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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we were to go through the Standing Orders today, we would find a number of Standing Orders that are somewhat redundant and do not necessarily have value. I would suggest this is one of those Standing Orders, and I would ask—

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

I would agree with the hon. member, but it is not up to me. I am not the one to change Standing Orders as we go. We have a process for that.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, there is another Standing Order that says we are not allowed to sing in the House, yet the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when introducing a petition earlier today, was singing. I think it would only be appropriate that the petition be removed from the record, because he presented it in a way that goes against our Standing Orders. As a member, I would like to call that out.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Nobody raised it at the time so it passed.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris, on the same point of order, I presume.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, but I will get to my point in a moment. If the member who just spoke is calling out the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for singing today, he is pretty loose with what he calls singing.

I just want to say—

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

We are judging artistic capacity here.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris has the floor.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way for Winnipeg North has challenged the Speaker's ruling.

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

I think the hon. member was trying to see if tradition overrides the Standing Orders, if I understand correctly the point the hon. parliamentary secretary was making.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, if at any point it was interpreted that I was challenging the ruling of the Chair, I apologize for that.

I am glad the Speaker has recognized the very serious nature of what the Conservatives are suggesting by implementing that standing order because it will have a very profound effect on many speeches, not only today but well into the future. I suspect it will be referred to well into the future until the rule is changed. I suggest it is a dated rule and one taken out of context only because members opposite are against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which is not a reflection on the vote. It is very clear that the Conservatives do not support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

We remember the voting marathon and voting line by line. We also remember the leader of the Conservative Party saying last week that Conservatives were going to keep the government working until Christmas, that they were going to fight the government over the price on pollution and keep Liberals voting endlessly. There were 30-plus hours of voting. That was the energy of the leader of the Conservative Party.

What ended up happening? When midnight approached, a good portion of Conservatives decided to have a nap and did not necessarily participate in the proceedings. Some caused a great deal of concern. When we voted line by line, we saw the true colours of the Conservative Party on a couple of motions. One was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, better known as Operation Unifier. Canadians would have been shocked to see the manner in which the Conservatives dealt with that particular issue. People would be shocked—

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

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, a moment ago the member was reflecting on the presence or absence of members at the end of last week. That is very clearly against the rules. The member is not new and knows that reflecting on the presence or absence of particular members is against the rules. I hope he will bring himself to order.

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

I would remind the hon. member that referring to the presence or absence of members is against the rules.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, for clarification, if one were to say that 40% of the Conservative caucus was not present for 45% of the votes, would that be against the rules, as I am not talking about an individual?