Bill C-57

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

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

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

The next time this matter is before the House, the member will have five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, a decade ago, this very month, I walked through the Euromaidan. On the cobblestone streets of Kyiv spanned crowds of thousands. They were jubilant, humorous and optimistic. They sang and cheered in peaceful protest. On stage, speeches extolling the promise of a future independent of Kremlin domination, enabled by oligarchs and their corruption, gave voice to generations of Ukrainians fed up with the old order.

Ukrainians had survived Stalin's famine 90 years ago through Holomodor, Ukrainians whose perilous march to freedom had been perpetually subjected to subversion.

As far as the eye could see, ribbons of yellow and blue adorned a people with the powerful idea that they might soon be free of the yoke of the neo-colonial, revanchist ambitions, free of a neighbour they longed for good relations with, yet a neighbour determined to deny the self-determination of an entire people.

I accompanied my friend and former boss, Canada’s foreign minister John Baird. I watched him take in what we had been witnessing together, make a wide grin, and then take to the stage to stand with a people whose moment of independence had arrived. Months later, we returned to charred buildings and cobblestone ripped from the ground by protesters fighting a government that turned its guns on them and flowers laid before portraits of the fallen.

In the subsequent vacuum of transition, on March 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea. It was the opening chapter of what now constitutes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

By April, Russian special operations, Spetsnaz GRU units, paratroopers of the 45th Guards Spetsnaz Brigade of the VDV and Wagner contractors seized territory in Donbass.

Too often we start the story at the middle and not at the beginning. To some, the story of Ukrainian independence commenced in the mid-2000s, amid political turmoil, economic challenges and external pressure.

The Orange Revolution in 2004 set the stage for a democratic transition but the road ahead was far from smooth.

At communism’s end, Ukraine held the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They divested that power to guarantee their territory. In 1994, they received those guarantees from the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom at Budapest. Had the allied world deepened this commitment to Ukrainian territorial integrity, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper strenuously recommended at NATO in 2008, today’s brutal, illegal, costly war in Europe would never have happened.

The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement that Prime Minister Harper first negotiated in 2015 was one part of a much more robust approach. It led the world. It supported the people’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and their territorial integrity, even as war was being waged against them.

Conservatives, with Harper, recognized the importance of supporting ascendent Ukrainian civil society and its democracy. We strengthened Ukrainian democratic institutions, enhanced the rule of law and combatted corruption.

Conservatives, with Harper, were at the forefront of imposing sanctions on Russia at every stage. Serious costs were imposed on the Kremlin. Along with free trade, Conservatives, with Harper, stabilized the Ukrainian economy, preventing financial collapse and bolstering Ukrainian resilience.

As Russia's aggression escalated, Conservatives, with Harper, launched Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission that founded the modern Ukrainian Armed Forces.

That, as President Petro Poroshenko said, was instrumental in how Ukraine repelled Putin’s opening advance toward Kyiv in February last year. The strength of the Conservative approach to securing Ukraine, stabilizing the world, was indeed the envy of the world.

It culminated in 2014, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper confronted Vladimir Putin’s repugnant deceptions at the G8, looked him squarely in the eye and said, “Get out of Ukraine.” The G8 became the G7, rightly so, because of a strong and principled Conservative leadership that ensured the integrity of our alliances.

Compare that to NDP-Liberals who arrived in office to an inheritance in which Canadian influence was undeniable. What did they do with it? They pursued entreaties of appeasement instead.

NDP-Liberals dispatched senior diplomats to capitals around the world with a message of “Canada is back”, back to the Kremlin, back to Tehran, back to Beijing, appeasement that even as Russia intensified its invasion of the Ukrainian east, then-foreign minister Stéphane Dion dispatched his officials to seek to restore good relations with Vladimir Putin.

It was appeasement by sending emissaries to the clerical regime in Iran, even as it showcased its domestic brutality. Exported terror armies were now attacking Israel from across the Middle East and pursuing nuclear weapons. They did not learn. In 2020, there was appeasement after Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 was shot out of the sky by a regime sheltering itself under the human shield of civilian flights, killing 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents.

There was appeasement that shocked the families of victims, watching their prime minister warmly hold the murderous regime’s foreign minister’s hand, beam a warm smile and bow his head. There was appeasement by pursuing free trade, extradition and cybersecurity treaties with Beijing, while turning their back on the trade deal Conservatives negotiated across Asia.

We will now watch as the Liberals pretend Bill C-57 is the singular triumph of a foreign policy that is clearly broken. Conservatives will consult, we will be clear-eyed about the interests of Canadians, and we will take the right decisions for our country and our alliances. Conservatives will pursue policies of peace through strength, instead of entreaties of appeasement.

How about a real trade deal that could end the war in Europe? Canada is the sole NATO ally with the potential to backfill European energy demand with $3-trillion worth of natural resources, the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, NATO’s third-largest reserves of natural gas and the capacity to scale agricultural products and technologies for the world.

Today, Putin mimics Stalin nearly a century ago: He is bent on creating famine by weaponizing the food supply, and burning and blockading Ukrainian grain so it cannot reach fragile markets. Vladimir Putin spent years choreographing Germany’s dependency on Russian oil, having exploited that to shake down Europe. He intervened in Syria and Libya to subvert pipelines that would supply Europe and amplified misinformation against Canadian energy.

It ensured a steady stream of revenue for Russia’s war machine, nearly $1 billion a day, including more than $250 million a day from Germany alone to fund his war. When Germany finally realized the costs of this, Chancellor Scholz came knocking on our door for Canadian energy and we turned him away.

Russia and Iran scale production today, evade sanctions and provide discounted prices to Beijing to wage their wars in Europe and the Middle East. Qatar, host to Hamas, inked a 3.5-million-tonne gas deal with France just this week. If NDP-Liberals truly care about trading relationships that support Ukraine, then they can do the one game-changing thing the world has been demanding: end Russia’s weaponization of energy, and let Canadian resources be what fuels, feeds and secures the world and Canadians.

Across the world, we must confront the illiberal project posed by our medieval rivals upon the modern age of democracies. Our town squares are burning. Mobs are threatening individual dignity and freedom. The time has come for the return of leaders with conviction, leaders who do not bow before the illiberal age upon us, but who instead unlock the economic and military strength required in this generation’s greatest test.

I think of Ukraine a decade ago and all that has transpired since, from the jubilation of the Revolution of Dignity, to all the carnage, the rubble, the costs of chaos and disorder that appeasement has resulted in. Hope seems like an idea so far away. One year ago, in a report from the bombardment of Kharkiv, an elderly woman stood in the rubble of her apartment. She interrupted her neighbour in the middle of an interview, surveying the damage inflicted by Russia’s indiscriminate attacks. She shared three words: Hope dies last.

If we are to live up to our potential as a country, then we will heed her wisdom that without hope we have nothing. It is time to replace a government unwilling to do what Canada must. It is time to replace it with one that delivers upon the strengths of our nation to a world eagerly awaiting them; one that restores the promise of Canada to alliances broken so badly by the NDP-Liberals.

Let us make the trade deal we should be making, the one that delivers hope and the one that delivers the energy that would end the war, bring strength to the alliances we depend upon, and secure the future for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member take the attitude that he has toward Ukraine and talk to members of his own caucus as they continue to filibuster this piece of legislation.

He is factually incorrect. It was this government that signed off on the first Ukraine deal. It is the Conservative Party across the way that continues to filibuster Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. The Conservatives can say all the wonderful words they want and glorify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want, but the bottom line is the Conservative Party is reckless and risky.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of seeing this legislation pass. It is economically the right thing to do. If we take a look at what is taking place in Europe, we can send a very strong message in favour of Ukraine that would be very powerful.

Will the member stand in this place and make a commitment that he will do whatever he can to ensure this legislation will pass throughout the House of Commons, including the Senate, before—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. House leader, especially because I think his perspective on what is going to make a difference in this war, in this world and for Canadians is quite skewed.

If the Liberals want to deal with the issues the world and Europe are dealing with, their dependency on the energy they have come to rely on the Russian Federation for, and for Putin's domination of the energy order of Europe to now come to an end and make a singular decision to end the war, then the energy and effort that Canadians need to be making is to get our energy and resources to market to displace Russian dependency with Canadian long-term supply.

We are a country that has the highest standards for the rule of law and the highest ethical standards. Our production reduces emissions internationally. It is one of the most important projects we could be undertaking in this venture.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and thank him for his speech.

Obviously, we applaud this new agreement with Ukraine. I fully recognize that the previous agreement was negotiated by Stephen Harper. It was about to come into force when an election was called. This agreement goes further. Given that Ukraine is part of of the World Trade Organization, there will be little to be gained from tariffs. The main purpose of this bill is to send another very strong message of diplomacy and show that Ukraine is our friend.

Obviously, we need to look at the financial markets. One thing about this agreement is that it entrenches in a treaty that Ukraine's territory includes Donbass and Crimea. We think that is an excellent message to send.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada has always stood for Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will never accept Crimea's illegal annexation. It will never accept the idea that Russia's claims over the Donbass are somehow credible. They are not. They have never been credible. They are a giant pantomime hosted by Vladimir Putin in his own mind about a neo-Russian idea of the country.

When we think about how to deal with the issues the hon. member has raised, the most important thing to do is to assess what kind of trade deal we want to make. The trade deal around getting our energy to Europe is one of the most important deals we could make.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that when my hon. colleague talks about illegal occupations and indiscriminate attacks he condemns Russia for it, but of course his party praises Israel when Israel does it.

I was in this House when the Harper government was in power. It was totally disrespected on the world stage because of that kind of inconsistent, imbalanced, outdated and Cold War oversimplification.

From 2015 to 2021, we had a Liberal majority government and a Liberal minority government, yet in the member's speech he incorrectly and repeatedly asserted that these were Liberal-NDP decisions in that time period. An accurate history is the basis of sound foreign policy. With that kind of disregard for Canadian history, how can Canadians have any trust that Conservatives would have sound foreign policy in the future when they cannot even get Canadian history correct?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply offended with how the hon. member has described the situation in the Middle East. As we know, there are many anxious communities affected here in Canada today. He and his party are determined to try and paint the State of Israel and the IDF that way, when they have every right to defend the hostages who have been taken from their land and their state and believe that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. This hon. member is clearly on the path of anti-Zionist thinking. It is a condemnation of a democratic state that should never be tolerated in this chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important agreement.

I want to focus my comments on a few things. First, I noticed in debate that there has been some insinuation that reviewing this bill and its contents is somehow inappropriate for Parliament. I want to refer colleagues who are making that assertion to comments that were made earlier in debate, I think it was last week, by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. He talked about how, in previous trade agreements that have come before the House, the government has not afforded Parliament a lot of time to review things.

He actually cited that, in February 2020, ahead of the renegotiated CUSMA agreement, the minister made the following commitment: to require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiation toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations, and to require objectives for negotiations towards new free trade agreements to be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, these objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade.

As far as I understand, and I am happy to be corrected, I do not believe that the government actually did that in this case. That is problematic. Because the government has failed to do this, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take time to scrutinize this legislation. It affects many different aspects of the economy, some in very positive ways. Our job here is to scrutinize legislation, and the assertion that somehow we should not be doing that is actually anti-democratic.

I hope that hon. colleagues refrain from making that assertion and, instead, focus on the subject at hand today. I also hope that, if the government is going to enter into future negotiations such as this, they abide by the rules that they have put forward to this place. It would make things a lot more productive, and it would be far more respectful of our time and parliamentarians' time here.

On the subject of the agreement, I would like to focus my comments on this bill for consideration in two key components. First is the concept of treatment of intangibles in free trade agreements. There was quite a bit of rightful concern about the government's lack of focus on how to treat intangibles in the previous Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I think it is incumbent on us to be looking at this particular aspect in any free trade agreement, including this one. I would just implore colleagues to do so, should this bill make it to committee.

I want to read one passage, just to put it into the record for colleagues to consider as they are deliberating this bill. It was a passage by Jim Balsillie, a Canadian industry leader, talking about intangibles in trade:

The instruments designed to govern the intangibles economy – including the new-age trade agreements such as CUSMA, CPTPP, and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – entrench and expand protection for owners of IP and data.

However, he noted that this is not new. He said:

... in 1990s trade agreements became the main tool for devising preferential marketplace frameworks that suit the owners of IP.... Nowhere was the shift from a tangibles to an intangibles economy set in sharper relief than with Canada’s largest trading partner the United States.

Later, he went on to critique how:

Canada’s woefully late recognition of the shift to intangibles and failure to understand its significance for national prosperity and security resulted in its falling behind, walking into strategic errors, and now leaving it poised to enter the post-pandemic world not just in catch up mode but relegated to competing globally on the cost of its tech talent with low-wage jurisdictions.

He talked about how:

Canada has an IP trade deficit. The Council’s recommendation would have us paying even more rents out to IP owners, who are principally foreign.

This is something that I really hope colleagues will consider in their deliberations over this bill, particularly as Canada still lags behind the rest of the world in terms of dealing with artificial intelligence regulations.

We are entering a phase where the global economy is not just entering into a digital economy; it is in a digital economy and progressing into a generative economy.

If we just have widgets and tangibles as a primary focus of trade agreements, and we promulgate other aspects, such as intellectual property protection and data ownership, without thinking about the downstream impact on our economy in 10 or 15 years, then we are setting Canada's economic prospects behind. I am not necessarily saying that is the case in this agreement, but I would just hope that parliamentarians who are tasked with looking at it, particularly in the committee stage, would focus on the precedent that is being set with regard to intangibles and the intellectual property component. Moreover, with any other trade agreement, that is something that Parliament needs to be seized with. This is just a note to colleagues who might be looking at that in the future.

The other thing I want to focus on would be article 13.10 of the trade agreement, under subsection 8(d), which says, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”.

This is a great, laudable objective. As colleagues have talked about previously in the House, the provision of clean energy and reducing Ukraine's and other European countries' reliance on Russia for energy should be an objective of the Canadian government. However, as other colleagues have pointed out, the government's own actions over the last eight years have been antithetical to that posture. Therefore, it is very difficult for the government to make such an assertion in a trade agreement after eight years of failing to acknowledge that Canada has a duty to build up facilities to provide cleaner sources of energy, such as liquefied natural gas, to other economies.

The reality is that Canada's government has taken a posture that is against the development of this resource. In fact, I would draw members' attention to an article in Reuters from October 6 of last year, over a year ago, titled “Canada's [Prime Minister] under pressure from Conservative rival to back new LNG”.

This article extensively covered what happened when the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, came to Canada. He was seeking a major role for Canada in replacing Russian supplies, such as energy. The rebuff that our allies in Europe got from the current government was wholly inappropriate. A year has gone by, and we are now taking this posture in this trade agreement without having seen any movement forward from the government on how to increase this type of export in an environmentally sustainable way. That is wholly irresponsible.

Earlier, my colleague from Calgary Heritage talked in his speech about Canada's failure to provide when we have this resource in abundant supply and some of the strictest environmental controls in the world. Canada is actually remarkably well placed to develop this resource in an environmentally responsible manner. There are colleagues from all different parties who represent ridings that are part of the development of this resource. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance between the posture that the government has taken in article 13.10 of the trade agreement and the reality of building out this infrastructure.

Therefore, I would encourage colleagues, as they consider this bill, as well as colleagues from the governing party, to look at ways to close that gap or to bring those two postures together. We cannot be putting postures like this in a trade agreement with any sort of truth to it without building out that infrastructure. It is good for the Canadian economy, and it certainly would defund the Russian war machine. This is really important. It is a broader objective, and it would provide stronger economic support for the country.

I will just close with this: Many colleagues in the House have pointed out in the debate over the Conservative motion on removing home heating tax, which will be voted on this Monday, that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy and that we should be looking to displace it. I do not understand why that cognitive dissonance exists in other areas.

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

Madam Speaker, back in September President Zelenskyy came to Ottawa and spoke in this very chamber. Part of the purpose of the trip was to sign off on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what this legislation is based on, and it was brought in shortly after the signature. Given the fact that we have the President of Ukraine coming to Canada during a time of war to sign off on a trade agreement, to see the silly games being played on this legislation by the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat disgraceful. I believe that, in the Conservative Party, there is an element that does not want to see this legislation pass.

The member's colleague from Cumberland—Colchester referred to this legislation as “woke” and suggested that, in some way, Canada should not be having an agreement with Ukraine at a time of war. I will ask the member this: Does she support his comments?

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually surprised my colleague brought up the incident that happened during President Zelenskyy's address. It did not go so well for the government. I think the government owes a significant apology to the Ukrainian people for its complete mishandling and the debacle that ensued there. It was disgraceful, what happened, and the government should be ashamed of itself.

In terms of calling the review of legislation that is before this place “silly games”, I think that is very indicative of the government and the Liberal Party's disrespect for Parliament and parliamentary privilege.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First, I want to remind members that, if they have other questions, they should wait for an opportunity to ask. Second, if they want to have conversations, they should take them out of the chamber while the House is in session.