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.

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

Madam Chair, I will come to a close at the time of my choosing as per the rules of the committee.

Where was the member for Kingston and the Islands? Where was Mark Gerretsen when the Canadian representative in Ukraine was summoned by President Zelenskyy? Did Mr. Gerretsen take to Twitter? Did he stand up in the House of Commons to tell his government to listen to President Zelenskyy? No. He was silent.

Where were the other members of this committee? Where was Yvan Baker? Not a single member of the Liberal caucus criticized the Prime Minister's decision to supply a turbine that was designed to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Europe and was a sanctions exemption. This was condemned roundly and personally by President Zelenskyy. He described it correctly as a manifestation of weakness. He summoned the Canadian representative to Ukraine. We had the ambassador to Ukraine before the foreign affairs committee denouncing that decision as it related to the turbine.

This isn't the first or the last time this government has ignored the needs of Ukraine—not what I say Ukraine needed, but what Ukrainians said they needed. It wasn't the first time and it would not be the last.

On March 29, earlier that year and very shortly after the invasion, Conservatives put forward a motion in the House to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians fleeing the war. This motion, by the way, was supported by all of the opposition parties—Conservative, Bloc and NDP. That meant it passed. The House of Commons passed a motion calling on the government to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians. The Liberals not only voted against it, but they failed to implement it, even after the expressed will of the majority of the House of Commons was decisively stated on that.

Mr. Gerretsen is here. How did Mr. Gerretsen vote? He voted no. A month after the invasion, he voted against our motion for visa-free travel for Ukraine. All of the Liberal members either voted against or didn't bother to show up for that vote. We had the refusal of that support from this government and a refusal to implement the will of Canada's elected House of Commons.

In the summer, the government was denounced and condemned by the President of Ukraine for breaking western sanctions unity, and there were no statements whatsoever from members of the government, backbench or otherwise. It's no surprise, because while members of this government across the way are interested in trying to use something for political points, they have consistently voted against our proposals that would have made a concrete difference to help Ukraine.

Just last week at this committee, the Conservatives put forward a motion that would have expanded the scope of Bill C-57, which would have allowed us to move forward with constructive amendments that would remove red tape and ease the process of weapons sales to Ukraine. Liberals opposed that motion. Liberals and New Democrats, unfortunately, together blocked our efforts to expand the scope of the bill. That would have made a real, concrete difference to the people in Ukraine.

The member across the way says to look at who's talking about Ukraine in the House. Okay, let's look at who's talking about Ukraine in the House. I did a search here on who's talking about Ukraine. Since getting elected, I have talked about Ukraine 240 times in the House of Commons, which is well over three times as much as the member for Kingston and the Islands talks about Ukraine. I suspect that most of that talk has just been in the last week or so when he's decided he wants to wear the hat of being the one doing the attacks. I don't think the government has much to offer, which is why they've gone into full-on mindless attack mode. I don't think Canadians are going to be fooled by that.

Going back further, Ukraine was invaded in 2014, and Stephen Harper led the world in mobilizing a response. At that time, the role that Canada was playing in response to the illegal invasion of Crimea was widely recognized.

When the Liberals took power, they were bent on warming up relations with Russia, while Ukraine was already partially occupied by Russia. We had then minister Stéphane Dion eagerly pursuing the warming up of relations. In fact, one of the first things this government did was that they cancelled the sharing of RADARSAT satellite images. Under the Conservatives, we had RADARSAT satellites that were sharing images that were of strategic use to Ukraine. The Liberals, upon taking office, cancelled that program of assistance.

Prior to the further invasion at the beginning of last year, we were consistently calling for tougher sanctions. We've also called for increased investments in our military. Liberals, from the beginning of being in government, were talking about having a leaner military in their first budget. Liberals have consistently failed to support Ukraine. They've consistently opposed the vital investments in our military and in NATO co-operation that would ensure our security and the security of our allies. They voted against visa-free travel for Ukraine. They earned the condemnation of the Government of Ukraine by granting the Siemens turbine sanctions permit exemption, and they opposed our efforts to allow weapon exports.

As I said before, I think reasonable people can disagree on the particulars of a trade agreement. Our view is that the explicit references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage are enough of a problem that we cannot support the deal as it is. I think reasonable people can disagree about that.

What is clear is that on much more fundamental issues, on which the Ukrainian government has repeatedly and explicitly spoken, these Liberals have been totally indifferent. Their use of this issue for political purposes demonstrates their fundamental insincerity when it comes to Ukraine and issues of international peace and security in general.

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I will likely have a couple of amendments to propose to this motion. I will start with the following amendment, to add to the beginning of the text of the motion “Whereas on March 29, 2022, Liberals opposed a Conservative motion to allow Ukrainians visa-free travel to Canada”.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay, it's a new matter.

We have completed Bill C-57. Thank you very much. In spite of all the challenges, we managed to get here.

Go ahead, Mr. Sheehan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-57 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your not going on too terribly long.

In spite of that, amendment CPC-7 seeks to amend section 4 and paragraph 14(5)(b) of the Business Development Bank of Canada Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 4 and paragraph 14(5)(b) of the Business Development Bank of Canada Act are not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Amendment CPC-6 seeks to amend section 10 of the Export Development Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill”.

Since section 10 of the Export Development Act is not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I will now give my ruling.

Amendment CPC-5 seeks to amend section 7.1 of the Export and Import Permits Act. As our House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 7.1 of the Export and Import Permits Act is not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the Conservatives is confusing. It is hard to tell where they are going.

We talk about the carbon tax. We say that it does not apply in Quebec. They continue to say that it does. We saw that earlier. We say again that it does not apply, and they keep saying that yes, it does apply in Quebec. We repeat that it does not, and they say that it applies indirectly. We simply do not understand them anymore.

When they talk about Ukraine, they stand up in the House and say that they are for Ukraine because they voted against Bill C‑57, which implements the Canada‑Ukraine free trade agreement. They are so twisted that now the Ukrainians are wondering what is happening with the Conservatives and why they are against Ukraine. The Conservatives need to stand up and set the record straight.

My question is very simple. When someone has no substance to offer, the only weapon they have left is intimidation, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I will do the ruling. Let me just assure members and anyone who is watching that the House of Commons has very strict rules about what can be done and what can't be done. As the chair, it is imperative that I follow the rules that are set down for all committee chairs and all committees.

Amendment CPC-4 seeks to amend sections 3 and 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since sections 3 and 7 of the Export and Import Permits Act are not being amended by Bill C-57, it is therefore my opinion that the amendment is inadmissible.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay. Thank you very much.

We'll do the ruling now.

Bill C-57 seeks to enact the act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The amendment proposes that the Minister of National Defence donate to Ukraine any Canadian military equipment that is deemed to be surplus or no longer useful to Canada.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In my opinion, donation of Canadian military equipment represents a new concept beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I call the meeting back to order.

I have consulted with legislative counsel and I will make the following ruling.

Bill C-57 seeks to enact the act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and the Ukraine. The amendment seeks to mandate the preparation of a plan to increase Canadian production of defence supplies required by the Ukrainian armed forces or the Canadian Forces.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, dictates on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion that has been well thought out, I say that the aforementioned plan contains a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill; therefore, unfortunately, I rule that the amendment is inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Before Mr. Seeback speaks, I do need to inform you that I will be ruling it inadmissible, and I will read out the reason that it's inadmissible.

Bill C-57 seeks to enact the act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The amendment proposes, among other things, the appointment of “a group of experts responsible for...ensuring that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in section 15.14 of the Agreement”.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In my opinion, the amendment proposes a new entity, which would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Seeback.

I will now will rule on the admissibility of that.

Bill C-57 seeks to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Clause 7 of the bill states, “The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement” and it provides a summary list of the objectives that are elaborated through its provisions.

The amendment seeks to add to that list two additional objectives. The first is to strengthen co-operation on energy matters, which would include the export of Canadian energy to Ukraine. The second is to strengthen co-operation on matters relating to nuclear technology, which would include the export of Canadian nuclear equipment, expertise and uranium to Ukraine.

According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the addition of the aforementioned objectives would create new concepts that are beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to speak briefly to this motion by my colleague as well and to acknowledge some of the context for this discussion of Bill C-57.

I think reasonable people can disagree on aspects of a trade deal. There's a lot of history in Parliament about constructive debates that have gone back and forth about different trade deals. What we have seen, sadly, is outrageous hyperbole from members of the government trying to say that constructive suggestions or disagreements about aspects of a trade deal are tantamount to not supporting Ukraine, and going even further to say that somehow our opposition to the carbon tax provisions in this bill is supporting Russia. These have been outrageous, offensive and wrong comments from the government, a government that is increasingly desperate and is trying to use these outlandish accusations to cover for its own general incompetence.

Conservatives have put forward many constructive proposals related to supporting Ukraine, which government members have rejected. On March 29 of last year, for example, we proposed visa-free travel for people from Ukraine, something that was supported by the NDP and the Bloc and that was the subject of a motion adopted by a majority of the House, but it was opposed by the Liberals and never implemented. Members across the way voted against our proposal for visa-free travel for Ukrainians.

We put forward a motion at this committee to expand the scope of the bill to include provisions that would facilitate increased weapons exports to Ukraine. Liberal members have opposed our efforts to add amendments that would support increased weapons exports to Ukraine.

Last year as well, the Liberals granted a sanctions waiver to Russia allowing the export of turbines to Russia to facilitate the export of natural gas from Russia to Germany, which was bad for Canada's natural gas sector, of course, but also bad for Ukraine. At the time—this was at the foreign affairs committee—the ambassador from Ukraine came before the committee and denounced those permits.

If we go through, we see that the Liberals voted against visa-free travel from Ukraine; the Liberals granted sanctions permits to Russia to allow the export of Russian natural gas to fund the war machine; and, just in the last week, Liberals have been blocking our amendments on weapons manufacturing. These are clear examples of how the Liberals have not sided with what we believe to be the interests of Ukraine, and yet we haven't resorted to the kinds of hyperbolic accusations they have simply over a disagreement about a trade deal.

This shows, frankly, the divisiveness and the desperation of the government, a government that is unwilling to defend its failing energy policy and that is desperate for distractions.

On the motion specifically, here's why this motion is important. The process is that committees decide which amendments to consider or not. That's up to the committee to decide. There are cases, for instance, in which the chair may rule something inadmissible, but the committee may decide to consider it anyway. Ultimately, when the bill is tabled in the House, the Speaker looks at the version of the bill and if a member objects to certain amendments because they view those amendments as being out of scope, then at that point, the Speaker will make a ruling and can strike out certain amendments.

However, that issue comes up only if a member raises it in the House, so I'm calling on all members here today. If you believe that expanding weapons exports to Ukraine is important, I have six amendments that would constructively and effectively do that. I would like to move those amendments, and I would like to be able to add those amendments to this bill. Even if they are notionally out of scope, those amendments can proceed as long as no member objects to their inclusion. If, in the House at report stage, a member rises and objects to the inclusion of those amendments, then the Speaker will rule on their procedural admissibility, but the committee can, as per my colleague's motion, consider those amendments; it can adopt those amendments, and those amendments can proceed in the version of the bill that's referred to the House.

This is not an idle or an abstract consideration. I have before us—and they've been distributed to members—six different amendments that would give real effect to the need to get critical lethal weapons into the hands of the Ukrainian army to a greater extent than we have in the past. These amendments would matter. They would actually help Ukraine win the war against Russia.

For all the members who have been hyperbolic in their commentary over the last week, do the right thing. Support these amendments and support this motion, which will allow these amendments to go forward, because it is weapons and not a carbon tax...it is these amendments and changes that will concretely give life to efforts to get more weapons into Ukrainian hands and actually have a concrete and meaningful impact on the outcome. I encourage all colleagues to support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's good.

It will balance for sure.

I will now welcome the officials who are with us to answer any questions we may have during the clause-by-clause consideration.

We have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Edith Laflamme, director, trade and anti-dumping program; and Marie-Hélène Dupont, senior counsel. From the Department of Employment and Social Development, we have David Mercier, deputy director, trade and labour affairs. From the Department of Finance, we have Karen LaHay, senior economist, international trade policy division, international trade and finance.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Dean Foster, director of trade negotiations for Africa, the Americas, Europe, India, and the Middle East; Adam Douglas, senior counsel and deputy director, investment and services law; Reuben East, deputy director, investment trade policy; and Judy Korecky, deputy director, export controls policy.

We could ask all kinds of questions of all of you, and I'm sure that you could all answer them today.

Finally, from the Department of Industry, we have Mehmet Karman, senior policy analyst, investment review branch.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

I now need to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-57.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill and in the package that each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee in both official languages.

I will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given an alphanumeric number in the top right-hand corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will consider and vote on the short title, the title and the bill itself. If amendments are adopted, an order to reprint the bill may be required so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of the adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We will start with this process.

Mr. Seeback, go ahead.

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. Those online, please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. If any technical issues arise, please inform me immediately, as we may need to suspend in order to deal with any of these issues. I ask that all participants be careful when handling the earpieces in order to prevent feedback.

Today we are meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

We have a budget that the committee needs to adopt. Is the committee in agreement to adopt the budget for Bill C-57 in the amount of $3,750?