is a difference and why it is important.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, most Ukrainians and Ukrainian Canadians are very sensitive to this point. Ukraine is an independent country. It is not a territory. We refer to “the Northwest Territories” as a territory and not as a country. In Ukraine's case, we will often hear Russian diplomats use the terminology of “the Ukraine”. It is something that Ukrainian Canadians and Ukrainians are sensitive to. I thank the hon. member for having raised that particular point.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for the work he does through the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group and with Ukrainians across this country and for the Ukrainian people themselves.

Earlier, I asked a question of one my colleagues about the work that many of our doctors from coast to coast to coast in Canada have done in Ukraine on a volunteer basis. They go over there and work doing reconstructive surgery and fixing the troops hurt in Ukraine while fighting against the Russian aggression.

I wonder if the hon. member would speak about that. Does he think there is a role our government could play to assist the doctors who are going over to Ukraine to assist our Ukrainian brothers and sisters?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member across the aisle for all of the work that he does with the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group.

I would like to thank him for mentioning the work of Ukrainian Canadian doctors and Canadian doctors who have accompanied them. There are hundreds of projects that are funded and sponsored by Ukrainian Canadians.

I mentioned the two soldiers whom the Prime Minister had noted that evening who had facial reconstruction surgery. It was done by Dr. Oleh Antonyshyn, who is from my riding. He went over there. He has done this incredible work, as have other doctors.

I should mention that there are camps being run by Ukrainian Canadians funded from Canada, which are also working in the areas of psychiatry and psychology with the widows and orphans of people who volunteered and fought on that front.

Ukrainian Canadians continue to make an invaluable contribution to Ukraine at this time of Russia's war against the people of Ukraine.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able to rise to speak on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, Bill C-31, at third reading. Again, I would like to thank the government for getting this over the finish line. I want to, of course, take credit for it with our own Conservative government, the previous government, that started these negotiations and the member for Abbotsford and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster who worked so hard in getting this done when they were in cabinet. It really does speak to how, on an all-party basis, we feel that this is an important trade agreement that benefits Canada and Ukraine. It is also about Canada demonstrating to the people of Ukraine that we stand with them during these very destabilizing times, with the fighting that we are seeing in Donbass, with the ongoing Russian proxies and the Russian military coming across the line into Donbass and continuing to escalate the violence. Of course we always have to remember the illegal invasion and occupation and annexation of Crimea and demand that the Russian Federation return that property, return that land back to Ukraine. No one in Canada and no one in the international community should ever recognize Crimea as anything but sovereign Ukrainian territory.

On the issue of Canada-Ukraine free trade, I think many Canadians often ask, “Where are the economic benefits? Where is the spinoff?” It has only averaged around $290 million a year in bilateral trade between Canada and Ukraine, but we know that Ukraine itself has great opportunities to grow and prosper. We know that the people are very industrious, that they are now a hub of high-tech expertise. As they start to recover from the sanctions that they face from Russia, from the ongoing revenues that are required to protect Ukrainian territory and fund its national defence efforts, there will be a growth in GDP. As they start to adjust and come out from underneath the damage that was done to the economy and the corruption that was created by President Yanukovych and his regime, we know that there is greater opportunity for Canadian business, as well as greater opportunity for Ukrainians to do business with us in Canada.

All the numbers suggest that we will see an increase in GDP in Ukraine as well as in Canada but, ultimately, we are trying to ensure that all those who are over there right now in Ukraine who are fighting for their freedom, fighting for their sovereignty, will someday enjoy that peace and the prosperity that comes with it. The only way we can give them the hope of seeing their livelihoods and their fortunes improve is that we have to also be with them from an economic standpoint.

There is no question that both the Liberal government and the previous Conservative government have helped with humanitarian efforts. We have helped with providing non-lethal kinetic equipment to its military. We have helped with reformation and getting corruption out of the Ukrainian government. We do know that type of assistance is welcomed but, ultimately, people of Ukraine are demanding that their government continue on with those reformations. They are demanding the corruption end and that they can actually enjoy the fruits of their labour without being shaken down on the street when they are taking their kids to school, by someone from the police or someone from the Russian mafia or anything along that line.

I just want to quickly highlight that there are some great opportunities. There are already Canadian companies that have done some amazing business in Ukraine. A lot of people do not realize but if they go shopping on Canadian Tire online, its entire online system is provided by a company out of Lviv called EPAM. It is a high-tech organization. It is there to help with any outsourcing that any company wants in managing their online and web services, from shopping to website management. It is there to assist and it does great work.

Bombardier is already in Ukraine, doing work and providing more in the areas of engineering and research and development in Kharkiv.

And then, right out of Winnipeg, Ag Growth International is providing grain-handling equipment. It is joint-venture farming in the Ukraine and would really like to see that expand. It really sees a future.

Many of us have agricultural backgrounds. The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster and I have been farmers. Whenever we go to Ukraine, the agricultural expanse is just amazing. It is the breadbasket of Europe and it is becoming a greater and greater exporter. That is one of the main resources Ukraine has and can capitalize on. Anything we can do from a Canadian standpoint to do more business in the agriculture sector there and to help with grain handling, with testing, with getting it to market is something we can really capitalize on and it would be very beneficial to both Ukraine and Canada.

Pratt & Whitney has just started a joint venture project with Antonov to refurbish aircraft and supply engines to Saudi Arabia and other countries.

Often Ukraine is referred to as a modern Silicon Valley because of the high-tech sector, how it is developing, the education system and the way it has been set up. It has a number of hubs that have been situated around the country. They are attracting the right talent and the right environment is being created. There are things we can do in the high-tech industry there, and it is already worth over $5 billion U.S. There is this great opportunity for Canada to partner with Ukraine, capitalize on that as well and make our country more prosperous along with it.

One thing about having more trade is that it creates a new need, and that is the free flow of people. I tabled a petition in the House a while ago, with over 2,400 signatures on it from across Canada, demanding that a new visa regime was brought in so people could visit Canada from Ukraine a lot easier. We get to go over there visa-free for six months. They are asking for a reciprocal agreement with Canada so their youth, their students, their business people and those who are trying to reconnect with family can more easily come to Canada. As trade and their economic prosperity improve, there will be an increasing demand for us to change the visa regime. I encourage the government to look at the visa situation.

What we are looking at today is the escalation in fighting in Donbass, where there are Russian proxies, Russian military equipment and Russian soldiers who are so-called on leave and who are fighting in Donbass. That has definitely increased.

We know that President Putin loves to test the strength of world leaders. There is a new president of the United States. Even though there has been a lot of platitudes and diplomatic niceties exchanged between both President Trump and President Putin, we see Putin, behind his back, escalate the aggression in Donbass to see what type of response he will get from President Trump. He wants to see whether Trump is a man of his word, that he will stand by his rhetoric. He wants to see if he can determine whether he has the strength or weakness to deal with the international obligations that surround the violence in Donbass, and if he will stand with President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine in pushing Russia out of Donbass.

There is a situation where Ukraine still needs defensive military equipment. I believe the government needs to look at everything, from defensive weapons to more non-kinetic military equipment, as well as supplying Ukraine again with RADARSAT images that Canada had been providing until June last year, something that Prime Minister Harper had committed to, and allow the Ukrainian government, the Ukrainian military, to see what type of excursions were taking place by Russian forces across into Ukraine, and also where the military units in Donbass, operated by the rebels, the Russian proxies, were stationed so they could adjust their military defensive lines in the appropriate fashion.

It is time to reinstate those RADARSAT images, to share those images with the military of Ukraine.

It is also time for the government to finally sign the defence and security co-operation agreement that the Conservative government under Stephen Harper had negotiated. All it needs is to be inked out, to ensure that we can have the ongoing military co-operation that we already see with Operation Unifier, which runs out at the end of March. I am hoping that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs will renew that mission for more training and more co-operation.

Training is beyond just training soldiers. We are also training its military police, its logistical officers, and its medics so they can deal with traumatic injuries in the field, something that we have a great deal of experience with, coming back from Afghanistan and including what is happening today in Iraq.

Sharing that wealth of knowledge through Operation Unifier is one thing that I hope, and I demand, the government renews and extends for at least another two years; but the security co-operation agreement would help with the exchange of soldiers and military officers coming to Canada. It would help with the ongoing movement of military equipment between our two countries because it would be on a most favoured nation list then and be able to acquire Canadian military equipment. It is important that the agreement be signed and finalized, and now is the time to do it.

We are going to get the trade deal done. We are at third reading now, and the bill is going to go to the Senate where I expect it to be finalized in short order.

Ukraine needs our help today with the military fight that is taking place in Donbass, with the invasion, and with the escalation of violence coming from Russia and its proxies in Donbass.

President Poroshenko, when he was here, both talked about the extension of Operation Unifier, asking the Government of Canada to do that, and addressed the need to make sure that we get the security and defence co-operation agreement signed, get the radar satellite images reimplemented, and continue on with our co-operative training and assistance, which we have been doing with more than 200 soldiers. We pay tribute to all of those soldiers who are over there.

I hope that our Prime Minister is listening. I hope that the government will come to the aid of Ukraine again and stand with President Poroshenko and the Government of Ukraine. More importantly, this is about standing with the people of Ukraine who have to deal with this situation. They see Canada as their closest friend and ally. They appreciate all the help we have provided, the way we have been able to work through Operation Unifier, and the way we have worked with our NATO allies through NATO's Operation Reassurance. The people of Ukraine really appreciated our bringing our frigates into the Black Sea. They appreciate our going in there with the NATO maritime task force and doing co-operative training and exercises with the Ukrainian navy.

The former minister of foreign affairs liked to talk about having a normalized relationship with Russia. He also talked about how he wanted to appease President Putin by talking to him about what was happening in Ukraine. I have great hope that the new Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of trade and helped to get this final agreement to the House as a legislative bill, will continue on with her love of Ukraine and not appease Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin. She has a lot of experience in Moscow, having worked there as a journalist, and she has written extensively about the corruption in Russia and how it continues to try to exercise its sphere of influence over Ukraine. I would hope that, despite her predecessor taking a rather soft stance with Ukraine and trying to appease Russia, she will have the intestinal fortitude to stick to her beliefs, as someone like me who is proud of our Ukrainian heritage, and will continue to fight for the people of Ukraine.

It will be interesting. Like me and a few others in this House, she has been banned from Russia. When she needs to meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow, they will probably have to find a different rendezvous place. Perhaps Kiev would be a good place for them to have their discussions.

One of the things that I congratulate the government on is that it has continued with our line of sanctions against those in Russia and Ukraine who are responsible for the violence in Donbass, as well as the illegal activities taking place in Crimea. We have to make sure that we not only continue to hold those sanctions in place until Russia returns Crimea to Ukraine but we also have to continue to expand them. One of the ways we can do that is through the Magnitsky Act, which is one of the things that we have looked at, and I know the foreign affairs committee is studying it.

As members know, I tabled a bill in this House to have the Magnitsky Act become law. A similar bill was tabled in the other place by Senator Raynell Andreychuk. The bill in the Senate has passed committee stage. It is going back for report stage and then third reading. It is my hope that we will see it over here in the next few weeks so that we can have that debate in the House and give the Government of Canada the tools, through the Special Economic Measures Act, as well as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to impose travel bans and take action on economic sanctions against not only those corrupt foreign officials who are responsible for what we see happening in Ukraine and in Russia today but also against other individuals globally who are abusing their authority and power within their own governments against their own people. This could apply to corrupt dictators in North Korea or China. We could also be looking at individuals who may be committing human rights abuses in Venezuela, Indonesia, and even Cuba. There is an opportunity to use this on a larger scale.

The way the Special Economic Measures Act works right now is that Canada will not move against individuals unilaterally. We always work through multilateral organizations. If the UN or the OSCE pass a resolution, or NATO provides an article stating that we need to go after certain countries and individuals within those countries for human rights abuses, for corruption, or for military incursions that happen from time to time, then we can take action. However, the way our legislation is set out today, we are prevented to unilaterally act on our own, under our own authority, when we think it is right. That is why the Magnitsky law is so important, not only to go after Russians, which originally was the case in the law that was passed in the United States a few years ago, but, at the urging of Bill Browder, to remember Sergei Magnitsky for the fight he had with the Russian government in standing up against corruption and human rights abuses. Unfortunately, Sergei Magnitsky was murdered after being arrested, tortured, and detained in prison. Just this past December, the U.S. passed a new global Magnitsky Act, similar to what I am trying to do with my bill and what Senator Raynell Andreychuk is doing with hers, which is to provide that global scope in the memory of Sergei Magnitsky for fighting for that freedom.

In conclusion, I am looking forward to seeing this bill become law. I hope that it goes through the Senate in an expedited fashion, and that ultimately we will see a strong relationship on the trade front grow and expand because of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I know that the people of Ukraine are the ones who would benefit the most and would see their economy improve. I subscribe to the saying that a rising tide lifts all ships, and this is about raising the waters right now.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague across the aisle for all of his work on the Ukrainian file over the past number of years. As he said, the Canadian government's support has been multifaceted. We are all thankful that in the House everyone stands united when it comes to CUFTA, the free trade agreement. He also mentioned Operation Unifier. The Minister of National Defence last week signalled that the odds are that this training mission will be extended. My personal hope is that it will be expanded, and I noted that the member referenced that as well.

I also noted that he made a distinction between kinetic defensive weapons and non-kinetic defensive weapons. Back when he was a member of the government, there was an opportunity to provide Ukraine with kinetic defensive weapons. It did not occur at that time. We now know that Russia has sent more than 600 tanks into eastern Ukraine, and more than 1,000 artillery systems, and that Ukraine keeps looking for systems such as the Javelin to counterbalance the threat of those tanks. Now that the member is in the opposition, has his opinion changed about kinetic defensive weapons for Ukraine?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, actually it has not. My position today is the position I had when we were in government as well, and I did encourage government to look at using some of our tank-buster missiles as possible defensive equipment. Unfortunately, the ones that we were decommissioning were not considered useful from the standpoint of providing them to the Government of Ukraine. It is something that was discussed, but they were decommissioned because of a question around their efficacy, which would be a polite way to put it.

Things are also evolving. What we are now witnessing is a bigger push by the rebels and the Russian military farther into Ukraine. They are trying to gain more territory, so because of this new aggression and the expanded land grab that is being orchestrated from the Kremlin, I think there is now a need for us to provide Ukraine with those defensive weapons. No doubt, as we are fighting in the wintertime, there still need to be more supplies to help deal with winter weather. Ukraine's military is definitely getting better equipped all the time, but if there is any chance for Canada to provide the military equipment that is needed by the soldiers out there, we should be working with the government of Ukraine to make it happen.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:59 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman will have just a little over six minutes left for questions and answers the next time this is before the House.

The House resumed from February 7 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.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank all the members of this House for granting unanimous consent for me to speak this morning. I am very grateful. I will be splitting my time with the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I have the privilege of speaking this morning on Bill C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This is a momentous time in our history for us to be looking at this bill together in this House. I am indeed very pleased to speak today on the topic of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and the benefits it will provide to all Canadians.

When we talk about trade, those are benefits that are going to each and every one of the 338 jurisdictions and ridings we have in our country. The good people who sent every member sitting in this House here to represent them will benefit from our free trade agreement. This is a good example of what Canada can do in the world, when Canada stands for progressive trade, and when Canada becomes a beacon of hope and openness around the world.

This agreement is an important step in Canada's relationship with Ukraine, and one that is supported by Canadians from across the country. Following the 125th anniversary of Ukrainian migration to Canada last year, we are reminded of the Ukrainian Canadian community, which is more than 1.2 million strong in our nation.

Our people-to-people ties form a strong foundation for the partnership enjoyed by Canada and Ukraine today. Canada has remained steadfast in its support of Ukraine and believes the free trade agreement will only strengthen this relationship going forward. Trade is good for the world; trade is good for the people.

In 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence. I am sure this is an act that a lot of members in the House take great pride in. Since then, and especially now in the face of recent crises, Canada has prioritized its role in the international community by encouraging Ukraine's and Canada's shared commitment to security, advancing democracy, and promoting sustainable economic growth.

One of the ways that Canada has done this is through technical and financial assistance, which since 1991 amounts to more than $1.2 billion. Reflecting the multi-faceted nature of our relationship, this includes support for macroeconomic stabilization, democratic and economic reforms, support for promoting the rule of law, security and stability, and, very importantly, humanitarian assistance.

In addition, Canada is seeking to support efforts to find a lasting and sustainable resolution to the armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine through the provision of stabilization and security assistance. Since 2014, over $60 million has been committed to support initiatives in a wide range of areas, including ceasefire and human rights monitoring, police reform, and non-military equipment and training.

Further, Canada has provided $27 million in humanitarian assistance to help people affected by the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, including emergency shelters and essential relief items, safe drinking water, food, sanitation, basic medical care, hygiene supplies, education, protection, and psychosocial support.

I am sure that every member in this House today recognizes how Canada is a power for good in the world. When I say these words, I am sure many of us take great pride in saying what role Canada can play in the world. As we can see through our multi-faceted work with Ukraine, Canada is deeply committed to supporting the economic reform and development efforts of the Government of Ukraine.

The Canada-Ukraine FTA will only reinforce these efforts. The agreement is complementary on the premise that economic development can strengthen the social foundations in countries and contribute to a domestic environment where human rights, good governance, and the rule of law are all respected.

I am sure that is something that all members in the House firmly believe to be the foundation of every nation. This agreement will create new business opportunities and assist with developing a predictable and prosperous future for Ukraine.

The beauty of the agreement, however, is that it is mutually beneficial. It has opportunities for both Ukraine and Canada. Tariff elimination will improve access to each other's markets and thus help to expand commerce between Canada and Ukraine.

Upon implementation, the Canada-Ukraine FTA will result in an immediate elimination of tariffs on 86% of Canadian exports to Ukraine. This is very significant. The remaining tariffs will be phased out over seven years on industrial products, fish and seafood, and essentially all agricultural goods exported by Canada.

Ukraine is an interesting market for Canadian exporters with opportunities in areas such as aerospace, agricultural equipment, information and communication technologies, agriculture, agrifood, fish and seafood, and mining equipment. At the same time Canada will eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of imports from Ukraine. This stands to benefit Ukrainian exporters for products such as sunflower oil, sugar and chocolate, baked goods, vodka, apparel, ceramics, and mineral products.

[An hon. member]

Vodka.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see members already interested in free trade. It is only Friday morning, but I see a lot of support in the House for free trade.

Beyond tariff reductions, the FTA includes disciplines and commitments on non-tariff measures that will help ensure that market access gains are not constrained by unjustified trade barriers. This agreement also includes commitments on trade facilitation that are designed to reduce red tape at the border. These provisions will increase certainty and predictability for businesses, something that Canadian businesses across our country will want to see.

Furthermore, the Canada-Ukraine FTA reflects this government's commitment to a progressive approach to trade in trying to ensure that trade reflects Canadian values such as environmental protection and labour rights. This agreement therefore includes comprehensive provision in the areas of labour, environment, transparency, and anti-corruption.

As part of this free trade agreement, Canada and Ukraine have agreed on anti-corruption provisions to protect human rights. Under this agreement, Canada and Ukraine have committed to ensuring that companies can be held responsible for human rights violations.

The agreement also encourages both countries to look at implementing legal protection for whistleblowers. Time and again, Canada has shown that it considers protecting workers' rights a priority. It has negotiated labour protection provisions in the free trade agreements it is a party to, provisions that are essential to upholding human rights. The labour provisions in the free trade agreement with Ukraine will ensure that workers' basic rights are protected in both countries.

Canada and Ukraine also agreed to uphold the standards in the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. To do so, both parties must comply with labour laws governing standards pertaining to minimum wage, hours of work, and workplace health and safety. The labour provisions protect the right to collective bargaining and freedom of association. Child labour, forced labour, and discrimination at work are forbidden. The Canadian labour movement made a vital contribution to promoting equality for women, indigenous peoples, and people with disabilities.

One of our government's priorities is to strengthen the middle class and ensure that all Canadians benefit from trade. Canada's long-term prosperity depends on broad access to foreign markets because trade is a driver of our country's growth and economic success. It enables Canadian businesses to grow, gives Canadian consumers access to a variety of products at competitive prices, and creates jobs for the middle class.

In closing, that is exactly what the free trade agreement with Ukraine is intended to do. I want to thank all members who are here this morning for adding their support by voting in favour of the Canada-Ukraine agreement. This support will help ensure that Canada remains a model of global progressive trade as well as a world leader that chooses to do business with a country like Ukraine, so that people on both sides of the Atlantic can benefit from a progressive trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him on his new responsibilities.

My question is with respect to the area of corruption. The member mentioned that there are measures taken to prevent corruption. I am interested in hearing more about how we will prevent people from making deals with their buddies, and those kinds of things. Could he elaborate a bit on those measures?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has always been a great supporter, and someone for whom I have a lot of respect.

It is very important that we talk about that this morning. When we talk about progressive trade, what Canada stands for in these trade agreements is to try to move the bar higher in a number of countries with respect to that. There is a whole chapter in the agreement with respect to terms of transparency and anti-corruption. It would require legislation in the jurisdiction we are talking about and would make acts of bribery a criminal offence, as well as imposing sanctions that reflect the gravity of these acts and the negative impacts they have on the poorest people. We know that corruption disproportionately affects poor people, and those who are working hard to join the middle class. Lastly, any enterprises doing so will be liable for the crimes that they commit.

I am happy to receive that question, because it shows on the record how, when we talk about progressive trade, we can help people in a concrete fashion.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the Minister of International Trade, for sharing his time with me today. Because we will be supporting the bill at third reading, I am sure it has made it easier for him.

As well, we support the bill because of the inclusion of clauses relating to environment, labour, and corruption, and because of what it does not include, which are investor-state provisions and forcing municipalities to be part of the agreement. I will talk more on that later.

I recently heard from a Republican senator that, from the U.S. perspective, Americans think that trade agreements are not only important because of the trade aspects, but also because of what they do for world peace. Therefore, I would be interested in my colleague's comment on that approach to trade.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kootenay—Columbia, but I also want to thank him on behalf of the people of Ukraine and Canada for supporting this agreement. He has made the point as to how progressive trade and these agreements are good for the world. When we set an ambitious agenda for Canada with respect to progressive trade, whether we are talking about labour standards, or the environment, something that I know the member, and I think all members in this House, care a lot about, that is exactly the voice that people in the world want to hear.

This morning, I had the privilege of meeting with a number of ambassadors. People are asking Canada to seize the moment, to show the world that we can think about open trade and move the bar by working together. There is no greater pleasure for me than to stand here today, knowing that this has bipartisan support. We are sending a strong message, not only to Ukraine, but to the world, that Canada will always stand behind free trade, will always stand for open societies, and will always stand for the environment. We will be true to our values. Our Canadian values will be exported to our trade agreement, and those in the world who are like-minded will benefit. It is all about people. This agreement will improve the lives of people. I am sure that the constituents in my colleague's riding and in mine, as well as the good people of Ukraine, will benefit from what we are doing today. This is a historic moment.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain for sharing his time today.

New Democrats support deepening trade relationships with Ukraine, particularly as it reaches out to the west while trying to deal with ongoing tensions and problems in Russia. We very much support this agreement, and we have, of course, for many years supported improvement of Canada–Ukraine relations. We support this particular agreement because of the lower tariffs on Canadian exports, but it will also do a lot more. This is the kind of bilateral trade that the NDP can support, for a number of reasons, and I will speak to those in a minute.

What is good about this agreement is that it contains chapters on rules of origin, trade facilitation, trade remedies, state-owned enterprises, government procurement, intellectual property, environment, labour, and a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism. The labour chapter includes comprehensive and enforceable provisions and is the most comprehensive labour chapter ever negotiated by Ukraine. This could raise the bar on labour standards for Ukrainian workers, which is important to us in the NDP.

What it does not include is equally important, as I alluded to earlier. It would not bring in investor-state provisions that would allow corporations to sue Canada. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why we ever got those clauses in any of our trade agreements. It does not seem right that a corporation can sue Canada if it does not like the fact that we are looking after our own interests.

There are other reasons besides trade that I think this agreement is important. I want to thank the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for giving me the opportunity to travel to Ukraine in January as part of the foreign affairs and international development committee trip. What is interesting about being in Ukraine is the challenges it has. Of course, the major challenge is the war with the Russian-backed rebels in the eastern part of Ukraine. That took a step in the wrong direction about a week ago, so it continues to have impacts. Over a million refugees have been created by this war. We do not hear much about that because they are not living in tent camps. We do not get the same kind of visuals that we get from Syria. However, over one million refugees have been created from this ongoing war in Ukraine, and Ukraine is at war.

It is easy to sit in the comfort of our homes back in our ridings and not understand what is going on across the world. This trade agreement is important, because it sends a message to Russia that Canada is there and that we care about Ukraine.

One of the things that Ukrainians are doing is fighting corruption. What makes Ukraine so exciting is that this new push for democracy is being led by youth. It is amazing to see what is happening as a result of those youth and the involvement from civil society in Ukraine.

There are a couple of examples of what Ukrainians are doing to deal with the corruption. The RCMP are over there helping to train Ukraine's new police force. The reason the Ukrainians need a new police force is that they have fired 25,000 patrol officers in the last two years. These patrol officers earned most of their living by taking bribes. They fired all 25,000 of them. They have hired 11,000 new members. New members have to be 35 years of age or younger to get on the force, because Ukrainians want a new demographic with a new set of values involved in the police going forward. We were able to watch some of the training of the new recruits in Ukraine, led by our own RCMP, who are respected around the world for our training abilities.

The Ukrainians also fired all of their Supreme Court judges, and they are looking to hire new judges. They expect another 2,000 judges to be fired this year in Ukraine. They are working hard to clean up the corruption there.

Democracy is interesting. One of the reasons that Mr. Putin is invading Ukraine and that he took over Crimea is because of the fact that Ukraine is working hard to become a democratic country. I met with a number of members of civil society, and what was interesting for parliamentarians in the room is that civil society actually drafts most of the legislation in Ukraine. Youthful people get together, they draft the legislation, and they pass it on to the members of parliament who then work on it to bring it into law. It is democracy at its finest, in the sense that it is driven very much from the ground up.

Related to that is that many of us over the years have had Ukrainian parliamentary interns. That program is in financial jeopardy this year, I believe. It would be great to see some kind of sponsorship or support for that program. I have met a number of interns over the last year; it was my first time as a member of Parliament. They were so excited about democracy, taking Canadian values back to Ukraine, and making a difference in that country. I hope that the parliamentary intern program can continue.

In terms of the military, Ukraine is working on building up its military. It wants to have 250,000 trained troops. It also needs to bring up the training to a standard that is acceptable to NATO. That is what Canada is over there helping them with right now. We are trying to bring the Ukrainian military forces up to a standard so that NATO will accept Ukraine as part of the group. We are not there yet, but that is the target.

We live in pretty isolated circumstances here in Canada. Unless we get the opportunity to travel and see what is happening in these countries, we do not realize what is going on. Some of the sayings that are important there, such as, “If you want peace in that part of Europe, prepare for war”, sound awfully hawkish coming from a dove. However, having been there, I absolutely believe that we need a military deterrent in Europe, Asia, and anywhere surrounding Russia. It is important that we see that happen in Ukraine.

I want to go back a bit to the free trade agreement and the fact that municipalities are not included in this particular agreement. When I was mayor of Cranbrook and heard that way off in Ottawa they were signing an agreement that was going to make it difficult for me, as mayor of my community, to support local businesses over foreign businesses, it was not very well received, quite frankly. Therefore, I am very happy to see that this agreement does not include municipalities. We have had the same reaction from the school board in my riding of Kootenay—Columbia. This agreement does not include school boards either.

This is an excellent agreement from a trade perspective. It is one that we should be using as an example for further trade agreements. However, the agreement is also important for building on the Canada-Ukraine friendship and letting Mr. Putin know that Canada will be there for the Ukraine. It is important for trade, but it is also important for world peace.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague across the way for all the work he has done on this file.

We have heard a lot about trade today. When we look at the numbers, trade is quite modest between our two countries. It has averaged around $285 million over the last five years. However, one of the interesting components to the agreement is the investment component and the fact that Ukraine has a free trade association agreement with the European Union, which allows small and medium-size Canadian businesses.

A lot of these free trade agreements only look at the big corporate entities. They are already in the European Union. However, small and medium-size Canadian businesses would now have an opportunity to invest in Ukraine, where capital costs are significantly lower than they would be in a place like Germany. Also, manufacturing costs are a lot lower. Therefore, there is an opportunity for small and medium-sized businesses to invest in Ukraine as a gateway into Europe, and, vice versa, small and medium-sized Ukrainian businesses to invest in Canada and the North American market. I wonder if my colleague would like to speak to that particular point.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, anything we can do to build small businesses in Canada and Ukraine is welcome. The strength of the Canadian economy comes from the strength of our small businesses. Having Ukrainian investors come to Canada and invest in small businesses, and Canadian investors go to the Ukraine and invest in small businesses, helps build a secure economy. That is what a secure economy is. It certainly needs the bigger companies, but small businesses are what makes communities on a local level successful.

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

Mr. Speaker, over many years, this has now come to fruition. Being of Ukrainian heritage, I am particularly pleased to see this trade agreement. However, given the Russian aggression in the Ukraine, does the member feel this will impact the trade agreement?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I used to sit on the mayor's committee in British Columbia not so long ago.

There is a fair bit of concern, which starts with concern around corruption and around what is happening with Putin and Russia. However, by having more Canadian investments in the country, it does send a positive message, both to Ukraine and to Russia, that Canada will be there for Ukraine.

We went to Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Latvia and Poland. One of the perspectives we heard, which we do not really think about here, was to look at Russia over the last less than a decade. First it was Chechnya, then Georgia, then Crimea and now eastern Ukraine. The question those countries that surround Russia ask is who will be next.

Building business relationships is really important. Some of those other countries potentially seem to be a bit more secure. However, if I had money, I would invest it in Ukraine because that is the Canadian thing to do. We want to build and strengthen Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was very interesting speech, and I am happy to hear the NDP supporting a trade agreement.

Our government brought 42 of the best in class trade agreements, and as we go through different trade agreements, we learn as we go.

As the chair of status of women committee, when we study the economic status of women, one of the things we talk about is how we should put gender parity into future trade agreements.

Could the member comment on that?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would support that on principle. We need to be concerned about the environment and labour in the countries with which we deal. We should be concerned about women's equality and equity. I absolutely think equity should be part of what we consider in the future.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. It was important to me to talk about this because, since I arrived in Ottawa, in the course of my duties here I have come to know and admire someone of Ukrainian heritage. I am talking about the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who is proud of his Ukrainian roots, and I salute him.

Negotiations for this agreement began in 2009, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, whom I commend for the vision he had for Canada and the entire world. Now the agreement is reaching its final stages before coming into force. I doubt you could find a government in the history of Canada, and perhaps even the world, that believed more in free trade than the former Conservative government. We negotiated and concluded many agreements. We did more than just talk; we followed through on our commitments.

We signed free trade deals with 46 countries. We opened the doors to a multitude of foreign markets for Canadian merchants and manufacturers. We created many new opportunities for them. Now it is up to them to conquer the world.

As a businessman, I am well aware of the challenges out there and the obstacles that stifle ambition. Tariffs are often a headache that really get in the way. On this side of the House, we know and have always known that Canadians are pretty smart, and if they are on a level playing field they will succeed and grow their business. We saw that with NAFTA and that was a big challenge. Many businesses had to reinvent themselves to keep making progress and conquer the world, and they succeeded brilliantly. Now, the sky is the limit for Canadians thanks to all these agreements. Again, I want to thank Mr. Harper, one of the best prime ministers in Canadian history.

The agreement that is being ratified was inspired and led by Mr. Harper. He was the driving force behind this project. Where there is a will, there is a way. By visiting Ukraine four times between 2013 and 2015, Mr. Harper showed that this project was a priority to him. Likewise, his many visits to Canada's north showed that that region was extremely important in his eyes.

The fact that several thousand Ukrainians immigrated to Canada in the early 1900s made it easier to build closer ties with the Ukraine. Many Ukrainians settled in a number of provinces, especially in the west, seeking a more prosperous future.

It is now time for us to give back to our Ukrainian friends. We are reaching out to them so that we can do even more business together and strengthen both our economies. We are also reaching out to our Ukrainian brothers and sisters to help them stand up to the Russian giant, the neighbour that threatens Ukraine's integrity. In fact, hundreds of Canadian troops have been deployed to Ukraine to help shore up our ally's forces.

Ukraine is part of Canada's family, and we are “all in”, as we say in poker. We want to do business with them, but we also share their fears. Many Canadians think about their loved ones who are in Ukraine when they see the horrible images on the TV news. That is why I am even happier to know that this free trade agreement will bring us closer to our Ukrainian allies and help bring them out of the darkness.

Enough preamble, let us get down to the specifics. This agreement will make it possible for many Canadian producers who already have a foothold in Ukraine to increase their business. I will focus on my own backyard, Quebec, and explain how this agreement will benefit Quebeckers. The first area that comes to my mind is the pork industry. The duty-free export limit for Canadian pork products will increase from 10,000 to 20,000 tonnes per year over seven years following the agreement's entry into force.

That is good news for thousands of people across Quebec, given how many families are involved in all levels of the pork production chain. It is excellent news for hog farmers, manufacturers like Olymel and Les viandes du Breton, and for all of their suppliers.

The agreement also immediately eliminates the 5% tariff rate on maple syrup and maple sugar. That is one less barrier for a typical Quebec product. Even the first occupants of Quebec harvested maple sap, and now my province produces 72% of the world's maple syrup. This industry now contributes $800 million to Canada's gross domestic product and could benefit from a new market without tariff barriers.

Our sugar maple growers, many of whom are also farmers, will be able to increase their operating revenue. As a result, over 6,400 companies will grow in value with the development of new markets.

Maple products accurately represent the economic profile of many Canadian industries. Most of them are dependent on a few export markets. In this case, most of the maple products we produce are exported to our neighbours to the south, the United States. That makes sense because they are our neighbours and a large market.

As a businessman, I know that we should not put all of our eggs in one basket. It is important for this industry to expand into other markets to sell any surpluses.

Whether we are talking about Germany or France, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union or the free trade agreement with Ukraine, our producers need that assistance, particularly since there is a growing market for maple products in Ukraine.

Exports of maple products grew from just under 2,770 pounds in 2014 to over 51,000 pounds in 2015. Imagine how much that will grow in the future if there are no tariffs.

Another Quebec sector that will benefit from this agreement is the icewine industry. Once this agreement comes into force, tariffs of 30 euro cents per litre will be immediately eliminated. That is good news for our producers, who make high-quality icewine that is very popular throughout the world.

This agreement is a step in the right direction. It gives our businesses one more option with easier access to a new export market. That is the kind of decision governments need to make to enable an economy like ours grow and prosper. Our size should not stop us from thinking big; we are too creative for that. That is why we need to go out there and conquer the world, and that is why the Conservatives negotiated so many free trade agreements when they were in power.

I thank Stephen Harper, the Liberal government, and the New Democratic Party for supporting Bill C-31, which will enable us to grow and move forward.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada is one million strong, and that adds another very interesting dimension to this agreement.

Some Ukrainian Canadians speak Ukrainian and understand Ukraine's history and culture. Would my colleague care to comment on how that can benefit Canadian businesses wanting to invest in Ukraine?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Ukrainian-Canadian diaspora is so huge is one of the main reasons that we have such close ties with Ukraine.

As I said in my speech, Quebec will benefit enormously from this agreement. Although Quebec does not have a huge Ukrainian-Canadian population, we can already see that this is going to work.

Imagine what this will do in the rest of Canada, especially in the Prairies, which is home to most Ukrainian-Canadian communities. The language barrier is not likely to be a problem. This is going to be fantastic for Canada as a whole.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his good words and support for the agreement.

When we look back on the trade agreements that were signed by the Conservative government, a number of them included investor-state provisions, which basically tied the hands of municipalities to not be able to support their businesses locally the way they would like to.

I would be interested to hear the member's perspective. Does he think this agreement is a good model for future free trade agreements for Canada?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in any agreement, different rules can be more beneficial to certain markets than to others.

What we see here with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is that the tariff barriers on exports are going to favour Canada.

As I said in my speech, many products could now be exported to Ukrainian markets, including pork and maple products.

Could Ukraine benefit in return? Yes, probably. Free trade deals should benefit both sides.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, without going into any details, the main provision in this trade agreement is that on environmental protections and standards, there is a commitment to not lower those standards. We would maintain standards where they are now instead of moving down to the lowest common denominator. That is the kind of thing we need to see in trade agreements whenever we sign them with other countries. We want the other countries to at least maintain our commitment to environmental protection.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

Today we are debating Bill C-31, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Well, it is about time.

This is something our previous Conservative government worked hard to successfully negotiate on July 14, 2015. No government has done more to support Ukraine during its crisis than the previous Conservative government. We were the first G7 country to visit Ukraine following the beginning of the crisis, and ensured the relationship continued to grow and to prosper.

I was very proud and happy to accompany former Prime Minister Harper on this visit to see first-hand the Maidan for myself, to see the area where those brave souls lost their life. It really cemented the need to continue our friendship and leadership with Ukraine in the world.

Now, because of the enormous security and economic challenges still facing the Ukrainian people today, Canada must remain a trusted partner during their time of need.

I come from Oshawa, and I am extremely proud of Mr. Harper and to have been part of the government. I know the impact Ukrainian Canadians have had on the development of Oshawa and our great nation. This is profoundly evident in my home community where Ukrainian Canadians have made immeasurably contributions to the vibrancy of my community.

Over the years, they have built several community halls in Oshawa, like the Dnipro, the LVIV, and Odessa. These are places where weddings, birthdays, and anniversaries are celebrated with all members of our community. These gathering places play an important role in Oshawa's annual fiesta week, for example. This is one of the largest multicultural festivals in Canada, and we have it right in Oshawa.

These are places to experience the Ukrainian culture, dance, and of course their food. There is also St. George the Great Martyr Ukrainian Catholic Church. In fact, if any of my colleagues are around this weekend, they can drop in by LVIV for St. George's annual trivia night this Saturday, February 11, 6:30 in the evening.

When the crisis and aggression began, I was proud to work with the Ukrainian leaders in my community. I was proud to work with my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on the Oshawa United for Ukraine fundraiser at LVIV just a few years ago, where we were able to announce legal aid services for the most vulnerable in Ukraine. I want to thank the community organizers, people like Walter Kish from the Durham branch of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, and volunteers like Daria, odarka, and Darlene.

Oshawa has such a proud Ukrainian history. We were home to the first Ukrainian Canadian cabinet minister, Michael Starr, who also served as Oshawa's mayor. MP Starr is remembered by many for his efforts to make the national employment service more humane in its approach to the unemployed, extending unemployment insurance benefits to women and to seasonal workers.

There are many other amazing Ukrainian Canadian families in my riding. Take for example the Lysyk family. They came from Ukraine, and now are some of the most prominent landlords, dentists, chiropractors, and business owners in my community. They have truly worked to build Oshawa into the great city it is today.

As I mentioned, someone like Walter Kish, who works tirelessly to build the Ukrainian Canadian community and create direct links with Ukraine. Whether it is serving on the board of the national or local branch of Ukrainian Canadian Congress, or working to expand the Ukrainian Credit Union, Walter is always working for his community.

We cannot forget community leaders like Carol Shewchuk, who, thanks to her great efforts, raised awareness of the Holodomor and what happened in the past.

Canada truly has a great partnership and friendship with Ukraine. That is why it is so important that all parties are in support of this agreement. It will not only continue to improve our relationship and show our continued support for Ukraine, especially at this time, but will have many economic and social benefits for both our countries. This agreement will not only strengthen the Canada-Ukraine partnership in peace and prosperity, but it will immediately eliminate duties on 99.9% of respected current imports when this agreement comes into force in Canada.

This will also allow Ukraine to eliminate approximately 86% of tariffs on Canadian goods, including industrial products, fish and seafood, and agricultural goods.

In 2011 to 2015, the total bilateral merchandise trade between Canada and Ukraine averaged $289 million per year, and is expected to expand 19% as a result of this agreement.

Canada's GDP would increase $29.2 million under the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Similarly, Ukraine's GDP would expand $18.6 million.

Our exports to Ukraine would increase $41.2 million, which would include gains in pork, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, other manufactured goods, motor vehicles and parts, and chemical products. Under our previous Conservative government, we were also able to export $35.5 million worth of agriculture and agrifood, and seafood products to Ukraine.

This agreement has substantial economic benefits for both Canada and Ukraine. The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would have numerous benefits, including preferential market access for Canadian exports, and increased visibility for other commercial opportunities. It would also facilitate enhanced co-operation, improve Canada's ability to resolve trade irritants, increase transparency in regulatory matters, and help to reduce transaction costs for businesses. This agreement also commits both Canada and Ukraine to respect and promote internationally recognized labour rights and principles.

This agreement is the fruition of our previous Conservative government's hard work. On July 14, 2015, Prime Minister Harper and Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk announced the successful conclusion of negotiations on CUFTA. This agreement reiterated the commitment of jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity, the key pillars of our economic action plan. Our party's pro free trade plan aims to diversify trade and enable companies to benefit from new opportunities abroad.

Having this agreement in place also gives us the opportunity for future business. I know that in my community of Oshawa there are many people in the energy business. We have had great leaders in the nuclear business. Ukraine and Canada also share vast resources, whether through natural gas or oil. In the future, we have a great opportunity for human resources in these technologies to go from one country to the other to learn and promote peaceful energy trade throughout the world.

I am proud to have been part of a government that worked hard to promote free trade in our country, and to be part of a party that believes in the importance of a strong relationship with Ukraine, both economically and socially.

I am proud to support this agreement, an agreement that our previous Conservative government ensured would bring prosperity and growth to both Canada and Ukraine.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this very important matter before the House. Bill C-31 is an act to implement the free trade deal with Ukraine. Canada is blessed to have such strong trade deals with many of our international colleagues around the world, and this is certainly no exception.

I am very proud to be part of the Conservative Party, which during the past 10 years it was in office signed many bilateral and multilateral trade deals, such as the one with the European Union, which we were very pleased to see pass at report stage earlier this week. We look forward to this important bill progressing to third reading next week.

I am also very pleased to be a member of a party whose government negotiated the trans-Pacific partnership, which, I must say, is a true testament to the hard work of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, who spent many years as the international trade minister negotiating these important deals on behalf of Canada. I wish the member well as he recovers. I am very proud to serve in a caucus with the member for Abbotsford.

The issue at hand today is Bill C-31, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. This is an important deal, because it further strengthens our relations in that important region. The Conservative Party has always been a true friend to Ukraine. Conservatives have always stood for Ukraine in the international world. In fact, it was a Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, who was the first to recognize the Ukrainian government after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Our country is well remembered in Ukraine, and my party has certainly done great work in negotiating the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

This bill would bring the opportunity to open new markets for Canadian manufacturers and producers, certainly in the agricultural community as a whole. I am very proud to represent the great riding of Perth—Wellington, which has one of the strongest agricultural communities in this country. There is a strong beef and pork sector in my riding, and it is always looking to expand markets. I am proud to stand to speak on behalf of the farmers in my riding, who are really working hard to expand markets.

I am going to leave it there. I wanted to say how important this trade deal is for Canadian farmers, businesses, and exporters. I hope we will continue to expand our markets and that all members will support Bill C-31.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-31, an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

I want to take a moment to talk about the history of humanity, which will hopefully yield some insight into the notion of free trade. What is trade, essentially? According to the Canadian Oxford, a well-respected dictionary, trade is the exchange of goods between peoples.

That is an interesting first take on what free trade is. When two individuals meet to trade something, no matter the period in history, whether they barter or anything else, they exchange one commodity for another. That is trade.

I consulted the dictionary again to look up the meaning of free trade. It says that free trade is a theory, an economic doctrine whereby exchanges are free from obstacles and international transactions are free from protectionist intervention.

The free trade doctrine was formulated in the eighth century. It was also discussed by physiocrats such as David Hume and Adam Smith and in the writings of Mr. Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, where it is explored in greater detail. To those authors, the freedom of nations to trade is founded on the international division of labour, where each nation specializes in the production for which its aptitudes are greatest and where production is most cost effective. This theory underscores the positive effects of competition, which allows consumers to get products of the best quality at the lowest price.

Here is what we know about free trade. Theorists apply this concept more to international relations, but I would like to apply it to any form of trade without restrictions, whether at a national, international, or community level, or between two individuals. My colleagues will understand my logic.

I asked myself what we, human beings, have been doing for thousands of years, if not trading freely. If we look back at the Neolithic age, it seems to me that any men who ever met would know right away that they were going to trade products.

Even this spontaneous trade between tribes or individuals involved a certain degree of expertise, similar to the definition used by philosophers which states that free trade seeks to divide work sectors between different countries based on their skills and expertise, as well as their resources, of course. I am sure we can all agree that Canada will never have much expertise in growing bananas, for example, because we do not have the right climate to do so.

It seems to me that free trade has always happened. That is my argument. Being an evolutionist, I believe that we have been trading freely for millions of years. Long before we had countries and borders, humans traded with one another. In short, free trade is definitely not a modern or post-modern construct.

Nevertheless, I went and had a look at protectionism. The definition in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary is this: the theory or practice of protecting domestic industries. Trade tariffs are imposed in order to protect the local economy from foreign competition.

That is exactly what we are worried about right now, for example, with the hon. President of the United States, Mr. Trump, who is talking about potentially imposing tariffs and thus moving forward with a form of protectionism.

Protectionism has always been around. The Conservative Party of Canada was once in favour of protectionism. It depends on which way the wind is blowing. It is a matter of historical and political circumstance.

That being said, for the past 30 years, the Conservative Party has been the ultimate champion of free trade. I think that is a good thing because, as I demonstrated earlier, free trade has always existed from a philosophical perspective.

However, protectionism can be dangerous when it is fully applied because then the market is controlled by the government. In its milder form, this state is referred to as socialism, and in its more extreme form, it is referred to as communism.

The implementation of any type of trade system that is not free trade takes us in a rather dangerous direction. What is the best way to control populations? As I already mentioned, people have been trading with each other for millions of years. When governments were formed and kingdoms established, they quickly discovered that the best way of controlling people was to control the trade they were doing with each other.

What I am trying to say is that free trade has always existed, it is part of the very ontology of humanity, and we therefore should not be afraid of it; quite the contrary, we should celebrate free trade as a form of absolute liberty and an inalienable human right.

To come back to the bill, it is absolutely impossible to oppose, because it implements the free trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada. In fact, just a few years ago and under our government, Canada signed 45 free trade deals, for instance with Peru, South Korea, and the European Union. I could go on and on, but I cannot remember all the countries off the top of my head.

Furthermore, under the incredible leadership of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, we also created the largest free trade platform in the history of humanity, namely, NAFTA, an agreement between Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

We believe that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is certainly a very positive way for us to show support for that great country, which is home to Kiev, the cradle of Russian civilization. That probably explains the tension between Russia and Ukraine, and that is why our support for Ukraine is so important. After all, history is such that Ukraine is now an independent country.

Let us explore why it is good for us to trade with Ukraine. I will speak from a monetary perspective, never mind international relations. Ukraine's GDP, its purchasing power, is $339.2 billion U.S. annually. The per capita GDP is a little more bleak at $7,900 U.S. That is why Ukrainians are certainly going to benefit from our free trade agreement with them. We are certainly going to contribute to increasing GDP to the benefit of every inhabitant of Ukraine, which will be excellent for them, their families, and their quality of life.

The population of Ukraine is 45.2 million, which is 10 million more than Canada's. By all accounts, we have similar population profiles. Their exports and imports account for 82% of the GDP, at the exchange rate.

Finally, Ukraine is a large exporting country like Canada and that may be because it is a bread basket nation, just like Canada is. Ukraine has always supplied wheat, oats, and other grains to the Soviet Union, or modern-day Russia, and to many other countries in the European Union, I imagine.

Ukraine is Canada's 75th-largest merchandise trading partner out of 200 countries in the world. That is not bad, but I imagine that it could reach 50th or 40th place with this agreement, which will also help increase its per capita GDP. That was Ukraine's profile.

I have a very interesting document here that gets into the nuts and bolts of what trade with Ukraine would look like on a day-to-day basis. Bilateral trade between Canada and Ukraine averaged $289 million from 2011 to 2015. That should go up by 19% once this agreement comes into force. Once the agreement is in force, Canada and Ukraine will immediately eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of their imports. That is sure to be good for Canadian and Ukrainian exporters and consumers.

Oh my goodness, here is something interesting. Canada's GDP will rise by $29.2 million. That is not peanuts. Similarly, Ukraine's GDP will go up by $18.6 million. The really wonderful thing is that, in terms of international relations, this free trade agreement with Ukraine will bring that country into the fold of our great federation. Canada has more international agreements, whether commercial or military, than any other country. It is as simple as that. Any country that wants to feel even a little bit at ease at the UN wants Canada as a friend.

Not only will Ukraine be more comfortable in terms of its international relations and its relationship with neighbouring Russia, but it will also not be losing out either. We are going to increase our GDP by only $10 million more than Ukraine, which will see its GDP increase by $18.6 million. That is a fairly balanced relationship.

Once again, this shows how Canada is, without question, one of the greatest trading nations in the world, since this agreement is more beneficial to us than the other party. We always come out on top. Even NAFTA was a winning situation for us.

The value of Canadian exports to Ukraine will increase by $41.2 million a year. The expected gains for Canada will vary and will come from the export of pork, machinery, and equipment. That is great news for Quebec, which is the largest exporter of pork in the world. It exports a lot of pork to China, but now it will also be able to export it to Ukraine.

Manufactured goods, vehicles, parts, and chemicals will also be exported. This agreement will therefore also be good for the auto sector in southern Ontario, a region that has been struggling since the 2007-08 crisis. What is more, in the past five years, there has been a significant drop in the number of manufacturing jobs in Canada. This free trade agreement will definitely help increase the number of jobs in that sector.

It is important to remember that the Conservative government is behind this free trade agreement. All the Liberal government is doing is making the implementation agreement official from a legislative standpoint. The Conservative government is the one that initiated and negotiated the agreement with the Ukrainian government at the time.

Since I am running out of time, I will say that we fully support this free trade agreement. To end this Friday on a positive note, for once, I can say that I am proud of this government, which made a good decision regarding this free trade agreement.

Let us now see what it will do to stand up to the superpower to the south, where rising protectionist sentiments threaten our economy. As I said in my earlier philosophical musings, protectionism is incompatible with the absolute freedom of each and every being on this wonderful planet.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to doing it again.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for his speech.

It is obvious that issues surrounding trade agreements can be very complex. Connecting philosophy and practical application is no small feat. Congratulations to the hon. member.

Earlier, my colleague read the definition of “free trade” from the dictionary. Could he tell us which word comes after “free trade” in the dictionary?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish my memory was that good. I do not know which word comes after “free trade” in the dictionary. I assume the hon. member knows which one it is, even if he is asking me. I sure would like to know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for talking about the work the Conservative government undertook in regard to free trade. We had 46 trade agreements, and initiated the one before us today. To have all parties support this is really quite an accomplishment.

My question is about the tariffs that will be removed on some of the items. We look at what is going on south of the border with the reopening of NAFTA. Could the member speak to the impacts for Canada of reopening and renegotiating NAFTA?

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to be aware that the impacts might be numerous, wide-ranging, and certainly scary, if not problematic, for our economy, for the well-being of all Canadian citizens, and certainly for the residents of my riding. That is why I call upon the government to not just try to publicly seem to be doing a good job. Some of its ministers went there a few days ago to chat with different secretaries of the administration.

Our Prime Minister should try to be more responsible and confident. He should stop just giving us talking points, which is completely pathetic, and tell us that he will see the President of America and ensure that all of our interests will be safeguarded.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, February 13, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the whips and pursuant to Standing Order 45 (7) I ask that the recorded division on the third reading of Bill C-31, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine currently scheduled for Monday, February 13 be deferred to Tuesday, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly the recorded division is further deferred to Tuesday at the conclusion of oral questions.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find the consent of the House to see the clock as 1:30 p.m., so we may commence with private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 10 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.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

Pursuant to order made on Friday, February 10 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the third reading stage of Bill C-31.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #195

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)