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 Labour Code

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to get there, but I keep getting interrupted by members of the Liberal Party.

I was saying that only the government can choose bills to come forward for debate. It has stated that Bill C-57 is a bill it urgently wants to be concluded in the House. It has not called it for debate today, so—

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government House leader said that they would give “priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57”, so you can imagine my surprise—

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to once again speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, this time at third reading, the final stage of debate.

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

In 2017, Canada signed the first version of this free trade agreement. Let us remember that, at that time, Ukraine was already involved in conflicts with Russia. It was recognized that a broader, more complete agreement would be needed. The two countries agreed in 2019 to begin the process of creating this new agreement. That treaty was completed early in 2023 and signed at the end of September when President Zelenskyy visited Ottawa.

The text of the treaty, however, was not released until this implementation bill, Bill C-57, was tabled on October 17. Debate on the bill began only a few days later. The compressed timeline of parliamentary debate on this agreement is problematic, and I will speak to that later.

Ukraine is now literally fighting for its life in an illegal war instigated by the Russian invasion in 2022. Canada has been providing aid in many forms to Ukraine since that war began. With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply-managed products such as poultry to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but it is fair to say that most Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during this horrific time in their struggles.

I mentioned the FIPA that predated the free trade agreements with Ukraine, an agreement signed in 1995. FIPAs allow foreign corporations to sue Canadian governments if they feel the new laws or regulations in Canada impact their profit. The most famous of these in Canada is the FIPA that Stephen Harper signed with China in 2012 without any debate in this place. That still haunts us to this day.

FIPAs now find their way into broader free trade agreements in the form of investor-state dispute systems, or ISDS. It is no secret that New Democrats are not a fan of ISDS. When we have voted against free trade agreements in the past, whether it was the CETA with the EU or the CPTPP agreement with Pacific nations, it was almost always because those agreements included ISDS clauses.

New Democrats were happy when the new CUSMA agreement with the United States and Mexico eliminated the ISDS provisions that had been included in the original NAFTA, so we are very disappointed that this new agreement with Ukraine has inserted ISDS provisions in its investment chapter. It basically rolls the old FIPA conditions into this treaty with some updated language. We joined the Bloc Québécois member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in committee to try to remove the ISDS implementation in this agreement, but we were voted down by the Liberals and Conservatives.

The world is moving away from ISDS language in trade agreements. Canada should be at the forefront of that trend, not a laggard trying to catch up. Australia and New Zealand have negotiated side letters with the United Kingdom taking out ISDS language in the CPTPP agreement as part of the U.K.'s accession process to that agreement. The U.K. Parliament is actively debating whether it wants to include ISDS provisions in future trade deals. The European Union is moving away from ISDS, and Canada should do the same.

Bill C-57 passed second reading on November 21. Surprisingly, the Conservatives voted against it. They voted against a trade agreement that Ukraine very much wanted full support for. Why? The Conservatives found very deep in the environment chapter the words “carbon pricing”. They concocted a scenario of Canada forcing Ukraine in its time of need to agree to support carbon pricing.

The fact is that Ukraine has had carbon pricing since 2011, long before Canada put the carbon tax in place. Ukraine strengthened that resolve in 2018 as part of its efforts to join the European Union. If anything, Ukraine has been leading Canada in the carbon pricing scenario. The mention of carbon pricing in this agreement in no way obliges either Canada or Ukraine to implement or continue carbon pricing.

Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians noticed that the Conservatives voted against the agreement. They pleaded for unanimity. What did the Conservatives do in response to Ukraine's concerns? Well, they voted against funding for Ukraine aid in the supplementary estimates last week. They voted against funding for Operation Unifier as well. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress commented online, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier and other support for Ukraine in the supplementary estimates. Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.”

Just a few minutes ago, the Conservatives doubled-down and once again voted against the Ukraine free trade agreement at report stage. Then they added an amendment to send the bill back to committee, further delaying a bill that the Ukrainian government has asked us to pass without delay. We cannot make this stuff up.

I would like to turn back to the issue of how we debate free trade agreements in this Parliament. Too often in the past, we have barely known that a trade agreement was being negotiated before it was presented with a signed agreement that we were asked to ratify, a fait accompli. The NDP thinks it is important that Parliament have input into trade negotiations before they begin. When the government negotiated CETA and CPTPP, Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deals were already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point. It is not too much to ask for input on these important policies. The United States Congress has the right and ability to debate what priorities its country will have before entering into free trade negotiations.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona wrote a letter in December 2019 to the Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Finance, regarding increased transparency around the negotiations for the new Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. In response to that letter, the minister agreed, on February 19, 2020, to change the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. Those changes were to “require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” That is three months. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the committee on international trade. The second one was to “require that the objectives for negotiations toward the new free agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” Under normal parliamentary procedures, those objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade.

As I mentioned previously, there were discussions with some stakeholders around the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but the international trade committee was only able to provide input well after negotiations had begun. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. We should know what the treaty contains as soon as it is signed.

The standing policy of this place is there should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and the tabling of implementing legislation. At the same time, the government must table an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment.

When the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was tabled in 2017, the government followed that policy, but that did not happen at all with this agreement. The treaty and the implementing legislation were tabled on the same day with the memorandum. On top of that, the minister tabled the legislation on a Tuesday, and we began debate the following Monday. As the Conservative member mentioned, it is hardly enough time to read a very large agreement, find out what it is all about and really make meaningful debate in this House to properly discuss the ramifications of these treaties that mean a lot to Canadian companies and Canadians.

This has to change. MPs should have the opportunity to debate the priorities of free trade negotiations before they begin and should have ample opportunity to debate the implementation of treaties after they are signed. I urge the minister and her government to follow the standard policies on how to introduce treaties and implement legislation before Parliament. These are not minor details. They are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine in 2017. Our main caveat for free trade agreements in general is that they must be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs and protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment and promote the well-being of all citizens.

The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian corporations. They must include measures of good labour agreements both here and in the countries we are making deals with and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well. These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved.

This new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us which would implement this agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine and to prepare for the rebuilding of Ukraine after its victory over Russia.

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, a great deal of interest goes well beyond this chamber, whether it is from the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or President Zelenskyy.

A letter that I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. The letter says, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill”. I think that would be in our best interests. At one point, it seemed that everyone inside this chamber was behind Ukraine and showed Ukrainian solidarity given what is taking place in Europe. The trade agreement is sound and solid.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Conservative Party rethinking its position so we can get unanimous support for this trade agreement.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are already debating third reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, which the Standing Committee on International Trade had the opportunity to study. Several of my colleagues here were present during the committee study.

Fundamentally, not much has changed about the reasons for our support. This time, the agreement puts some meat on the bones. The old version was pretty skeletal. This agreement will not make Ukraine a major trading partner for Quebec and Canada, of course. I would say Ukraine will remain a minor, not to say marginal, partner. However, this agreement does put meat on the bones. It is a real trade agreement, whereas the previous version was essentially a declaration of friendship.

We note that there are some promising opportunities for Quebec. Our pork producers will be able to export more to that country. Also, since Quebec is home to many highly reputable engineering firms, there could be some very attractive contracts for them when Ukraine rebuilds. This will also benefit Ukraine economically, and we hope that the rebuilding takes place as soon as possible and that peace is restored quickly.

However, I do want to point out that there is one clause I voted against in committee. I asked that it not be agreed to on division, like most of the clauses, and that we proceed to a recorded division. It is the clause concerning investor-state dispute settlement. I do not understand why, after removing this from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, Canada would go back to negotiating agreements that include such provisions, which place multinationals on the same footing as governments.

Yes, it is written very cautiously. There are exceptions, and it is written far more cautiously than the infamous chapter 11 of the former NAFTA agreement, but the fact remains that this still allows multinationals to take states to court when government measures run counter to the company's right to make a profit.

Take the following case, for example. Ukraine seized property from Ukrainian citizens who were financing and supporting the Russian side. Under the guise of protecting foreign investors, this agreement would make it very difficult for Canada to do the same thing, that is, seize the assets and property of Ukrainian citizens here who support Russia. Our country could expose itself to lawsuits against public property, against the Canadian government, from these investors.

This is unacceptable. We do not understand why it is still in there. When I asked for a recorded vote on this clause, which is in itself undemocratic because it limits the power of the states to legislate and make political decisions, only my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, voted with me. The Liberals and Conservatives were quick to vote to keep this clause in the bill. The last thing they wanted to do was upset their buddies at the big multinational corporations, of course.

I should also point out that one chapter in the agreement is full of lofty principles that the government likes to brag about. These lofty principles include the fact that companies will now behave responsibly and Canadian companies will behave properly, so there is nothing to worry about. However, these are nothing but lofty principles. Of course, this refers to international concepts, and it is in no way binding. That is why I am very proud to say that the only amendment that was adopted was the one I proposed, the Bloc Québécois's amendment. I will read it:

That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 6 the following new clause:

“Compliance with principles and guidelines — Canadian companies

15.1 (1) The Minister must ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in article 15.14 of the Agreement.

(2) The Minister must establish a process for receiving and responding to complaints of non-compliance with those principles and guidelines.

(3) On or before January 1st of each year starting in 2025, the Minister must prepare a report that summarizes activities carried out in relation to the Minister’s obligations under this section.

(4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.”

Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work in committee, there has been a shift from lofty principles to an obligation of political accountability that is written into the bill. I think that we can be very proud of the work we have done.

That being said, allow me to digress. The issue of Canadian companies respecting all human rights abroad is far from resolved. I want to read an excerpt from budget 2023. It is not partisan, I will read verbatim what is written:

Budget 2023 announces the federal government's intention to introduce legislation by 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains to strengthen the import ban on goods produced using forced labour. The government will also work to ensure existing legislation fits within the government's overall framework to safeguard our supply chains.

The budget was presented in March 2023. It says “by 2024”.

May I remind the government that it has three days left to keep its promise to introduce legislation before the House adjourns, three days from now? May I remind the government of this, or will it add this to its long list of broken promises?

At the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also moved a motion to send the Minister of Labour a letter to remind him of the commitment in his mandate letter. My motion was adopted, with all my colleagues, including the Liberals, voting in favour. The letter was sent. I am glad. I am looking forward to seeing the government's response. Perhaps we will get a nice surprise. Perhaps when we wake up tomorrow morning, the bill will miraculously be introduced and the government will keep its promise. I just want to remind it that it has three days left.

Of course, the government may say that there was Bill S-211. That bill requires Canadian companies to prepare an annual report. It does not have much to do with respecting human rights. It only deals with forced labour. It does not cover human rights, which, according to international conventions, are indivisible. We are far from that. Under Bill S‑211, a company could comply just by reporting that it took no due diligence measures. All it has to do is submit a report in which it says it did nothing, and it will meet the requirement. The only consequences, the only fines, are for companies that fail to submit a report or that make false statements. Therefore, if the company reports that it did no due diligence, the government would say, “That is fine, thank you, good night”, and move on to the next company. Only companies with more than 250 employees that generate significant active revenue are covered.

Instead, I urge the government to move forward with Bill C-262, which was introduced by the NDP, but which I am co-sponsoring and supporting. It covers companies of all sizes, gets the affected communities involved, encompasses all human rights and, above all, provides meaningful recourse for victims.

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.

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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives chose to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. On the Day of Dignity and Freedom, the 10th anniversary of Ukrainians reclaiming their democracy, which is profoundly symbolic, the Conservatives repudiated support for Ukraine.

Following that, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, representing 1.5 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin, asked the official opposition to revisit its position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the bill in third reading. The reply from the Conservatives has been now to fully block the legislation before the House, to block any attempt to provide support to Ukraine.

What are the ramifications of the Conservatives' doubling down, first repudiating Ukraine on its Day of Dignity and Freedom and now blocking any attempt to provide support through the Canada-Ukraine trade deal?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted with what we are seeing unfold here today in the House of Commons.

For those who are watching at home and those who might be tuning in, it is important to understand what happened here today. We put forward the Order Paper, and that Order Paper says what we plan to debate during the day. Conservatives would have seen on that Order Paper that we were taking the report back from committee, with respect to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. They knew it was our intention to debate this today.

For the fourth, fifth or maybe even sixth time, the Conservatives have, once again, used a concurrence motion to shut down debate on something they are absolutely afraid of talking about. I find it most egregious that this comes the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published an open letter to the Leader of the Oppositionthat said:

The UCC was disappointed to see the Official Opposition vote against the adoption of Bill C-57, the implementation of which would modernize the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA).

Ukraine needs assistance in strengthening economic reslience. Ukraine's government has stressed that the modernization of CUFTA would play an important role in this regard.

The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.

The Conservatives knew this was coming. They put forward this particular concurrence motion the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published this open letter.

There are two red herrings on this matter I would like to talk about. The first is the price on pollution, the carbon tax and the Conservatives' so-called reasoning for not supporting this. I would remind the House that we do not have to go that far back in Debates to see that they never talked about the price on pollution and they never talked about the carbon tax the entire time we first started debating this. They used every reason not to.

As a matter of fact, the first time I gave a speech on this, I stood in this exact same place and spoke to it as though it were a foregone conclusion, that this entire House was going to support it. I talked for about 10 minutes, and then I sat down. The member for Cumberland—Colchester stood up and started to talk about the agreement as though it were woke legislation. I could not believe it. I almost fell over. Members can go back and review the tape. I stood up in shock. I did not know what was going on.

Then we started to find out, as little bits of information started to make their way forward, that that member and four other Conservatives travelled in June to London, where they had meetings with people from the Danube Institute, who also sponsored some of their travel. It is a right-wing Hungarian think tank that, coincidentally, has also referred to the Canadian and western approach towards Ukraine as being woke.

Then the Conservatives show up back here, a couple of months later, and they start parroting the exact same information from that particular organization. It is not a far stretch to understand why they are in this position. That is the first red herring.

The second red herring, the newly developed one that just came out of committee a couple of days ago, was when Conservatives tried to put forward amendments about arms. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan kept saying, “Ukraine needs”. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to start listening to them when they say they want this agreement. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress when it says they want this agreement. What Ukraine does not need are Vladimir Putin and the Conservatives telling it what it needs. That is not what Ukraine needs. It needs Conservatives to listen. Now it is in an open letter, which was just distributed yesterday.

Once again, we see the same tactics from the Conservatives. They have two red herrings, and it is a red herring because I reminded the committee members, when I was there earlier this week, that there was half a billion dollars in the 2022 budget for arms for Ukraine. They voted against that. They could perhaps somehow justify that being in the opposition meant they had to vote against the budget, but I went back and looked at the speeches from the four members who were in that committee, and not a single one of them actually spoke about those arms during the budget debate. It is a red herring.

It is red herring after red herring. The Conservatives are looking for reasons not to support it.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have a document that I am asking for unanimous consent to table. In essence, it states, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on BillC-57”, which is the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, “and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.”

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is truly a great honour for me to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister with respect to Bill C-57.

This fall, as the Ukrainian people fight to defend themselves against Russia's genocidal invasion, the Canadian government has signed a historic, modernized Canada- Ukraine free trade agreement with the Government of Ukraine. It is important to remember that the Ukrainian people are not just fighting for their own freedom and survival; they are also fighting for us, and we need to be fighting for them.

Most MPs voted in favour of the free trade agreement, but every single Conservative MP voted against it. They voted unanimously against supporting Ukraine.

My question for the Prime Minister is, will he share with Canadians why the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is so important to Canada and to Ukraine?