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 Relations

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

Mr. Chair, the member knows the answer to the question. I have repeated it and explained it ad nauseam in this House.

I want to ask why Liberals opposed the amendments that I brought forward to Bill C-57 at committee. Those amendments were specific things that the arms manufacturing industry in Canada had proposed would be helpful. It asked the Government of Canada to establish a clear plan and send clear signals about its commitments to, over the longer term, acquire the munitions required for Canada's own needs and to support Ukraine.

The government has taken no action to send the right signals and provide the necessary support to ramp up our own domestic production of munitions. I believe this is an opportunity for Canada, and it is an urgent issue for supporting Ukraine.

Personally, I put forward six different amendments to this bill at committee that would have strengthened the export of munitions to Ukraine. The Liberals blocked those amendments at every turn. Actually, the Liberals and the NDP members were working together. They presented us from passing a motion in the House to allow those amendments to move forward, and they blocked those amendments at committee.

It is really shameful for the Liberals to, on the one hand, try to virtue-signal on this issue while continuously blocking efforts to get weapons to move forward. They make announcements but fail to follow through on them. It is not enough to talk about victory at some distant point in the future. We need urgent victory through the urgent delivery of required munitions. The government likes to wrap itself in blue and yellow, but it fails to deliver when it really counts.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

Madam Chair, it is an honour to take part in tonight's debate on the relationship between Canada and Ukraine.

Before I continue with my speech, I want to take a moment to recognize in the chamber former prime minister Brian Mulroney and to extend my condolences to his family and to all those who knew him. Prime Minister Mulroney was, of course, a steadfast supporter of Ukraine, and his leadership continues to positively impact the Canada-Ukraine relationship today. When Prime Minister Mulroney was prime minister in 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence.

As colleagues may know, Bill C-57 received royal assent yesterday, leading us one step closer to bringing into force the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This modernized trade agreement represents a historic milestone for the Canada-Ukraine commercial relationship and for Ukraine's economic security, which I will be focusing my remarks on tonight.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, also known as CUFTA, is just one of the tools Canada is using to support our ally Ukraine, which continues to face the violent consequences of Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion. Indeed, since the beginning of the conflict in 2022, Canada has committed over $13.3 billion in multi-faceted support covering military, financial, humanitarian, development, security and cultural assistance for Ukraine.

The modernized free trade agreement is another form of support that will provide the framework for bilateral trade and investment. It will strengthen the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses can work together, not only now but also during Ukraine's recovery and economic reconstruction over years to come, when it will win this war against Russia's illegal invasion.

Furthermore, our bilateral relations are strengthened through our warm people-to-people ties that are rooted in Ukrainian Canadians in our country. They represent roughly 1.3 million people and have shared values. Many of these values are reflected in CUFTA.

In January of this year, I had the opportunity to spend some time across western and central Canada, from Alberta to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and of course here in Ontario. I have spoken with many Ukrainian Canadians, businesses and stakeholders about what was before our Parliament, which was the modernized CUFTA. There was a lot of interest from Ukrainian Canadians, certainly from the Canadian private sector, to support Ukraine as it continues to keep not only its economy going, but also its reconstruction activities.

The modernized CUFTA is going to do just that. Canadian companies would not only trade in goods, and that was the agreement we just modernized. It has been modernized with provisions that allow for services, trade and investments. The new trade agreement has nine new dedicated chapters that cover things such as cross-border trade in services, investments, financial services, telecommunications and good regulatory practices. As well, it includes dedicated chapters on inclusive trade, trade that will yield benefits to all in our economies, such as small and medium-sized businesses, which has a chapter. There is the first-ever trade and indigenous peoples chapter to be in a concluded FTA, as well as a chapter on trade and gender, so that the benefits of trade will be shared widely.

Ultimately, the outcome of this agreement is a modern, ambitious and fully comprehensive free trade agreement that will fortify the Canadian-Ukrainian bilateral commercial relationship for years to come and will support Ukraine's long-term recovery and trade interests. It is also good for Canada. There are many Canadian companies that have a lot to offer that will benefit from trade and investment in Ukraine.

I look forward to leading a business mission to Ukraine. Many businesses I talk to are interested in having the trade minister lead a mission that will open up some of those doors and create the opportunity, and that would just build on the momentum of the new CUFTA.

Let me conclude by thanking the negotiators, not only in Canada but also in Ukraine. They were negotiating this in the midst of a war, with sirens blaring and bombs going off around them. I want to thank them for their courage. Let us rebuild Ukraine together.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

March 19, 2024

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 19th day of March, 2024, at 6:04 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-35, An Act respecting early learning and child care in Canada and Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C‑57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise in this House to present a petition signed by 75 members of the Canadian-Ukrainian community in the Waterloo Region. They are calling on all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by supporting Bill C-57, the updated Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was requested by Ukraine. This will assist Ukraine in its rebuilding efforts after the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.

I am pleased to report to the community that the bill was, in fact, passed last week with the support of all members of Parliament, save and except for members of the Conservative Party.

Ukraine

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I present this petition on behalf of the residents in my riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity.

Petitioners say that Bill C-57 would be an important update to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that would assist Ukraine in rebuilding after it defeats the illegal invasion by Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, they point out that Ukraine's President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress have called on the Parliament of Canada to swiftly adopt the legislation, and that misinformation regarding Canada's carbon pricing scheme's having an effect on the agreement has been widely debunked.

Therefore the petitioners, who are citizens of Canada, call upon the House of Commons and all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by swiftly adopting the updated Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

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

The government often says that most of the agreements it has signed in recent years contain chapters on human rights. However, those chapters are never binding. They are merely statements of principle. Actual binding mechanisms are never put in place, although Bill C-57 was successfully amended recently to add more binding provisions. The bill seeks to implement the trade agreement with Ukraine.

It's probably better to have the chapters than not to, since they do set out sound principles. Nevertheless, do the chapters give you any reassurance, seeing as they don't include binding mechanisms to implement the principles?

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

I would first like to thank my hon. colleague and his colleagues in the official opposition for finally letting Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, come to a final vote. That is good news for Canada and our Ukrainian friends, with whom we stand in solidarity.

As for the business of the House, we will continue to have ongoing discussions that would see us dealing with Bill C-62, medical assistance in dying, next week. We are, of course, well aware of the deadlines that are looming. I remind all members of this House that there is a March 17 deadline attached to this very important legislation.

I would remind the House that we wanted to allow all parties in the House, as well as in the Senate, to participate in a process that could guide the government's choices on medical assistance in dying. We produced a report that resembled a consensus, and the bill reflects that consensus.

We will also give priority to bills that have been examined and amended by the Senate and are therefore now in the final stage of debate in the House. These include Bill C-29, which would create a national council for reconciliation, and Bill C-35 on early learning and child care in Canada.

As I said at the outset, we will continue to consult with the opposition parties. My door is always open. If necessary, we will make adjustments so that the House can continue to work in an orderly fashion.

International Trade

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to present a petition from the citizens of Châteauguay—Lacolle in support of Bill C‑57, which has just been passed by the House.

Citizens in my riding affirm their unwavering commitment to Ukraine and want the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement to be updated.

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

No. I will carry on.

I appreciate that and I thank our witnesses for coming today. I look forward to seeing them soon, along with the minister.

I will stay on topic, rather than go off it. On these CRV7 rockets, the letter that has been circulated online shows that the Ukrainian military is aware of the status of these munitions, but wants all of them. If they can be transported to Ukraine, the military will go through the stockpile and use what it can, taking parts from the other rocket motors to build more rockets and utilize whatever warheads we have in our inventory.

These are all sitting around, collecting dust at CFAD Dundurn, south of Saskatoon. It's going to cost the taxpayers of Canada millions of dollars to dispose of these rockets. Some estimates I've heard are over $30 million for the disposal of these 83,000 rockets. Rather than waste taxpayers' money and have to go through the whole process again of trying to find some entity in Canada or the United States that will dispose of these rockets, let's give them to the Ukrainian military. Let them use these rockets to defend their homeland. Let them push back on the Russian invaders.

All the talk around carbon pricing and carbon taxes.... We, as Conservatives, don't support the carbon tax, and that's why we voted against the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. Look, we are the party of free trade. We negotiated the first free trade agreement. Guess what? Bill C-57 has passed, so let's do the next best thing right now, which is sending over the munitions and supplies that Ukraine needs.

The government has made lots of announcements about munitions, and we keep hearing about how, over 12 months ago, in January 2023, promises were made to buy NASAMS, a national advanced surface-to-air missile system, from an American contractor for $406 million to defend the airspace in Ukraine. Guess what? The NASAMS has not been ordered, 12 months after the fact, and nobody knows where the $406 million is. Zelenskyy has asked for the NASAMS over and over again, and it's still not there. They need it to defend their airspace.

For those of us who follow what's happening in the war in Ukraine, things are getting desperate. The Russians continue to push. Avdiivka is going to be the next city to fall. The Ukrainians have positioned their Leopard tanks and Bradley tanks, as well as the Abrams tanks they have, to try to hold the line against the brutal Russian military.

This is a chance for us to do some good, send over these missiles and make a difference.

They have already said—maybe you have seen the Global News story that was out on Monday—that they have built ground launchers to use these rockets from to help them defend territory. They are also interested in putting them on their drones.

We know this war has changed the entire doctrine around warfare. I don't think anyone thought we would go back to tank warfare, but that's what this has turned into. Nobody thought drones would be used to the effect that they have been. Nobody thought the Russian air force would ever be able to achieve air dominance and air superiority over Ukrainian airspace.

We saw just recently, again, maritime surface drones used by the Ukrainian military taking down a Russian missile cruiser—a corvette. It was only hit with about two or three drones and sank. Another ship—

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑57.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from February 5 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.

Ukraine

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to emphasize the crucial importance of Canada's unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

This month, we approach the second anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It has been two years in which the values that we hold dear, freedom and democracy, continue to be threatened.

The people of Ukraine have a right to their sovereignty and territorial integrity and to live free and without fear. Canada's continued commitment and support goes beyond politics. It is about being there for people in their most challenging moments.

The House will be voting on the modernized free trade agreement with Ukraine today, and I am urging hon. members to put politics aside and support Bill C-57. Let us renew our pledge to stand united in supporting Ukraine's resilience and championing the principles that bind us all together as a global community.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, a petition that comes from the members of the Holy Protection of the Mother of God Ukrainian Catholic Church in Guelph. It states that, whereas Bill C-57 is an important update to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that would assist Ukrainians in rebuilding after they defeat the illegal invasion of Vladimir Putin; that the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has called on the Parliament of Canada to swiftly adopt this legislation; and that misinformation regarding Canada's carbon pricing scheme having an effect on this agreement has widely been debunked, the members undersigned have asked for the House of Commons and all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by swiftly adopting the updated Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fear I may disappoint my colleagues, because I will not be talking about the carbon tax.

It is often said that the desire to appear clever stops us from actually becoming clever. That is what I will try to show today. I want to comment on Bill C‑57, which seeks to review the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but I will talk about it in a different way.

For centuries, people around the globe have heard Hamlet asking one of the big questions: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” That is the way he put it, but I will rephrase the question: “To be, or to appear to be, that is the question”. In other words, is it better to be or to appear to be?

When it comes to free trade, Canada seems to have made up its mind. It has chosen to appear to be. When I think of “appearing to be”, the word that comes to mind is “minimum”, meaning the very least, the bare minimum. The agreement does not say that this is the minimum that we want. It says it is the minimum that we are going to agree on.

Last weekend, an article in La Presse caught my attention. The headline read: “Is Canada doing the minimum for Ukraine?” The article quoted authors Justin Massie and Nicolas‑François Perron, who argued that Canada's primary objective is to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. That is a quality it shares with golden retrievers. I am just throwing that in for those in the know.

The authors also proved that Canada was doing the bare minimum, favouring actions that look good over those that actually work. In their chapter of a book that is soon to be published—in French, I should mention—by the Presses de l'Université Laval, they scrutinize the help Canada has offered to Kyiv. The authors argue that, far from being a leader in the pro-NATO camp, Ottawa is content to echo the positions of its allies and offer “very modest” military support to Ukraine. They write that “Canada's desired objective has more to do with being perceived as a reliable ally than any other consideration, including Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression”. We need to be clear on that. We are debating the free trade agreement, but it seems like much ado about nothing.

The authors also say that Canada's policy is to project a certain image—surprise, surprise—and that waving the maple leaf flag is its main objective. That reminds us that Canada's foreign policy is a bit half-baked. In terms of total aid provided to Ukraine as a share of GDP, Canada is basically a big Portugal. Well ahead of Canada are Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia and Portugal. So much for impressing others.

Canada has provided significant financial aid in the form of loans. However, if we consider overall aid, including financial, humanitarian and military aid, as a share of GDP, Canada ranks 31st out of 39 countries. Quite honestly, we are currently debating the smallest of details right now. As I was saying, Canada is basically a big Portugal, but we need to be careful. According to those experts, Ottawa is doing just enough in Ukraine to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. They say that this level of action will result in very few political consequences. Basically, that is all that is expected from Canada in its current state. This is not a government priority. One of the experts believes that the government is “more interested in provincial jurisdictions than its own”. That is a subject that the Bloc Québécois cares about. That expert also said that Canada does not have a very good track record.

There is nothing new so far. Since 2015, Canada's foreign affairs policy seems to have been vague and opportunistic at best. All the same, there are a few things in the bill worth noting. Of the 30 chapters, 11 are new and were not in the 2017 agreement. I should point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that managed to get the only amendments to the bill adopted, thanks to my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The agreement is supposed to help people try to curb corruption. They know a thing or two about that. It is no secret that, before Russia invaded, Ukraine ranked pretty poorly on that score.

In any case, the agreement aims to create voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation so that people can set guidelines for themselves. Frankly, this is a pipe dream. It is not going to happen. The agreement says that it is inviting the countries to work together towards respecting each other's laws. Once again, this is the bare minimum, and no one is reinventing the wheel. Basically, this is the goal in the areas of labour, the environment, gender equality, human rights and corruption. Right now, labour, the environment and human rights are not the main concerns in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that is where we are at, and it comes off as a bit of a lecture.

Despite its statement of principle, there is no plan for Canada to meet its commitments, which is problematic, or at the very least unimpressive. It is important to understand that Ukraine is a marginal trading partner for Canada. We are talking about 0.2% of $760 billion. In other words, we are talking a lot about very little in terms of trade. In reality, the revised agreement will have little impact on Canada and Quebec.

As I said at the start, everything I have just laid out over the past few minutes shows that we are still in the land of appearances. To appear is to be on show. Speaking of being on show, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made an appearance in Ukraine last weekend to talk about issues that matter to her. To be on show is the bare minimum of taking action. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. The risk is low. We are going to try to avoid pointless debates on the carbon tax, which our colleagues are so obsessed with, and focus on offering our assistance to the extent that the bill allows. However, I want to make it clear that, while we may be a reliable ally, reliability is the bare minimum required to be an ally.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued before, that there is no other trade deal that Canada has that has implemented a carbon tax in it. I would argue, and it is a very reasonable argument that can be made, that what Ukraine does not need is a carbon tax; what it does need are weapons.

When Bill C-57 went to committee, the member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan proposed amendments to the bill that would expedite the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and yet the NDP voted against that amendment to the bill. My question is: Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise here today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I have already spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to speak once again, more briefly, about some of the highlights so far.

First, I would like to mention once again that the Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over a million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. 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.

The NDP supports this free trade agreement, and our primary concerns centre on the fact that negotiations began before Parliament had an opportunity to have input on our negotiation priorities and how quickly the bill came before us after the agreement was signed. Following accepted practices would not have delayed this agreement or the bill, but could have made it better for both parties. I am happy to say that the minister seems to have changed her behaviour by following proper protocols and practices of the House when announcing imminent negotiations for a new free trade agreement with Ecuador, so I hope that practice will continue in the future.

Returning to the Ukraine free trade agreement, we have heard repeatedly from Ukraine how important this new agreement would be to the country and how important it would be to rebuild Ukraine once Russia is defeated and this war is over. President Zelenskyy signed this agreement when he was here in Ottawa last September. Ambassador Yuliya Kovaliv, who came before the international trade committee, of which I am a member, emphasized repeatedly how beneficial this agreement would be to Ukraine and to Canada.

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which brings together all national, provincial and local Ukrainian Canadian organizations, has pleaded for parliamentarians to support Ukraine by passing the bill quickly and unanimously. Instead, we have seen the Conservatives oppose the bill at every turn using all sorts of tactics to delay its passage. I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and when we were debating the bill the Conservatives tried to introduce amendments that were clearly out of the scope of the bill and, indeed, out of the scope of any free trade agreement. They emphasized what we should be doing to give aid to Ukraine. This is a free trade agreement between two countries; it is not about giving aid to countries. Acceptance of those amendments not only would have delayed the bill, but would have required renegotiation of the free trade agreement, adding months to the process for no benefit when Ukraine is pleading for quick action.

We just voted on another Conservative amendment to the bill that would have removed a small mention of carbon pricing in the environment chapter, a mention that put no requirement on either party to bring in carbon pricing or raise carbon pricing. It simply mentioned the fact that both countries agreed that carbon pricing was a good thing, and Ukraine has had carbon pricing longer than Canada. Again, if the amendment had succeeded, it would have sent negotiators back to the bargaining table, all for no reason.

When the Conservatives forced all of us to vote in every line item in supplementary estimates in December, a vote-a-thon of over 30 hours that cost over $2 billion to Canadian taxpayers, they voted against all other support for Ukraine, including Operation Unifier, where the Canadian Armed Forces are helping Ukrainian armed forces.

The Conservative opposition to support for Ukraine, including the delaying tactics on the bill before us, has not gone unnoticed by Ukraine. Two weeks ago I happened to meet with the consul general for Ukraine in Edmonton, who covers western Canada, and he specifically brought up his deep concerns with the actions of the Conservatives on this file. This is a representative of the Ukrainian government. He pointed out that Ukrainians are fighting and dying, not just for their own freedom, but for democracies all across Europe and around the world, and he pleaded with me to pass on the message that Ukraine needs the full support of all its allies.

Canada, because of its huge Ukrainian diaspora, is one of the most important of those allies. The consul general was mystified and dismayed by the lack of support from the Conservatives on this bill. Therefore, I asked to speak today to pass on his plea, from his government and his entire country to every member here, to pass this bill unanimously and to pass it quickly without delay. I am going to stop early in this speech because I am the last speaker and I hope that this debate will collapse so that we can get to the vote on this bill and pass it right away and help Ukraine by doing what Ukraine has asked us to do.

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes when I rise in the House I say I have a tough act to follow. However, that is not the case today.

I am speaking to Bill C-57, which would implement the agreement that the government negotiated with Ukraine. As has been the case throughout this debate, I will make some general reflections on Conservative support for Ukraine, but it is important to underline that these are two distinct issues. There is the question of whether and how we should support Ukraine, and Conservatives are firmly in favour of supporting Ukraine, and then there is the question of the particular provisions of Bill C-57.

Bill C-57 is not a kind of in-a-vacuum endorsement of a relationship with a particular country. Bill C-57 would implement a specific trade deal with specific provisions. Members opposite have said virtually nothing during this entire debate about the provisions in this legislation, about what this deal would actually commit Canada and Ukraine to.

I will read the section that is a matter of contention directly from the agreement. It states, “Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to”, and then a list follows. I will jump to item (h), which says, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. That is right in the text of the agreement, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”.

In speech after speech, members of the government ask where the carbon price is. It is right in the deal that they signed, so let us not pretend that it is not in there, because any Canadian can go online, find the agreement and find this provision, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”.

I have a sense that Liberals do not actually take their word or commitments very seriously. We have seen that over the last eight years. The way they approach this deal is to say that it is only words. They ask why Conservatives care so much. Conservatives take our word seriously. We take documents we sign on to seriously, and we aspire to be people of integrity, so when we see something in a trade agreement that we profoundly disagree with, that is going to impact how we vote on that agreement.

When we are committed to a national campaign to axe the tax, when one of our key priorities is axing the tax, when we have assured Canadians that we will axe the tax, it would be a bit of a problem if we just shrugged off a line in an international agreement that would oblige us to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. It seems fairly basic that we would note what is in the agreement, evaluate the agreement on the basis of what is in it and then make a decision accordingly while, on the separate point of support for Ukraine, being very clear that the Conservative Party strongly supports Ukraine.

It is true that the Government of Ukraine takes a different view of this agreement than Conservatives do, but there are innumerable issues on which the government has previously taken a different view from the Government of Ukraine, including in the midst of the war, in which it has ignored the express priorities of the Government of Ukraine. In fact, as I will get to, there is one instance in which the Government of Ukraine was so upset about a decision of the Prime Minister's that the Canadian ambassador was summoned. That is an unprecedented step. I think it is the first time in the history of Canada-Ukraine relations that the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned as a result of displeasure about the way the Government of Ukraine believed the Liberal government was undermining a global united front in support of Ukraine. The Liberals want us to forget about that by saying this is the most important issue.

It is fairly obvious, listening to what the Ukrainian government says, that although we do have a disagreement over certain provisions of this trade agreement, the most important thing to the Government of Ukraine is not the free trade deal but the provisions that we need to undertake to support Ukraine in its victory. Conservatives have been clear and consistent in our support for Ukraine. Let me underline the things we have done and advocated for in the process.

Of course, the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime did not start in February 2022. It began back in 2014, when Conservatives were in power, and then prime minister Stephen Harper led the G7 in isolating Russia and applying critical sanctions. Canadian leadership, under then prime minister Stephen Harper, was recognized and was critical to driving a consensus that, as then prime minister Harper said, “Whether it takes five months or 50 years,” we would defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is a commitment Conservatives carry forward.

As soon as Liberals took office, they started backing away from that commitment. I recall in this place challenging then foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion, who made the decision to cancel the sharing of satellite imagery associated with RADARSAT. Members will remember that Ukraine was still then at war with Russia, and Canada, under then prime minister Stephen Harper, was sharing satellite images with Ukraine that were useful as part of the war effort. In an effort to appease the Putin regime, Liberal minister Stéphane Dion cancelled the sharing of those satellite images.

Where was the member for Kingston and the Islands when that happened? He was more silent then than he is now. Frankly, I would prefer a more silent member, compared to what we get now, but the point is that all of these members who are now eagerly wrapping themselves in blue and yellow had nothing to say when Liberal foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion cancelled RADARSAT image sharing.

We consistently advocated for tough sanctions against the Putin regime. We were standing up in this House for stronger measures prior to the further invasion of two Februaries ago. We were saying that pre-emptively, if the government was ready to apply tougher sanctions, it could be a force of deterrence against the Putin regime. We were calling for the sharing of lethal weapons with our Ukrainian allies prior to the invasion, so they could get ready.

One does not have to take my word for it. One can find the quotations of members opposite speaking against that. The member for Edmonton Strathcona, the NDP foreign affairs critic, explicitly opposed the sharing of lethal weapons prior to the further invasion of February 2022. We were calling for tougher sanctions earlier, and Liberals and New Democrats were opposing those measures. That is the reality; it is on the record.

There were other initiatives. We put forward a motion in this House after the further invasion started, to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians fleeing the war. Actually, at that time it was the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP who came together and adopted that motion calling for visa-free travel, but the government refused to implement that proposal. We were calling for more generous immigration measures.

Of course, one key area where we have led on this side of the House is energy calls. We have long recognized that Canada has a special vocation in the democratic world. Many of our democratic allies and partners, in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific, are geographically small and densely populated nations that need to import energy resources. Canada is relatively unique in the democratic world as a geographically vast, more sparsely populated nation with an abundance of natural resources. We need to develop and export those resources, not merely as a matter of our own economic interest but as a matter of providing the democratic world with the energy security it requires.

We have made this case consistently. We have said that Canada has a role and a responsibility, again, not only to create jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers but, in this new cold war reality, to provide our allies and partners with the energy security they need, so they can stand with us for the long haul, defending freedom and justice. When our European partners and our Asia-Pacific partners are reliant on energy from dictatorships, from hostile regimes that do not share our values, it has the effect of weakening our collective resolve and it pours money into the coffers of hostile anti-democratic regimes.

It is a security imperative for Canada to develop our energy resources, but the Liberal government has said there is not a business case for that. Of course there is a business case, but there is not, in its mind, an ideological case. It is far more concerned about according with its ideology than it is with the realities of the business case.

What the government has done since the further invasion of Ukraine by Russia, rather than support the rapid increase and development of Canada's energy resources to fuel the efforts of our European allies to find energy security, and rather than develop Canadian resources, is to grant a sanctions waiver to allow the export of turbines from Canada to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Europe.

Is that not incredible? This government, when it could have been creating jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers and securing energy security, chose to grant a waiver to allow turbines from Canada to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Europe. It was doing more to export Russian gas to Europe and increase that dependency rather than export Canadian gas. This was the instance in which the Ukrainian government and President Zelenskyy spoke out against what this government was doing. He spoke out clearly and decisively. He summoned the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine.

This was particularly important for Ukraine, not only because of the facts of the case, but also because of how Canada, in granting exceptions to sanctions, was seen as creating a dangerous precedent. As we heard at the foreign affairs committee, when we say we are imposing sanctions and then we turn those sanctions into Swiss cheese by granting convenient exceptions, and when every country says, “Well, we're going to impose sanctions but we're going to have this and that exception,” very quickly we do not have a sanctions regime worth the name.

This government, then, was undermining that sanctions unity and undermining the opportunity to fuel European energy security, and Conservatives fought back. Conservatives called for special hearings at the foreign affairs committee. We gathered in the summer, we summoned witnesses, we pressed the government hard and we pursued this matter in the face of Liberal filibusters through the fall until we were finally able to force it to reverse course. Conservatives are very proud of that accomplishment and of holding this government's feet to the fire. In every instance, where the government has been weak on supporting Ukraine, whether it has been cancelling rare sat-tech image sharing, whether it has been failing to apply the appropriate sanctions, whether it has been its rejection of our proposals on visa-free travel or whether it has been our championing of energy security, we have always been pushing the government to do far more to support our friends and allies in Ukraine, and this has continued to the present day.

When Bill C-57 came before committee, notwithstanding our concerns about the bill, we did try to improve it. Conservatives put forward many amendments that would add specific provisions to Bill C-57 to deal with getting weapons to Ukraine.

Ukraine has been very clear about this, that what Ukraine needs to win this war is weapons. Many have said, and rightly so, that we must be with Ukraine for as long as possible. I agree that we must be with Ukraine for as long as possible, and we must also help Ukraine win victory as quickly as possible, because when the Liberals say they will be there for as long as possible but then take as long as possible to actually deliver the support that is required, well, that is not doing much good, is it? Let us be there for as long as possible and let us deliver the vital, necessary aid as quickly as possible. Let us do both, as long as possible and as quickly as possible, so that Ukraine can secure a clear victory faster.

What we have seen throughout the course of this war is that delays in delivering essential weaponry have allowed the Russian army to further entrench its defensive positions. If only the western world had stepped up to quickly deliver vitally important weapons and defence systems right out of the gate, then Ukraine would be in a much better position. Of course, Ukrainians have fought heroically, but we must have their backs, not only with words but with deeds, not only with photo ops and announcements but by actually delivering Ukraine the weapons that it requires.

I put forward amendments to the bill at committee that would have done a number of things. The amendments that I put forward on behalf of the Conservative caucus would have established a legal requirement for the federal government to create a long-term plan to increase defence production, with a particular emphasis on defence supplies required by the armed forces of Ukraine and the Canadian Armed Forces.

The amendments would have established a legal requirement for the Minister of National Defence to periodically review Canada's inventory of military equipment and offer to donate to Ukraine any military equipment that is surplus or is no longer useful to Canada.

The amendments would have added Ukraine to the list of open-policy countries eligible for expedited review of arms exports, significantly reducing the time required for review before arms can be shipped to Ukraine.

Finally, through those amendments, we sought to require EDC and BDC to support investments aimed at developing Ukraine's domestic munitions manufacturing industries.

If Conservatives were in government, we would have negotiated a better free trade deal that would have included provisions like this to actually get Ukraine the weapons it needs, instead of putting the emphasis on “carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. Whether it is on the issue of blocking Canadian energy development or putting divisive carbon tax measures into the agreement, we see how Liberal radical ideology seeps into everything they do and gets in the way of doing the right thing to support Ukraine.

Conservatives would have zeroed in on the essential needs of Ukraine. If we were in government, we would have negotiated and proposed a better deal that would have been good for Canada, good for Ukraine and that would have focused on delivering weapons. Sadly, all the amendments I put forward at committee were opposed and blocked by the NDP-Liberal coalition. They opposed our efforts to get those weapons to Ukraine through the amendments that we proposed. What a shame.

We have persisted. This past Friday, in fact, the Conservative leader announced a proposal calling on the government to transfer rockets to Ukraine. These are rockets that the government has slated for disposal. We think a better way to dispose of them is to give them to Ukraine so they could drop them on the Russians. In fact, our analyses show that giving these weapons to Ukraine would be less costly than disposing of them here. What has stopped the government from doing this? It is hard to explain.

We can see a myriad of announcements made by the government regarding Ukraine and no action. It is A for announcements and F for follow-through. The Liberals talk about solidarity, but they fail to deliver. This is consistent with the government's approach across the board. It wants to use this issue to create division in the House, but it has failed to actually deliver on the weapons.

I would like to briefly say a couple of additional things about support for Ukraine. It is so important that all of us come together to support Ukraine. When I have conversations with people about this, some of them ask questions. They ask if it is a complicated situation. It is not a complicated situation. It is an entirely uncomplicated situation. It is the most uncomplicated situation one could imagine.

The Government of Russia chose to invade another sovereign state in order to try to steal its territory. It did so after signing an agreement, the Budapest memorandum, that committed it to recognizing Ukraine's territorial integrity. It signed a binding international agreement recognizing Ukraine's territorial integrity. It broke that agreement by invading in order to steal territory.

This is clearly the kind of precedent we cannot allow. If we allow it, it will create a more dangerous world. Ukraine can win and will win with the support of the west, the consistent, persistent, steadfast support of the west. We must be there to back Ukrainians up, and that does not just mean making announcements. It means delivering the weapons, because to win a war, one needs weapons, not announcements.

I challenge the Liberal government to put actions behind its words. This is not just about territory. The choice between living in Ukraine and living in Russia is not just a matter of what state they are in; it is a choice about the kind of political system they have. Ukraine is a free society, where people can choose who they associate with, what they say, what they believe and how they worship. In Russia, every person is completely beholden to and dependent on the state. In Russian-occupied Ukraine, we are seeing the mass stealing of children. It is a brutal story of the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children, forced into propaganda programs and, in many case, used as soldiers against Ukraine.

The choice is not only about territory or what state people are in, but also about the kind of system they live in. That is why Ukrainians are prepared to fight and to die for their freedom for as long as it takes. Let us be with them as long as it takes, but let us help them win as quickly as possible with weapons.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in Milton on Bill C-57. I have a thriving Ukrainian diaspora in Milton. It is also a privilege to be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I will start with a bit of a history on this topic here in the House of Commons. On November 21, the House of Commons passed second reading on this bill, which is intended to upgrade the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement to reflect changes that have come about since the deal was first implemented back in 2017.

Of course, the most notable of those changes has been the illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The bill is now going to committee. The vote passed 205-109, with the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and the independents all voting in favour with the Liberals. However, all 109 Conservatives who were present for the vote opposed it back in November. Their official reason was that the bill would impose carbon taxes on Ukraine, but nothing could be farther from the truth.

One does not have to take my word for it. Those are the words of New Pathway, that is, Marco Levytsky, an editorial writer. The title of that article is “Conservative Opposition to Free Trade Agreement Makes No Sense”. I could not agree more.

As they go on to say in the article, “The text of the new trade deal does not commit either Canada or Ukraine to a carbon tax...As Marianna Kulava a spokesperson for the Embassy of Ukraine said in a statement e-mailed to the Globe and Mail, the 'modernized [Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement] does not include any specific instruments on decreasing carbon footprint, including specific taxation instruments.'” It is all just non-facts and fact-free rhetoric from the Conservatives on this.

This article goes on to say:

“[The leader of the Conservative Party] appears to be so hungry to win back the...People’s Party of Canada vote, to placate elements within his own base, and to demonstrate his unwavering opposition to carbon taxes, that he would compromise on his support for a democracy whose very existence is under threat”.

I could not agree more. It is absolutely shameful.

Additionally, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was disappointed that the official opposition unanimously voted against legislation that would update the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That justification was absolutely nothing more than a red herring. It is shameful to see the Conservatives, time after time, stand in the House to try to justify the unjustifiable position.

Again, one does not need to take my word for it. The Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “Our Association is very concerned about the partisan politics displayed by the Conservative Party of Canada when voting on the Second Reading on Bill C-57, which intends to upgrade the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.”

Ukrainian Canadians and Ukrainians abroad have all been urging Conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for this bill. Canadians want to be able to say that support for Ukraine is unanimous in our country, both in the House of Commons and beyond. It would be great to say that but, sadly, the Conservatives are standing in the way of being able to say that support for Ukraine in Canada is unanimous.

Alberta Conservatives recently hosted an infamous far right Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson at a United Conservative Party fundraiser right before Tucker jetted off to Moscow.

Since the beginning of this debate, Conservatives have continually tried to tell Ukraine exactly what it needs to win this war, despite the fact that Ukrainian Canadians, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and many other spokespeople have been saying exactly what we all know, which is that the support for Ukraine should be unanimous.

Conservatives keep “Consplaining” to Ukraine exactly what it needs and what it does not need. It is a new term, and I think it is probably going to stick because all of this fact-free Conservative rhetoric coming from the other side is really emblematic of the Conservative Party just thinking it knows better for Ukraine than Ukraine knows for itself.

It would be great to say that our support for Ukraine is unanimous in the House and all across Canada. It is frankly despicable of the Conservatives to continue to spread disinformation, “Consplain” to Ukraine and, frankly, join the ranks of Tucker Carlson in questioning the motives and the necessity of the west to support Ukraine.

This bill will go off to the other place, and we know that the only partisan senators in that place are Conservative. I am really hoping that the Conservatives will allow for the Conservative senators to vote with their conscience, vote for Ukraine, vote for democracy and support Bill C-57.

I hope there are still some rational Conservatives on the other side who will reconsider their shameful vote, and vote in favour of Bill C-57.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

I have to admit that, when I first glanced at the title of this bill when it was tabled in the House of Commons last fall, I was glad to see it for a few reasons. The first reason was that Conservatives support Ukraine. Ever since Russia's illegal invasion of that country two years ago, it has become imperative that all countries support Ukraine to preserve the rules-based international order. Otherwise, the international community risks backsliding into a pre-World War II era in which large, powerful countries are able to invade and annex their smaller neighbours with no repercussions. This is a concern I have heard many times in my riding of Regina—Wascana, not just from the many Ukrainian refugees who have moved to Saskatchewan, but also from ordinary citizens with no particular connection to Ukraine. Therefore, anything that we can do to support Ukraine is a good thing.

The second reason I had high hopes for this bill is that Conservatives support free trade. Long gone are the days of economic nationalism when governments insisted on an unlevel playing field to protect domestic companies at the expense of consumers. Instead, Canadians and the international community have come to recognize the benefits of free trade. It allows Canadian companies to pursue new opportunities and to find new customers for their products and services, and it allows Canadian consumers to enjoy a variety of products and services from all around the world at the lowest possible prices. In fact, Conservatives' support for free trade goes back many years to the times of former prime ministers Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney.

Finally, I thought that, if nothing else, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would give us something different to talk about. For example, we have had many, many debates in the chamber about the Liberals' carbon tax. I know I have received many emails and phone calls from my constituents about the carbon tax and how it is making life more expensive every time they fill up their tanks with gas, go to the grocery store to do their shopping and pay their home heating bills.

I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about the carbon tax because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the carbon tax. Therefore, I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Liberals' carbon tax has made its way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13 of the agreement, which is the environment chapter, under article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage”.

Free trade agreements are supposed to be about trade and encouraging the free flow of goods and services between two countries. The free trade agreement should not be about imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine. The same Liberal carbon tax that has been making life more difficult for Canadians would soon be making life more difficult for Ukrainians, assuming this bill were to pass.

Not only is a carbon tax the last thing Canadians want, but it is also the last thing Ukrainians need, given that they are in the middle of a war. It would make infinitely more sense to help Ukrainians win the war first and remove every Russian soldier from Ukrainian soil before beginning any talk about a carbon tax and how to implement a carbon tax in the middle of a war zone.

I was also hoping that this bill would give us a break from talking about the Liberals' unrealistic net-zero emissions targets. Over the last eight years, the Liberals have come up with a long list of very expensive net-zero emissions targets, including phasing out fossil fuels, restricting fertilizers for farmers and ending the sale of gas-powered cars, which are all initiatives that would make life less affordable for Canadians. Therefore, I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about these net-zero emissions targets because, obviously, free trade should have nothing to do with net-zero emissions targets. I have to say again that I was disappointed that the Liberals' net-zero emissions targets have made their way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Under chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” Transitioning to net-zero emissions has proven difficult enough for Canadians to do, and we do not have a war going on in this country. We do not have the Russians bombing us every day as the Ukrainians do. It is ridiculous to expect Ukrainians to meet this goal given what they are going through right now.

It has also been well documented that the Russians have been targeting the Ukrainian power grid to maximize human suffering. If the Ukrainian power grid is going to be in shambles for the foreseeable future, one can reasonably expect that they will have to rely on various backup diesel generators and gas-powered vehicles for some time to come. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric cars. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric tanks or electric armoured personnel carriers. It is not realistic to expect Ukrainian rockets to stop burning rocket fuel, Ukrainian jets to stop burning jet fuel or Ukrainian helicopters to stop burning fuel any time soon.

I was also hoping that the debate over this free trade agreement would give us a break from the debate over the phase-out of coal because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the phase-out of coal. However, once again, the Liberals' plan to phase out coal has made its way into the free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power”.

It should be plain to see that imposing the phase out of coal will be a major burden to the Ukrainian people, who quite frankly, have more pressing concerns. Approximately 25% of Ukraine's electricity comes from coal, although that number is very volatile, given that they are in the middle of a war and that the Russians have been consistently targeting Ukrainians' power grid. It is very conceivable that Ukraine may have to rely on coal for quite some time to come.

When President Zelenskyy addressed Parliament last fall, he could not have been more clear that fighting and winning the war was his number one priority. There are questions that have to be asked. How would this free trade agreement help Ukraine to win the war? How would imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine help them stop more Russian soldiers from occupying Ukrainian soil? How would imposing net-zero targets on Ukraine destroy more Russian tanks? How would shutting down Ukrainian coal plants sink more Russian ships in the Black Sea? Of course, the sad answer is that these measures would not be helpful to the Ukrainian war effort. Therefore, they should not be in this free trade agreement, and they should not be supported.

Another topic that President Zelenskyy addressed in his speech in this chamber last September was Russia's weaponization of its energy exports. One of the best things Canada could do to help Ukraine win the war would be to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to western Europe so they can stop buying from Russia. Every dollar that western Europe spends on Russian oil and gas only enables Vladimir Putin to buy more bombs, planes and tanks to use against the Ukrainians. This Liberal government should be embarrassed for not doing more to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to Europe.

I think that I can best summarize the differences between the parties in their support Ukraine in this way: Conservatives support Ukraine unconditionally, while the Liberals support Ukraine with strings attached.

There is no reason for this free trade agreement to be pushed forward now. The current free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which was signed in 2017, can stay in place until after the Ukrainians have won the war and are ready to sit down with us. In the meantime, Canada should continue to be generous in welcoming Ukrainian refugees to our country, and we should continue to be generous in our economic and military aid to Ukraine.

As for Bill C-57, I believe that we should not be in favour of the bill. The Liberals should withdraw the bill, and we should let the current free trade agreement stay in place until the war is won. After the war is over—

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to notify you that will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Regina—Wascana.

The Conservative Party is the party of free trade in Canada. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former president Ronald Reagan signed the first free trade agreement in 1988. There was a lot of resistance at the time from a lot of nay-sayers who were saying things like we were going to lose our sovereignty as a nation.

People were saying that our agricultural sector would not be able to compete with the warmer States with longer growing seasons. Others said that our manufacturing sector would not be able to compete fairly against the bigger, more powerful, highly industrialized U.S. economy. I remember this one very well: Our wine industry was not going to be able to compete with wine regions in California. I can assure members that Okanagan Valley wines have only become better and better over the intervening years, because competition makes us better. We say to bring it on.

Conveniently, in that free trade election in 1988, for all the nay-sayers, the protectionists and the Chicken Littles, who were saying this time the sky really was falling if we were going to remove protective barriers, there was the Liberal Party where they could park their votes. Its leader at the time, John Turner, said that a free trade agreement with the U.S. would Americanize us. Does that sound familiar? We hear the same today. The Liberal Party is always fearmongering about what the Conservatives might do, cozying up too much with the United States. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Happily, the Conservatives won the election in 1988, and the free trade agreement, the FTA, came into effect on January 1, 1989. By all measures, it was a roaring success for both countries. Canada and the U.S. were both wealthier and had more powerful economies on the account of free trade. It turns out that Adam Smith and other classical economists were right and that the wealth of nations is built on the ability of free people to trade freely with each other and of free countries to be able to trade freely with other countries.

The FTA was just the beginning. Soon the Liberals, the great imitators, also became free traders, and they brought Mexico into the fold under the North American FTA, or NAFTA as we call it. However, it took another Conservative government, under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper, to bring about an ambitious free trade agenda, which encompassed many countries around the world: in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region and, of course, Ukraine, which is what we are talking about today. In 2015, late in former prime minister Harper’s administration, we entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Canada’s relationship with Ukraine is very important, not only because of the 1.3 million Canadian citizens who claim a Ukrainian heritage, but also because of the half a billion dollars of trade annually between the two countries. That is a relatively small amount of money compared to our trade with some other countries, but it is growing, and that is important.

It is also important to recognize that coal has been part of that $500 million. Of course, Ukraine, like many countries in the world, is trying to get off coal and to substitute it with cleaner-burning energy. Canada is conveniently situated for that as well because we have a lot of natural gas available. It burns much cleaner, and we want to make it available for countries like Ukraine to get off coal and for countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, thinks Canadian natural gas should stay in the ground. Many countries are looking for a reliable supplier of natural gas, and they have come to Canada asking us to come to the table. This includes Germany, which is looking for a way to cut its dependence on Russian natural gas. Yes, that is the Russia that, two years ago, invaded Ukraine in an illegal war and is indiscriminately bombing cities and killing its citizens. It is using sale proceeds, the cash it receives from selling liquid natural gas, to fuel that war. Indirectly, we are now helping President Putin build up his war chest.

Canada could be of real value here. What better way to help our Ukrainian friends than to do our part to cut off Putin's money supply.

Astonishingly, the Prime Minister told our friends in Europe, “Sorry, there is no business case for LNG.” That is unbelievable. The Americans certainly saw a business case, and where Canada dropped the ball, they picked it up and ran with it. They are now building LNG export facilities and getting ready, and they are already starting to fill the demand for clean, ethical natural gas for countries that want to get off coal and get as far away from Putin as possible.

The Prime Minister did see a business case relating to the natural gas industry, and that was to actually do business with Mr. Putin. Canada's PM wants to keep Canadian natural gas in the ground, but he delivered a powerful turbine to Putin so that he could increase Russian natural gas production for sale to the world and, with that cash, could build up his war machine against Ukraine. That is just not what friends do.

Canadians are getting tired of the Liberal Party hypocrisy and are looking forward to the day when a common-sense Conservative government would stand up to dictators like Putin and would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people. That is what the Conservative Party stands for.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The existing free trade agreement is now 25 years old and needs to be revisited and updated. We agree with that. However, in the meantime, the old agreement, the one negotiated by former prime minister Harper, is still in place and still functions.

Conservative members on the international trade committee have been working very diligently to improve this bill that is before the House today so that we could be in a position to vote on it unanimously and to pass it through. Here are some things the Conservative members on the committee wanted to improve. They wanted to include a commitment from Canada to provide weapons and munitions to help Ukraine in its defence against Putin's illegal invasion. That is what friends do in a time of war.

We want to include a plan to sell Canadian LNG to Europe so that it would no longer provide Putin with the cash he needs to fund that illegal war. That is a common-sense solution and a step forward.

Importantly, we also want to delete the provision in this revised agreement promoting carbon tax, because Conservatives want to axe the tax. I am sure everybody in the House has heard that many times already. We call it the inflationary tax on everything that Canadians do not need and that is ineffective, and that is exactly what we would do if we form government after the next election.

Sadly, all those common-sense recommendations were voted down by the other parties. Today, we now have before us a weaker, inferior product. We were hoping, until the vote earlier today, that it would go back to the committee for improvement.

I just want to touch very quickly on the history of the Conservative Party's support for Ukraine. It is important for people to understand this. Common-sense Conservatives, under our leader, have a long and proud history. We stood with Ukraine when President Zelenskyy asked the Prime Minister not to sign an export permit for that gas turbine that I talked about a minute ago. We stood with Ukraine when it asked for a reliable source of weapons and munitions, and we are still waiting for the Liberal government to deliver on that.

We stood with Ukraine when we asked the Prime Minister to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. Our history goes back many years. The Conservative government, in 1991, became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. We stood with Ukraine when the Harper government undertook Operation Unifier to provide critical military training to Ukraine, which was very much appreciated. Of course the agreement that we are talking about today, which I already mentioned, was negotiated by a Conservative government.

We are very proud of our long-standing relationship with Ukraine. We will always stand with them because that is what friends do.

The House resumed from February 2 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.

Ukraine

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of Etobicoke Centre to present a petition concerning Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It was signed by over 60 of my constituents just last week. They are petitioning Parliament, including MPs on all sides, to support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and pass it swiftly.

The petitioners note that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress have called on the Parliament of Canada to swiftly adopt the legislation.

They note that the misinformation regarding Canada's carbon pricing scheme's having an effect on the agreement has been widely debunked. They ask all parliamentarians to affirm their unwavering support for Ukraine by swiftly passing Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present my first petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre.

The petitioners are asking for the House to swiftly adopt Bill C-57, the renewed Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

It is timely that the petition is being presented shortly after members opposite voted to disallow the bill from moving forward.

Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Dufferin—Caledon to the motion at third reading of Bill C‑57.

The House resumed from February 2 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, and of the amendment.

Ukraine

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a very timely petition. Constituents in my riding have signed a petition asking for all parliamentarians of all political parties to get behind and vote in favour of Bill C-57, which would implement the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I am less proud of the fact that yesterday, in committee, he voted against the bilingualism of the new group.

I have a question for him about the only amendment to Bill C‑57 that was adopted in committee. It included a clause presented by my colleague and friend, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. This clause requires the minister to constantly monitor the behaviour of Canadian businesses in Ukraine and to table an annual report of his activities to Parliament. We know that article 15.14 of the agreement is about implementing best practices, particularly in fighting corruption.

What does my hon. colleague think of that?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, from the very beginning, we have been listening to the Conservatives explain their position on Bill C-57. I am quite surprised. I am actually having a hard time following them, because it was the Conservatives who introduced the first version of the former free trade agreement with Ukraine.

The new version essentially updates the old one, so there is nothing revolutionary about it. Russia and Ukraine are currently at war. One might therefore expect some degree of solidarity amongst all parliamentarians in saying that it is time to support Ukraine, which is fighting the Russian invasion. Given the current reality, Ukraine needs trade with foreign countries more than ever.

I am trying to understand. The Conservatives keep using the notorious carbon tax as an excuse to oppose this. Is this not a bit deceitful and could it not be seen as bad faith? If they were in government, they certainly would not be making the kind of irresponsible comments they are making right now.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her speech. I want to start by saying that, in her speech, my colleague mentioned that the Conservatives support Ukraine unconditionally and that they are not against Ukraine, contrary to what people are saying. That is not entirely true. At least, that is our perception.

Everyone knows that the Conservatives are all about perception. The perception is that they are voting against this bill simply because it mentions carbon pricing, which goes against their current ideology. That is very unfortunate, because they are voting against the good things that this agreement will do.

That said, my question is about something else. There is a fight against corruption in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have made a firm commitment to fight corruption. Canada has made the same commitment in this agreement, notably in article 15.14. However, there were no mechanisms to encourage co-operation or monitor progress.

My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot presented the only amendment to Bill C-57 that was adopted in committee. This amendment ensures that we will be able to fight corruption together, as this is going to be a major issue during post-war reconstruction.

Despite the Conservative's opposition to Bill C-57, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about fighting against corruption and the tools we need to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

First of all, I want to start by saying unequivocally that the Conservatives support Ukraine. I want to say it again, because there has been a lot of misinformation from the other side. Conservatives stand with and unequivocally support Ukraine as we always have.

In 1991, it was a Conservative government that was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, and it was under the Stephen Harper government that the initial Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was negotiated. Therefore, we already have a free trade agreement. I think the discussion today needs to be about what should be in the agreement and what should not be in the agreement.

I also want to share with the House my personal support for Ukraine. When the war first happened and people had to flee, the Liberal government failed to send planes to rescue them. It created a bureaucratic, two-month process to obtain papers to get here. I hired extra staff in my office and worked with local organizations and with people on the ground in Ukraine to bring 200 families to Sarnia—Lambton, to find sponsor homes for them, to get jobs and English training services for them, so, unequivocally, I support Ukraine.

However, let us look at the Liberal record. Initially, when President Zelenskyy asked to please not provide a turbine to Russia so that it could fuel and fund its war machine, the Liberal government sent the turbine. It allowed Canada to supply detonators for mines that are being used to blow up Ukrainians. How in any way is that support? Ukrainians have asked Canada for our LNG to replace the Russian fuel they were using, and Canada refused. That is something that ought to be in this agreement, but it is not. Also, although the Liberal government promised the surface-to-air missiles over a year ago, they still have not been delivered. Clearly, there is a problem in terms of the Liberals listening to what Ukraine is asking for because none of that is in here. Instead, the Liberals decided to put carbon tax language into this agreement.

The Conservatives have negotiated over 50 trade deals, and all the trade deals that have ever been negotiated with Canada have never contained any of that language. Why was it necessary, since Ukraine already has a carbon pricing mechanism on industrial emissions? It is minor, but certainly for Ukrainians who are trying to recover and to win a war, the last thing they are going to need is to be put under the same regime that Canadians are suffering under, which has driven up the cost of food, home heating and all of those things. Ukrainians definitely do not need that.

I want to highlight a couple of other things that are ongoing. Of course, we have always supported Operation UNIFIER to provide aid, but there is more that Canada can do. Ukraine is asking for munitions from Canada, but the Liberals voted against the Conservative motion to send them. They are still delaying sending the kinds of munitions that would actually help Ukraine to win this war.

When we talk about the Liberals' record, it is clear that they want to seem to be updating a trade agreement that already exists without actually putting into it the things that the partners would need. I think the crux of the matter here is that they also refuse to fix the bill.

When the bill went to committee, the member for Dufferin—Caledon brought numerous amendments that would have helped this proposed act. First of all, we agreed that if the Liberals removed the references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage, then the Conservatives would willingly support this agreement, but the government has refused even though, like I said, Ukraine already has made its decisions about what it is going to about carbon tax. It is a sovereign nation and has every right to do that. We should not be putting that into a trade agreement.

The member also brought in an amendment that would provide energy trade and nuclear technology like small, modular reactors. This is really important. There is an energy crisis and an energy opportunity going on in Europe right now and every time they come and ask for our help, Canadians, who want to help, are surprised to see the Liberals refuse.

Germany wanted to give us $58 billion for our LNG. They said there was no business case for that, so Australia took that deal. The Netherlands wanted to do a deal with us, and we said there was no business case, so Qatar took that deal. Japan also wanted to deal with us. The list goes on and on of opportunities where we had the wherewithal to really help, and we refused.

All those amendments that were brought here have been turned down. I do not know why they would not accept one that talks about nuclear technology. That is very green technology. It should fit in with what the Liberal government is proposing to do.

The other amendment they voted against is really troubling. It was an amendment to increase defence supplies to donate to Ukraine. Ukraine is running out of munitions, and we have a lot of munitions that are not currently being used across the country that could be repurposed and sent. However, the Liberals voted against that amendment, as did the NDP. It is the NDP and the Liberals standing together to not support Ukraine. I really do not understand how they can stand up every day and not know their own record on not giving Ukraine what it needs.

Another troubling thing they voted against was an amendment to have the Business Development Bank of Canada support projects in Ukraine to develop its own munitions manufacturing capacity. I think that would have been a concrete way that Canada could have helped. We are already sending billions to everyone in the world. Who needs it more than Ukraine that is currently at war with Russia, which is a threat to the whole western world? I have no idea why the Liberals will not give the Ukrainians what they are asking for. That is really the discussion that we are having for.

We already have a free trade agreement. We are going to do trade with Ukraine. Conservatives are dedicated in supporting Ukraine, but we are not going to force a carbon tax regime to make things worse than they already are. We will let Ukraine deal with whatever it wants to put in place with its sovereignty. Meanwhile, we want to give Ukraine what it is asking for. It is asking Canada to help with LNG. It is asking Canada to help with munitions. It is asking Canada to help with financial aid to support projects to rebuild its nation. Those are the kinds of things that should be in a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine if we want to modernize the one that is already there, but they are not.

We continue to see, in my riding, the difficulties that Ukrainians are having when trying to rescue other people who are coming here. As the ravages of war are advancing, there are still people who want to come, and the Liberals have not made that process any easier. I think if they really want to help Ukrainians, they should recognize that there is a huge need.

There is need in other areas where we could be of help. We have a lot of armoured ambulances, for example. We are not using them. We have replaced them, but the other ones are still there. They need an oil change maybe and a new set of tires. Those are the kinds of things we could be sending to Ukraine. They are hauling people around in broken-down cars because they have no ambulances left. Those are the kinds of things I think we should be thinking about.

I will wrap this up where I started. Conservatives unconditionally support Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine. That was clear from 1991 when we recognized its independence. It was clear when President Zelenskyy was here asking for our help. My colleague Candice Bergen stood in this place and unequivocally said that we support Ukraine. Our current leader has said that we unequivocally support Ukraine. That is the record. That is the correction of the misinformation and disinformation from the members opposite. We need to help Ukraine.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, we can all strive to do better, and I would encourage that member to do better as well and to support Bill C-57.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will entertain a conversation with the Prime Minister if she entertains a conversation with the leader of the official opposition to ensure its support of Bill C-57 and its support for Ukraine.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of this historic legislation to implement the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

This is an incredibly important agreement for both Canada and Ukraine, and I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what this legislation would accomplish.

The Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship is long-standing, unique and unshakable, and has always been marked by Canada's steadfast support of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Recently, in the face of protracted Russian aggression abroad and rising isolationism here in Canada, Canada's assistance has become even more important. Canadian aid for Ukraine in its time of need has included military, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian support. Trade, an important component of Canada's economic support, should not be overlooked.

The modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is an important element in our support to our Ukrainian allies. Not only would it help strengthen the bilateral economic ties between our two great countries; it would provide to the world yet another sign of Canada's unflappable support for our Ukrainian allies. This agreement constitutes a measure of support that would not only offer benefits in the near term; it would extend well beyond Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression by strengthening the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses could work together during Ukraine's recovery and economic reconstruction and, indeed, underpin the long-term economic relationship between our two countries.

We know that Ukraine's economy can benefit from Canadian expertise and investment in key sectors such as infrastructure, resources, energy and finance. This agreement would make it easier for Canadian companies to supply goods and services to Ukraine during reconstruction, as well as to invest and operate in the Ukrainian market with greater confidence while also supporting Ukrainian companies and exporting their goods and services to Canada.

As members are aware, the Prime Minister and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy announced their intention to modernize the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine in 2019. This was in response to a clause contained in the original 2017 agreement committing Canada and Ukraine to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force with a view to expanding it. While comprehensive from a trade and goods perspective, the 2017 agreement did not include chapters on trade in services or investment. These areas were specifically identified by the review clause as potential additions, without restricting the parties from exploring other areas. As such, this was an opportunity to make this agreement a fully comprehensive one on par with Canada's most comprehensive free trade agreements.

It is toward that goal that our government announced the launch of the agreement modernization negotiations in January 2022. Unfortunately, only weeks after, Russia began its full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. As part of our support to Ukraine, Canadian trade officials relayed to their Ukrainian counterparts that they stood ready to proceed with the agreement modernization discussions in accordance with Ukraine's capacity and willingness to do so.

In May 2022, Ukrainian officials conveyed in no uncertain terms that they were ready to initiate and indeed expedite the trade agreement modernization negotiations and that they were eager and determined to move forward to conclude as quickly as possible. Thus, our trade officials got to work immediately with the goal of reaching an ambitious and high standard agreement on a rapid time frame.

Throughout the process, and despite difficult circumstances, Ukrainian officials demonstrated eagerness to reach an ambitious outcome within very short timelines with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two countries, not just to meet the immediate needs of reconstruction but long into the future. This eagerness is reflective of how comprehensive the modernized agreement is with respect to not only trade in goods but also to the new chapters and provisions for investments, services, labour, environment, inclusive trade and others. In this current context, the new areas covered in the modernized agreement would make it much more than just a trade agreement.

As Ukraine's First Deputy Prime Minister Svyrydenko has explained, this agreement is a way to demonstrate that Ukraine's economy is:

...built on the same principles of respect for workers and the environment as in Canada. This is the first agreement that confirms that Ukraine shares the trade agenda of Canada, the US, the EU, Japan and our other partners. Its text is based on the standards of the Canada-US-Mexico Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement... In this way, Ukraine is joining... countries that share the [same] principles of economic policy. In fact, this is a modern trade and legally binding economic pact with partners who support our security.

This is why this modernized agreement is so important for Ukraine and why, despite truly incredible and daunting circumstances, Ukraine dedicated scarce resources toward that goal and pushed forward this modernization with Canada. Beyond the short-term benefits related to the reconstruction efforts that will be needed, it did so because it recognizes and acknowledges the long-term importance of building and safeguarding an open and inclusive rules-based global trading system, a system that contributes to creating strong and resilient economies and enables long-term growth.

Increasing Canada's trade and attracting investment is a priority for this government as is Canada's continued support for Ukraine, both during and long after the war. For this reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-57 and allow this government to move ahead to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement on a timely basis.

The House resumed from December 12, 2023 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, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. I assure him that the House of Commons is in for a good time. There will always be interesting things to debate because we keep introducing good bills in the House.

Tomorrow, Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, will be the subject of debate.

When we return on Monday, we will call Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days. On Wednesday we will begin debate on Bill C‑62 on medical assistance in dying, which was introduced earlier today by my hon. colleague the Minister of Health.

Ukraine

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just so there is no ambiguity on this, I apologize and withdraw that comment.

Now, what I was saying was that this petition specifically calls on all members of Parliament to immediately and swiftly enact Bill C-57, which would put into law the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This would assist Ukraine in rebuilding after it defeats the illegal invasion of Vladimir Putin. It actually says in the petition that misinformation regarding the effect of Canada's carbon pricing scheme on this agreement has been widely debunked. The petition states, therefore, that the undersigned citizens of Canada call upon the House of Commons and all parliamentarians to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to Ukraine by swiftly adopting the updated free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, in all my time presenting petitions on behalf of Canadians, I have never been heckled by the Conservatives, but they are literally heckling me while I am trying to do so.

Canadians are asking that all parliamentarians immediately and swiftly pass Bill C-57, which would update the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and assist Ukraine in rebuilding after it defeats the illegal invasion by Vladimir Putin.

I am happy to present this petition on behalf of Canadians. I am certain that many more will follow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from by Canadians that specifically addresses the fact that this House no longer unanimously supports Ukraine.

The petitioners call on all members of Parliament to immediately and swiftly pass Bill C-57, which is an important update to the Canada free trade—

Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to rise to speak in this House on Bill S-9, an act that would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, and the important efforts to eliminate the use of chemical weapons globally.

I need to say the government was deeply disturbed and disappointed in how not once but twice the Conservative opposition has blocked the debate on this bill. I am glad we are finally here today.

On the eve of the Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare, the Conservatives blocked debate on the bill, a bill to modernize the very act that would help those victims, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. It also includes novichok, a deadly nerve agent implicated in multiple poisonings likely conducted by Russia.

Conservatives also did this just days before Remembrance Day, when we commemorate the thousands of brave Canadians who have fallen in defence of our freedoms, some of whom were among the first to fall victims of the horror of chemical warfare in Ypres in 1915.

More than century ago, during the second battle of Ypres, Canadian soldiers were among the very first in human history to fall victim to the horrors of chemical warfare when 160 tonnes of chlorine gas were released toward Canadian lines. By the end of the battle, 6,035 young Canadians, more than one in three, were killed or wounded by the new and terrifying weapon. By the end of the conflict, more than a million people suffered the effects of this new kind of warfare: chemical warfare.

Today, as we see the devastating images of the victims of war and conflict like never before from Khartoum to Kyiv to Khan Younis, it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to promote peace and to work vigorously toward a world free of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. The use of chemical weapons to injure or kill is a vile act of barbarism and regrettably one that, despite our best efforts, has not yet been confined to the annals of history.

While the use of chemicals in war has a long history dating back to ancient times, advances in science and technology, with the possibility of creating so much good for so many people, have also been harnessed on an industrial scale to cause death and destruction. Thankfully, at the conclusion of the conflict, the Geneva Protocol was launched, which prohibited the use in war of either of these categories of weapons of mass destruction.

The way in which the consequences of chemical weapons on the battlefield left no one untouched demonstrated the sheer inhumanity of these types of weapons. However, the protocol did not prohibit their development or production. Consequently, for decades to follow, countries continued to develop massive chemical weapons stockpiles.

After more than two decades of effort, on September 3, 1992, the text of a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction was sent to the General Assembly of the United Nations by the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Canada signed it on the very first day, January 13, 1993, and proceeded to fully ratify it. The Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force on April 29, 1997. That same year, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, was formed to oversee the convention's implementation, supervise destruction of declared chemical weapons stockpiles and inspect the world's chemical industries to help ensure chemical weapons would never return.

Thirty years later, the Chemical Weapons Convention remains a key pillar of the rules-based international system. More than 190 states are party to it, making it the most widely adopted treaty on non-proliferation and disarmament. The convention's prohibitions are clear and comprehensive. No country party to the convention may develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or use chemical weapons. They may not transfer chemical weapons to another party or otherwise enable another country or non-state actor to develop them. It affirms the right for all parties to engage in the free trade of chemicals and technology for peaceful purposes and that the prohibition on chemical weapons should not hamper unnecessarily the growth of the chemical industry and progress in chemical research. We need that as human beings. On that latter point, the OPCW employs numerous programs to promote chemical science and chemical industry, all for peaceful purposes, around the globe.

As of July 2023, the OPCW supervised and verified the destruction of 100% of the world's declared chemical weapons.

Unfortunately, the legal prohibition has not yet fully eliminated the risk of chemical weapon use. Since the CWC entered into force, chemical weapons have been used in multiple instances, even by countries that are party to the convention.

Competent international bodies, including the OPCW-UN joint investigation mechanism and the OPCW investigation and identification team have concluded that the Syrian Arab Republic used both the chemical warfare agent sarin and the toxic industrial chemical chlorine as weapons against opposition forces on no fewer than nine occasions and likely more.

The terrorist group Daesh used mustard gas in both Syria and Iraq. Kim Jong-nam, half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, was assassinated with the nerve agent venomous agent X, or VX, in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in February 2017, an act widely believed to have been orchestrated by the North Korean state.

In March 2018, a more complicated development occurred. Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer living in the United Kingdom, and his daughter, were found to have been poisoned by novichok, an extremely toxic nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union. The attempt at assassination left both Skripals and police detective Nick Bailey in the hospital for several months.

The novichok was believed to have been administered to the front door of Mr. Skripal's house using a perfume bottle, subsequently discarded in a public bin, which, when discovered by a local, believing it to be perfume, resulted in two further hospitalizations and the death of Dawn Sturgess. When the police recovered the bottle from Ms. Sturgess's home in nearby Amesbury, they assessed it to contain sufficient novichok to kill thousands of people. Eight locations had to be decontaminated to remove any trace of novichok, taking several months and costing millions of pounds.

Canada and its allies concluded that the state agencies of the Russian Federation were highly likely responsible for that attack. The British government identified and indicted, in absentia, three Russian intelligence agents.

Canada condemned the attack. The Prime Minister and then-foreign affairs minister issued statements. Four Russian diplomats were expelled from the Russian embassy in Ottawa and the consulate general in Montreal as part of an unprecedented collective response.

In total, 153 Russian diplomats were expelled from 29 countries, including some accredited to the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The Chemical Weapons Convention contains an annex on chemicals, a list covering most chemical warfare agents and their precursors across three schedules.

Schedule 1 chemicals have only one use: to injure, to kill. They cannot be used in industry and so are prohibited from all purposes except for research and training for protection and defence against themselves, against chemical weapons.

Schedules 2 and 3 chemicals have increasing use in industry and so are subject to fewer controls, with the goal of preventing chemical weapons proliferation while avoiding unnecessarily hampering industry and trade and the benefit of humanity.

At the time of the Salisbury attack, novichoks were not on the annex on chemicals, thus not subject to declaration and verification requirements. It must be made clear that a novichok, as a weapon, indeed, any toxic chemical as a weapon, has always been a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, in accordance with the broad definition of a chemical weapon in article II.

Still, Canada and our close allies quickly took the position that the world would be much safer if novichoks were subject to OPCW monitoring like any other chemical warfare agent.

On November 29, 2019, as the result of tremendous leadership by Canada, the United States and the Netherlands, the Twenty-Fourth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention took the unprecedented decision to add four new categories of toxic chemicals to schedule 1.

This included the novichok used in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. As a result of this amendment, states handling novichoks for defensive purposes such as research, development and testing of new protective gear or medical countermeasures or training police or armed forces in responding to their use must declare their activities to the OPCW and be subject to verification.

This amendment is also symbolic. The toxic chemical used as a weapon in Salisbury is now included in the same list of chemical weapons as sarin, mustard and VX.

The additions to the CWC's “Annex on Chemicals” came into force on June 7, 2020. The Chemical Weapons Convention requires that all states parties put in place domestic legislation to apply the convention's prohibitions to their citizens and all people on their territory. That is what Bill S-9 is about.

In Canada, this is done through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which makes it illegal for anyone in Canada, as well as Canadian citizens abroad, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer, use, prepare to use or assist in the use of chemical weapons.

It also prohibits Canadians from producing, possessing or using schedule 1 chemicals without explicit government authorization. Since June 7, 2020, this has included the four recently added categories. The CWCIA still contains a copy of the convention's original annex on chemicals, which has been out of date since 2020.

While subsection 2(3) states unambiguously that the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention take precedence should there be disagreement with the act, it is important for us to fix this discrepancy and show leadership on this important issue in this place. To this end, Bill S-9 seeks to repeal the schedule from the act, and repeal or amend two subsections that reference it. These changes would not just realign Canadian legislation with our international obligations but also future-proof it in case of further amendments in the future.

This bill is something all parties should agree to easily and expedite immediately. It has already passed through the other place without objection, so I hope that can happen in this place as well.

This legislation alone does not eliminate the risk of foreign states, such as Russia; non-signatories; or non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, using chemical weapons for nefarious purposes. It does, however, underscore Canada's steadfast support for the Chemical Weapons Convention and for other key agreements that form an essential part of the rules-based system that keep Canada, all Canadians and our allies safe.

As the foreign minister outlined the other week, our system, as well as our world, is cracking. The international rules-based order is under attack, and the world is increasingly marked by geopolitical turbulence, unpredictability and uncertainty. We must, therefore, continue to show leadership on the international stage, as we have in the past.

Canada can be proud of our leadership on these important issues, which also includes former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy's landmark work on the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines; the launch of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, which occurred when former prime minister Chrétien hosted the world leaders in Kananaskis in 2002; and work to spearhead the international convention prohibiting cluster munitions. These are all important, critical parts of keeping our world safe.

Another critical tool is diplomacy, which cannot help but strengthen our ability to maintain the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. We must work with allies and our partners to keep our world safe through a world security infrastructure. That is why we increased our footprint in the world. Diplomacy leads to better activity, which leads to a lesser degree of peace in our world being threatened. That is why we continue to do all that work.

We have missions around the world; our diplomats regularly coordinate with our allies and partners, as well as engaging host governments on the importance of buttressing our work on this convention. It was through concerted advocacy around the world that we were able to adapt the convention to the modern realities of today's world. It is through diplomacy that we continue to build peace. It is a trying challenge. It is something that we need to commit to every day in this place. It means we continue to monitor the situation, adapt and take legislation we have in this House, this place and this government, and adapt it to modern realities.

Our words need to be backed by meaningful actions, notably through funding the weapons threat reduction program housed within Global Affairs Canada. It represents Canada's flagship contribution to the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, hosted by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in Kananaskis, Alberta, in 2002.

Canada has contributed more than $1.6 billion towards threat reduction activities worldwide, including destroying chemical weapons and combatting their spread. This includes supporting the destruction of declared chemical weapons in Russia, Syria, Iraq and Libya.

Through the weapons threat reduction program, Canada is the single largest donor country to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was set up to implement the CWC. It was honoured with the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize for its effort to supervise the destruction of more than 98% of declared global stocks of chemical weapons. With our $10 million commitment, Canada is the top individual donor to the OPCW's new Centre for Chemistry and Technology in The Hague, which opened this past May. The centre will strengthen and bolster the organization's investigative capacities and capabilities and support innovative efforts to keep pace with the ever-evolving chemical weapons landscape.

Canada has also provided defensive equipment, including masks and filters, to the Ukrainian military, given the threat of chemical weapons use by Russian forces. Let us be very clear: This bill is also about the defence of Ukraine against the illegal invasion of Russia into its territory. To counter Russian efforts to undermine the global norm against chemical weapons use, Canada has worked in close concert with allies to demand that Russia fully declare its novichok program.

Our government will continue to be a leader on the global stage and ensure that Russia is held accountable for its aggressions against Ukraine. This may be through providing defensive equipment or through Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which Conservatives have voted against multiple times, to support the rebuilding of Ukraine when we win.

In August 2020, when Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny—

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. colleague wants to discuss Ukraine, because Conservatives have blocked and filibustered on several occasions when it comes to Bill C-57. They have moved concurrence motions several times.

I would also remind the member that I actually think it is really important that the Conservatives reflect over the holidays and perhaps consider changing their position, because it would be really nice to be able to show Ukraine that solidarity and unanimity that the House has always shown Ukraine. I am going to give them the time and space to reflect, to speak to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to speak to Canadians of Ukrainian origin and to hear from them why this matters and why this is important, so that we can show the solidarity and unanimity that Canada has long been known for, which unfortunately the Conservatives, for reasons that I cannot understand but perhaps because of the right-wing American influence that we are seeing and the MAGA intentions of their leader, have decided not to support, based on falsehoods. Let us let them take the Christmas holidays to do that reflection.

This afternoon, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers. Tomorrow, we will proceed with second reading debate of Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, again, another bill that we have not actually been able to debate because the Conservatives continue to move concurrence motions.

I want to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for the season to everybody who works here on Parliament Hill and to all of my colleagues. I want to express a special gratitude to the employees here in the House of Commons who have done an absolutely tremendous job, even when they were forced to stay here for 30 hours during a marathon vote, which was difficult not just for members of Parliament but particularly for the staff who were forced to work overtime and stay up all night.

With that, I wish everybody in this chamber, and indeed all Canadians, a very merry Christmas and a very happy holiday season.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I want to start by thanking everyone in this chamber for their hard work over the last year and share merry Christmas wishes with colleagues and all staff who work on and around the Hill. I also want to wish a special merry Christmas to those in uniform who are serving our country, especially those overseas who will be sacrificing time with family and their usual Christmas traditions in order to serve our country and advance freedom and justice in a troubled world.

I wonder if the government House leader could update the House about the planned calendar of business for the rest of this week and the work when we return. In particular, Liberals have claimed that they want to pass Bill C-57 on Canada-Ukraine free trade as soon as possible. If they are serious, I will propose a motion following the Thursday question to bring the deal to an immediate and final vote.

The motion will be that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, all questions necessary for the disposal of the third reading stage of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested and be not deferred.

I wonder if the government House leader could clarify whether the government intends to allow its bill to come to a vote or whether it intends to delay it for political reasons.

Canada Labour Code

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

Madam Speaker, there were consultations among the parties about a motion to expedite the vote on Bill C-57 so that the House can pronounce—

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I have an important UC request for a motion on Bill C-57 that I think the House will want to hear: That, notwithstanding any standing order—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the record to show that the member for Dufferin—Caledon tried to have the House pass Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, and the Liberals refused to pass it. That is what Conservatives were putting forward.

[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?

[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?

Canada Labour Code

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

Mr. Speaker, we do extend our most sincere condolences to the member and his family.

It is interesting trying to draw Conservatives out on how they are going to vote. Here we have labour and others who want to see this legislation pass to committee. I have listened closely to the member opposite, and I cannot tell exactly what the Conservative Party is going to do on this. This is Bill C-58.

Just last week, we had debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. The Ukrainian heritage community was very excited about that legislation and wanted the House to pass that legislation. Like today, we were left wondering why it was that the Conservative Party did not seem to support Ukraine.

Can the member give a clear indication as to why he voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to remind the member of the bill we are talking about today. It is Bill C-56. I believe he is talking about Bill C-57, which was passed—

International Trade

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with Bill C‑57. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has cost thousands of people their lives, and it continues to jeopardize the stability of the entire region and the world.

Unfortunately, this week, the leader of the official opposition and the Conservative members voted against the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. We are talking about an agreement that the President of Ukraine clearly indicated would serve as a basis for rebuilding Ukraine. The Conservatives have turned their backs on Ukraine and democracy; they have embraced Russian propaganda.

I would ask the Minister of Finance to reaffirm Canada's strong support for Ukraine.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am profoundly disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has forced his Conservative caucus to betray the people of Ukraine in voting against Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

This agreement represents a commitment to shared values and democratic principles and is a crucial step toward strengthening prosperity for both Canada and Ukraine.

It is a bill that should have been supported unanimously, to show our solidarity with Ukraine and our commitment to help them rebuild as they fight a brutal and illegal invasion by Russia. Our government will always prioritize the best interests of all Canadians and recognize that trade agreements are not obstacles but bridges to a more prosperous and interconnected future.

The vote on Bill C-57 is the clearest demonstration yet that, when it comes to standing in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, the Conservative Party cannot be trusted. It is not worth the risk.

Slava Ukraini.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think it's important that we deal with the issue, and I cannot stay beyond one o'clock.

Mr. Seeback has introduced a motion.

Is there any further debate on the motion?

Not seeing any debate, we'll read out the motion again:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine; in light of the fact that the Liberal Government granted a waiver exemption to allow for the export of a turbine from Canada that was then used to export Russian gas; to expand the scope of the study of the Bill in order to facilitate Canadian LNG and other energy expertise to further assist Ukraine; and to support expanded munitions production in Canada; and increasing munition and weapons exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

We will have a vote.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a motion that I would like to move.

Madam Clerk, would you please distribute that motion to the committee?

I move:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine; in light of the fact that the Liberal Government granted a waiver exemption to allow for the export of a turbine from Canada that was then used to export Russian gas; to expand the scope of the study of the Bill in order to facilitate Canadian LNG and other energy expertise to further assist Ukraine; and to support expanded munitions production in Canada; and increasing munition and weapons exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

I'd now like to speak to that motion, Madam Chair.

We are in a situation where certain members of the government are suggesting that Conservative members do not support Ukraine because we have a principled objection to certain things that are contained within the free trade agreement, one of which is a price on carbon, which is not in any of our other existing free trade agreements, and is, in fact, not in any free trade agreement Ukraine has ever signed. It's the first time it's ever been in that.

We think that there are many ways that this trade agreement could be enhanced to help Ukraine in the middle of the war, so I'm going to start with this first of all.

We are being told that we are hurting Ukraine by voting against a bad trade deal. What, in fact, has happened is that this Liberal government granted a waiver exemption to allow for the export of a gas turbine that was used to transport Russian gas. Think about that for a second. What funds Putin's war machine? What helps fund his war, his illegal, outrageous and barbaric war in Ukraine? It's gas, the revenues Russia gets from the sale of gas.

The Liberal government granted a waiver to export a turbine to help them do it. Then they have the audacity to say that we are hurting Ukraine on a vote that was inconsequential, because this bill has been referred to the committee. It's here. I don't know if Liberal members know that, but the free trade agreement is here at committee. The vote didn't hurt anything.

We are His Majesty's loyal opposition. We get to oppose bad pieces of legislation or bad trade agreements. When you insert a carbon tax, carbon price or carbon leakage into a trade agreement for the first time, we get to object, which is what we've done. It doesn't hurt Ukraine. The deal came to committee. The deal's most likely going to pass the House—the other parties are supporting it—because they all also have a carbon price—carbon tax—obsession. All the parties in the House of Commons are obsessed with taxing Canadians through carbon into poverty.

I agree that trade deals are about exports. Let's import and let's export, but you know what we shouldn't export? The misery of the carbon tax, the misery of the carbon tax that has two million Canadians going to a food bank in one month alone. Never in the history of Canada has this happened. Seven million Canadians are now cutting back on food because they can't afford to eat. We just heard from the pork producers, and the carbon tax is making pork more expensive. Why? They have to heat their barns. This can cost tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax every single month. We should not be exporting that.

What's amazing is that the foreign affairs committee did a report in February 2023 wherein they recommended that there not be a waiver granted to Siemens to export that turbine. Guess what. The government did it anyway. When you look at what's hurt Ukraine, what's hurt Ukraine was exporting that turbine to give some more blood money to Vladimir Putin in his war.

There's a real opportunity here, Madam Chair. One of the things that Ukraine desperately needs is energy security in this war, and there's an article here, a very well-researched article on the issue, and one of the things it says right in the article is:

As Ukraine rebuilds and adapts to a new geopolitical reality, achieving energy security will be instrumental to put the country back on its feet—

What is not included in this free trade agreement is anything on LNG co-operation or energy security co-operation. This motion is going to allow us to expand the scope of the review of this to include these things. If Liberals actually want to make up for the fact that they exported a turbine that helped Vladimir Putin, they can now vote to expand the scope of this bill to allow for there to be chapters on energy security and LNG co-operation, which will actually help Ukraine.

The second part of this motion is with respect to munitions and weapons. Let me tell you this. Canada has not increased its exports of munitions to Ukraine from day one. Three thousand shells a month is where they started, and 3,000 is where we are today. There has been no increase whatsoever. Ukraine goes through 6,000 shells a day, every day. We are not increasing our exports of these. That should be something in this agreement.

How do we co-operate to increase the number of shells available to Ukraine? There's actually a formula in war. The number of artillery shells you can use reduces the number of lives you lose on the battlefield. By voting for this we are going to find a way to increase Canadian exports of munitions, which will directly benefit the Ukrainian armed forces and save Ukrainian lives, as opposed to exporting a turbine, which helped Vladimir Putin.

We could also absolutely be helping with weapons. In fact, in March of 2022 there was a Conservative proposal that we would send decommissioned LAVs to Ukraine to help in the war. Guess where they ended up. It was on the scrap heap. The Conservatives recommended exporting three hundred fighting vehicles to Ukraine to help them in the war. The Liberal government did not do that.

Madam Chair, the Liberals have a chance to redeem themselves. A similar motion came to this committee, and all Liberals voted against it. I was prepared to move a motion like this on the floor of the House of Commons today, but—guess what—you had to put it on notice. They played a little procedural game so the motion wouldn't be able to be debated today. The rubber hits the road today, Madam Chair.

Will these Liberals actually do something to help Ukraine or will they vote this down again?

I expect that's what they will do, because they're all talk and no action.

Consideration of Government Business No. 30

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the member's comments saying that he apparently wants to do more for Ukraine, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for the adoption of a motion put on notice by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, which is that there be an instruction to the Standing Committee on International Trade that, during its consideration of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine, and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

I hope there would be unanimous consent for the adoption of that motion so that we could move forward.

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

I'm calling the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 83 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 need to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those online, please mute yourself when you are not speaking. As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. If any technical issues arise, please inform me immediately. We may need to suspend in order to deal with any issues. I ask that all participants be careful when handling the earpieces in order to prevent feedback.

I need to remind members, as well, that the deadline to submit amendments to Bill C-57 is this coming Friday by noon. Amendments must be submitted to the clerk in writing. The legislative counsel, Penny Becklumb, is available to assist members to ensure that the amendments are properly drafted.

Welcome to our witnesses. Thank you for coming in a few minutes earlier. It's very much appreciated.

Today we have, from the Canadian Pork Council, René Roy, chair, and Stephen Heckbert, executive director, by video conference. From Finica Food Specialties Limited, a friend of the committee who has been here before, we have Joe Dal Ferro, the president. From United Steelworkers Union, we have George Soule, legislative staff representative. Welcome to you all.

We will start with opening remarks of up to five minutes and then we will proceed with questions.

Mr. Roy and Mr. Heckbert, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, please.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-57.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from November 20, 2023, 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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

To our witnesses, you are free to leave at any time, or you can remain on until we go into committee business, if you like. We are going to deal with....

Thank you, Mr. Trew.

I apologize to the witnesses, but the committee is doing important work. Sometimes it goes in a different direction, but it's all going to the same place.

I'm going to read this out, so we make sure that it's clearly understood. It reads:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, to expand the scope of the study of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

Mr. Seeback has asked for a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Thank you very much.

We will now go into committee business. We will need to suspend for approximately 10 minutes, because we have translators who are doing it remotely and they require a 10-minute adjournment, possibly.

We will suspend for a few minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've heard from multiple parties that this is intended to delay Bill C-57, the support that Ukraine and the ambassador asked for. I think it's important to put that on the record. I think it's clear where our party stands, and we should vote today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Miao, before you speak, I just want to make sure that everybody is clear on what the motion says. It says:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted

—it being the committee—

the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, to expand the scope of the study of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

I just want to make sure that everybody is clear on what it says. It asks the House to grant the committee the power during its consideration to expand the scope.

It's a motion that would go to the House for adoption by the House, so the committee would then be able to expand the scope. I just want to make sure that everybody is clear on what it is going to accomplish.

Go ahead, Mr. Miao.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at the trade committee on this important motion to support our allies in Ukraine in their fight for freedom and victory, which undertakes to allow amendments to this bill that would support the expansion of munitions exports to Ukraine.

When it comes to discussions about Ukraine, we see a lot of instances of what has come to be called “performative allyship”—people wanting to show they're on Ukraine's side but not actually focusing on the things Ukraine needs most. Ukrainians are not asking for a carbon tax. Ukrainians are asking for weapons. Ukraine needs to win this war. That means they need the munitions and equipment that, in many cases, Canada could make available, in order to allow them to secure victory.

There is nothing currently in Bill C-57 that deals with munitions exports. Conservatives are preparing substantial, serious amendments to this legislation that would make the sale of vital munitions to Ukraine much easier. This would have a concrete impact in terms of helping the Ukrainian people win this war. Again, we need to put aside the performative allyship and focus instead on the things Ukraine really needs, which are weapons, munitions and materiel that will concretely allow them to achieve victory as soon as possible.

I would like to see the same review standards for arms exports that apply to our existing NATO partners applied to Ukraine. This is currently not the case. There are different review standards subject to so-called “open-policy” countries—easier review standards than those applied to Ukraine. We should be applying as little red tape as possible to munitions exports to Ukraine, so weapons get there as quickly as possible. We can be supplying surplus military equipment that we're not using here in Canada to Ukraine and, in the process, use this as an opportunity to modernize our own equipment.

We should be encouraging EDC and BDC to support efforts by Canadian defence manufacturers to partner with Ukraine's defence industry. We should be making long-term commitments to defence productions that will allow us not only to develop the munitions vital for our own security here but also to support Ukraine.

Let's focus on victory for Ukraine. Victory for Ukraine means weapons. It means munitions. It means helping Ukraine get the equipment it needs. This motion would allow us to expand the scope of amendments that can be made to Bill C-57, so we can include that critical content around munitions development and exports to help Ukraine win the war.

This is what matters for Ukraine. This is where the rubber hits the road. This will be an important test if the committee is prepared to focus on meeting Ukraine's needs instead of simply using a trade deal to talk about the carbon tax. Let's focus on what Ukraine really needs, which is urgently getting munitions in the hands of the Ukrainian people, so they can effectively continue to defend themselves.

Thank you.

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

With that in mind, Madam Chair, I'm now going to move a motion. I've given a copy of the motion to the clerk. Could the clerk distribute that motion now?

I'm going to move:

That the committee recommend to the House that it be granted the power during its consideration of Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, to expand the scope of the study of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.

Madam Chair, as we have heard throughout the prestudy of this legislation, the government has choices to make on what it includes in trade agreements.

As I was saying in my question, you can add things into trade agreements that we've never seen before. For example, in this trade agreement, there are references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. There are references to the United Nations sustainable development goals. These are things that have never been put into a trade agreement between Canada and any of its trading partners.

Obviously, the government gets to make choices. The government can say that it is going to have this new type of trade agreement and that it's going to put certain things into this trade agreement that have never been put into a trade agreement before.

If you're doing that, Madam Chair, then you actually have the ability to put other things into a trade agreement that you've never put into a trade agreement. You can't have one or the other. If you're putting new things in, you can put other new things in.

What we've heard repeatedly at this committee from witnesses is that there are things that could have been included in this trade agreement that would have been beneficial to Ukraine during this time of war. For example, we've talked about LNG. Ukraine has the third-largest proven LNG reserves in Europe. The further development of those could certainly defund Putin's war machine.

Conservatives think that should absolutely have been included in the trade agreement. If you're including some things in a trade agreement, like carbon pricing and carbon leakage, you can include other things in a trade agreement, like the development of LNG reserves.

This government made a clear choice to put carbon taxes and carbon leakage into a trade agreement for a country in the middle of a war, as opposed to putting in something that could actually help them in the war, which is LNG development or—and I now turn to my motion—expanded munitions production in Canada and increased munitions exports to Ukraine.

In the course of this war, an incredible quantity of munitions is being expended by Ukraine in the defence of its country—a valiant defence, I might add. No one thought Ukraine would be able to stop the second-largest military in the world. They've done it heroically and they've done it with the challenge of having enough artillery munitions and other munitions to defend their country and in fact perform counterattacks.

Therefore, I say we should take the time at this committee to expand the scope of what we're doing to include not just.... I'm not going to go down the road of LNG, energy co-operation and other things which, quite frankly, I think we should expand the scope to look at. I'm going to narrowly focus this motion today on munitions production in Canada. We should be increasing munitions production so that we can export to Ukraine and increase those exports. We should also be thinking about how we could help Ukraine itself increase its munitions production.

I think this is something we should be doing at the committee. We should expand the scope of what we're studying to add things like this into our study.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks as well to the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Charlebois, carbon pricing is mentioned in Bill C‑57. This is the first time it has been included in a free trade agreement. Do you think it's useful to impose a carbon tax on Ukraine since it's currently at war?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

People have to be in training for all kinds of positions in the future. You never know.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 2, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of the subject matter of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

We have with us today, from the agri-food analytics lab, Sylvain Charlebois. He is the director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor at Dalhousie University, and he is joining us by video conference. From the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, we have Stuart Trew, senior researcher.

We have two others attempting to join us, who aren't connected at the moment. As soon as they can get their issues corrected, they will join us.

Welcome to all. We will start with opening remarks and then proceed with a round of questions.

Dr. Charlebois, I invite you to make a statement of up to five minutes, please.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, this past weekend, I participated in the Halifax International Security Forum with members of Parliament across the way. We heard extensively about the importance of supporting Ukraine both currently but also with respect to their rebuilding. I quote from the head of the Centre of Civil Liberties Ukraine, “there is a huge difference between let's help Ukraine not to fail and let's help Ukraine to win. And we can practically measure this difference in types of weapons, in gravity of sanctions and speed of decisions.”

We heard very clearly this weekend about the importance of helping Ukraine and making decisions with respect to this bill so that they can start predicting and making sure they have a capacity to rebuild. Will the member opposite support and vote in favour of Bill C-57?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as a representative of the amazing people and spectacular region of North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Before I speak to Bill C-57, I would like to acknowledge that many of us have returned to Ottawa today after spending Remembrance Day and last week in our ridings. I would like to thank all of the volunteers who gave up their time to organize and participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies in 16 different communities and locations across North Okanagan—Shuswap and those who participated across Canada. Without those volunteers, the many ceremonies of remembrance would not have been possible.

It is especially heartwarming to see the large turnouts paying respect to our veterans and heart-wrenching to know that, at the same time, there are still battles going on around the world with soldiers and civilians losing their lives to war every day.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Conservatives have a long history of supporting free trade with other countries. My Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, served as Canada's longest-serving minister of international trade and worked on many successful trade agreements during his tenure in the portfolio, including Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine, the agreement that this bill seeks to amend. In fact, he negotiated trade agreements with 46 countries in that time.

As we look at this bill and the agreement itself, we as legislators have a duty to ensure that the law and the agreement are in the best interest of Canadians. We are closely examining this bill, to ensure that this is the case. We as Conservatives and Canadians also believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies. Increasing trade between our nations is but one way of providing that support.

No one is debating whether we should have a free trade agreement with Ukraine. Indeed, we currently have free trade through the 2017 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. Obviously, trade is happening between our countries. In fact, following the ratification of the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019.

Canada's relationship with Ukraine is strong, with over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian origin living in Canada. Some of those are newcomers, who have come to Canada fleeing Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.

I have had the pleasure of meeting some of those newcomers to Canada at special events in Vernon and Salmon Arm and other locations, where the outpouring of community support has made them feel welcome and eases the burden of fleeing their homeland, many with nothing more than what they could carry in their arms or on their backs. Meeting those newcomers from Ukraine and hearing their resolve to maintain their freedom and desire to return and rebuild their lives and their country has been inspirational.

This legislation aims to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which contains 11 new chapters. These include rules of origin, government procurement, monopoly, digital trade, e-commerce and more. The document is around 600 pages long. Proposed paragraph13.10(8) states, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”.

It also contains purposes, including “promote sustainable development” and “promote high levels of environmental protection”.

When I consider what this could mean, I find great differences in what the government promotes and what it actually achieves. I say this because Canada has some of the largest reserves of natural gas for producing liquefied natural gas, LNG, in the world, and yet when Canada was approached to supply LNG to Germany, a neighbour of Ukraine, to help break Europe’s dependence on gas from Putin’s Russia, Germany was told there was no business case. Not only would the export of Canadian natural gas have helped defund Russia’s war machine, but it would also have helped transition Europe away from coal-fired power generation.

So here we have a free trade agreement that is to promote a high level of environmental protection and a government that refuses to acknowledge how much Canadian energy could do toward that goal if we were able to export it to replace energy from regimes with lower standards for production and disregard of human rights.

The government has denied the opportunity for Canada to export clean-burning natural gas with its burdensome, red-tape strangled regulatory process. Rather than promoting a product that would help Ukraine build and rebuild, and transition to a cleaner energy source, the Prime Minister said there was no business case for it. This is a loss of opportunity for Canadians and a loss of opportunity for Germany, Ukraine and other European nations. Canada could help displace dirty coal-fired electricity generation with cleaner LNG. There is a reason that this should be done expediently as Ukraine suffers from the ravages of war, requires energy to rebuild and can no longer obtain LNG from Russia. Canada could be helping.

I will go back to remind the hon. members here of the number of free trade agreements that were completed or negotiated under the previous Conservative government and the work that Canada, under a Conservative government, accomplished on the world stage. It is also worth noting that Canada supported democracy in Ukraine when we sent 500 observers to Ukraine to monitor the presidential elections in 2014.

Before I close, I would like to raise the matter of another item that should be addressed through a different free trade agreement, one affecting British pensioners living in Canada. These pensioners from the United Kingdom receive retirement pensions, but those pensions have never been indexed to the cost of living increases for U.K. pensioners living in Canada. This is an issue I hear about from U.K. pensioners living in the North Okanagan—Shuswap and I hear about how it is causing them to lose thousands of dollars in their retirement. While this government is negotiating a trade agreement with the U.K., I urge the government to press for indexing of U.K. pensions in Canada, just like Canadians retiring in other countries, including the U.K., have their pensions indexed.

As we continue debate on Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I urge this government to focus on what will be good for Canada, good for Ukraine and good for the people of our two countries by ensuring that our laws and trade agreements benefit both nations and do not unduly hinder our energy sector and the progress that could be made in both countries by promoting it.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always want to make sure when I get up that I thank the residents of Niagara West for sending me here.

There are some service awards tonight on the Hill for a number of my staff: Gord, who did not come up, has been in my office over 15 years; Phil, who is here in Ottawa; and Irene, who is here in Ottawa with her better half, or other half, Dan, joining us today. It would not be possible to serve the people without the great support that we all have in our offices, so I wanted to recognize them before I start.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. For the folks in Niagara West and across the country who are watching this debate today, it is important to note that the Conservative Party of Canada was the party in government when the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was successfully negotiated. This agreement represents a critical milestone in the Canada-Ukraine relationship. It generated commercial benefits for many Canadian businesses. It also supported the economic reform in the development efforts of the Government of Ukraine. Most of all, it made the Canada-Ukraine partnership for peace and prosperity even stronger.

The agreement was ratified unanimously in the House, eliminating tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. It is important to highlight that this agreement has a built-in review clause, article 19.2, committing to the review of the agreement within two years of its entry into force. The intention of this clause is to expand the agreement to new areas, such as investment and trade in services. That is where we are today: trying to improve upon that initial agreement.

In my view, Canada should continue to look for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people. One key opportunity is exporting Canadian LNG to break the European dependence on natural gas from Russia. As we know, the Russian government is using its natural gas exports as leverage over European markets. Canada can help Europe break that cycle with our world-class LNG.

I believe that all parties in this place would agree that the Conservative Party has had a long and proud tradition of supporting free trade by negotiating and signing agreements, as it has done many times in the past. It was also a Conservative government that negotiated the first Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and that negotiated the bulk of CETA with the European Union.

A ton of credit should go to the Conservative member representing the riding of Abbotsford, who is in the House right now, for doing an incredible job as the minister of international trade when we were in government.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-57, the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The bill would modernize CUFTA and build on the original 2017 agreement with the inclusion of 11 new chapters and provisions.

I believe that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people, including the exportation of Canadian liquefied natural gas to break European dependence on natural gas supplied to those countries by Russia. I also believe that members of this House should always work to ensure that trade agreements entered into by Canada remain in the best interest of Canada and of all Canadians. This is why Bill C-57 should be closely examined and why engagement should occur with Canadians and stakeholders to get that very important feedback. We must also be aware that, through this Canada-Ukraine FTA, Canada is continuing its support for our Ukrainian allies, including through trade.

I commend the Conservatives for having successfully negotiated the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and for unanimously voting for it. I am also a strong supporter of free trade and of Ukraine. On the latter point, this is why I personally believe that Canada should indeed have a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

The current CUFTA was negotiated in 2017, and it will also remain in effect if, for some reason, the new agreement is not ratified. Regardless, Canada's commitment to a strong and independent Ukraine is a constant. Ukrainian people have suffered greatly through Russia's unwarranted aggression, and the people of Ukraine need all the assistance Canada can offer.

Canada's history with Ukraine displays a close relationship. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. Recently, Canada also undertook Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training.

As I said at the outset, the new CUFTA reflects the 2017 agreement, with 11 new chapters and provisions that focus on trade in services, including financial investment, cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, financial services, telecommunications, SMEs, digital trade and labour. Bill C-57 also includes elements of the government's new progressive trade and the first-ever sections on indigenous peoples. There is also a substantial new chapter on the environment.

The original 2017 agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. CUFTA has a built-in review clause, article 19.2, that commits to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force. The intention is to expand the agreement to new areas, such as investment in trade in services.

In July 2019, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ukraine agreed to modernize the CUFTA. Subsequently, in January of last year, Canada and Ukraine announced the launch of modernization negotiations, which were suspended as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those negotiations resumed in June 2022. On October 17, the modernized CUFTA was introduced for ratification by the government.

Let us take a step back and really look at the magnitude. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. When the original CUFTA was ratified, non-coal exports to Ukraine actually grew by 28.5%, when looking at the period between 2016 and 2019. The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, electrical machinery and equipment. For reference, Canada's 10th merchandise export market was Belgium, at $4.9 billion, and Canada's 10th merchandise importer was Brazil, at $7.5 billion. Therefore, this trade deal is very small relative to Canada's total trade, but that does not diminish its importance, particularly given the ongoing conflict.

There are two parts to adopting a trade agreement: a text of the agreement and the enabling legislation. Bill C-57 would implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as agreed to between the two parties on September 22.

Among other things, the bill sets out rules of interpretation and further “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”. Bill C-57 would approve the agreement and provide for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the agreement's institutional and administrative aspects. The bill would also provide the Governor in Council with the power to make orders in accordance with that agreement. It would amend certain acts to give effect to Canada's obligations under that agreement and would repeal the 2017 agreement.

The new CUFTA would update the following chapters: rules of origin, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, digital trade, labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption. These are all things that are very important to Canadians. However, for the first time in a Canadian FTA, the environment chapter would include provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade and climate change policies. Also, for the first time ever, a Canadian FTA would include a chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. It would also replace the 1994 FIPA in the investment chapter.

What are the financial implications for Canada of this renegotiated CUFTA? We know that Canada currently has a $150-million trade deficit with Ukraine. However, when the Harper Conservative government originally negotiated this FTA, it was designed to be an asymmetrical agreement whereby Ukraine would initially gain the most benefit. The inclusion of more services trade in the updated CUFTA and other changes should balance our bilateral trade, which would be a good thing for Canadians. The enabling legislation would include some costs in implementing the agreement and the cost of dispute panels; however, those costs are standard and do not amount to large sums.

In conclusion, I am pleased to provide my support for Bill C-57. I believe that the new agreement would preserve Canada's interests in such agreements, and I believe that the renegotiated CUFTA would continue the objective of helping Ukraine, its people, its struggle to repel Russian aggression and its efforts to defend democracy.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member opposite: Will the member be supporting Bill C-57, yes or no?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to build onto the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. I want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his work in examining this bill and working to strengthen the economic bond between Canada and Ukraine.

As many of my fellow members already know, I proudly represent the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, a region that is home to many Ukrainians. The community of Dauphin, Manitoba, is proudly home to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. The Parkland region has a rich history in celebrating Ukrainian culture and heritage, and the region shares a strong bond with the people of Ukraine. Much of my constituency was built by the people who immigrated to Canada from Ukraine generations ago. It does not take much to notice the incredible contribution that Ukrainians have made to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Canada.

I, along with my Conservative colleagues, unequivocally support Ukraine, especially over the last 20 months during Russia’s illegal war, which was launched on the Ukrainian people. I will remind members that it is our responsibility as members of the House, alongside our allies, to ensure that Vladimir Putin and those aligned with him are held accountable for their war crimes in Ukraine. These individuals must face prosecution at both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Canadians have been united in supporting the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom and defending their sovereignty. I was proud to see so many communities throughout my constituency open their doors to support Ukrainians fleeing the unjustified war on their homeland. I think of the community members in Dauphin who launched the Parkland Ukrainian Family Fund to support parents and children fleeing to Canada. Since they launched this initiative, the community of Dauphin has provided homes for over 40 families. It is efforts and contributions like these that showcase how strong the relationship between Canada and Ukraine is.

As Ukraine continues to fight for its freedom, Conservatives will always stand with the people of Ukraine. We also understand the importance of trade and supply agreements with our friends in Ukraine. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the trade agreement with Ukraine, something we are very proud of. This agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada’s merchandise exports to Ukraine. The proposed modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is an important subject in the House. As one of our strong allies, Ukraine represents hundreds of millions of dollars in trade every year.

Before I dig into Bill C-57, it is important to look at the history of this legislation and Canada’s relationship with Ukraine. In December 1991, almost 32 years ago to the day, a Conservative-led government became the very first western country to recognize Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. It was the previous Conservative government that championed Operation Unifier, in which the Canadian Armed Forces led a mission to fortify Ukraine’s armed forces through military training. This operation was very successful in preparing Ukrainian forces for their fight against Russia in this war and, as I said earlier, it was a Conservative government that successfully negotiated the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

I am proud to stand today as a Conservative to speak up once again for the long-standing friendship between Canada and Ukraine. It should go without saying that nobody in the House is arguing that Canada and Ukraine move forward without free trade. In 2022, Canada’s total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports.

Canadians may be unaware, but motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products were the top three exports to Ukraine, while Canada’s top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. It is important to note that, if Bill C-57 is implemented, the current free trade agreement from 2017 will remain in effect. This would provide time for Canada and Ukraine to get this legislation right, in ways that best serve Canadian and Ukrainian needs alike.

It is vital that, as legislators, we exercise due diligence and ensure that any trade agreement is one which serves the interests of all Canadians. This is why Conservatives are working and engaging with Canadians and stakeholders to ensure that their feedback is heard and taken into consideration before Bill C-57 is rushed through Parliament. It is no secret that the current Liberal government has a failed record of engaging with stakeholders and listening to Canadians. Listening to the concerns of Canadians is not one of the government’s strong suits. That is why Conservatives are determined to ensure that good legislation passes through Parliament.

Upon reviewing Bill C-57, it becomes quite apparent that there is room for improvement and that there are many missed opportunities to strengthen support for Ukraine. Constant attacks from Russia have damaged and destroyed much of Ukraine, but in Bill C-57, there is a lack of focus on rebuilding. One subject that is missing from the legislation is support for rebuilding energy infrastructure. In a time of energy insecurity, one would think that rebuilding energy infrastructure would be top of mind. How are the people of Ukraine supposed to rebuild their economy when their energy infrastructure is not functional?

Another area that the Liberals seem to have ignored is Canada’s inability to provide liquid natural gas to its allies. Had it not been for the Prime Minister’s anti-energy policies, Canada would have been better suited to supporting Ukraine and our allies by supplying LNG to the world. By doing so, we could help cut off Putin from supplying energy to Europe. Instead, after eight years, the government has not built a single LNG terminal. The government has no regard for the importance of exporting Canadian energy to our allies around the world. Canada stands as the only NATO ally equipped to meet the energy needs of Europe, possessing a blessing of natural resources. This includes being the world's fourth-largest holder of oil reserves, boasting NATO's third-largest reserve of natural gas, and possessing the capability to expand the production of agricultural products and technologies on a global scale. Instead, Ukraine and Europe are forced to fund their enemy in war.

Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia. As I said earlier, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interests of Canada and of all Canadians. I mentioned how Conservatives were the ones who successfully negotiated the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It is important that we debate the legislation thoroughly and continue to support the Ukrainian people, especially in this time of war. I, along with Canada’s Conservatives, will continue to stand with Ukraine.

The House resumed from November 3 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I hope that his interest in this bill means that the Conservative Party has changed its position and is finally supporting it. Even though we have not yet received that confirmation, perhaps the Conservatives finally want to help Canadians with housing and competition. We hope to see the Conservatives reverse course soon.

Next week, of course, is a constituency week, when MPs will be able to connect with their constituents and have a chance to join them at Remembrance Day ceremonies over the coming weekend.

Our priorities when we come back will be Bill C-57, with respect to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement; Bill S-9, with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52, to enact the air transportation accountability act. I would hope that, instead of playing dilatory parliamentary games, the Conservatives would allow for debate to happen on those bills, but I guess we will see when we come back.

Last, on Tuesday, November 21, at 4 p.m., the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will deliver the fall economic statement.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Kyle Seeback]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome, everyone, to meeting number 81 of the Standing Committee on International Trade.

I'm going to read through some of the things that many of us have heard many times over the last number of years.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, some people are here in person and some are on Zoom.

I will make a couple of comments for the benefit of the witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you before speaking. When speaking, please try to speak clearly and slowly. With regard to those online, please mute yourselves when you are not speaking. All comments should be directed through the chair. If you wish to speak, please raise your hand and you will be recognized. For interpretation online, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French.

We have the same thing here, Ambassador, for you. There's an earpiece, and you can choose English or French translation—just so you're aware.

For the sake of our translators, I ask, please, that there be no yelling or loud noises into the microphone. Try not to speak with your earpiece close to the microphone, as I was almost doing there, because that can cause feedback.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, November 2, the committee is resuming its study of the subject matter of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Today we have with us, from the Embassy of Ukraine, Her Excellency Yuliya Kovaliv, Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada.

Welcome, Ambassador. We would like you to begin our committee today with some opening remarks. We usually give about five minutes, but I think you can take more time if you would like. The committee would be fine with that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, the meeting is our general Tuesday meeting. I agreed to allow the five days to deal with it to extend to six days last week, out of courtesy to the chair and to the committee members, since the witnesses for the day on C-27 declined to appear. I could have forced this meeting to happen yesterday, as per the rules of the House of Commons.

In an effort of collegiality, I said, “No, I'll move it to today in order to work with the fellow Liberals.” Apparently the Liberals want to shut down any discussion about the harm that their carbon tax is having on the Canadian economy. They will go to any end to shut committees down.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to the officials for being here today.

I understand that recently the Minister of Justice tabled the charter review statement for Bill C-57, which is an important part of the legislative process. Could you share with the committee the determination from the Minister of Justice on this bill?

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Madam Minister, again, your government controls the legislative agenda. For a two-week period, Bill C-57 somehow was not a priority. Somehow this week, it is not a priority.

As to my rights as a parliamentarian to discuss it at second reading, to debate it at second reading, I have yet to have that right, yet we're here. Building out what Mr. Cannings says, we are undertaking.... There seemed to have been a rush to get here for this prestudy, yet we have not even allowed our analysts the time. We were provided a briefing note the day before this meeting on a 700-page agreement, over 700 pages, and that briefing note was two pages.

Again, to Mr. Cannings' point, I think we're doing a disservice not only to our analysts but also to all parliamentarians, so that we can't provide the needed input and so that we can't get to the best agreement, one that benefits not only Canada but also Ukraine.

Again, talking about some of the comments earlier from my colleague, 60% of Ukrainian energy is coal and gas, and nuclear is a huge aspect and leadership position for Canada, as well as natural gas. How come there is no discussion of energy security within this agreement—energy co-operation and energy security?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Let me thank the member for Niagara Falls for this question.

Because you are right near the Canada-U.S. border, you understand and you're very familiar with how important trade agreements are. Of course, it is the work of all of us as parliamentarians to be able to ask questions.

I think you misunderstood when you said that I was critical of your asking questions about this free trade agreement. Actually, to the contrary, I think it's the appropriate work of parliamentarians, like you and this committee, to be doing that.

What I would say around delays is that we've seen, on two occasions, when this bill was before the House, that Conservatives moved concurrence debates instead of talking about Bill C-57. I hope we can rely on you to support this bill. As I said in my opening remarks, I'm actually very confident that we can meet the moment that's before us, and I think we all can and should support Ukraine.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here, although I must say I'm extremely disappointed and, essentially, insulted that during your opening remarks, you chose to open up with criticism of me and my colleagues on this side, members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, for asking questions with regard to this trade agreement. Somehow, you said—and this was astounding—that we're somehow advancing Putin's agenda by asking questions with regard to a free trade agreement.

I want to bring some factual information forward. It must be remembered that it was a Conservative government in 1991 when Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union, and it was a previous Conservative government led by Stephen Harper when Canada undertook Operation Unifier to bolster Canadian military training of the armed forces of Ukraine. It was the same Conservative government wherein the original CUFTA was negotiated between Canada and the Ukraine.

Minister, again, somehow your comments were not only extremely disappointing but also on the verge of insulting. You claim in your comments that somehow we're looking to delay second reading debate on this, yet your government failed to call it forward for almost two weeks. I see that Bill C-57 is not even on the House agenda for this week. Again, it is rather disappointing when you question us. The government controls its legislative agenda, not members of His Majesty's loyal opposition.

Minister, in the briefing note that was provided by staff, it says that Global Affairs Canada, in its March 2023 initial environmental assessment, concluded that modernization is “unlikely to result in significant negative environmental impacts.” However, within this agreement, on chapter 13, it talks about carbon pricing, a carbon tax, and measures to mitigate carbon leakage.

Are those types of provisions included in the CUSMA, CETA and CPTPP agreements that currently exist?

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today to discuss this important legislation alongside your impressive group of officials from Global Affairs.

I've been following this debate in the House very closely. It was my honour to speak to Bill C-57 during the second reading. I'm quite troubled to hear that the Conservative member for Cumberland-Colchester suggested that Canada was taking advantage of Ukraine by working with them on negotiating this so-called “woke” free trade agreement.

You've served as the minister responsible for international trade since 2019, and you have been around the table and shown leadership as part of these negotiations. I'd like to know, based on your experience, if you could respond further to the suggestion made by the Conservative member.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, colleagues. It's really good to see you.

Let me begin by acknowledging that I appear before you today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'm pleased to be here today to discuss Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or CUFTA.

As you know, Bill C‑57 continues to be considered by the House of Commons. I am pleased that the committee is beginning preliminary discussions on this important piece of government legislation.

I recently returned from the G7 trade ministers' meeting in Japan. Multilateral institutions like the G7 helped to establish an era of unprecedented global stability and prosperity. That stability, however, is now under threat from autocratic and illiberal regimes abroad. Of course, nowhere is the threat to liberal democracy more obvious than in Ukraine.

Let me be very clear. Our government will stand with Ukraine until they win this war, and we will be there to help Ukraine recover from the devastating impacts of Russia's illegal invasion. A modernized CUFTA will play a crucial role in that process. Canada and Ukraine have a unique and storied shared history. This modernized trade agreement represents a historic milestone in the Canada-Ukraine relationship. While the original CUFTA was comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, it did not include chapters on services, investment, inclusive trade and other areas that Canada now often seeks in our comprehensive FTAs.

In July 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelenskyy announced plans to modernize the agreement, and following the delays of COVID-19, my Ukrainian counterpart, First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy Yuliia Svyrydenko, and I announced the launch of modernization negotiations in January 2022.

As we all know, less than a month later Russia began its illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This caused another few months of delay until May 2022, when Minister Svyrydenko conveyed to me her government's readiness to initiate and indeed expedite negotiations to strengthen the bilateral relationship and support Ukraine's long-term economic and trade interests.

This is no minor detail, and I'm sure the committee is aware that the Conservative member for Cumberland-Colchester has suggested that Canada somehow took advantage of our Ukrainian allies as part of the FTA negotiations. In fact, this is precisely the opposite. It was our Ukrainian friends who set the pace for these negotiations. They did so with conviction, and they did so in the face of significant, even existential challenges and threats.

In conversation with my Ukrainian counterpart, she stressed time and again the value Ukraine places on its relationship with Canada and how important it was that Canada proceed with these negotiations as a sign of confidence to Ukraine. Canada will always be an unwavering ally to a sovereign and independent Ukraine.

In June of 2022, Canadian and Ukrainian officials set to work. The conclusion of these negotiations was announced on April 11, 2023, and recently this landmark initiative came full circle when Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelenskyy signed the final modernized CUFTA in Ottawa in September.

This agreement will provide Canadian businesses with access to an important and dynamic market and it will support Ukraine's long-term recovery and trade interests.

Some members of the opposition have characterized this agreement as “woke”. Honestly, I don't know what they mean by that. This is a high-standard trade agreement that is good for Canadian businesses and for Ukrainian businesses.

For Ukraine, the agreement is much more than that. It is a manifestation of Ukrainian territorial and economic sovereignty. It's an expression of the values of openness and democracy, and it's made possible by an international rules-based order. Vladimir Putin, of course, despises all of these things and when members of the official opposition grasp at straws to criticize this agreement, I'm left to wonder if they realize that it's Putin's agenda that they're advancing when they do so.

In fact, by serving as a demonstration of Ukraine's ability to adhere to ambitious commitments in a range of areas, this agreement will serve as a model for Ukraine's efforts to advance economic integration with other partners around the world. This agreement will be a strategic advantage and show confidence in a free and democratic Ukraine. In two weeks' time, I will be participating in the second annual Rebuild Ukraine Business Conference in Toronto, where Minister Svyrydenko and I have both been invited to speak about a modernized CUFTA.

I have yet to write my remarks for that event, but I know, for sure, that those in attendance and those following the conference across Canada and Ukraine expect and deserve results. They don't want to hear me talk about partisan politics. They don't want to hear me talk about Conservative procedural games. They want to hear about our progress. They want to hear about how we're on track to pass this bill. They want to hear about what our Parliament can do when we work together and when we show our unwavering support for Ukraine. That's the message I want to deliver.

Colleagues, I'm confident we can meet the moment that is before us.

The incredible officials who are with me and I are ready to speak to the committee members and answer their questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I will be leaving the chair at 11:45 this morning, and Mr. Seeback will be assuming the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Seeback.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, October 17, 2023, the committee is beginning its study of the subject matter of Bill C-57. We have, appearing with us, the Honourable Mary Ng, Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development.

We are very happy to have you visiting us today.

From the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, we have Bruce Christie, assistant deputy minister and chief trade negotiator; Karl Van Kessel, deputy director, investment trade policy; Kati Csaba, executive director, Ukraine bureau; and Dean Foster, director, trade negotiations—Africa, Americas, Europe, India, Middle East. We also have Adam Douglas, senior counsel and deputy director, investment and services law.

Welcome to all of you. We appreciate your finding the time to come in and share information with us.

We will start with opening remarks.

Minister Ng, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, please.

National Defence

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence concerning the Arctic, I would like to briefly touch on the other debate that was supposed to take place today, on Bill C-57, which implements a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

In the questions I asked earlier today, particularly to the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, I mentioned that, unfortunately, even if we do take time to debate bills meant to implement international trade agreements, the role of MPs is, after all, quite limited. We can basically only agree or disagree with the content of the treaties, since they are negotiated and drafted by the executive branch. The role of MPs—who represent the people and are supposed to play the most democratic role of all—is rather limited. It is so limited that, as I mentioned earlier, when an interim agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was being negotiated after Brexit, the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade did not even have the text of the treaty in front of them when they were supposed to be debating it. This shows just how limited the role of Canadian members of Parliament is in drafting, negotiating and improving international treaties.

Even though we have clearly not had much time to debate Bill C‑57, from what I understand we will have even less given the announcement that was just made about a time allocation. I still have questions about what MPs are even able to do with the time they are allocated for debates on international agreements.

That said, I want to make a few comments on the Arctic committee's report. First, I would say that the content of this report, no matter what other debate might be overshadowed by the Arctic debate, is extremely important and is bound to change over time. Since this report was first debated, there have been articles in the media that have made me rather pessimistic about the importance the government places on monitoring in the north. During questions and comments today, there was a lot of talk about climate change in the north. We know that traffic in the north has increased by approximately 44% between 2013 and 2019. That is the result of melting glaciers and the fact that the Northwest Passage is opening up even more.

In the meantime, the government is decreasing its investments in environmental monitoring and follow up. This summer, we found out that some weather stations are closing. Since 2017, some of these stations have no longer even been able to send information on what is happening weather-wise in the north. That is problematic in terms of ship navigation and knowledge of the area. It even affects the statistics collected by Environment Canada since the data that is collected in the north is no longer being taken into account.

In the meantime, we see that Russia is investing heavily in weather stations. In the past year, Russia installed 42 new weather stations to learn more about the land because it is interested in that land. There is a major gap between these two Arctic nations, Canada and Russia, when it comes to their interest in what is going on with the climate. This is going to be a critical issue in the next few years.

Madam Speaker, I see that you are about to cut me off.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that it is hard not to see a pattern this week, as on both Wednesday and Friday, Bill C-57 was scheduled. It is made all the more odd by the fact that most people in Canada who claim Ukrainian descent live in an area represented by Conservative MPs. I hope those Conservative MPs are able to explain themselves to their constituents.

I want to ask my hon. colleague a question about this report. We know that the Arctic Ocean is warming at a rate that is seven times the global average. We know that the loss of permafrost and the opening of sea lanes present an existential threat to our military capabilities and Arctic communities there. We were disappointed in not seeing any emphasis in the report on that particular point.

I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the need to focus more attention on how a warming climate is affecting our capabilities there.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what he is talking about. By bringing in the concurrence motion, doing what he has been asked to do by the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has prevented the debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what he has done. By doing that, the Conservative Party continues to filibuster what is a very important piece of legislation. I do not know if the member realizes that. Based on the question, I do not think he does.

It is great that the standing committee is continuing a discussion and having dialogue and so forth. That is what should be happening at the standing committee. If the member wants the debate to take place on the floor of the House, he can put it forward in the form of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of other alternatives.

Why play games? Why politicize Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine deal? Why not allow that legislation to pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a cop out. That is what we just finished witnessing from a Conservative member. He says the Conservatives are not responsible for setting the government agenda and that is the reason, so do not blame them. The Conservative Party is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is absolutely no doubt about their intentions to prevent legislation from passing.

The real shame of it all is to look at where and how they are using concurrence motions to play games with very important issues that Canadians want us to address. I say shame on each and every Conservative member who continues to want to filibuster on important pieces of legislation.

I am sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.

There are many opportunities for the member and the Conservative Party to have the debates they want on all these reports that they continue to bring up in order to prevent debate on government business. The member, in his speech, made reference to the mean Russians and what is happening in Ukraine. I agree, the illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine is absolutely disgusting, and Canadians understand that and believe it also.

The President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, was in Ottawa back in September. A country is at war, the president comes to Canada to sign a trade agreement and the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games. As opposed to seeing this legislation debated and passed, we see the type of kid's play coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of it.

What does the member say? The most recent speaker said they were not the ones who set the government agenda, as if they have nothing to do with what is taking place inside the chamber. If we want to talk about being obstructionist and preventing legislation, we can say that we do not see any concurrence debates coming forward from the Conservative Party on opposition days. Where is the concern about the issues that they raise then? It is not there. It is absolutely bogus.

We were expecting to debate Bill C-57 today. We have been waiting for that debate to hopefully collapse and go to a standing committee. We get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Ukraine signing a trade agreement, and then we get the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering. It is filibustering free-trade legislation more than any other political entity in the House. Is that not ironic, to a certain degree?

At the end of the day, there are many different avenues. We are all concerned about Arctic sovereignty. It is an important issue. If it were really as important as the Conservatives say it is, so much so that they had to prevent the debate on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, why did they not bring it up as an opposition day? Why did they not introduce it as an emergency debate or request that the government have a take-note debate on it? Why did they not ask one question on it during question period today? However, they still felt it was so important to bring up.

Let me give a rationale: We get the member for Cumberland—Colchester standing in his place and saying that the Ukraine trade debate, the legislation to enact the agreement, is woke and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine. That is what one member of the Conservative Party has said. Do they not know any shame?

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are strong allies and support solidarity for Ukraine, then behave as we have witnessed. This is not the first concurrence report to prevent this legislation, Bill C-57, from being debated and passed. They even get members who will stand up and talk about sympathy.

Earlier this morning, one member said the free trade agreement is not only good for the economy, but it is also all about hope. Yes, it is good for the economy. There is no doubt about that. Canada and Ukraine will benefit economically, in many different ways, because of the legislation.

It is more than that. We are the first country to work with Ukraine during a war period, to actually go ahead and get a trade agreement. We can think of the morale boost of that and the statement it makes, worldwide.

As the world unites in solidarity to support Ukraine, what does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It filibusters important legislation that is going to make a powerful statement to the world in regard to the relationship between Canada and Ukraine and in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state, including Crimea. This is such an important thing, and Conservatives want to play games.

We have seen them move other motions for concurrence on other important pieces of legislation. It is not just the trade agreement.

However, I think the trade agreement amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party has one intention. Its whole political scheme is bumper sticker politics, trying to make things as simple as possible. They believe that Canadians are stupid and that they are going to believe everything that the Conservatives say on a bumper sticker.

That is the type of politics we are witnessing from the Conservative Party today. It is reckless. It is risky, and they are not going to fool Canadians at the end of the day.

We are concerned about the Arctic. We appreciate the fine work that all our standing committees put in. However, if the member was being honest in talking about the report, why did he not talk about the billions of dollars the implementation of this report is going to cost?

He referred to submarines. Does the member know how much a submarine costs? He is saying submarines, plural. He is talking about several submarines, with a bill totalling $10 billion. That probably would not even cover the cost.

The Conservative Party talks about how, if they are going to spend a tax dollar, it is going to cut and find a place for it. For these multi-billions of dollars that it is prepared to commit, based on this report, where are Conservatives going to find those cuts that they talk about? Are they going to go after our senior programs or child care? Where are they going to come from?

There is a hidden agenda across the way, and it will be unveiled. More and more Canadians are going to find that there is absolutely no substance to the Conservative Party that goes beyond a bumper sticker. That is what we are going to find out.

The best example of that is in regard to the Conservatives' whole idea of the environment. They have no clue whatsoever about what is in the best interest of the environment. They flip-flop like a fish on a dock, all over the place. They do not know where to land on the issue. I guess they cannot get their climate policy on a bumper sticker, and that is the problem.

We look to the Conservative Party as an opposition party that is supposed to be recognizing that Canadians, in the last election, voted for a minority situation. However, part of having a minority government is that it also puts some pressure on the opposition party to behave in a somewhat responsible fashion.

Its actions, in virtually every way, are to prevent legislation from passing. As we can see, I really believe that there are members that are actually thinking, in the Conservative Party, of voting against this legislation.

It is not as though we are asking for Bill C-57, the Ukraine-Canada trade deal, to pass third reading in 24 hours. However, I will say that Christmas is going come quickly. We have to get it to the Senate. It has to go through the standing committee. It has to come back to the House.

I think it is fair to request and see that important legislation of this nature should be able to pass through the whole system, royal assent and all, before Christmas. I would like to see the Conservatives stand up and agree with that point.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

I have a question for the member opposite. While I can speak about defence spending all day and would love an opportunity to sit down and discuss this with him, we were scheduled to discuss Bill C-57, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I am at a loss to understand why we moved a concurrence motion again today to eliminate the opportunity to speak about this important piece of legislation.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a similar question to the one that was just asked.

There have been times when Bill C-57 was scheduled for debate and, for one reason or another, my Conservative colleagues decided that debating concurrence in a committee report was more important. If, as my colleague emphasized in his speech, the relationship between Ukraine and Canada is so important, does he see the importance of eventually getting to a vote on the bill, and are there particular sections of the legislation that he thinks the committee needs to pay more attention to? I would like to get a little more clarity on that from my Conservative colleagues. This is not a question with an agenda; I am just genuinely curious whether they eventually want to get to a vote on this and improve it at committee.

[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—

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the Thursday question.

Tomorrow, we will continue with second reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement implementation act.

Next week, our priority will be given to Bill C-34 concerning the Canada Investment Act; Bill S-9, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act; and Bill C-52 to enact the air transportation accountability act.

Finally, next Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

Foreign Affairs

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to ensure that Canada's unwavering support for Ukraine is shared by all parties in the House. Unfortunately, that support for Ukraine is not unanimous in the House. Conservatives are delaying Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Their MPs are calling the legislation “woke”.

Most concerning is the Leader of the Conservative Party's silence on support for Ukraine. He has not called for military, humanitarian or financial support for Ukraine. He has refused to criticize Russia's war crimes. His silence speaks volumes.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs reassure Canadians that, despite the Conservative leader's lack of support, the government will stand with the Ukrainian people until they win?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House was scheduled to debate Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Instead, the Conservative Party played procedural games by moving a concurrence motion that prevented debate on this important piece of legislation.

In recent months, the leader of the Conservative Party has become silent on Ukraine. He has never advocated for military, humanitarian or economic support for Ukraine, has never called out Russia for its acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people and has never raised the issue in Parliament, except for false narratives about the war, including the statement that it does not contribute to inflation in Canada.

I call on the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to put aside the games, let us debate Bill C-57 and pass this important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Baldinelli, Mr. Cannings, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Martel.

I'd like the opportunity to respond so I don't necessarily want to wait until the other speakers have spoken.

Is it okay with everybody if I respond to the suggestions so that there's a better understanding of where we're going with this?

We all know that Bill C-57 takes precedence, as Mr. Seeback said, over everything else. It was expected. Bill C-57 had to come. We have to deal with it because it's legislation, and then immediately following the four meetings that were decided on for Bill C-57, we go on to the port study, which is scheduled at the moment for the end of this month.

There's been a delay in the House with getting the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement into this committee due to concurrence motions being tabled. We all know what's going on. It's been deliberately to delay the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement from moving on.

The clerk has to have a schedule and we expected the legislation to be here, which is why the schedule is the way it is. We did the biocides and, normally, if it were not for the concurrence motions being moved in the House, the legislation would be here. It was scheduled for Monday, and we had asked the minister as well to be here for the beginning of that study, which is normal, and the schedule worked as well.

It's efficient use of our time as a committee. The concurrence motions in the House are delaying its getting here, because it was scheduled to be debated yesterday and Friday. We have the four meetings, and we immediately go on to the Vancouver port strike that we talked about. That was the plan. That is the schedule that is before us at the moment.

Since Bill C-57 is not here yet, but it will be at some point, the idea was to do a prestudy and then apply that information so that we can continue with the schedule that's before us. There was no intention to be devious about anything. The legislation takes precedence. It is the holdup in the House that's preventing it from being here, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

Mr. Baldinelli, you have the floor.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I therefore propose that we devote the next four meetings to our preliminary study of Bill C‑57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, given that the minister and the officials will be available next week.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, that's why I wanted to talk. I just didn't know if you had an introduction, Madam Chair.

I'm going to switch to French. It's easier for me.

Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the minister would be available to meet us next week with officials from her department. That's why I'd like to propose that we begin our preliminary study of Bill C‑57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which is currently before the House. This would allow us, over the next few weeks, to study this very important issue, and we could combine this with the appearance of the minister and the officials, given that she is available next week. We would have four meetings to conduct this preliminary study.

Shall I formally propose a motion for debate?

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention that during my speech, I made reference to the fact that Conservatives had tried to move unanimous consent on Bill C-57. My information was incorrect. It was Bill C-350 I was thinking of when I made that comment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the expression, “with friends like that, who needs enemies”. I feel this expression is particularly appropriate today, and today is just a new episode in a series of actions taken by the Conservatives that I believe will prove extremely harmful to Ukraine.

It takes a lot of gall for the Conservatives to launch this debate today on the motion to concur in the report on Ukraine. I will explain.

It took months for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to concur in this report, which was supported nearly unanimously by the committee members. Indeed, the Conservatives decided to filibuster the work of the committee, which made it impossible for us to concur in this report. Not only did this filibuster unduly delay concurring in the report, it also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from travelling to Ukraine for a first time.

I will come back to this, because our Conservative friends also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from going to Ukraine a second time.

The first time was because of their filibuster, which lasted months. I think I can safely say it lasted three months. I will digress for a moment. I have said repeatedly that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development should be the least partisan House committee. Deep down, we are not so far apart in our values. Furthermore, it is to our benefit to present a united front abroad, especially concerning the war in Ukraine, and yet it took months for this report to finally see the light of day.

The Conservatives decided to present a motion to concur in this report today. Please understand me: It is an excellent report. I will come back to that in a few moments. However, why are they choosing to debate it today? Why choose to do it this afternoon, at the very same time the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting? I was supposed to speak in committee, but I had to ask my colleague from Shefford to take over on short notice because I had to come give a speech to the House for the concurrence of a report from this committee. Could the timing have been any worse?

Even worse, the subject the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is debating is humanitarian aid for Ukraine. Who started this debate at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development? As members may have guessed, it was the Conservatives. The Conservatives are filibustering themselves, as it were. We are debating one of their motions at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but at the same time, we must debate concurrence of this report on Ukraine in the House. What bad timing.

Worse yet, the Conservatives chose to hold this concurrence debate when we were supposed to be discussing Bill C-57. My colleagues referred to it earlier. Bill C‑57 deals with implementing a free trade agreement with Ukraine. The Conservatives are delaying the passage of a bill that would ratify and implement a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

It seems like the Conservatives are constantly trying to prevent us from getting Ukraine the help it needs. What did Ukraine need today? If we want to put ourselves in the shoes of our Ukrainian friends, our Ukrainian allies, we must ask ourselves what they needed today from the House of Commons.

Did they need the House to make progress toward the passage of a bill on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, or did they need us to concur in this report on Ukraine today, rather than three weeks, three months or nine months ago?

In other words, we could have concurred in this report some time ago. The Conservatives, however, chose to move concurrence on the very afternoon we should have been discussing the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

I do not believe that Ukraine needed this report concurred in today. Ukrainians needed it months ago. They needed the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to finally come out with this report months back. However, the Conservatives decided to throw sand in the gears and delay everything. This just shows how constructive our Conservative colleagues are. They never miss an opportunity to throw sand in the gears.

Our Liberal colleagues failed to get the message after the last election that they would have to govern as a minority government and take everyone's opinion into account, but I think our Conservative friends also failed to understand that their role is not to stop Parliament from functioning, but to ensure that Parliament moves forward. Every time that the discussion turned to Ukraine, the Conservatives put up roadblocks.

They blocked the adoption of this report. It took months before we could adopt it. The Conservatives spent a long time filibustering on a completely different issue: the fact that we wanted to undertake a study on women's sexual health. Of course this topic bothers them, because the word “abortion” was mentioned. It means the intentional termination of a pregnancy, and they think that it is terrible. Instead of letting us proceed with the report on Ukraine, they spent months throwing sand in the gears. In the end, they did not prevent us from launching the study on women's sexual health. We even completed it. However, they did obstruct the work of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for months, which delayed the adoption of this report for months.

Because of their obstruction, we were unable to complete the request for a mission to Ukraine. They decided that we would no longer travel, that parliamentarians should not travel anymore. Last summer, they once again refused to let the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development travel to Ukraine. As I said at the outset, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

The Conservatives keep repeating that they love Ukraine and are determined to defend Ukraine. In reality, however, they are not walking the talk. They keep looking for ways to throw sand in the gears every chance they get. It is extremely unfortunate. Ukrainians need our support, which includes increased trade between the two countries.

The implementation of this free trade agreement has been delayed because, once again, the Conservatives are using completely futile and unproductive parliamentary guerrilla tactics that only delay what must be done. That is what is the most detrimental. This report was delayed for months before it was finally adopted. The Conservatives delayed it to stop the committee from doing a study on women's reproductive health, which was finally able to take place. All the Conservatives are doing is delaying what needs to be done. This free trade agreement needs to be implemented, and it will be.

However, once again, we are being forced to deal with the tactics of the Conservative Party, which is self-filibustering in that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting right now to study the matter of providing humanitarian and food aid to Ukraine as a result of a Conservative Party motion. It makes no sense.

When this report was made public, I said that I was very proud of the work that was done by the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but I also said that I was very embarrassed. This report sets out 15 recommendatoins and contains some very worthwhile proposals to better support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which have not yet all been implemented by the government. As I said earlier in my speech, it took months to release this report.

At that time, I also had the opportunity to say that the war has showcased how extremely dependent western economies are on oil and gas. Our Conservative friends reacted by saying that we were going to sell more to our European allies, not realizing that the other observation coming out of this war is that we need to get away from oil and gas post-haste. We need to support Europe so that it can get moving on the green shift as quickly as possible and reduce its dependence not only on Russian oil, but on oil in general.

I said at the time that this study is not finished. It will continue as long as the war continues. That is why the committee is meeting even as we speak. That is why I said that the committee will soon go to Ukraine, which, thanks to the Conservatives, has not been able to happen until now.

I said that this is an interim report because other things are going to come up. The war is not over; it is ongoing. We have to pay attention to what is happening and adjust our recommendations as the situation evolves. That is what is being done at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as I give this speech.

Once again, our Conservative friends said that the Russian ambassador needed to be expelled. I mentioned the fact that we decided the time might not be right for such an action, although it is still an option. The lines of communication have to stay open. I am calling on our Liberal friends to show some consistency, because even though the Russian embassy remains open here, and the Canadian embassy is still open in Moscow, diplomatic communication has ended for all intents and purposes. There is no contact anymore.

We obviously support the sanctions regime that has been put in place against Russia, Belarus, oligarchs and banks of all kinds. The fact is—and this was the subject of our observations—that we are not in a position to accurately determine the extent of the assets and the nature of the frozen assets. The government made a point of passing legislation allowing it to seize assets to help rebuild Ukraine, but it still does not seem to know how to proceed legally in that regard. We have been unable to determine the nature and extent of the assets seized. This has been hard to assess for the simple reason that the government decided to outsource this responsibility to the private sector and the banks, without giving them any specific information about what was expected of them.

We understand that banks might be a little uneasy about having to sanction customers. The federal government has therefore shirked its responsibilities, which means that we are not really in a position to have a clear idea of what is happening with the sanctions. The monitoring process is difficult to follow. Of course, we have to coordinate with our allies, but we also have to take into account our own specific conditions.

We talked about the fact that a certain number of Russian banks have been excluded from the SWIFT international system, which is very good news. The problem is that there are still some Russia banks on the SWIFT system. What do members think happened? Transactions simply moved from certain banking institutions to others, so now they are getting around the sanctions, often with help from third-party states, which is enabling Russia to continue waging war on Ukraine. All these measures need tightening up.

Our agriculture critic noted that some sanctions even seem counterproductive. I am thinking of the ones targeting grains and seeds, which are punishing our own producers and making Russian products more competitive on international markets than Canadian products. In that case, the result goes against the desired objective.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development started studying our sanctions regime. We are currently finalizing a report on that. We see that there is still a lot of work to be done.

I will close by saying that it is a good report and it is a good thing that it is being concurred in. However, I will reiterate the question I asked earlier: Was today the right day to move concurrence? I do not think so, and I think I have demonstrated that, for a whole host of reasons, the strategic and tactical choices that the Conservatives made turned out to be harmful for Ukraine. We are seeing yet another example of that today, which is extremely harmful.

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

Mr. Speaker, for starters, we should probably recognize what did not happen there. Normally, a Conservative would lead to ask me a question, but not a single one of them rose. I appreciate the question from my colleague from the Bloc, and I spoke at length to Bill C-57, as I indicated, the first time it came around.

This is an opportunity for Canada to work with Ukraine and look forward into the future on how we help it rebuild when it wins the war; its people will win that war. When they do, Canada will be there with them through trade relationships and opportunities to work together to rebuild their nation. They deserve it from us. They are certainly in agreement with wanting that trade legislation. The only people I know who do not seem to be in agreement with it are some Conservatives.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he, like me, would like to talk about and debate Bill C‑57 to see what it has to offer both Canada and Ukraine. The purpose is not to take advantage of anyone, but to help a country rebuild as soon as possible.

Let us slightly shift direction. I would like to ask my colleague what he would have talked about if we had had the opportunity to discuss Bill C‑57. What highlights of this bill are important to remember?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 15 recommendations in total, and in the government's detailed letter, a 12-page response to the recommendations, it indicated that it would take note of it.

The member started her comments by talking about the trade agreement. The best I can tell, at least the Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals want to see that trade agreement pass through. All of us anticipated that that would be what we were debating today.

We are talking about a report that everyone agrees with. No one is questioning it. The report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the trade agreement. If the Conservatives do not support the trade agreement, then fine, they should say so. They should have the courage to stand up to say that they do not support the trade agreement.

Otherwise, why are the Conservatives preventing the debate from occurring? Why will they not let the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine go to committee? I highlighted the fact that we even had the president, during wartime, leave Ukraine to come to Canada to sign the trade agreement. It is a good agreement. The legislation is there. We should be passing it through the system.

My appeal, once again, to the Conservative Party is for them to stop wasting the time of the chamber. Let us debate Bill C-57, and let us get it to committee. Let us make a powerful statement to the world, jointly, in an non-political fashion, by supporting Ukraine at this difficult time in history.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would undoubtedly prefer to be addressing the Canada-Ukraine agreement as well. That said, it would seem that the problem, whether hypothetical or real—that is not for me to debate—lies in the government's response to certain recommendations, notably recommendation 15.

Sometimes it is better to get to the bottom of things and ask the question outright. Why has the government responded to recommendation 15 in this way? If the government were to explain so we could understand, it might calm things down and we could get back to studying Bill C‑57.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the detailed explanation of all of the recommendations is addressed in the letter.

It is a false argument to say that we need to debate something everyone was supporting. This particular report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the free trade agreement with Ukraine. That is what this is doing. The committee is meeting today, and it is continuing discussions.

It is false argument. If the Conservatives want to continue to have a debate on whatever issue in the House, they have an opposition day tomorrow. They could have used the entire day to debate this. However, that is not the purpose. Conservatives are using this to prevent debate on Bill C-57.

The honourable thing to do would be to agree that Bill C-57 would pass, hopefully unanimously, before the end of this week, so that we could get it to committee and have a chance to pass through the entire system before Christmas. That is the best thing we could do for Ukraine and Canada's relationship, making a powerful statement to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to talk about Canada, Ukraine and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Before I get under way, I want to emphasize just how encouraging it has been to see a team Canada approach to dealing with what is taking place in Europe. We have had organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, along with different political entities of the House, different stakeholders, provincial governments and municipal governments, that have expressed nothing but love and care for Ukraine. We have seen phenomenal solidarity with Ukraine.

We are looking at the report that was brought forward today, and I would like to quote the response to the report that was provided by the minister. In the closing to the letter, she states:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for their multi-partisan support for Ukraine, which is crucial to Canada’s ability to be a steadfast ally of Ukraine, and for remaining so actively engaged on this critical area of Canadian foreign policy. This issue is above politics; it's about defending democracy and defending the right of freedom and sovereignty.

This is a letter from the minister to the committee members, and it responds to 15 recommendations, all of which are well detailed. It is a public document. Anyone who is following this debate can get a copy of the response to those recommendations. The study itself is still not complete. As I am speaking right now, the foreign affairs committee is continuing to have that dialogue.

I should add that I will be splitting my time with the deputy House leader.

I want to break my comments up into two areas. One is the report, and I just made reference to it. I will talk about the contents of the report and the way the committee has worked together. I applaud that, but there is no reason whatsoever for us to be debating the report today. The second is what we should be debating, which is Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

This report is still being studied at the foreign affairs committee. The purpose of the Conservatives bringing forward this motion today has more to do with playing a game on the floor of the House of Commons than it does with the critical issue of what is taking place in Ukraine today. That saddens me. By doing this, they are politically intervening with what we could be debating today, Bill C-57.

Back in September, President Zelenskyy visited Canada. At a time of war, the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with parliamentarians of all political stripes. He signed a trade agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. We now have an agreement, and it means so much more than just economic ties. We recognize the true value of this trade agreement. It goes far beyond just economics. It is a very powerful statement. It says to Europe and the world that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that will have trade around the world.

What we are talking about, or what we should have been talking about this afternoon, is how this unique trade agreement would enable Ukraine and Canada to build upon a very special, friendly relationship, which we we have had for decades. We have 1.3 million-plus people of Ukrainian heritage, and that was before the displacements from Ukraine. Many of them are in the Prairies, but they are all throughout Canada. They are very much interested in the debate, whether it is the debate in the chamber or at the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs. There is also a great level of interest in all areas as to whether we will be able to get Bill C-57 passed before Christmas.

Canada is in a great position to send a strong message, a message of leadership to the world, about our relationship with Ukraine by passing this legislation. Sadly, today is not the first time in which we have witnessed the Conservative Party of Canada filibuster this legislation. It is upsetting. It is upsetting because I see, first-hand, as Canadians see, what is taking place in Europe. The expectations for us to pass this legislation is, I believe, very high. It is the right thing to do.

This should be a non-partisan issue. I would suggest that, when it comes time to actually have that debate, if the Conservative Party would allow that debate, then the government should not have to bring in time allocation for it. I would suggest that, at this stage, if the Conservatives wanted to show good will, they would agree, unanimously at this point, to see Bill C-57 at the very least go to the committee stage. They should reflect on their behaviour and what they are doing.

I referred to a question I asked the member for Cumberland—Colchester. My colleague, the deputy House leader, made reference to it as well. The Conservatives continue to filibuster the Ukraine trade deal, but one of the last Conservative speakers to speak was the member for Cumberland—Colchester. Imagine what he said in his speech. He said the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is “woke”, that Bill C-57 is “woke”, and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine by having a trade agreement when Ukraine is at war.

That aspect concerns me greatly. I do not know where the Conservative Party really is on the issue because we have raised it before, and they are not providing comments. The Conservative Party in the past would say that it supports the concept and principles of free trade. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more free trade agreements than this government. We have the expertise. It is a good trade agreement, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine. Why is the Conservative Party not allowing this legislation to move forward? If it does not support the legislation, then it would be fully understandable, but if it supports the legislation and wants to get behind the trade agreement, why not allow it to pass and allow it to be debated?

I am going to be sitting down in a minute, and I trust that there will be a question from the Conservative Party. Maybe in that question the Conservatives can explain why they do not support the bill being debated or, at the very least, if they will consider allowing unanimous consent to see it go to committee so that we would have an attempt at getting it passed through the entire system, including the Senate, before Christmas. If we all want to get behind what is taking place in Europe and Ukraine today and continue to be non-partisan about it, I think that would be the right thing to do.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, this is a very important report. I would have liked to talk about Bill C‑57, but this is an important report nonetheless.

I would like my colleague to talk about recommendation 6. For a long time, the Prairies of western Canada were considered Canada's breadbasket, that is, the place to source wheat and other grains. Ukraine has taken on this role globally.

What consequences does war have on the world's food supply? How can recommendation 6 help avoid food security problems around the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree with me that we are witnessing a certain level of hypocrisy today.

On the one hand we have a Conservative Party that likes to pretend it is supporting what is taking place and Canada's position with the allied forces against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-57, which plays a direct role with respect to Canada-Ukraine relations and what is taking place in Europe today. Instead of debating that bill, not only for the first time but now for the second time, the Conservatives are preventing it from being debated and being passed to go to committee.

The question I have for the member is this. His colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, said that Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal, is woke. He said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war by bringing in the bill. Is that why the Conservative Party continues to play the game of preventing the debate on Bill C-57 and it going to committee?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about a really important piece of legislation, but if you will permit me, I just want to take 30 seconds to mention a constituent I made a promise to. She is actually one of your constituents, but we may have some crossover in the days ahead with redistribution.

Mary Fraser is a resident of south Berwick, and I had the privilege of going to her 100th birthday at the Waterville fire hall. I promised not only that I would wish her a happy birthday, and I know you have done the same, Mr. Speaker, but that I would make sure it gets into Hansard so it will forever be on the record here. A big round of applause for her. We love Mary, and I hope she is able to watch this at home when her family takes a clip of it.

We are here to debate Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Behind me are my colleagues from Etobicoke Centre and Outremont, who are champions for Ukraine. I want to take a few moments to recognize their work here in Parliament on behalf of all Canadians, especially those of Ukrainian descent. I thank my colleagues for their outstanding work.

Bill C-57 is very simple. Its objective is to implement the free trade measures established between Canada and Ukraine. The first free trade agreement with Ukraine was signed in 2017 and included goods but not services. Now, services are also included as part of Bill C-57 along with the measures established between the two countries.

We have talked a lot in the House about the challenges that Ukraine is facing as a result of Russia's illegal invasion and about the need to support Ukraine and its people in defending their country.

We have talked a lot about the war and Canada's contribution. I was a bit disappointed by the comments from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who referenced this legislation as being “woke”. That was disappointing to hear. This piece of legislation is simply establishing a trade agreement and furthering the ties we have between our two countries. Is he suggesting that the Government of Ukraine is woke? I do not think so. That government has been on the front lines of defending democracy. The member needs to clarify his comment at some point in this House. Hopefully he will have the opportunity.

This bill would extend measures that matter in the economic ties between Canada and Ukraine. It is what our two governments have been working on to advance. I know that members of this House who have large Ukrainian diasporas in their ridings are certainly proud to stand here and support this legislation. In fact, it would be great if all members of this House could agree on a way to fast-track this legislation. This should not be very controversial.

I hear some members of the NDP are calling for that. They believe in that principle. It is not within my purview, but perhaps the House leaders will have a conversation and we will not have to spend a lot of days on this bill and can advance it to committee for further study. Ultimately, when it comes from committee, we can get it to the Senate as soon as possible. Even better, and I have seen it before, is if the House leaders agree to send it right to the Senate. That would be even better, especially if we believe in this piece of legislation.

I am proud to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food here in Parliament and, as such, I think I need to take a moment to emphasize the importance of Canada's agricultural ties with Ukraine.

The former hon. member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, called me a couple of weeks ago from Ukraine. He is there on a mission, working with potato farmers. This is being funded by a number of initiatives in Canada and the United States. He is there with other members. Of course, Wayne has a great history in agriculture. That is but one of the many examples where we share really deep ties between our two countries.

This agreement covers services, but we should also use it as an opportunity to highlight the deep agricultural ties between our two countries. The agriculture committee had the opportunity back in the spring, either this spring or in 2022, to have the Ukrainian minister of agriculture join us to talk about the challenges of the Russian infantry, which was laying land mines in the farmers' fields in Ukraine. I am proud to say on the record that Wayne and others are over there helping to build those ties.

There have been many other opportunities to build ties between Canada and Ukraine, particularly in terms of research on various methods related to seeds and different types of agricultural products. This is a good opportunity for Canada and Ukraine to continue their hard work.

Something I would encourage the government and all members of Parliament to reflect on is how they can contribute in that conversation as well.

We have talked a lot about the war effort and the support Canada can provide on the front lines with military assistance, but the Ukrainian economy needs the money and the opportunity so Ukraine itself can continue to fund its war effort. Of course, I stand here as a member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues before us do. We want to continue to see the government be a very willing partner and to draw international support to continue Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty, its place and its homeland. At the same time, this agreement is yet another opportunity that would be in the vested interests of both of our countries.

Ukraine would have opportunities to send products here. We would have the opportunity to send expertise and support to Ukraine. It would strengthen both of our economies at a time when Ukraine's economy is in challenging times, given the circumstances that are happening. I will note that Canada is the first country to sign, or in this case, to modernize and continue to advance our integrated economic ties. We are the only country so far that has been able to do that. I think that speaks to the importance of how President Zelenskyy and his government view Canada as a stable partner, a friend and an ally with which to move forward.

I will use my remaining time to say that this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that would build upon the existing economic ties we have. It is supported by both governments, here and in Ukraine. It is supported by the diaspora and by Canadians of Ukrainian heritage across the country, who will be calling on all members of Parliament to support really straightforward legislation to advance this as soon as possible to drive economic opportunities for themselves here in Canada and for their homeland, where they have family and friends.

We have had certain pieces of legislation before the House over the last couple of weeks that I really thought would be “slam dunks”. I thought there would be an opportunity for real partisan consensus in the ability to move legislation forward. I have been proven wrong on that, and things I thought would be able to be advanced quickly were not. I call on all members of the House. I know that on this side of the House, we will have that consensus, and it sounds as though the NDP will have that consensus. I presume the Bloc will. I do not know about the Conservatives, based on the conversations I have heard in the chamber over the last couple of hours. I am happy to take questions, but I hope the Conservatives can clarify that they are in support of this very straightforward bill that matters for Ukraine and for our economic security as well, because it is just straightforward common sense.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑57, which seeks to ratify the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I would like to share some thoughts on this agreement and why it deserves our attention and our careful review.

First, it is important to remind the House that Canada has traditionally been a defender of democratic values, human rights and the rule of law internationally. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has made significant progress in these areas. Canada has always maintained an amicable relationship with Ukraine. Canada was the first western country to recognize its sovereignty. In reviewing this agreement, we can see that we have an opportunity to strengthen our commitment to these fundamental values and provide meaningful support to Ukraine. That being said, we reaffirm our solidarity with Ukraine in its quest for stability, prosperity and liberty.

Under the circumstances, the best way for Canada to help Ukraine in its battle against the Russian invasion is to enable it to end its dependence on Russian energy. One way to do that is to maintain and improve trade with Ukraine, and energy should be a big part of that. We are in favour of reducing obstacles to free trade, especially in the context of trade relations with a country that shares our values.

The Conservatives initiated free trade negotiations with Ukraine. The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement finally came into effect in 2017. That agreement was a win-win for both Canada and Ukraine. When two democracies help each other, the whole world wins. Exporting our natural resources is a golden opportunity for Canada to raise its profile internationally. Now more than ever, producing and exporting our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, would enable Canadians to create wealth while also greatly assisting Ukraine's efforts to liberate itself from Russia's influence.

Canada is privileged to possess resources that are prized around the world. One of those resources is LNG. This energy source is a transition fuel that offers excellent energy efficiency and has less environmental impact than the other energy sources the world is trying to distance itself from. Common sense dictates that we should use this resource to our advantage and allow our allies, such as Ukraine, to benefit from its abundance.

Unfortunately, for ideological reasons, the government refuses to take advantage of this strategic resource that would help our citizens, our allies, and the health of our planet. In my own riding, a major LNG project never saw the light of day because of the Liberal government's anti-energy attitude. The absence of strong signals in favour of LNG development in Quebec and Canada is preventing Canadians from accessing much-needed funds and is forcing our allies to rely on dictatorships for their energy supply.

The most effective way for Canada to support our Ukrainian allies in their fight against the Russian invasion is by offering them a way out of their dependence on Russian gas and oil. Ratifying Bill C‑57 is paramount to continuing our support for democracy, freedom and the rule of law internationally.

Not only is this trade relationship important for preserving our values in the world, but this relationship also benefits our Canadian businesses. For example, our auto sector can expand its market by exporting its products to another country without facing too many obstacles.

Our trade relationship is important for ensuring that we have access to agricultural products. Our imports of agricultural products allow for a safe supply of quality products. What is more, to help our local farmers, eliminating obstacles for farm machinery and equipment helps our farmers get access to more efficient tools at a lower cost.

This agreement is part of our long and enduring commitment to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian communities in Canada play a very important role in our society. We have the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. Some 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin live here and enrich our culture and our economy.

This agreement is part of the Canadian strategy of advocating free trade. We adopted this strategy to promote the economic development of our businesses and to make them more competitive. Unfortunately, when the government and its Bloc allies decide to become anti‑energy and stand in the way of our Canadian producers, it makes it impossible for our country to unlock the full potential of our abundant natural resources. We have to be realistic. It is true that our diverse exports and imports with Ukraine are important. However, the thing that would set us apart and truly help Ukraine in its war effort is our liquefied natural gas.

Anti-energy measures hurt our economy and prevent us from being the energy allies we should be, but the carbon tax is also a barrier for businesses here at home. The additional burden of a tax that directly and indirectly affects all goods circulating in Canada gives imported goods a considerable advantage over our local products, which are overtaxed compared to goods entering our country.

We need to be aware of the important role Canada has to play on the international stage. Although the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition may not see it, what sets us apart is our natural resources. This free trade agreement is an excellent opportunity for Canada to set itself apart on the world stage. We should be proud of our environmental standards in energy production. My colleagues need to understand that we have an excellent opportunity to take action for Canada, Ukraine and the environment.

We are proud to support Ukraine in its efforts to repel the Russian invasion. It is our duty to stand up against any forces that threaten democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We are pleased to welcome Ukrainian refugees who have had to flee their homeland because of the war in their country. By taking a favourable approach to Ukraine and supporting their economy, while promoting our own, we continue to support an ally that is important to us and to the free world, especially since by improving our relations with the Ukrainian state, we are demonstrating our commitment to Ukrainian communities here in Canada.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to examine this bill and ensure that it is drafted in the best possible way to maximize the benefits of such an agreement. When a democracy is under threat, we must all rally behind it to defend the values and principles that unite us. Supporting the Ukrainian economy is part of our collective war effort to promote democracy around the world. This free trade agreement with Ukraine is part of Canada's multi-faceted support for Ukraine.

In principle, Bill C‑57 appears to be in line with Canadian values and principles. We will have to work hard as parliamentarians to ensure that a free trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada has the greatest possible positive impact on both our countries. Conservatives will always work to improve the interests of Canadians.

We are also committed to helping our Ukrainian allies, especially given the difficult situation they are facing in their conflict with Russia. This assistance takes many forms, and if, after study, this free trade agreement is beneficial to both Canada and Ukraine, we should support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation, not just for Canada and for the people of Canada but, indeed, for Ukraine.

In my comments and remarks on this today, I will indicate why I think it is so incredibly important for us to do this, particularly right now, while Ukraine is still engaged in this conflict, which was entirely provoked by Vladimir Putin and has affected their livelihoods to such a high degree.

What we know, for starters, is that Bill C-57 is a modernization of an existing agreement that is already in place with Ukraine for free trade. This is an opportunity for us to modernize what is in place, to bring in new, very important language to the agreement, which reflects the changes in trade we are seeing throughout the world right now, in Canada and everywhere else.

I think it is also extremely important to talk about the fact that Ukraine's economy decreased by roughly 50% just within the last year. Members can imagine the impact of that if it were to happen to Canada. We can visualize how devastating that would be.

As it is a key ally of ours, I think it is extremely important that we prepare for what is next for Ukraine. When they ultimately do win this conflict, this war with Russia, we will have made sure that all of the tools are in place so that Ukraine can come bouncing back as quickly and effectively as possible to, most importantly, rebuild their country and their economy, as it relates to the outputs they had.

This is where Canada has an advantage. I should note that Canada is the first country to modernize its free trade agreement with Ukraine since the war broke out a year and a half ago. Why I see this as being so important is that, to make sure that Ukraine can hit the ground running when the time comes, we need to make sure that these agreements are in place.

I am sure that many members of the House are aware that the Canadian company Aecon has already lined up contracts to help Ukraine rebuild. This is going to be some of the economic advantages for Canada. On the other side of things, we are going to see advantages for Ukraine, as they have access to parts of the Canadian market.

My understanding is that the existing trade agreement already provides the elimination of 99.9% of import duties from Ukraine. This means that the goods and services that Ukraine will be trying to sell outside of their borders, after and during the time it is rebuilding, would have an open market to Canada. This is incredibly important because, when a country is going through that process of rebuilding, as Ukraine ultimately will be, they are going to be looking for open doors in the world.

For Canada to be at the forefront of that and to say that we are here to support Ukraine through trade, commerce and opportunities, new opportunities, in a mutual way that benefits both countries is extremely important.

We know that trade, generally speaking, increases the quality of life in both the respective countries that are trading. Indeed, that is why we see trade happening throughout the world, and that is why the Liberal Party and the Liberal government is so supportive of free trade. It is one of the reasons why we have introduced and signed more free trade agreements than any other government in Canadian history. it is because we strongly believe and see the value in trade as it exists with other countries.

There is a net benefit, at the end of the day, for both countries, if those trade relationships are set up in a way that is designed to be prosperous for both, so that both can prosper and neither is at a particular disadvantage. I, like others, really hope we can see this bill get over the finish line before the end of this year, by Christmas. That would really put Ukraine in the position that it needs to be in.

When I say that I hope the bill gets past the finish line, I mean I hope this bill finishes the process in this chamber, gets to the Senate, finishes its process in the Senate, and then it can be signed by the Governor General as an act of Parliament by that point.

I genuinely hope we can put aside partisanship. I certainly am not one to shy away from being partisan at the right opportunities. I certainly am, but on this particular issue, I think it is much greater than just Canada. It is much greater than just one political party or another political party. This is an issue, quite frankly, about supporting Ukraine with everything we have been doing. I think it is absolutely critical that this be one of those things.

For all we have done in terms of support, such as training troops, being there for Ukraine and providing whatever we can while it fights the war, this is probably one of the most important things we could do to set Ukraine up for success when it wins the war. Really, what this ultimately comes down to is making sure that it is successful.

When I think of Canada being the first to modernize this agreement, I am reminded of when I was on the national defence committee from 2015 to 2019. I had the opportunity to travel while we were studying Operation Unifier, and another operation, the name of which escapes me right now. We travelled to Ukraine, and of course, this is when the conflict in Crimea was ongoing, and we would hear from the various leaders in Ukraine.

I can vividly recall one conversation our representatives from the defence committee had while sitting at a table with the chair of the Ukraine defence committee. He made a point of telling us that the importance of Canada's role in being there was so much greater than anything it could provide them militarily.

The importance of Canada being there means that other countries are following suit. We could even see that in the brigade Canada was leading. There were a number of countries lining up behind it that wanted to be part of what Canada was committed to. It really struck me when I heard those words what we can signal to the rest of the world when we are involved in something. Canada has a reputation throughout the world of being a country that can really lead the way and that can show good judgment.

When I think of that, and when I think of this agreement, it is another way we can show the world that, yes, Ukraine is going through a conflict right now. We will be there to support it, but we also want to make sure we are there to help it rebuild when this is over and when it ultimately wins the war.

What we are seeing with this agreement is, in my opinion, another opportunity for Canada to show the way, to show leadership, so we can encourage other countries throughout the world to do the same thing. We can encourage others to sit down with Ukraine and talk about how they can also participate in open and free access to Ukraine's economy, and have it reciprocated.

I see this not as just another free trade agreement. I see it as Canada's opportunity to, once again, show leadership in this world. That is why being the first country to modernize its agreement with Ukraine, I think, is so incredibly important.

As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said previously, I really hope we can get this past the finish line here, in the Senate, and with the Governor General by Christmas, so we can show that leadership not only to Ukraine but also throughout the world.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and to speak to Bill C-57, with respect to the very important Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

I want to start off by saying, of course, that trade agreements are very important for countries, especially Canada. We have probably among the best and most innovative workforce in the world. Therefore, we are bringing a lot to any trade deal from which we would benefit, and we have seen some large benefits for Atlantic Canadians. In many trade deals, we have seen benefits, including this one, which we signed in 2017, with respect to seafood. Atlantic Canadians are well known for supplying to the world, and Canada is number one with respect to that.

I will take a moment to talk about the first major free trade agreement, which was signed in 1987-88. At the time, the Macdonald commission, named after its chair, Donald S. Macdonald, a former Liberal politician, produced a report that concluded upon analysis that Canada was well placed to enter into a free trade agreement with the United States, that it should take the risk and seize this ideal opportunity.

I must congratulate and thank Mr. Mulroney, who accepted that report and began the work to prepare Canada to fulfill its commitments. Hon. members will recall that in 1984, during his election campaign, Mr. Mulroney was against free trade. In 1988, he changed his mind and decided to campaign in favour of free trade. Thanks to that, the first major free trade agreement was signed, and I am very pleased about that. At the time, I was not so sure.

Since forming government in 2015, we have delivered three major agreements.

The CETA agreement was a major one that we brought forward in 2018. Following that, we had the TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, and then there was the CUSMA, the agreement with Canada, Mexico and the U.S. I will talk about that one in a special way, because there are extremely important points I want to make.

The CETA agreement is with the European Union, the second-largest market in the world for Canada, and 98% of the tariffs were removed. That was from 25%. It opened up the market and dropped the prices for Canadians and European countries at the time. We had to make a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom afterward, because it left the European Union. The deal with the United Kingdom was $29 billion a year back and forth in 2019. The U.K. is the fifth-largest trading partner with Canada after the U.S., China, Mexico and Japan.

With the trans-Pacific partnership in 2018 that we were successful in signing on to, Canada gained trading potential with Asia, which has half a billion people and is a very fast-growing market. It eliminated up to 98% of trade tariffs, but 100% on seafood; this benefited Atlantic Canadians, which I am sure my colleague from Nova Scotia is proud of.

I want to talk about CUSMA, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. I cannot thank the Minister of Finance enough, because she was very patient and effective. We know that, at the time, we were dealing with Trump, who was on the warpath. We know what he said. Prior to the negotiations, he said that there would be no deal if supply management was included. Did we get supply management? Absolutely, we did.

Then Trump said that there would be no deal unless we changed the courts and the judges. He wanted only American courts and American judges. Did he get that? Absolutely not. He would send tweets out early in the morning. He said that there would be no agreement unless there was a five-year sunset clause. Did he get that? Absolutely not. Why not? We cannot expect the business community to invest billions of dollars if there is a five-year limit. The business community needs to know it is ongoing and will be successful.

Our government was very successful in delivering that agreement. It is very important to note that it represents $2 billion per day. We saw what effect there can be on our economy when the truckers shut down the bridges at the border.

I want to note the Conservatives were saying to sign it at all costs because we could not afford to lose the deal. We stood our ground and we delivered for Canadians. We delivered for Canadian workers. We delivered for Canadian businesses. I am extremely proud of that.

I want to talk about this important Canada-Ukraine agreement. The agreement was signed back in 2017. In 2017, that agreement was very important. In 2019, trade was worth $447 million, with $220 million in imports and $227 million in exports, which is pretty well even. The top priority export to Canada was seafood in 2021. In 2022, it changed because of the war of course, and the main trade was in armoured vehicles and parts, medicine and again seafood.

What we import to Canada from Ukraine are fats, oils, iron, steel and electronics. These are very important for Canadians. It is important to support Ukraine. We have been there from the beginning. However, it is important we do it now so when the war is over, when Ukraine wins that war, Canada's business community and workers are ready to deliver. That is what is important in this deal. That is why there will be more good-paying jobs as we move forward.

The benefits are preferential market access, but the new chapters are where we need to focus. There are new chapters on trade in services, on investments, on temporary entry, telecommunications, financial services and inclusive trade. There are updated chapters on labour, the environment, transparency and anti-corruption. There is a new chapter that has been put in place for the first time between both countries on trade and indigenous peoples, in addition to chapters on trade and gender and small businesses. This would allow marginalized Canadians and Ukrainians to access this free trade agreement and prosper.

Some key areas in the chapters include the development and administrative measures. We will see a reduction in red tape and a lower trade costs. In the investment chapter, we see the modernized dispute settlement, which is not like the one the Americans wanted but is one that strengthens the alternatives to avoid arbitration. In trade deals there should not be winners and losers. We should all be winners and work together to achieve the same goals.

The temporary entry chapter is extremely important. It would allow Canadians to work and contribute in Ukraine without having to get a work permit. It would allow spouses to do the same. These are great opportunities for Canadians to support but also invest in and help build Ukraine after it wins the war.

I want to close by talking about one key area Canada wants to ensure, which is the cultural piece. We have made sure there would be an exception for the cultural aspect in both countries.

This is a great deal. It is a great opportunity for Canada to continue to work and support Ukraine. Do not forget we welcomed many Ukrainians in the last two years because of the war. There is a large population of Ukrainians in Canada. The trading between both countries will be great and prosperous as we move forward.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I do hope that my own voice will last for the 10 minutes I have been allotted.

It is an honour today, especially, because we are talking about Canada and our relationship with Ukraine, specifically about Bill C-57, which addresses a possible trade agreement enhancement. I not only bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, but I also feel an affiliation with Canadians with an ethnic heritage from Ukraine. I put myself in that latter category. All four of my grandparents were born in Ukraine, of Mennonite background, and I have personally visited Ukraine three times. I will come back to that later in my speech. Today I literally wear my heart on my sleeve, as well as on my lapel, and the colours of my suit and tie are meant to signify my solidarity with Ukraine.

Conservatives were the first to successfully negotiate the current CUFTA agreement, brokered by then international trade minister, my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. With the opportunities facilitated by the 2017 CUFTA for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses, Canada-Ukraine bilateral trade reached its highest level ever in 2021, with Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalling $219 million and merchandise imports from Ukraine amounting to well over $200 million.

We want to ensure that Bill C-57 is beneficial for both Ukraine and Canada, especially for Canada. At a time when our world is becoming increasingly unstable, an agreement that is favourable to both of our countries would go a long way toward bringing about much-needed stability to both countries and, of course, to our allies. We are committed to looking at this bill, with its 600 pages of text, and consulting with stakeholders from across Canada to ensure that we do get it right for the benefit of Canadians, including Ukrainian Canadians, and for Ukraine.

Ukraine has always been considered one of the breadbaskets of the world. At a time when so many nations are facing food shortages and food insecurity, there is nothing we would like to see more than Ukraine's reclaiming this title once again. Ukraine has 25% of the world's topsoil. My grandparents farmed there. They came to Canada and they farmed here. I am the third generation to live on the home farm. In my home office, I have a small sample of the topsoil from both my paternal grandparents' home farms.

My first visit to Ukraine was in November 2005, a year after the Orange Revolution. I distinctly remember the drive south from Kyiv with an Australian tomato grower, a friend of mine, Louis Chirnside. It is about a 700-kilometre drive to Nova Kakhovka, the city that has been in the news recently. It is built up the road from Kakhovka, “Nova” meaning new. It was built in the 1950s when the dam was built there, the dam that was recently destroyed on June 6 of this year.

A few hours into the drive, we noticed a trench being dug alongside the highway to facilitate the burying of a cable of some sort. Both Louis and I, coming from farm backgrounds on opposite sides of the world, asked our driver to stop. We got out and looked into the trench, down about four feet. We were looking for the horizon line, the line between topsoil and subsoil. We could not see it. It was pure topsoil. As a youth, I remember the stories of my grandfather Epp who grew up on the banks of the Molochna River. He used to say that if a horse passed away, it could be buried standing in their backyard with six feet of topsoil over its head. He was also prone to exaggeration, a quality that was not passed down genetically. Ukraine does have the natural resources in place, if the conditions are right, to return to being the breadbasket of Europe.

In July, 2022, there was a glimpse of hope on the horizon when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports and exporting over 32 million metric tons of Ukrainian-produced corn, wheat, sunflower oil, barley, rapeseed, soybeans and other products. It was successful for almost a year, until its termination on July 23, a year later almost to the day. Russia announced its intention to exit this agreement. Upon withdrawing from the deal, the Russian foreign ministry provided a lengthy justification for its decision that included criticisms of the implementation of the agreement and its impacts on global food security.

The free world saw this for what it was: an attempt by Russia to exert its control and dominance over the rest of the global community by creating food insecurity and further dependence upon Russia. According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, ironically, Russia is also accused of having stolen nearly 6 million metric tons of Ukrainian wheat and selling it as Russian product. Interestingly, the contribution of agriculture to Russia's GDP increased by 22% from 2021 to 2022. That is according to World Bank data. I wonder how that happened.

The impacts of the BSGI were global and helped to ease the world's food crisis. In addition, this initiative allowed the easing of global grain prices, which hit an all-time high in March 2022, in response to the invasion. Under the deal, the UN World Food Programme, the WFP, was able to export 80% of its wheat purchases from Ukraine, shipping over 725,000 metric tons of wheat to alleviate food insecurity in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Earlier I referenced my three personal visits to Ukraine. My first, in 2005, was actually at the invitation of a company that had established a mayonnaise and ketchup factory in Nova Kakhovka. It is called Chumak. I was invited, along with my Australian friend, Louis, and a Scotsman processing tomatoes in Turkey, as part of a benchmarking exercise to compare the growing Ukrainian tomato-processing industry to the rest of the world, to compare its competitiveness.

Our host company was founded in the early 1990s, after the Berlin Wall fell and Ukraine became independent. Within a decade, many fledgling industries, once opened to capitalism, were growing rapidly, including processed tomato production. Ukrainians were reaching out to the world, to their allies for tech transfer. Canada and Ukraine in particular have two broad sectors where we should be natural partners: agriculture and agri-food and our natural resources.

Let me be clear. In order for Conservatives to agree to this legislation, it would have to be reciprocally beneficial for both Canada and Ukraine. The deal would have to allow both countries to be profitable, and the advantages would have to be for both countries as well. Conservatives would like to see the exports of our abundant natural resources, such as LNG, to Europe, including Ukraine, to break the European dependence on Russian energy and the subsequent consequences for world peace.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government do not seem to agree with that sentiment. If Canada truly wanted to make an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, exporting our LNG, to replace coal and Russian-sourced energy, would top the list.

When the Prime Minister took office, there were 15 proposals for natural gas export terminals on his desk. Not one has been completed. This is just one more example of the government's failure to get major projects built, when the world needs LNG. Again, I restate that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting our LNG to break European dependence.

The world needs the energy security Canada can supply. Now, more than ever in our history, the world needs Canadian LNG. Only Canada's Conservatives are focused on securing energy security for our allies and restoring the faith in our nation as a trusted partner on the world stage. As we did in 2017, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interest of Canada and of all Canadians. By working closely with our stakeholders across the country, we will get feedback on this legislation. We believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies in all ways, including trade. Again, we will ensure that this deal is jointly beneficial. I cannot say that enough times.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for his speech and his commitment. We have the pleasure of serving together on the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group. I know how deeply committed he is to Ukraine in general and also to the current situation, which affects him personally, as we all know.

The Bloc Québécois is certainly in favour of Bill C-57. We are also in favour of establishing trade relations with Ukraine. This will enable Ukraine to make a quick recovery once the conflict is resolved, once Ukraine's victory is confirmed. This will allow Ukraine's economy to recover quickly.

I have a question about this bill in particular, with respect to the trade agreements Canada enters into with foreign countries.

Why is the government still insisting on leaving clauses like the investor-state dispute settlement, which can hurt democracy in some cases? I would like to know if my colleague is familiar with this concept and what he thinks about it.

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

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, contrary to what has been said over and over again in the House since this morning, we are not debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement or its content. We are debating Bill C‑57, which simply implements that agreement.

Basically, it is a 1,000-page, 30-chapter agreement, which parliamentarians have not voted, and will not be voting, on. We will be voting on whether to implement it.

This opens the door to another problem. Is there any chance that future agreements could also be reviewed by a parliamentary committee? What does my colleague think about that?

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

Madam Speaker, every time a free trade agreement is set up, there are always challenges to move things along.

Certainly with the war in Ukraine and the terrible things that have been going on there, it is crucially important that we get this right. A number of discussions have been ongoing in order to make sure that Bill C-57 is accurate. It will go to committee, where there will be further discussions.

I look forward to it being very successful for Canadians, as well as for Ukrainians.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that some government members are defending Bill C‑57. When one has negotiated something, it is important to stand behind it.

This brings me to my question. In Quebec yesterday, the Parti Québécois unveiled its year one budget, projecting that Quebec has the financial capacity to be an independent country. I wonder how my colleague, as a member of the governing party, would feel about negotiating a free trade agreement with Quebec once it becomes independent, so that our two nations can engage in mutually beneficial economic exchanges.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to something that I think is very important to all of us here in the chamber, the legislation for the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is my honour to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement, as quickly as possible, the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, or CUFTA, as it is often referred to.

Recently, the Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship has been marked by Canada's steadfast support for Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of protracted Russian aggression. Canada has stood beside our Ukrainian allies to support them as they fight for their independence, democracy and freedom. I know they are waiting for this free trade agreement to be done, with much expectation that Canada will finalize it as soon as possible so that we can open the door for further trade with Ukraine to help it in the terrible war it is dealing with. Since the beginning of this illegal full-scale invasion by Russia in February 2022, Canada has committed close to $9 billion in multi-faceted support for Ukrainians, because we know how desperately they need it, and they are eager to see this free trade agreement as well.

Today, we have yet another opportunity to demonstrate our continued support for Ukraine through other means. Bill C-57 would not only offer benefits in the near term but would extend well beyond the strengthening of the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses can work together in the economic reconstruction of Ukraine, underpinning the long-term economic relationship between our two countries.

This is not a new deal. This is an expansion of the free trade agreement. We have been dealing with free trade with Ukraine for a very long time, so this is not new, something that has just popped up that we have not seen. We knew it was coming, and it has been worked on explicitly to make sure it is the very best that it can be.

I am referring to the modernized CUFTA, of course. The modernized CUFTA is a comprehensive high-standard agreement that, once implemented, will not only support Canadian and Ukrainian businesses but will also deepen commercial linkages, enhance co-operation, provide for increased transparency in regulatory matters, support inclusive trade and help reduce costs for businesses. That is very much what this free trade agreement is about, and it is very important that we understand it all.

One of the key outcomes of the original 2017 agreement was the market access that it gained for Canadian and Ukrainian produced and manufactured goods. If ever a Ukrainian needed help with a free trade agreement, it certainly is today.

As of January 2024, all tariff elimination schedules will be complete and over 99% of Canada's exports to Ukraine will be eligible to enter Ukraine duty-free. That is a very important aspect of this free trade agreement. This will make Canadian goods more competitive in the Ukrainian market, and vice versa, which we very much want. It will be especially valuable as we move toward reconstruction, economic renewal and longer-term prosperity for Ukraine.

Thanks to the CUFTA, Ukrainians will be able to enjoy more high-quality Canadian goods, such as frozen meats and fish, fruits and vegetables, other consumer goods, and essential services. Meanwhile, Canadians will be able to enjoy the Ukrainian goods and services that we all enjoy, to help with the cravings and needs of the many Ukrainians living in Canada.

There are a multitude of brands from Ukraine that have proved themselves to be good additions to the Canadian market over the last many years. The CUFTA helps us broaden our horizons and support the Ukrainian economy, especially in these challenging times. I know they are very excited and looking forward to this bill's passing.

Throughout negotiations, both sides demonstrated an eagerness to reach an ambitious and high-standard agreement with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two nations, not just to meet the more immediate needs of reconstruction, which are great opportunities for Canadian companies to go to Ukraine and help in the rebuilding process, but long into the future. This eagerness is reflected in how comprehensive the modernized CUFTA is with respect not only to trade in goods but also to investment services and inclusive trade. The CUFTA helps make the reconstruction process transparent and sustainable. Also, this agreement is the first FTA addressing anti-corruption provisions.

Canada has always been there for Ukraine since its independence in 1991, and this new agreement is yet another opportunity for Canada to make itself visible in Ukraine and to lead by example. As a result, the modernized CUFTA would not only maintain the preferential market access gained in the original FTA for merchandise exports and imports, but would also support new opportunities for expanded commercial ties between Canada and Ukraine in the context of reconstruction efforts and well beyond. These benefits have led to strong support for this agreement by key stakeholders, including the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, representatives of which were recently on the Hill and expressed their desire to see this FTA continue.

Sectors of strategic importance to Ukraine's recovery include infrastructure, renewable energy, financial services and oil and gas, which are all areas where Canada has strengths. Furthermore, Canadian companies have indicated an interest in pursuing opportunities in Ukraine in the areas of defence and security, energy, ICT and agriculture, and are positioned to engage when and where the circumstances permit.

According to the latest estimate by the Ukrainian side, since February 2022, more than 37% of the total damage in Ukraine falls on residential buildings, another 24% on infrastructure and 8% on assets of enterprises and industry. According to Ukrainian and international analysts, Ukraine will turn into the largest construction site in the world after this war ends. The modernized CUFTA would support Canadian businesses as they position themselves to respond to these interests, taking into account the scope of the market that Ukraine has. It is time to use that window of opportunities.

Prior to the negotiations, the government conducted public consultations with Canadian stakeholders on what they would like to see in a modernized FTA with Ukraine. The initiative received strong support from stakeholders, indicating that modernization of the CUFTA would enhance the competitiveness of Canadian firms in the Ukrainian market, among other benefits.

Stakeholders specifically identified pursuing stronger trade rules, increased transparency obligations, expansion of the agreement to cover services and investment, and inclusive trade as priorities. I am pleased to confirm that the modernized agreement before us reflects these aims and more.

If I may, I will now say a few words about the modernized agreement, highlighting some of the benefits and opportunities it presents for Canadians and Ukrainians with an overview of the new chapters that have been added.

First, the agreement includes a dedicated new chapter on cross-border trade in services. This includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications that will facilitate trade in professional services, which is strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

Ukraine is a land of world-class talents who are ready to contribute their knowledge and expertise to the common good. The new CUFTA would allow these professionals to focus on their work and what they can do best, not on the bureaucratic ping-pong that can drain the needed energy and enthusiasm from all parties involved.

The agreement also includes a new chapter on investment that would replace the Canada-Ukraine Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. Featuring updated provisions on investment protection, the new chapter also ensures that investment obligations operate as required.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, as I try to do most of the time when he is speaking on the floor. I am quite surprised. Given what is going on in Ukraine and the desire of everyone to get this agreement through properly, faster and effectively, I am surprised. Maybe I misunderstood my hon. colleague, but I was hoping that we were going to complete these discussions on Bill C-57 fairly quickly and move it to committee, where we look forward to having a very detailed conversation with other members. Did I misunderstand the comments from the member?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I am joining the debate. I was worried that perhaps I would be one of those unfortunate members of Parliament to be cut-off before being able to speak on behalf on my constituents.

I am glad to join the debate on Bill C-57, the modernization of our free trade agreement with Ukraine. Off the top, I should first begin by mentioning that I absolutely continue, as many members on this side of the House do, to support Ukraine in its very difficult battle against the Russian Federation.

Many members know this, but I was born in Poland. My father was a hard anti-communist, and remains a hard anti-communist. He will not watch this, because he does not watch CPAC, ever. However, I come from a long line of family members who have always feared Moscow's intentions, the Kremlin's intentions in eastern Europe.

For 60-plus years, many eastern European countries were occupied by the Soviet Union, and I specifically use that term. None of those countries were able to pick their governments. Their people were not allowed to pick who was responsible for making policy decisions or government decisions in those countries. I continue to support the people of Ukraine and the government of Ukraine. This is, in fact, a battle of survival

Modernizing agreements will give them some hope. It hopefully will lead to better people-to-people connections between Ukrainians and Canadians. We have those. I count six waves of migration of Ukrainians coming to Canada. Now, under the CUAET visa, I think over 200,000 Ukrainians have fled the war and found refuge in Canada. Canada is a land of refuge. Not too far away from this building, a monument is being built that represents Canada as a place where people from all around the world have found refuge and a home. I know many of those CUAET visa holders some day will become permanent residents of Canada and I hope will become citizens of Canada.

When the original agreement was passed back in August of 2017, the goal then was the elimination of about 86% of tariffs off Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. It has been a good deal. We all understood that at the time the agreement was signed and ratified, it would be to the benefit of Ukraine in the short term. It was Canada's way of providing some material support to a country that is still trying to build out of that original Soviet occupation.

Ukraine did have it much worse than a lot of other eastern European country, which, nominally at least, had some level of autonomy. There were local communists in charge, who were obviously supported by the Kremlin, but Ukrainians did suffer much more deeply for longer under Soviet tutelage. Its heavy industry base is mostly based in the eastern part of Ukraine, but much of its industry, such as agriculture, was collectivized and privatized after the fall of communism in eastern Europe.

Ukraine is still building out of it. It is a long process and is not something that can be done over a couple of decades. It sometimes takes half a century to build out of a hole someone else has made. Therefore, supporting Ukraine is important. Agreements like this would tend to do that as well.

In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was about $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. When the ratification of the original CUFTA happened, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew 28.5% between 2016 and 2019.

I have been going through the details of the agreement, and I want to highlight a couple of points. I have not finished reading the whole agreement. I want to ensure I read all the different parts. This was signed in September. Now, in October, we are being asked to ratify it. This is a very detailed document, so it takes quite a bit of time for parliamentarians to go through it.

As I go through it, I note the sections that drew my attention and interest, such as sections on public consultations and transparency measures, which are a good thing. They are found under article 26.7. I was reading through exactly what the expectations were of both Canada and Ukraine when we are parties to this deal.

I want to raise a section on agriculture, “National Treatment and Market Access, which is in chapter 2, section D, article 2.13, subparagraph 4 (a) to (d). There are a lot of sections to the agreement. There is a subcommittee on agriculture that was created in 2017, and this agreement would continue that deal. We of course know a lot of exports from Ukraine will be agricultural goods.

Ukraine is often called one of the breadbaskets of the world. Much of its wheat exports, barley exports and other agricultural products are shipped through the Bosporus Strait, across the Republic of Turkey, to places in northern African, the Middle East and all around the world. It is why the export of grain, wheat, barley and other products has been one of the focal points of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine. It is trying to blockade those very important agricultural shipments to try to starve Ukraine of funds and starve it of the ability to continue building support internationally. Many countries rely on Ukraine's agricultural exports, and if we can provide some measure of support in giving them a different market or the opportunity to use our market as a shuttling point to another market, we should provide that. I note that the subcommittee on agriculture will be committed to that work. I would like to see a way for our farmers and agricultural producers, but also our upgraders, processors and wholesalers, to have an opportunity to purchase Ukrainian agricultural products and then resell them on the world market.

I think we Canadians have shown ourselves to be entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship is a highly valued set of principles. We always try to get our kids to start a business. I encourage my kids to do just that if they want to do that when they graduate, so I think it is something we hold very dear as Canadians. If there is an opportunity to help Ukrainian businesses and Ukrainian people, we should take it. I note this because it is in there and is important for people, especially in western Canada and the Prairies.

There is an entire section of the agreement that speaks specifically about country-of-origin labelling. This has been a sore spot for us with our American cousins to the south and the different agreements we negotiate with them, because they keep trying to change the terms of the agreements, or at least in how they interpret them. I was looking to find in this agreement, but have not found it yet, specific sections on how goods and services from Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson would be dealt with.

These are all the provinces of Ukraine occupied by the Russian Federation. I had expected this to be dealt with in the agreement. I am still looking for the specific sections on how goods and services would be dealt with and how they would be treated, because they are not from the territory of the Russian Federation. The four referendums held in the oblasts were illegal, unjustified and not recognized by the international community, because they were essentially just rammed through. People do not get a free vote when it is done at the pointy end of a firearm or with armoured vehicles from the Russian Federation overseeing how they vote.

I would like to know how the products and goods and services these territories produce would be dealt with. Would we have a certain measure and way to distinguish them from Russian goods? When, not if, Ukraine is able to restore its control over those provinces, I am hoping we will be able to deal with those goods and services and set them aside, perhaps giving them special treatment within our tariff system and within our country-of-origin labelling system.

There is a Yiddish proverb that I often like to use. This is not a proverb that I think is recognized, but it should be if it is not because I think it applies to the House: The late minyan has the least number of people arriving on time. At any shul, basically nothing starts on time, but we need 10 persons present at a synagogue to begin service.

I hope for that during the debate on a free trade deal. I am a free trader, I believe in free trade and our party believes in free trade, but not every agreement is exactly the same. I have noted some of the things I am looking for. I have noted that I have not been provided a briefing on the contents of the agreement itself, so all I really have to go on is what is in Bill C-57, which makes a lot of references to the agreement and the previous agreement as well.

I hope more members will be allowed to participate, to be part of that minyan and be here to rise on behalf of their constituents to raise specific points that are of concern to them. I come from Calgary. It is a big oil and gas town but also a big agricultural town. We have a lot of major agricultural shippers, manufacturers, producers and processors that are very much interested in the eastern European market and especially the fate of Ukraine and making sure we support it.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are home to a huge Ukrainian diaspora, and many of them are watching this agreement and watching what the future of Ukraine will be like. An agreement like this gives them hope, but we need to look at more of the details before we pass judgment on it.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to speak on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023.

I am a free trader. I believe in free market economies. I believe that Canada is a trading country, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to pursue free trade agreements around the world. Canada is blessed to have a huge amount of natural resources, a large land mass and resilient people, who are able to produce those natural resources. We are able to outproduce our own need by multiples of hundreds, whether that is the food production that happens in this country, our forestry or the oil and gas sector.

I want to just talk a little bit about the Supreme Court decision around Bill C-69. It is connected to this by the fact that, when Bill C-69 was brought into force, it ended the pursuit of 14 LNG projects in this country. Prior to the Liberal government coming into power, these projects were being pursued; after Bill C-69 was brought in, they were abandoned.

At the time when Bill C-69 was put on the Order Paper and we were discussing it here in this place, we said that the bill was unconstitutional and that it would have a marked effect on the pursuit of major projects in this country. We were right on both counts. We saw 14 projects just disappear. The proponents of those projects said that there was no longer the business case to do them. The business case was entirely impacted by government regulation. We also saw, after five years of that bill being in place, that the Supreme Court agreed with us, saying Bill C-69 was unconstitutional.

Why does that matter in the context of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? I would remind everybody that Ukraine is now in a war with Russia. Energy is the major export of Russia to the world. What is funding this war is the energy that people are buying, no matter where they are in the world.

We just heard the NDP talk about how we should pick and choose which countries we should do business with when it comes to oil and gas. I would argue that the world market for energy is the world market for energy. If we put good clean Canadian oil and gas on the world market and compete on that market, we could displace other oil and gas. When we just take our products off that market, somebody else will go in and fill that void. That might be Russia; in many cases, it is Russia.

Now we know that the Germans, for example, have come to Canada and specifically asked Canada to increase LNG production. They said that if they do not get more LNG coming to Europe, they will have to revert to coal mining. When our Prime Minister was asked about that, he said there was no business case. He failed to recognize, or perhaps purposefully did not say, that the business case that no longer was able to be made by LNG companies in this country was predicated entirely on the backs of the new bill, Bill C-69. Those projects were in the works until Bill C-69 came into place and then slowly, one by one, the businesses that were pursuing LNG projects said that there was no longer a business case for them. So we have seen that go away.

Another thing that I am excited about in terms of free trade and free trade agreements is just how our Canadian technology can then move around the world. Our leader has often said that we will fight climate change with technology and not taxes. Our ability to then export those technologies around the world comes from when we sign free trade agreements.

I am sitting in the House here next to the member for Abbotsford. I know that, when he was the trade minister, he pursued an aggressive free trade agenda under the previous Harper government. He signed over 40 free trade agreements, which allowed our Canadian technology to then be transferred around the world. That made Canadian companies wealthy. That gave Canadians jobs. It also did amazing things for other countries.

Canada is a leader in agricultural techniques and technology. We often lead the way when it comes to dryland farming and those kinds of things. We are able to export not only our equipment, but also our know-how around the world.

When it comes to energy production with our small nuclear reactors, it is a flagship Canadian technology. When I was in elementary school, our social studies bragged about the CANDU reactor and how we would power the world with this Canadian technology. Free trade agreements have had a great impact on allowing our technology to pursue other markets around the world.

Also, our ability to export our LNG products also allows our clean technology products to be transferred around the world.

We export other things such as coal, which is mined in the most ethically sourced manner. In most cases, it is extremely mechanized. There are very few people involved in the actual mining of coal, mostly equipment operators. The rates of injury compared to the tonnes of coal being produced are the lowest. We have some of the best labour practices in the world when it comes to coal production.

Therefore, when our coal ends up on the world market, although we do not necessarily know what the end result of that is, we can say with confidence that our coal, our oil, our lumber and our power are the most ethically sourced. We know that our labour and environmental standards are second to none around the world. When we are exporting these products, we know we are doing good in the world, because we are displacing products that may not have those same standards being enforced.

When it comes to free trade agreements, I want to talk about competitiveness. When we enter the free market, we do not necessarily know where our products are going to end up and we do not necessarily know with whom we are going to be competing. There are price signals that impact our ability to sell our products.

Over and again, representatives from many companies come to my office to talk to me about competitiveness. They say that they have the best technology and labour laws in the world, as well as great ideas, yet they are unable to attract investment in their products because of regulatory uncertainty, high labour costs, high interest rates, these kinds of things. Therefore, more companies are saying they need to be more competitive on the world stage. The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement would not only allow our products to go to other places, but would also allow Ukrainian investment to come in our direction, and we are very excited about that.

I know more companies are saying that their competitiveness is being undermined specifically because of things like the carbon tax. I am not sure if Ukraine has a carbon tax in place, but it could be a major challenge. If Ukraine does not and we do, we could hamstring our own companies if we enter into a free trade agreement with Ukraine or other countries around the world. Our companies would be competing with other companies that do not have a carbon tax on their products.

Let us say we want to sell LNG. Maybe another reason why there is no market plan for these LNG projects is because of the carbon tax, which came in around the same time as Bill C-69. Companies may say that if they are being charged a carbon tax on the production work they do in Canada when an LNG project in Australia does not have that tax on it, it is an increased cost that their competitors do not have to bear. We have to be concerned about this as we enter into these free trade agreements. We need to ensure that we not only have the ability to send our products out, but we are also able to compete with those companies in those countries.

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

Madam Speaker, within Bill C-57, there are references to our environment. There are references to unions and labour standards, if I can put it that way. When I look at previous agreements, I do believe we are moving the ball forward.

The member makes reference to the World Trade Organization and so forth, and at the end of the day, this particular agreement would achieve a significant amount in the right direction with respect to the environment.

My question to the member is this: Can she provide her thoughts about the Green Party's position with respect to this specific deal? Does she anticipate voting in favour of it?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I begin the discussion today on Bill C-57, which is the updated Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

We have had some conversation already this morning on the subject of the differences between trade agreements and investor protection agreements. I would like to approach that topic again and talk about the updated Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

I would also like to put a frame around the fact that a number of Liberal MPs said that this agreement makes an effort to name climate change and to tackle climate change in trade agreements. I wish that were so. We have a long way to go if we are going to confront the ways in which the World Trade Organization and its creation have undermined the climate agreements, and multilateral environmental agreements in general.

With that frame, I will move very quickly through some of the larger issues here because it is unusual for us to have any opportunity in this place to address the trade and investor protection agreements and how they impact climate, and they do.

Let us start by looking at the last effective multilateral environmental agreement that the world has ever seen and that was the most effective. It was negotiated in 1987 in Montreal. It is, of course, the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer.

I was honoured to participate in those negotiations as senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment in the Mulroney government back in those days.

If we look at the success of the Montreal Protocol, it is astonishing. We have not only arrested the destruction of the ozone layer through various ozone-depleting substances but also expanded that agreement with the Kigali Amendment so that it has also been an effective treaty that has helped reduce greenhouse gases.

One of the key reasons the Montreal Protocol was so successful was that the agreement to protect the ozone layer had enforcement mechanisms. It had penalties for countries that chose to ignore their commitments to protect the ozone layer. In fact, those treaty sanctions were so effective, they never had to be used because countries abided by their commitments in the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer.

The effective sanctions were trade sanctions. It is very hard to imagine any kind of international treaty that binds nation states and that has an effective punishment system that would be other than trade agreements. It is the most logical place in which we can inflict some degree of penalty on non-compliance.

The way the Montreal Protocol worked was that if any country ignored its commitments to reduce its use and to stop the production of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances, then that country would be subject to trade sanctions from any other country that was a party to the Montreal Protocol.

Since every country on earth was a party to the Montreal Protocol, that was why it was a very effective mechanism. Ten years later, in 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, when we negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, tragically, Canada changed its position 180 degrees.

Instead of being a country that championed making those agreements effective by including trade sanctions, our minister of environment headed to Kyoto saying that if trade sanctions were included in the Kyoto Protocol for climate action, Canada would not sign.

What happened? In that 10-year window, there was the creation of the World Trade Organization. The end of the Uruguay Round negotiations resulted in a more established centre for trade work globally.

All of this emanated from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had, since just after the Second World War, when it was negotiated, set aside and protected from trade sanctions those actions that were considered to be part of natural resource conservation and so on.

Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set aside, essentially, environmental protections without using that language. It certainly did not reference climate. We had the window there to protect what we did as nations, not for trade-motivated reasons or protectionist animus but for the legitimate pursuit of environmental protections. We could not be sanctioned by trade deals.

That all changed with the creation of the World Trade Organization. It created a committee called the Committee on Trade and Environment and instead of asking the useful question of whether we have trade agreements that get in the way of environmental protection, it asked a different question: Do we have environmental agreements that get in the way of trade? It spotted the Montreal Protocol and did not like that. It did not like the Basel Convention, which allows trade sanctions, or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES.

We already had a number of agreements that said we were allowed to take measures to protect the environment and in those agreements, we said trade could not get in the way. The trade Hydra raised its many ugly heads and said, no, it did not want us to do that.

There was never any decision, by the way. There was no ruling. It was just a matter of, in every national capital all around the world, the powerful trade ministers at every cabinet table turning to their less powerful environment ministers and saying they could not use those tools anymore. As a result, not a single climate agreement that Canada has ever signed has had any sanctions at all. The only sanction in the Paris Agreement is essentially the annual global stock-taking of language. That is coming up at COP28. The global stock-taking is essentially a sanction based on global shaming and embarrassment as there is no sanction there at all.

We really need to deal with this. Although the window here with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is pretty well closed because the negotiations are done, let us take this moment to say this is wrong. Certainly, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine has been one of the most outspoken champions. The war that Putin launched illegally against Ukraine must not get in the way of climate action. President Zelenskyy knows it and champions it. This is a good time to make sure all of the climate agreements are protected from trade limitations.

This is a good time to dust off some of the decisions that have been wrongly assumed to say that we cannot pursue climate agreements without violating trade deals. For instance, there are the tuna-dolphin case and the shrimp-turtle case. Both of those cases, at the WTO appellate level, left out very clear language. It does not say that we can never protect the environment under the WTO but that we cannot do it one-on-one. We cannot say the U.S. makes its own rules and then tells Mexico what to do.

However, it did say, in the context of a multilateral agreement that is negotiated, that trade has to back off and to respect those commitments. That is the case with the Paris Agreement. Every country on earth is bound by it. It is a perfect opportunity for our government to step up and to start saying that countries cannot use trade agreements to limit action to protect climate, as has been done. There are sanctions against India for moving to renewable energy, and so on. We recently had another investor protection agreement decision that hampers climate action.

To go back, trade deals are different from investor protection agreements, but in Bill C-57, in the existing Canada-Ukraine trade deal, there is an investor protection agreement. Those are very corrosive of democracy in that they say a foreign corporation has a right to sue a government if it does not like something that a government does that reduces its expectation of profits. Our government got rid of it in negotiating for the new CUSMA with the U.S., so what was chapter 11 of NAFTA is now gone.

We should be moving quickly to remove investor protection agreements that undermine our democracy, our environmental protections and our labour protections. Getting rid of investor protection agreements, or at least ensuring that they do not give foreign corporations more rights than domestic corporations, would be very welcome, indeed.

Bill C-57 as an improvement in modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is fine as far as it goes, but it would not do the things that many Liberal MPs have said it would. They have not been misleading the House, as they absolutely believe to be true that the Canada-Ukraine agreement as reflected in Bill C-57 would modernize and include more protections to the environment. It would not really, because unless we get at the basic conflict that trade agreements and the WTO have set themselves up to be superior to multilateral environmental agreements, like the Paris agreement, we are always at risk of trade deals and trade decisions from bodies like the World Trade Organization undermining and sabotaging global climate efforts.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I think it is number two.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, a piece of legislation that would formalize the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This agreement offers the chance for us to look back on the opportunities that Canada had on the world stage and some of the context as to where we are now with Ukrainian trade and, more generally, European trade as whole.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe found itself in a tough spot. Almost overnight, countries had to look for new sources of energy, oil and gas. They needed to act fast. Canada was in a prime position to fill that void, to be the reliable country that Europe needed in that critical moment, but what happened? We dropped the ball. We did not seize the opportunity. Germany, for example, one of the most advanced nations on earth, had to scramble to keep houses warm in the winter when Russian natural gas was no longer an option.

In an era when we talk day and night about green energy and reducing emissions, Germany had no choice but to look toward other sources of energy to power the country. Why were we not prepared? We tied our own hands with endless red tape, long wait times and bureaucratic hurdles. Our energy industry, once a global leader, has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, unable to act when the world needed it the most.

We did not just fail Ukraine or Europe; we failed ourselves. We missed a golden opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on the world stage, to help Ukraine in a tangible way and to quickly divert European reliance on Russia. This is not just about missed business opportunities. It is about missing the chance to do good when it was needed the most.

There is a narrative we need to correct. The idea that all oil and gas is created equal and that it all has the same environmental footprint is simply not true. Canadian liquid natural gas, known as LNG, is among the cleanest in the world. If Europe were to replace its current oil and gas imports with Canadian products, there is a good chance we would be replacing imports from countries that have lower environmental standards. Our oil and gas sector has invested heavily in technology to minimize environmental impact.

It is not just about economics; it is also about responsible energy production. Using Canadian LNG would offer European countries a cleaner alternative to what they are strongly sourcing. This is an important aspect when looking at trade with other countries. We need to make sure we are creating access to our reliable and clean energy for Ukraine and other European nations.

It is a win-win situation, one that would benefit both our economy and the global environment. When we talk about missing opportunities, we are not just talking about financial gains. We are talking about missing an opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on global carbon emissions, something the NDP-Liberal government should care deeply about. Instead, Canada missed out on this opportunity. We could not help Ukraine with energy reliance, and we could not help the rest of Europe either.

There is another layer to this as well, an ethical one. If we do not step up, Europe has no choice but to buy oil and gas from dictatorships that do not share our values, places where human rights and environmental concerns take a back seat. We have a moral duty to offer a better alternative, and Canadian LNG is that alternative.

Ethics matter. Where we get our energy is not just a question of economics or even of environmental protection. It is a question of values. When Europe buys energy from autocratic regimes, what message does that send? What sort of behaviour does it endorse? These regimes do not think twice about suppressing their own people or destabilizing their regions.

We saw this immediately after the onset of the war in Ukraine. However, this is not an isolated situation. There are several exporting countries that fall under this umbrella of unethical or autocratic governance.

Canada stands as a beacon of democracy and human rights on the world stage. When people buy Canadian, they are not just buying a product. They are buying into a set of values, values that respect human dignity, prioritize environmental sustainability and advocate for peace. Imagine if Europe could shift its dependency from other oppressive regimes to a country that shares its core principles. It would not only send a powerful message to the world but would have a direct, positive impact on our allies such as Ukraine. By strengthening our energy infrastructure and expanding our LNG capabilities, we can offer that alternative, an alternative that aligns with the values we hold dear in both Canada and democratic societies around the world.

Last year, the leader of the official opposition hit the nail on the head when he spoke about Canada's missed opportunities in the energy sector. While Europe, including Ukraine, was scrambling for alternatives to Russian gas, we sat on the sidelines. Why? It is because we lacked the necessary infrastructure and political will. Our inability to provide Europe with a viable alternative made it turn back to less than ideal options.

The leader of the official opposition was absolutely right. We had a shot at not just benefiting our economy but also elevating our role on the global stage. We could have been the solution that Europe, including Ukraine, was desperately searching for. What stopped us was red tape and a lack of foresight from the Liberal government.

This is not just about energy. It is about seizing strategic opportunities when they present themselves. As we discuss Bill C-57, I urge all of us to reflect on the broader implications of our international trade policies. We are always looking at the possibilities of strengthening our free trade around the world. However, we must also address missed opportunities that have significant global impacts.

This bill will likely bring up the topic of energy as it develops, a sector where Canada has failed to take the lead at crucial moments. The leader of the official opposition was clear last year about the shortcomings of the Liberal government. We need to move beyond the endless paperwork and bureaucracy that stall progress. I cannot help but stress that Canada had a chance to supply Ukraine and Europe as a whole with our natural gas, which is a cleaner, ethical option compared to what they are getting now. Instead, European countries, including Germany and Ukraine, were forced back to less desirable options because we did not have the infrastructure to support their need.

As we consider Bill C-57, let us not just look at words on the paper. Let us think about what those words mean in the context of Canada's role on the world stage. Are we simply going to be participants or will we be leaders?

As we look to possibly expand our trade with Ukraine, let us also make sure we are positioned to make the most of similar opportunities in the future. It is not just about economics. It is about taking a stand for cleaner and ethical trade that benefits us today and sets us on the right path for future generations.

I look forward to questions.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech and my other colleagues on their questions.

Today, we are debating Bill C‑57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think this is a subject on which everyone in the House agrees. It does not seem as though many members will oppose the bill when we vote on it. However, this is still an opportunity to talk about Ukraine and the importance of free trade agreements, as well as to reflect on those agreements. Obviously, we hope that Ukraine will recover as quickly as possible. I think that having a free trade agreement that normalizes our trade with Ukraine will only help with that.

I am wondering why these free trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors without any real mandate. The executive branch, or government, is the one responsible for those negotiations, and Parliament can only say “yes” or “no” to the final agreement. Does my colleague think it is right that we have almost no say as to the content of the agreement, whether it is good or not?

I think that everyone agrees that we want a free trade agreement with Ukraine. However, it would be worthwhile for parliamentarians to have more of a say as to the agreement's content. That is why we were elected, to represent the people and defend their interests, but the government is preventing us from doing that to some extent.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of my riding of Davenport.

Today I will be speaking to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but before I begin my formal written remarks, I want to take a few minutes to make a few comments.

First, I am happy the bill has been introduced in the House. I am also grateful to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development for her leadership and work. In a time of war, it is really important for us to be thinking about the Ukrainian economy, both today and tomorrow. Therefore, a huge thanks to her for this.

I am very grateful to my colleagues on the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group for their focus and attention on this, particularly my colleague, the member for Etobicoke Centre.

I also want to express how grateful I am to a number of key stakeholders who have helped to shape this agreement, including the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Association of Toronto, the Ukrainian Canadian Social Services of Canada and the Ukrainian Canadian Bar Association. I thank all of them.

I also want to acknowledge the context in which we are living today, one in which we are introducing this modernized trade agreement.

As we all know, something that troubles us every day are the major wars under way in the world today. In February of 2022, Russia started the unprovoked and illegal brutal war in Ukraine, which continues today. More recently, on October 7, Hamas initiated a brutal and violent war against Israel, which, unfortunately, also continues today. Both are clear illustrations of an attack on our democracies using war and terrorism.

I put out statements to my constituents constantly to update them on what is happening. In my latest update on Friday, I said the following, “We are in a struggle to defend our values, our humanity, and to stand up against these attacks on democracy. There is no simple solution to the conflict, but the work to find a humanitarian path to end the violence should be driven by one basic principle, and that is the most basic value of all, to protect and cherish human life.”

Some will ask me why I am mentioning this during a speech on the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It is because in a time of war, when we are fighting for our values, for democracy, for the right to continue to choose the way we live, real, everyday life continues. It is important to not only support the current economy in Ukraine but also the one it is trying to build after the war it is fighting eventually ends. I am really glad Canada is there.

I have one other aside. It is my privilege to currently serve as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. At the international meetings where NATO parliamentarians assemble, we talk about rebuilding Ukraine after the war. We know that the work begins now. I am very proud that Canada is stepping up and very much playing its part.

It is a true honour for me to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as CUFTA.

As we all know, Canada and Ukraine have enjoyed very close bilateral relations since 1991, when Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukrainian independence, an issue that we are sadly still fighting for to this day. These bilateral relations are strengthened by shared values and warm people-to-people ties rooted in the Ukrainian Canadian community of nearly 1.3 million people. My family is very much part of this community.

Recently, the Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship has been marked by Canada's steadfast support to Ukraine independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of protracted Russian aggression. Whether it was in 2014 when Russia illegally occupied Crimea or, today, following Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Canada has stood steadfast beside our Ukrainian allies to support them as they fight for their independence, democracy and freedom.

As such, since the beginning of the conflict in February 2022, Canada has committed almost $9 billion in multi-faceted support to Ukraine, which includes $5 billion in financial assistance, including $4 billion in loans through the International Monetary Fund's administered account for Ukraine, as well as $500 million through a Canada-Ukraine sovereignty bond; over $2 billion in military assistance and defence, of which I know that our Minister of Defence has recently made an additional announcement; $352 million in humanitarian assistance, a lot of which goes to the Ukrainian Women's Fund, which is for much-necessary work in the country; $147 million in development assistance; $102 million in security and stabilization assistance; and $4.8 million in cultural protection.

Additionally, Canada has established new immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing Russia's invasion, for which we have committed $1.2 billion.

Today we have yet another opportunity to demonstrate our continued support to Ukraine through other means, means that will not only offer assistance in the short term but will extend well beyond the current unfortunate situation and will form the basis on which Canada can support the reconstruction of Ukraine for years to come. I am, of course, referring to the modernized CUFTA, which is the reason I am addressing members today.

The original CUFTA entered into force in August 2017 and immediately eliminated tariffs on 99% of imports from Ukraine. Similarly, the 2017 CUFTA immediately eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canadian exports to Ukraine, with the balance of tariff concessions to be implemented over a seven-year period, or by January 1, 2024.

While reductions in coal supplies from Canada caused a slight drop in total trade following the 2017 CUFTA's entry into force, non-coal exports grew at a rapid pace and, in 2021, total bilateral trade reached its highest point ever at $447 million before dipping to $421 million in 2022 due to Russia's invasion.

In 2022, top Canadian exports to Ukraine included armoured vehicles, fish, medicine, motor vehicles and parts, and pet food. Top imports from Ukraine included fats and oils, iron and steel, electrical machinery, and processed foods. Canadian investment in Ukraine in 2022 amounted to $112 million.

While comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, the 2017 CUFTA did not include chapters on trade in services or investment. These areas were left out of the agreement due to divergent approaches at the time. Rather, the CUFTA contained a clause committing Canada and Ukraine to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force, with a view to expanding it. The review clause specifically identified services and investment as potential additions, but did not restrict the parties from exploring other areas.

Pursuant to this review clause, in a visit to Ottawa in July 2019, our Prime Minister and the Ukrainian president, President Zelenskyy, announced their intention to modernize the CUFTA. Our federal government then held formal public consultations on the modernization of the CUFTA in the winter of 2020. Submissions supported the initiative as a means of strengthening the bilateral relationship, building on Canada's commercial engagement with Ukraine, and further promoting an open, inclusive and rules-based trading environment for our businesses and investors.

The Government of Canada also received positive feedback from the provinces and territories, several of which were particularly supportive of the potential inclusion of new or modernized chapters on cross-border trade in services, financial services, investment, digital trade and additional commitments to support small and medium-sized enterprises. All of these areas have been successfully included in the modernized CUFTA, as well as new chapters or provisions on trade and gender, trade and indigenous peoples, digital trade, transparency, labour and environment, among many other areas.

Following these internal consultations, and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we know there was an announcement to launch the negotiations for a modernized CUFTA in January 2022.

Unfortunately, only weeks later, on February 24, 2022, Russia began its full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. This caused another delay in progress, with Canadian trade officials relaying to their Ukrainian counterparts that they stood ready to proceed with CUFTA modernization discussions in accordance with Ukraine's capacity and willingness to do so.

Negotiations started in June 2022 and, despite compressed timelines and difficult circumstances for our negotiating partner, they were highly constructive. Both sides demonstrated an eagerness to reach an ambitious and high-standard agreement that would be on par with Canada's most comprehensive trade agreements. This was done with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two nations long into the future.

During a visit from the Prime Minister of Ukraine on April 11, 2023, he and our Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations for the modernized CUFTA. Each committed to undertaking their respective domestic processes to facilitate its signature and entry into force as soon as possible.

During his most recent visit to Ottawa on September 22, 2023, President Zelenskyy and our Prime Minister signed the final modernized CUFTA text. This was a historic milestone in the Canadian-Ukrainian bilateral relationship, and it served as another clear demonstration of Canada's unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. With the final agreement officially signed, both sides are now taking the next steps to bring the agreement into force as early as January 1, 2024. That is why we are here today.

If I may, I will say a few words about the modernized agreement and some of the benefits and opportunities it presents for Canadians and Ukrainians alike.

Substantive negotiations have resulted in a modernized CUFTA, which includes nine dedicated new chapters and upgrades to nine existing chapters from the 2017 CUFTA. I will begin with an overview of the new chapters that have been added.

First, the agreement includes a dedicated new chapter on cross-border trade in services, which puts both Ukrainian and Canadian service suppliers on a comparable footing vis-à-vis our main services trading partners. Additionally, this chapter includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications that would facilitate trade and professional services, which are strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

The parties have also added a new chapter on investment that would replace the Canada-Ukraine FIPA. It features modern drafting to ensure investment obligations operate as intended and provide necessary flexibility in key policy areas. The new chapter includes a modern dispute settlement mechanism that would help Canadian investors participate with more confidence during Ukraine's reconstruction and beyond.

The modernized CUFTA has a financial services chapter, which includes core obligations related to market access, national treatment and most-favoured nation treatment. It would also maintain flexibility for regulators to preserve the stability of their financial systems. The financial services chapter would support a predictable, stable and transparent investment environment for investors, and it would allow Ukraine a 10-year period to transition from its existing World Trade Organization commitments to those included in this agreement.

There is also a new chapter in telecommunications, which would promote competition and provide enhanced certainty for telecommunications service suppliers when operating in Canadian and Ukrainian markets. The chapter also includes commitments to ensure that regulators of the telecommunications sector would be independent, impartial and transparent.

The parties have also added a chapter on temporary entry for business persons, which would provide new access for Canadians and Canadian companies to do business, invest and work in highly skilled occupations on a temporary basis in Ukraine while providing Canadian employers with easier access to highly skilled Ukrainian workers.

New chapters on inclusive trade, including trade and gender, trade and small and medium-sized enterprises, and trade and indigenous peoples, seek to empower and create opportunities for these under-represented groups, increasing their participation in and expanding their benefits from the modernized CUFTA. Notably, the trade and indigenous peoples chapter is the first of its kind included by either party in a free trade agreement.

Lastly, there is a chapter on good regulatory practices. It demonstrates to current and future trading partners that Ukraine is able to take on commitments that support a regulatory environment conducive to trade.

In addition to the new chapters I have outlined, we have also agreed with Ukraine to update nine chapters from the existing agreement. This includes rules of origin and origin procedures, where Canada and Ukraine have agreed to activate an article from the 2017 CUFTA on cumulation of origin.

This would allow materials of any non-party with which both Canada and Ukraine have an existing free trade agreement, such as the European Union, to be taken into consideration by the exporter when determining whether a product qualifies as originating under CUFTA, which would make it easier for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses to participate in regional value chains. It reflects a shared desire to support trade among like-minded partners.

The new digital trade chapter aims to improve regulatory certainty for businesses seeking to engage in the digital economy in both markets, as well as those specifically looking to engage in cross-border digital trade between Canada and Ukraine. The modernized CUFTA also includes a stand-alone competition policy chapter, which would enhance both parties' objective for a fair, transparent, predictable and competitive business environment through enhanced obligations for procedural fairness, and the identification and protection of confidential information by authorities.

The monopolies and state enterprises chapter has been upgraded to include important definitions for state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, and updated commitments on transparency and technical co-operation. In the modernized government procurement chapter, Canada and Ukraine have agreed to provisions clarifying that the parties are not prevented from undertaking policies and programs to support domestic initiatives, such as green and social procurement.

The modernized CUFTA also includes perhaps the most comprehensive and ambitious environment chapter ever achieved in a Canadian free trade agreement. The updated chapter seeks to promote robust, ambitious and transparent environmental governance, and for the first time, includes a dedicated article reaffirming the parties' commitment to addressing climate change.

There is also an updated labour chapter, which shows that Canada and Ukraine are committed to the highest labour rights standards. Fully subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the agreement, the chapter commits Canada and Ukraine to implement, in their labour laws, the content of the core conventions of the International Labour Organization.

The transparency, anti-corruption and reasonable business conduct chapter promotes transparency and integrity among public officials, private sector and society, and it advances enforceability of anti-corruption laws. It includes a new section to encourage responsible business conduct.

These negotiated outcomes would not only position Canadian firms to better participate in the economic reconstruction of Ukraine, but also support Ukraine's trade policy interests globally. Our Ukrainian colleagues have already expressed to us the value of the modernized CUFTA as the model of a modern, comprehensive and high-standard agreement with prospective trading partners around the globe. Domestically, the modernized agreement would reinforce the regulatory framework of a more inclusive, predictable and transparent trading and investment environment, which would benefit Canadian workers, businesses and entrepreneurs.

While the war continues to hinder trade both globally and bilaterally between Canada and Ukraine, the benefits and opportunities our countries have secured through this FTA are varied and long term, and would support growth in our commercial relationship now and for years to come.

During President Zelenskyy's recent visit, he and Prime Minister Trudeau had the opportunity to participate in a business round table in Toronto. At this event, we heard from business leaders from across Canada about the scope of commercial trade and investment interests in Ukraine, the risks associated with doing business in Ukraine and how to overcome these risks to ensure the private sector in Canada is well-positioned to invest and support Ukrainian reconstruction. Indeed, Canadian reconstruction companies, such as Aecon, are already moving forward to form partnerships with Ukrainian companies and to aid reconstruction.

This agreement is not just about economic gains. It also represents a landmark in the Canada-Ukraine relationship and serves as another clear demonstration of Canada's unwavering support to Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. We stand with Ukraine, and this agreement is another bond between us.

To that end, I urge all hon. members to support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-57 and support this legislation.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, since he is so brilliant and knowledgeable on this subject.

To begin with, I want to recall the historical context of the agreement, which Bill C-57 will implement without actually modifying. It was first negotiated under the Harper government and finally signed in 2017 by the current government. In 2023, various aspects of the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were improved. That is what I am going to cover in my speech.

Essentially, the 2023 agreement codifies in a treaty the idea that the territory of Ukraine also includes the Donbass and Crimea, two regions that have been invaded by Russia over almost the entire past decade. The 2023 agreement is more comprehensive than the one signed in 2017. The latest agreement was signed by President Zelenskyy on September 22, during his visit to Canada.

Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, is about 15 pages long. It is an implementation bill, not the agreement itself. It essentially contains provisions that change the names of certain references, from 2017 to 2023, for consistency. The bill authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority, and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement signed on September 22, For example, it creates a secretariat responsible for the smooth running of this trade agreement.

How can anyone be against apple pie? How can any Quebecker be against poutine? Generally speaking, trade agreements are good. However, the agreement we are talking about is 1,000 pages and 30 chapters long. It is more than apple pie. It is more complicated than making a really good poutine.

This agreement covers goods and services, investments, government contracts, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and labour and environmental law. There are even provisions that favour small businesses, women and indigenous entrepreneurs. There really is a lot of complexity to this agreement, and it calls for a close look. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, Bill C‑57 should take a much deeper dive into the substance of the agreement than it does.

Not only are there questions about supply management, but we have already seen in the past that Quebec aluminum was not protected under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, while Ontario steel was. Is that still the case? That is why we have to take the time to carefully study agreements before signing them. That is just one of many examples.

The 2023 agreement contains 11 new chapters, relative to the 2017 agreement. It addresses cross-border trade in services by specifying the rules applicable to services. Measures are being developed and administered to ensure predictability and consistency in administrative practices. That is important. Entrepreneurs often talk to us about the predictability of future events. This agreement clarifies that. The 1994 agreement on investment protection is being improved, particularly with respect to the definition of direct or indirect expropriation. The definition has been tightened up to ensure that there is no unjustified expropriation.

Then again, the current agreement opens the door to a rather serious problem by allowing investors to sue a foreign state. This is a problem, because an international agreement is an agreement between nations, and now corporations are being put on the same footing as states. This is not a good precedent to set. We can certainly discuss ways of protecting our states in committee. We are negotiating nation to nation, not investor to nation. Is there a solution? As I said, we can discuss this in committee, but the simplest solution is to bring multinationals back under the state umbrella, rather than putting them on an equal footing.

With regard to trade, this agreement completes the chapter on cross-border trade in services. I have already talked about this. It clarifies how it is to be applied in various areas, as well as the exceptions that Canada and Ukraine want to preserve. There is also a chapter on including business people and one on telecommunications. The agreement guarantees access to infrastructure, but does not affect broadcasting and cultural policies, which is great. While we may share certain similarities with various aspects of Ukrainian culture, their culture is quite different from ours. Even within Canada, we have cultures that are very different from one another and that we want to protect, particularly francophone culture and indigenous cultures.

The current agreement defines the rules applicable to financial services by immediately establishing rules that facilitate the use of financial services and the simple flow of capital in both countries. There are three chapters on the participation of SMEs, women and indigenous peoples that make it possible to implement preferential measures. Finally, the agreement codifies the regulations adopted to ensure that they are transparent and predictable. Those are two important things for both the public and business people.

The new 2023 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement amends eight chapters of the 2017 CUFTA, including “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures”, “Digital Trade”, “Competition Policy”, “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” and “Government Procurement”. The “Environment” and “Labour” chapters, which used to be statements of intent, will now be binding, so these chapters represent progress. Finally, the chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct” is amended and improved.

In short, Bill C-57 implements an agreement that is more comprehensive than both the 2017 and 1994 agreements. However, as with every other free trade agreement, we had practically nothing to do with the content of this 1,000-page agreement, even though it will impact ordinary people, since they are the ones producing the goods and services. We, who represent the people, have almost no say in the matter, except to indicate whether the agreement should be implemented or not. Basically, that is what Bill C-57 does. We did not have much say in regard to the content of the 1,000-page agreement. This is problematic, but it does not have to be this way. The government could hold consultations with the provinces, businesses and parliamentarians.

What is more, we are rather limited in the amendments we could propose for Bill C‑57. We can amend the bill, but not the agreement. That is why we are limited in what we can amend. As I was saying, the provinces are not really involved in the process, which means the agreement can affect the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, given that they were not consulted. Quebec and the Canadian provinces will essentially suffer the consequences, when it is their jurisdictions that are involved and it would be up to the provinces to manage them. That is something that needs improvement.

We will vote in favour of this bill because this free trade agreement is good not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine, essentially because it will contribute to the economic and physical rebuilding of Ukraine.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑57. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who did me a favour by allowing me to go first.

Let me say from the outset that, generally speaking, we are all in favour of free trade and we are in favour of this agreement with Ukraine. We know that we are in a partnership with the Ukrainians, whom we have been supporting intensively since the beginning of the conflict. This bill is a logical continuation. The new agreement will replace the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was vaguer, less restrictive and less clear. We think this is a positive change, especially when it comes to the implementation mechanisms, which have been amended to be more stringent.

This agreement sends a very clear message to the whole world, and especially to Ukrainians, that we are bound to their nation by ties of friendship and that we support them under the current circumstances. One positive element of this agreement is that it recognizes the Donbass and Crimea as being part of Ukrainian territory. This may seem symbolic, but it is important to make this kind of statement to send a clear message to the international community. I will be at the Asia Pacific Forum a few weeks from now, and I will convey the same message on behalf of everyone here.

The agreement, which was signed with the President of Ukraine during his latest visit, clarifies some technical details.

The problem we have with this kind of bill is that, once passed by Parliament, it allows for the creation of institutions or mechanisms to govern free trade agreements. However, we never get to have our say on what is actually in those agreements. We can only accept or reject them wholesale. It would be reasonable for parliamentarians to put forward proposals and analyze various texts to produce a better, more refined agreement whose every nuance has been studied in detail. The Canadian government's current system allows the executive to make all the decisions. The powers of Parliament itself are extremely limited because members cannot participate.

I will never forget what happened right after I was first elected in 2019. I had to vote in favour of ratifying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which forced supply-managed producers to accept yet more concessions. Although it pained us greatly, we were forced to vote in favour of the agreement knowing it would hurt people.

We do not want that to happen again. I can see that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very honoured and very pleased that he is hearing my message. I invite all the parties to sit down together and figure out how we can change the process for adopting international agreements like this one. It is important.

Some people here agreed with Bill C‑282, which limits concessions involving supply management in future trade agreements. It was the way these agreements are currently developed that forced us to be inventive and resort to a bill to protect supply management. This issue has now been resolved. However, in other trade agreements, there will be other delicate issues, where some groups are more impacted than others, and where balance will need to be restored. That is why we need to review the current system.

Another major flaw is that, once the agreement is signed, the provinces and Quebec will be called upon to apply and implement the provisions under their jurisdiction.

However, they were not asked for their opinion beforehand. There are still some people here who wonder why we want Quebec to be independent. This is another example that shows why. We want to control what is included in our international agreements. That is one justification for independence.

Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of International Trade a question, I was pleased to receive a very clear answer. The new agreement with Ukraine is good; it will replace the one from 2017. However, the government issued a unilateral remission order last year to allow all Ukrainian products to enter Canada tariff-free. That was fine because it was a measure to help the Ukrainian economy during the conflict. No one disputed that.

However, in its haste and panic, the government threw supply-managed commodities into the mix, which is unacceptable. Yes, it is important to help, and we have always been there. The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of measures to help Ukrainians in this terrible ongoing conflict. However, we need to be able to help others without hurting ourselves.

Why put supply management in this order? It was difficult because it was becoming politically sensitive to complain about something that favoured Ukraine. It took a long time. Supply management groups lobbied the government. The opposition worked very hard. When the order was renewed, supply-managed commodities were taken out of it. That was a good thing.

That is why I put the question to the minister yesterday. Until Bill C‑282 is passed into law, there will always be a tiny possibility of further concessions.

Now the rest of the bill is mechanical. It has to do with putting structures in place. I have another complaint about the bill. In the section on investor-state mechanisms, multinational corporations are still given an equal footing with states. That is beyond reprehensible. This is very serious because states must have the right to legislate in order to regulate and ensure the collective well-being of their citizens. As things currently stand, a multinational could sue a state for damages for interfering with its business. We must find a way to stop this, because it makes no sense. A lot of things make no sense.

One of the bill's last shortcomings concerns best practices, ethical practices and environmental protection practices. The bill seems like a series of good intentions that urge people and businesses to be careful and to follow best practices, but in no way obliges them to do so.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that this agreement is important. We are partners with Ukraine, and we will remain partners. It will also be important to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine, which I hope will happen soon, as soon as this horrible war is over. I think Quebec's expertise and businesses can play a part in the reconstruction.

During my speech, I talked a lot about helping others without hurting ourselves. Every now and then, I also want to make sure that people in this country get help. I must digress for a moment. Last week, we voted on a bill to increase old age pensions starting at age 65. Some representatives from FADOQ are visiting Parliament Hill today. I invite all parliamentarians to show some respect for these important people who are working to end social isolation. More importantly, I urge them to show some respect for people aged 65 to 74 who were shut out when the government created an unjustified form of discrimination based on age. This is very serious and has been going on for months. I do not understand why this has not been resolved. Let us fix this as soon as possible.

I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise in the House. Today, we are talking about support for this important legislation and implementing the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

As we all know, since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine’s territory, Canada has demonstrated an unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. Today, we have another opportunity to demonstrate support to Ukraine with the implementation of a modernized CUFTA.

When I met with people from the Ukrainian community in Richmond Centre, they shared with me their support for our government’s vision of a democratically strong nation that values the importance of international collaboration, the rule of law, and global peace and security. I also want to take a moment to convey my appreciation to Ukrainian community organizations, such as the Ukrainian Community Society of Ivan Franko in Richmond Centre, for all they do in supporting the Ukrainian community here in Canada and promoting Ukrainian arts and culture.

Canada and Ukraine share these values and, most importantly, the people-to-people ties. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western nation to recognize Ukraine’s independence, and today Canada will stand with Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes. When our allies need support, the Government of Canada has the responsibility to support them. I appreciate and am thankful for the Government of Canada’s support for Ukraine since the war began. Canada has provided over $8 billion toward financial, military, humanitarian, development and immigration assistance for Ukraine.

Recently, the Government of Canada announced a new investment of $650 million over three years to supply Ukraine with 50 armoured vehicles, including armoured medical evacuation vehicles, built by Canadian workers in London, Ontario. The Russian illegal invasion affects global inflation, and it affects us. It increases food prices and affects the supply chain. Global peace and security are an essential part of our global economic prosperity.

By modernizing the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, we can provide the additional assistance that Ukraine needs with its reconstruction efforts, the cost of which the World Bank has estimated will be $411 billion U.S. These efforts will involve sectors such as infrastructure, renewable resources and financial services, which are all areas in which Canada has strengths.

Canadian firms have already indicated an interest in launching and expanding their operations in Ukraine, including with respect to reconstruction, and we would have a tool to support their involvement. I am referring to the newly added investment chapter, previously missing from the 2017 CUFTA. As you may be aware, Canada and Ukraine have an existing foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which was signed in 1994. However, this new modernized investment chapter would not only bring this new agreement in line with Canada's model comprehensive FTAs, but would also update our investment protections to address modern investment issues and concerns.

Please allow me to briefly present this new investment chapter, which resulted from our efforts in negotiating the modernized CUFTA and which will support Canadian firms' participation in Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts. The CUFTA investment chapter modernizes the framework of protections for investors and their investments with a comprehensive set of obligations in line with Canada's most ambitious trade agreements. I am also proud to announce that this investment chapter is the first to be negotiated using Canada’s most recent model, which seeks to better ensure that investment obligations act as intended and that they provide the necessary policy flexibility for governments to act in the public interest.

As such, this new drafting for the investment chapter would allow Canada and Ukraine to maintain their right to regulate in key areas, such as environment, health, safety, indigenous rights, gender equality and cultural diversity. Additionally, this new chapter includes a modern dispute settlement mechanism, which would offer strengthened alternatives to avoid arbitration, as well as enhanced transparency of proceedings commitments. In all, these outcomes represent a significant improvement over the 1994 FIPA with Ukraine, which this chapter would replace, and would strengthen the environment within which Canadian investors can invest with more confidence in Ukraine’s reconstruction.

I am thankful for this opportunity to describe what we can achieve on investment through the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I hope I have made clear why this modern and comprehensive free trade agreement would be instrumental in not only in building our long-term commercial relations with Ukraine but also supporting its forthcoming reconstruction efforts.

To this end, I urge all honourable members to support Bill C-57 and allow us to collectively move forward to implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement on a timely basis.

Once again, Canada will stand with Ukraine and its people as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are 43. It is so impressive that is the legacy of Canada's Conservatives.

We have before us a bill that addresses a host of things, but I would highlight a couple of concerns that have been highlighted to me.

One has to do with some of Canada's protected sectors, including chicken. I know that over the course of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to make sure the concerns of our domestic industries are being noted. It is unclear to me whether these concerns have been addressed.

Some of the other concerns could be of great benefit to both countries, like making sure that our defence infrastructures are brought into alignment and ensuring that we support Ukraine with the weapons and materials that it has to have in order to repel the illegal Russian invasion. There is also ensuring that the tools required for Ukrainian producers, and farmers specifically, are there. I often refer to the breadbasket of North America, which is part of the area that I represent, but many in this place will have learned in their high school textbooks about the breadbasket of Europe, Ukraine, and the rich legacy it has in being able to produce high-quality agricultural goods, many of which have been put at risk because of Russia's illegal invasion.

We need to ensure that when we are negotiating free trade deals, including when it is with an ally facing circumstances like Ukraine is today, we are doing everything we can to ensure we get them right. Specifically, one segment here is so important that it cannot be emphasized enough, and that is the role that energy plays. I will make something very clear: Canadian energy, with the role it plays when prioritized, when promoted and when given the opportunity to displace dictator crude and despot gas, makes the world safer.

The unfortunate legacy of the last eight years under this costly Prime Minister and his coalition partners is that Canada has been restricted from being the peacemaker we should be. When it comes to any conversation around free trade, the more we can prioritize Canadian energy to be the common-sense displacement globally of dictator and despot crude and gas, the better our world is for it. Unfortunately, we have a legacy under the Liberal Prime Minister and his coalition partners that has been truly devastating to world peace.

Now, some might say that is a bit extreme, but when we look at the facts, we have a country facing war, Ukraine, which we are talking about now in terms of free trade, and its people are forced to purchase the very gas required to heat their homes and the very fuel required to fuel their vehicles and tanks. In some ways, they are forced to purchase it from none other than their aggressor. That is a shame, and it should be a moral imperative for every single one of us in this place to stand with Ukraine. That includes standing with Canadian energy so that we can get it to market and ensure that we displace the foreign dictator crude and despot gas that have been funding Putin's war machine. The best way to ensure there is peace and security is making sure there is energy security globally. That contributes to food security, and food security contributes directly to peace and security.

It is unfortunate that it is only the Conservatives who seem to see that reality here in our country. I can tell members that when it comes to making sure that Canada has free and fair trade agreements going forward, it will be a new Conservative prime minister, the member for Carleton, who will make sure that it is prioritized globally and that Canada can succeed and prosper. By doing so, the entire world will benefit.

When it comes to Bill C-57, there are so many unanswered questions. I would challenge any member from any other political party in this place to make sure they take the time to get it right, because if we get it right, we can help Canada's role in trade, Canada's role in providing energy and Canada's role in providing our expertise. We can be part of the solution. However, if we get it wrong, we could end up making it more difficult for our own people, and we could end up seeing significant challenges.

I look forward to answering questions on this as we continue to support trade and the people of Ukraine. In any discussion that we have in the House, let us make sure to get it right, because if we do not, the consequences will be dire.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and debate the issues that are so important to my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast.

I will be splitting my time.

We are debating Bill C-57, the implementation of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is a behemoth of a bill, more than 600 pages. The reason I bring this up is because I want to provide a little context. The Liberals' track record is that they stand in this place and say they have to pass something without delay or debate and anything that even resembles us doing our jobs in this place would be considered obstructionist. Those are things that the Liberals level often against members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, yet it is our duty to make sure that we comprehensively debate and discuss the issues that come before this place.

This is, indeed, the case when it comes to a 600-or-so page bill that has far-reaching implications, not only for us and our national economy, but also for one of our allies. I would emphasize how important this is for the economic success of Ukraine right now, which is facing something that most Canadians who have grown up in Canada have not faced, and that is conflict at home. Although Canada has about 1.3 or 1.4 million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, the fact is that Ukraine right now is embroiled in a conflict where Russia illegally invaded Ukraine sovereignty, so we have to get this right.

So often over the last four years I have had the honour of sitting in this place when the Liberals are quick to point to anything that would question any part of anything they do. That is pretty broadly speaking, but it rings very true. I am sure my colleagues would agree with me that when we try to do our jobs, they claim it is simply obstruction.

I remember in this place, shortly after I was elected, having to deal with the updated NAFTA, the CUSMA. The Liberal government, instead of releasing comprehensive numbers about the impact of the new trade agreement and some of the factors that would be in place, came with great gusto to a press conference and said that we either do not pass the CUSMA and there is economic devastation or we do pass it and we are okay. It did not outline the myriad of details that were included in what is an incredibly complex thing, and that is international trade negotiations.

When it comes to trade, it is the Conservative Party that has such a tremendous track record. It is the framework and the agreement that this trade agreement is replacing or being built upon, which is a better way to put it, that was started by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the international leadership that he showed in building free and fair trade with nations around the world. There have been numerous times, including CETA, where the Liberals almost dropped the ball. Virtually all that had to be done was for the agreement to be signed, yet the Liberals almost dropped the ball, which would have wrought economic devastation.

Then we saw more recently the Canada-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement. The Liberals claimed victory, yet it seems like they forgot to attend the briefings and certainly did not speak to many stakeholders when concerns should have been addressed in the process of trade negotiations. It is a shame, because it is during the negotiations process, when the details are being worked out and the 600 pages are being written, when there is a back and forth, a give and take, in trade negotiations.

I would just note that when I listened to my colleague from Abbotsford, he has probably forgotten more about free trade than most Liberals will ever know. I do not have the number off the top of my head, but there were negotiations with dozens and dozens of countries with which Canada has a positive, free and fair trading relationship because of his work and the work of the previous Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57. As I think everyone in this place knows, I have been unequivocal in my support for Ukraine, and that will never cease, not only because I am proud of my Ukrainian heritage, but also because Ukraine is in a battle for its life and its very existence.

For 607 days, we have watched on TV, in real time, Russia's illegal invasion. For 607 days, we have watched the barbaric acts of the Russian military. For 607 days, we have watched how Russian soldiers have used sexual violence as a weapon as they raped women and children. For 607 days, we have watched Putin trying to Russify Ukraine and commit another genocide on the soil of Ukraine against the ethnic Ukrainian people. He is trying to emulate exactly what we saw from Joseph Stalin in 1932 and 1933 in the Holodomor, except Putin is being more upfront and aggressive in his mannerisms. For 607 days, we have witnessed Putin and his kleptocrats in the Kremlin refuse to recognize Ukraine as a nation and the people of Ukraine as a people.

However, during those 607 days, we have witnessed, against all odds, the people of Ukraine standing up and fighting back. We have witnessed the valour, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers as they have fought to hold the line. We have witnessed, for 607 days, the resiliency of the people of Ukraine not only in fighting back, but also in continuing their lives and continuing to rebuild. After every missile strike, they rebuild. For 607 days, I do not think Putin anticipated that he would unite NATO and our allies to support Ukraine unequivocally in its fight for its freedom against Putin and his Kremlin kleptocrats.

It is incumbent upon all of us in the House and upon our allies to hold Vladimir Putin and his proxies to account for their war crimes in Ukraine. They have to be brought before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. We know for a fact that Russia has been using sexual violence as a weapon. We know for a fact that it has kidnapped children and families from areas they currently occupy, taken those children, put them up for adoption and are now reprogramming them, or brainwashing them, to be Russian.

This is part of Raphäel Lemkin's definition within the United Nations declaration on genocide. A genocide is when someone is targeting a people based upon their race, ethnicity or religion or when they are going over there, taking people away, replacing them with their own people, taking the children and brainwashing them to become someone they are not.

As Conservatives, we have been very strong in our support for the people of Ukraine. It goes right back to when we were government under Stephen Harper, when the first occupation of Crimea started in 2015 and before that when the revolution of dignity started first on the streets in November 2014. In February 2015, we saw the actions of the illegal occupation and invasion of Crimea, and then war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region of Ukraine, and Canada was one of the very first ones in, making sure we were providing military support. We started Operation UNIFIER and started pushing for Ukraine to be included as a member of NATO. That was all done under Stephen Harper and our Conservative government. It is something that I am incredibly proud of.

Since 2018, in opposition, we have been calling on the government to do more to help Ukraine. We asked the government to start sending over weapons, which we were originally going to send to help the Kurdish Peshmerga, the rifles, snipers rifles and ammunition, to Ukraine, so that it would be prepared in case a hot conflict broke out, as we witnessed in February 2022.

We asked the government to start providing RADARSAT images, which did begin under Stephen Harper, but then, of course, that was cancelled under Stéphane Dion when he was foreign affairs minister under the current Liberal government. Only recently, after the hot war broke out in 2022, the Liberals again reinstated providing those RADARSAT images so Ukrainians could see what was happening on their ground by Russian invaders.

We have been calling, since early last year, to donate our surplus armoured vehicles: our Coyote and Bison LAVs, our light-armoured vehicles; our track LAVs; and our M113s that are all destined to go to the trash heap. The Liberals under this Prime Minister want to send them to the scrap pile. Ukraine can use them to save lives as well as to liberate parts of Ukraine that are currently occupied by the Russian invaders.

We know for a fact that we saw the United States and Australia donate their M113s, and that helped liberate Kharkiv. We should be doing the same thing here because these vehicles are otherwise just going to be decommissioned and torn up and sent off to be melted down. We have a company in London, Ontario by the name of Armatec, which is prepared to take those vehicles, refurbish them and send them to Ukraine to make a serious difference in this war. We have GDLS in London that is already building armoured vehicles for Ukraine but at much slower rates than we would see if we were donating our older vehicles that are being decommissioned.

With respect to the free trade agreement, I will just reiterate what my colleague from Foothills just said, which is that we support free trade. We are a party of free trade and we are going to take our time to read through this very large document. However, I was in Ukraine just in August and I can say that the Ukrainians want to do trade with us. They want us to invest. I met with the Minister for Strategic Industries and he was talking about how they need Canada to go in and invest in industries that will not only support our economy but also could possibly support our war efforts as well, so those opportunities exist.

As someone with an agriculture background, I understand how important it is for us to be able to help Ukraine in its agriculture industries and the infrastructure Ukrainians need to get their commodities to market, especially with Russia bombing out their port facilities in the Black Sea region. Therefore, we need to help them with logistics, with infrastructure and as well with what we can pass on in agriculture production technology.

We know that through trade of things like LNG and ethical oil that we produce here in Canada, it would displace the Russian oil that right now Ukraine and our European allies are dependent upon. We are going into another winter in Ukraine and, again, Ukrainians have to continue to use the very natural gas, to heat their homes and their buildings, from the dictator Putin and his tyrants that he associates with, and make use of his energy, which actually puts cash in his pocket to fuel his war machine against Ukraine. We cannot have that happen.

Something that we need to do here in support of Ukraine is actually start building some things Ukraine is calling for. Now that war in Israel has broken out with the terrorist attack by Hamas, and the U.S. is now supporting Israel in the exchanges that are taking place, there is going to be even more need for Canada to provide munitions to Ukraine. Our production of 155 shells for the M777 Howitzers is abysmal. We are producing only around 2,000 rounds a month. We need to replenish our own stocks; plus, we need to make sure that we are providing munitions to Ukraine so that it can continue on with its attacks. Ukraine goes through 2,000 shells in a day and we are producing only that in one month, so we have to step up our production to help Ukraine.

We already donated eight Leopard tanks to Ukraine. We should donate more Leopard tanks. However, at the same time, what about buying some new Leopard tanks for our Canadian Armed Forces? Whatever we are going to be giving to Ukraine, we have to make sure that we replace those, like the M777 Howitzers, in our own Canadian Armed Forces so that we are prepared. Of course, morale continues to suffer under the current Liberals. The troops are leaving in record numbers. We are 16,000 members short. We have a recruiting and retention crisis because of the policies of the current Liberal government.

In conclusion, I will just say this: We all continue to pray for peace in Ukraine, but we know that the only way that is possible is that Ukraine must win. It must be victorious. Canada must continue to support it. Slava Ukraini.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-57. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

With more than a million Canadians who have Ukrainian heritage, I think it is important not only that we have shown our support for Ukraine in the past, but also, certainly, with what is going on with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, that we show it now and into the future. Ukrainian immigrants, more than 100 years ago, literally broke ground and planted the roots for Canada's thriving and vibrant agriculture industry in western Canada, so the connections are deep.

However, when it comes to this agreement in particular, I want to emphasize the importance of due diligence and details. The Liberals have tabled a 600-page trade document that is now being rushed through the House of Commons with little opportunity for stakeholders or parliamentarians to review its intricacies. What chapters have been added? What new implements have been suggested? What are the consequences of those new chapters and new policies? When it comes to the Liberal government and its history with trade agreements, the devil is in the details.

To back up a bit, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement began under the Harper Conservative government. It came into force in August 2017. It eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canadian products and exports to Ukraine. However, the modernization of this agreement is important, and I want to emphasize the fact that we want to see the details and take time to review the wording of the new update. The reason I want to be so adamant about that is just simply that, as I said, unfortunately the Liberal government has a history of failures when it comes negotiating or renegotiating trade agreements. We can go back to the very early days of the Liberal government when we renegotiated NAFTA or the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement, CUSMA. It was clear that the Liberals' goal was to simply get a deal done, tick a box and have a photo-op.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister sacrificed a number of critical Canadian industries with trade discrepancies that Canadian industries are still dealing with. Perhaps nowhere were those implications more profound than within Canadian agriculture. The CUSMA agreement impacted a number of agriculture industries, including dairy, where Canada relinquished its ability to export a number of important dairy products, like protein concentrate and skim milk powder. We also added additional access for American products into Canada.

The most glaring error, though perhaps it was not an error but was done on purpose, is the fact that the Liberal government relinquished Canada's trade sovereignty in signing the new CUSMA agreement. That is right. If Canada wants to sign a new trade agreement with any non-market country, we have to get permission or approval from the United States. No G7 country had relinquished that kind of authority to a trading partner. That had never happened, but it is exactly what happened with the Liberals' agreement with CUSMA. Our manufacturers and industry are still dealing with the implications of this agreement, with higher tariffs on aluminum and softwood lumber, which still have not been resolved years later.

There are clearly some important reasons Canadian manufacturers and Canadian industry do not trust the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and that it will base those agreements and negotiations on sound economics and the importance of fair trade. It seems, historically, that the Liberals have been basing their trade negotiations on Liberal ideology and virtue signalling. That is not the way trade negotiations should be going.

As recently as last year, the Liberals implemented a Ukraine goods remission order so Ukrainian products, like chicken for example, would be getting quota-free and tariff-free access into Canada. They signed this remission agreement with zero consultation with the stakeholders that would be impacted: Chicken Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada and Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. None of them knew this remission order was being signed. The Liberals signed this at a time when avian flu outbreaks around the world, and certainly here in Canada, were devastating the industry. We had these groups at the agriculture committee letting Finance Canada and Global Affairs know about the impacts of the agreement and saying to please not renew the remission order when it came due last spring.

The Liberal government ignored all that stakeholder consultation at committee and renewed that remission order anyway last spring. This has put our biosecurity and our food security at risk as, again, outbreaks of avian influenza were happening around the world and certainly around Ukraine as well.

Last year, we looked at the Liberal-NDP government's decision to impose a 35% tariff on fertilizer coming from Russia and Belarus. Again, there was zero consultation with Canadian producers, especially those farmers in Ontario and eastern Canada who rely almost totally on that fertilizer.

Now, I understand what the government was trying to do: It was trying to punish Putin for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, but Putin was not paying those tariffs. Canadian farmers paid more than $34 million in tariffs just to get the fertilizer into Canada to plant their crops this spring. No other G7 country put such a tariff on fertilizer. None of our allies, including the United States, did this. They understood the importance of their farmers being competitive and the impact the tariff would have on commodity prices, not only here at home but also around the world.

Again, despite every stakeholder telling the government to lift that tariff to ensure that we are competitive and that we have access to affordable fertilizer, the Liberals have ignored them. In fact, when we asked the government on many occasions why it implemented this tariff when none of our G7 allies did, the answer was, “I didn't even know we bought fertilizer from Russia and Belarus”. This just shows why there is such frustration from our stakeholders and our industry. When it comes to the Liberals negotiating trade agreements, they are not consulting. They are plowing ahead with these agreements without doing their due diligence. As much as we support a free trade agreement with Ukraine, we want to make sure that we have the time to review the details within this agreement.

Most recently, the Liberal-NDP government has fast-tracked the United Kingdom to join the trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP, again without consulting with Canadian ranchers and pork producers. They desperately wanted some major gaps within the trade agreement with CETA and Canada to be addressed for the U.K. to have accession to the CPTPP.

The numbers are stark. Last year, the United Kingdom imported about 4,000 tonnes of beef, worth $33 million, into Canada. Do members know how much beef Canada exported into the United Kingdom? It was zero; it was not so much as a burger or a steak. Canada's pork industry is facing a very similar trajectory, as the United Kingdom has put in non-tariff trade barriers to block Canadian imports. Not once has the Liberal government stood up to defend Canadian producers.

Free trade must be fair trade, and we are asking the Liberal government to do a side letter, a bilateral, with the U.K. to address this trade discrepancy. It has yet to do that. This is a massive gap, and Canadian producers are the ones paying the price for the Liberal government getting photo ops and ticking a box when it comes to its agenda, without thinking about the consequences for Canadian industries, manufacturers and producers. One thing is very clear after eight years under the Prime Minister: He is failing Canadian agriculture and our industries on the global stage, and our valuable industries are paying the price.

The Conservative Party supports free trade, and we are very proud of the 40 free trade agreements we signed under Prime Minister Harper. However, those agreements benefited Canadian industry and Canadian workers; they did not come at the expense of our hard-working producers.

We want to clearly and carefully review this trade deal and consult Canadian stakeholders to ensure that we reach a free trade agreement with Ukraine. It should be a free and fair trade agreement, not just ticking a box, that will preserve and enhance Canadian industries, including Canadian agriculture, and not follow the same failed policies and failed direction that the Prime Minister has become very famous for.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as this is my first chance to comment on Bill C-57, I would put this question to my friend from Nepean.

It is heartening to see some reference to climate in trade agreements, but we know that for over more than a decade, since the creation of the World Trade Organization, the WTO has wrongly put itself above international climate agreements with respect to its authorities. I think this is a welcome opportunity, as President Zelenskyy is a champion of the call for climate action.

Would the hon. member for Nepean support a call to the hon. Minister of Trade to review the relationship between the WTO and international climate agreements in order to get the WTO to back off on interfering in climate action?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have stood with Ukraine since the start of Russia's illegal invasion and will stand strong when Ukraine is once again free. The introduction of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, is an important milestone in the implementation of the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. As the first trade agreement Ukraine has signed since the onset of Russia's illegal war, this modernization would result in a comprehensive and progressive agreement ensuring that everyone feels the benefit of trade. Canada is a trading nation and trade accounts for about 65% of the GDP.

Canada is currently the only G7 country to have free trade agreements in force with all other G7 countries. Canada currently has 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries and covers 61% of the world's GDP. Together, these agreements cover 1.5 billion consumers worldwide.

I have to give a shout-out to our farmers. Though small in number, our farmers in the agri-food sector are the most aggressive in leveraging every free trade agreement we have signed so far. Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of agri-food and seafood in the world and exports to nearly 200 countries. In 2022, Canada exported nearly $92.8 billion in agriculture and food products, including raw materials, agricultural materials, fish and seafood, and processed foods. I wish other sectors in Canada where we have resource advantage would follow our agriculture sector in exporting all across the world. For example, the steel and aluminum sector could look beyond the North American market and export to Europe and to the Indo-Pacific region.

Despite challenges, Canadian trade reached record highs again in 2022. Canada's goods and and services exports increased by 31.2% to reach $940.4 billion in 2022 and the imports advanced 20.5% to reach $936.2 billion.

Even with Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine last year, which caused a horrific humanitarian crisis and sent shock waves around the world, global trade has remained resilient. Global economic growth advanced by 3.5% in 2022, following the 6.3% rebound witnessed in 2021. Canada continues to uphold and promote rules-based trade, providing confidence and predictability for our businesses.

Free trade agreements represent about 80% of Canada's imports and 90% of Canada's exports in 2018. Free trade agreements are essential for several reasons. They promote economic growth by expanding markets and increasing access to a wider consumer base. These agreements reduce tariffs and trade barriers, encouraging the flow of goods and services across borders. This fosters competition and innovation, driving down costs for consumers and enhancing product quality. Moreover, free trade agreements create a framework for resolving trade disputes, ensuring stability and predictability in international trade relations. They also strengthen diplomatic ties between nations, promoting co-operation and peace. In a globalized world, free trade agreements are crucial for spurring economic development, job creation and overall prosperity. Free trade agreements are effective at lowering trade barriers and overall cost of trade.

The original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement entered into force in August 2017. Upon entry into force, Canada eliminated duties on 99.9% of the imports from Ukraine. Similarly, Ukraine immediately eliminated tariffs on approximately 86% of imports from Canada with the balance of tariff concessions to be implemented over seven years. This will align with the proposed date for the modernized CUFTA's entry into force.

While comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, the 2017 CUFTA did not include services, investment and many other areas. It instead included a clause committing the parties to review and explore expanding the agreement within two years of its entry into force.

On September 22, 2023, we signed the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This would support long-term security, stability and economic development in Ukraine while also ensuring high-quality market access for Canadian businesses participating in Ukraine’s economic recovery. This would create good, middle-class jobs in both of our countries.

The modernized CUFTA would maintain the preferential market access gained in the original FTA for all current Canadian merchandise exports to Ukraine. It would mark a new era in Canada and Ukraine’s economic relationship and be fundamental to the participation of Canadian businesses in Ukraine’s economic reconstruction and recovery from Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion. The modernized agreement also includes dedicated new chapters on trade in services, investment, temporary entry, telecommunication, financial services, and inclusive trade, and updated chapters on labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption, among other areas.

The agreement would facilitate enhanced co-operation, improve the ability of parties to resolve trade irritants, promote openness and inclusivity, increase transparency in regulatory matters and help reduce transaction costs for businesses. CUFTA would commit Canada and Ukraine to respecting and promoting internationally recognized labour rights and principles and to effectively enforcing their labour and environment laws.

For the first time in either country's history, the FTA also includes a new dedicated chapter on trade and indigenous peoples, in addition to new chapters on trade and small and medium-sized enterprises and trade and gender. These elements are designed to increase opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups in trade to participate in and benefit from the agreement. When in force, the modernized CUFTA would not only continue to provide preferential market access for merchandise trade but would also establish ambitious new market access terms for services, trade and investment.

Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the economic devastation it is enduring, a free trade agreement is of paramount importance. Such an agreement can provide a lifeline to Ukraine's economy by opening up new markets, reducing trade barriers and fostering economic growth. It would enable Ukrainian businesses to diversify and expand their exports, reducing reliance on domestic markets that may be severely impacted by the war. Moreover, the free trade agreement would bring in financial aid and investments that are crucial for rebuilding infrastructure and industries. In these challenging times, agreements like this can play a pivotal role in Ukraine's recovery and long-term stability.

I want to emphasize the significance for Canada and other western democracies of nurturing and strengthening relations with Ukraine. Ukraine, with its rich history and resilience, has been a pivotal player in recent geopolitical events. It is crucial for us to maintain economic relations and strategically prepare for post-war co-operation and the economic rebuilding of Ukraine. Our relationship with Ukraine holds immense importance due to shared democratic values and principles. Ukraine has made remarkable progress in its democratic journey since gaining independence in 1991.

By fostering economic ties, Canada can provide critical support for Ukraine's democratic institutions, helping them to thrive and promote stability in the region. Economic relations are the backbone of any thriving nation, and in this context, free trade agreements are indispensable. These agreements can pave the way for increased economic opportunity and prosperity for both Ukraine and its trading partners. They stimulate job growth, foster innovation and boost the economic well-being of both parties involved.

Post-war co-operation is equally vital. Ukraine has endured considerable challenges, particularly in the aftermath of the conflict in the eastern regions. We must plan ahead for the reconstruction and revitalization—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in an exchange with another member, we think Bill C‑57 is a good bill and we plan to support it.

My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and I have asked a few questions, but we have yet to get any clear answers. Although we agree with the bill, the process by which it is being passed raises some questions, as is the case with many other bills ratifying agreements that have been reached.

In the United States, Congress mandates the executive branch to negotiate agreements. In the European Union, member states play a central role in the negotiations, because they have to ratify them later. It is much the same in most industrialized countries. It is often parliaments that adopt treaties. Here in Canada, it is customary for the government to negotiate treaties and for Parliament to intervene only at the point of ratification, when the provisions are to be included in a bill.

My question is about whether—

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today in support of the legislation to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and present to the House important new additions that were negotiated in the area of services.

Nine specific new chapters and nine updated chapters of the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement are the result of extensive negotiations as part of our efforts to bring the agreement up to date and make it ambitious, exhaustive and inclusive.

Among these chapters, five of them concern the general area of services, with new or expanded chapters on cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, financial services, telecommunications and digital trade, formerly e-commerce.

These new commitments will allow Canadian service companies, which accounted for 78.8% of employers in 2021, mostly SMEs, to operate overseas without any additional barriers and with easier and more predictable access to the Ukrainian market.

Now, if I may, I will provide a more detailed overview of these chapters, which would make this agreement a positive addition for Canadian firms and a model agreement for Ukraine to demonstrate its ability to reach a modern, ambitious and high standard agreement with partners all around the world.

Canada and Ukraine have negotiated a modern and comprehensive chapter on cross-border trade in services, including substantive obligations consistent with Canada's existing trade agreements. This FTA chapter would provide market access, non-discriminatory treatment, transparency and predictability for both Canadian and Ukrainian service suppliers.

Additionally, this chapter includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications seeking to facilitate trade in professional services, which is strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

The chapter on temporary entry for business persons is another new chapter, which supports economic opportunities for Canadians, including permanent residents, by making it easier for business persons to move between the two countries as well as encouraging highly skilled workers to benefit from jobs in both markets.

The temporary entry provisions remove barriers such as economic need assessments and digital quotas and establish new reciprocal commitments in terms of market access for Canadian and Ukrainian business persons who meet certain conditions.

This includes new access for Canadian investors to enter and stay in Ukraine to establish, develop or administer an investment, with a duration of stay of up to one year, thereby facilitating business opportunities and the growth of partnerships. The chapter also includes commitments that would ensure accompanying spouses of Canadian investors, intra-corporate transferees or highly skilled professionals would also be able to enter Ukraine and work.

For Canada, this chapter offers options and benefits to Canadian employers, who will have greater access to highly skilled Ukrainian talent on a temporary basis in a wide range of professions, such as engineering, programming, development and architecture.

As part of the CUFTA modernization, Canada also negotiated a comprehensive and progressive stand-alone financial services chapter with Ukraine that would provide a level playing field through a framework of rules tailored to the unique nature of the financial sector. This includes ambitious commitments for financial services through legally binding rights and obligations while maintaining flexibility for regulators to preserve the integrity and stability of the financial system.

The chapter on telecommunications offers more legal certainty to telecommunications service providers operating or investing in the Ukrainian and Canadian markets.

This chapter also facilitates trade, including e-commerce, in a broader sense by making sure that companies in fields other than telecommunications can access and use telecom networks and services.

Lastly, the digital trade chapter includes updated language previously contained within the CUFTA e-commerce chapter, ensuring that customs duties would not be applied to digital products transmitted electronically. This modernized chapter also contains ambitious commitments to facilitate the use of digital trade. This includes protections against unnecessary requirements to store data locally or provide access to proprietary software source code, as well as commitments to facilitate public access and use of open government information to support economic development, competitiveness and innovation.

Additionally, commitments regarding the protection of individuals online have been included, which would ensure frameworks are in place to protect personal information and address online fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices in order to build trust and confidence to engage in digital trade.

I am also proud to announce that this chapter contains a provision that forbids government authorities from using personal data collected from private organizations in a manner that constitutes targeted discrimination on prohibited grounds. This is the first Canadian free trade agreement to contain such a provision.

With increasing concerns about how governments are using personal data, this commitment is intended to improve user confidence in the digital economy.

The new and updated chapters present a great opportunity to build a strong foundation that is in line with the new realities of modern trade that Canada and Ukraine can build on to strengthen their trading relationship. I hope that all members of this House will support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-57 that will bring into force the new Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the House on this lovely Monday afternoon. It is a nice day outside. I wish to say that I will be splitting my time with my friend and hon. colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, which is a beautiful part of the country in Quebec.

We are speaking about Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We all know that we have Ukraine's back and the backs of the Ukrainian people who are fighting for their freedom, security and democracy. We know their fight is our fight. We know they are lauding their homeland, and they have to win. There is no choice in this matter.

I have heard some members speak quite eloquently on what faces us. Ukraine must win this battle versus tyranny and the authoritarian dictatorship that not only has unjustifiably and illegally invaded Ukraine and its territorial sovereignty, but also did so in 2014 in another part of Ukraine, Crimea and the surrounding areas. We know that Russia is involved in the Middle East in destabilizing countries. It is fighting against democracy while we are fighting for democracy and human rights. We on all sides of the aisle, along with all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, need to stand and continue to stand with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people for their sovereignty and for the freedom of all Ukrainian people. We know of the atrocities that have been committed by the Russian forces against Ukrainian women, soldiers and the Ukrainian people, and those folks need to be held accountable. We know that Ukraine will have to be rebuilt in many areas.

We know that the trade and investment ties that exist between Canada and Ukraine must continue to strengthen. Bill C-57 would be another step in this process. We know that Canada is a trading nation, whether with CUSMA, the renegotiated free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, or CETA with the European Union. I hope one day, when we are speaking about CETA and the EU, that Ukraine will be a full-fledged member of the European Union. I know that on June 23, 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for candidate status for Ukraine regarding its EU membership in that process. Therefore, let us look forward to brighter days, as the brave Ukrainian soldiers continue their fight against tyranny.

We know that Canada benefits from free trade agreements and that its trading partners benefit, whether from the Canada-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement or the Canada-Taiwan investment accord. We know that with Europe, for example, we attained in 2021 a record high growth of $100 billion in trade. This will be critical as we move forward with Ukraine. The revision of the trade deal with Ukraine, which, to my understanding, is supported by all sides, would help not only the Canadian economy but also the Ukrainian economy.

Canada will be there not only today but also tomorrow to help rebuild Ukraine with our partners who believe in democracy, human rights and the freedoms of individuals, unlike many other countries in the world. It is a sad state of affairs when there are so many countries run by authoritarian governments that are fighting against that and rolling back rights, whether it be the Islamic regime in Iran against its citizens, the Hamas terrorist organization and proxy for Iran in the world doing what it did on October 7 with the slaughter of over 1,400 Israeli and foreign nationals, or other countries as well.

In response to the criticism of international trade that has led to rising protectionism and a retreat from the international rules-based order, Canada is committed to creating more opportunities for people to engage in and benefit from trade. As such, as part of the Government of Canada's trade diversification strategy, we are pursuing an inclusive approach to trade that seeks to ensure that more Canadians have access to the benefits and opportunities that flow from international trade and investment. This includes Canadians who have traditionally been under-represented in international trade and investment, including women, SMEs and indigenous peoples. This means seeking trade policies that are sustainable, transparent and inclusive.

Today, I am proud to announce that the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, or CUFTA, reaches these high standards with respect to inclusive trade with specific chapters on trade and gender, trade and SMEs and trade and indigenous peoples.

We know there are well over a million Ukrainian Canadians who have helped build this beautiful country. Their contributions are so richly valued. We know there are almost 200,000 Ukrainians who have come over in the last two or three years because of the war.

We know they are working hard to build this blessed country we call home, Canada. Hopefully some of them will return to Ukraine to help rebuild that country, in the parts of the country that have been impacted, and others will stay. God bless them all. Their contributions are noted from coast to coast to coast.

Allow me to give an overview of the new chapters of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The chapter on trade and gender aims to promote gender equality and remove barriers to trade for women in all their diversity and facilitate their improved access to the benefits and opportunities of CUFTA.

For Canada, advancing women's equality could add up to $150 billion to our GDP by 2026. To ensure that the benefits of free trade can be maximized and widely shared, it is important, therefore, for Canada to consider gender-related issues when developing trade policy and negotiating FTAs. As such, this chapter aims to empower more women to participate in trade and benefit from the modernized free trade deal upon its entry into force.

To achieve these goals, the trade and gender chapter includes an article committing parties to enforce, and not weaken, their domestic laws and protections afforded to women in order to attract trade and investment. It also includes a commitment to undertake co-operation activities, as well as the establishment of a committee to facilitate the chapter's implementation.

Additionally, and responding to stakeholder demands to see the enforceability of the trade and gender chapter, Canada and Ukraine delivered by replicating the dispute settlement arrangement found in the Canada-Israel FTA trade and gender chapter. This sends an important signal to Canadian stakeholders that Canada is committed to advancing gender equality and women's economic empowerment at home and abroad.

Another new chapter concluded under the CUFTA modernization is the chapter on trade and SMEs that seeks to enhance their ability to participate in and benefit from the opportunities created by the agreement.

Over the 2015-19 period, SMEs contribution to Canada's GDP was, on average, 53.2% in the goods-producing sector and 51.8% in the services-producing sector. Additionally, in 2021, small- and medium-sized businesses composed, respectively, nearly 98% and 1.9% of the 1.21 million employer businesses in Canada. Based on this recognition of the importance of SMEs to the economy, both Canada and Ukraine are committed to working together to remove barriers so that SMEs may be better placed to participate in and benefit from international trade and investment.

It is very important to note that it is not just trade and investment that is really important in this deal. It is also the expertise that Canadian business have here at home that would be utilized by Ukrainian businesses in rebuilding certain areas of Ukraine that have been impacted by war, in strengthening their standard of living and in allowing Ukrainian SMEs to proactively grow their trade.

As economists say, international trade tends to lift all boats. We have seen it throughout the world in the last decades, how trade has literally lifted hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty, improving standards of living, not only here at home but abroad.

I wish to end with the belief that we will have unanimous support in implementing this bill. There are over a million Ukrainians working hard today in Canada, making sure that their kids have brighter futures. They are looking to Parliament to pass good legislation, like all Canadians are.

Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, is a good piece of legislation. Much as other members have stated, Canada is an open economy. We are a trading people. We are competitive folks who compete in a global economy. Our workers are the best in the world. They are skilled, they are hungry, but they are also folks who would like to trade with other like-minded countries in the world. Ukraine is a like-minded partner.

Ukraine must win this war against Russia. There is no question about that. We must always be there for them. I believe we have dedicated almost $10 billion of resources to Ukraine in their fight against Russia. As a government, we must continue to stand together with Ukraine against Russia, no ifs, ands or buts, to ensure that victory, to ensure that democracy always wins over the evil that Ukraine has faced for the last two years in the unjustified, illegal, atrocious Russian aggression that Ukrainian soldiers are fighting against today.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that just about everyone here in the House agrees with the idea that a free trade relationship should be established between Canada and Ukraine. That relationship already exists and, as we all know, this agreement improves or modernizes it.

Earlier, my colleague addressed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, and I did not hear a real answer to her question, which I consider extremely important. It is my understanding that, unlike in most other democratic countries, the Canadian government can sign agreements without considering the House's opinion.

We are now coming to the stage where we need to ratify the agreement. Basically, the government does not know what the House is going to say. Since we all agree, we will probably vote in favour of Bill C‑57 and the agreement can be ratified.

In the event that we disagree, however, does the Liberal government intend to muzzle the House and prevent MPs from making an informed decision? I doubt it. At least, I hope not. I would have liked to hear my colleague respond to that. I will ask my Conservative colleague instead, since it is his turn to answer questions.

Is it not a bit brazen, a bit freewheeling of the government to enter into international agreements without first ascertaining the House's position on them? What if the House said no to Bill C‑57? Would the government retract its agreement with Ukraine? What would happen?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the study of Bill C-57 will go quite well. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill. In any case, parliamentarians have a rather limited ability to amend a bill like this one. We know that Canada is the one that negotiates state-to-state agreements and that we then amend our internal laws to include those new provisions.

In this case, we do not necessarily want to amend the agreement. However, in the event that we did have proposals or changes we wanted to make, should we not review the way the Parliament of Canada, or Canada in general, deals with these international agreements to perhaps give more freedom to parliamentarians and even to the provinces, which may have valid input on areas under their jurisdiction? Only the leaders get to have a say in the actual negotiations between Canada and other countries.

Should we not review that entire parliamentary structure?

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the NDP voted in favour of trade agreements in the past and will be reviewing this one on Wednesday, but does he believe that this agreement in Bill C-57 will make life better for workers both in Canada and in Ukraine and vote in favour?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This bill would update the agreement made in 2017. Much has happened in the past six years, as we all know.

First, I would like to speak a bit about the original agreement, as it forms the core of the present one, then cover some of the changes outlined in Bill C-57. I will wrap up with some comments about how free trade agreements are presented to Parliament for the debate that they deserve.

The NDP is very much in favour of free trade agreements. We hear catcalls from both sides every time we debate free trade agreements here, saying that the NDP is always against them. We are not. We have voted for free trade agreements in the past and we voted for the Ukraine free trade agreement when it was presented. Our main caveat for these agreements is that they be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs, protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment, and promote the well-being of our citizens. The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian companies. It must also 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. I have to say that this new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us that would implement that agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Today, there are more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of that heritage and their cultural traditions.

Canada has consistently supported Ukraine's development and reform efforts, providing over $460 million in international assistance between 2014 and 2021. Of course, Canada and Canadians have been strong supporters of Ukraine since the illegal invasion by Russia in February 2022. Since then, Canada has committed over $8.9 billion in assistance, including financial, development, humanitarian, military security, stabilization and immigration aid.

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 I think it is fair to say that Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during these horrific times in their struggles.

I would like to step back a bit in time and spend some time talking about the original agreement. I would like to thank Tracey Ramsey, who is the former member for Essex, the NDP international trade critic when the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was debated and came into effect. Tracey was and remains a passionate defender of Canadian workers, and she took her role very seriously. She recommended that the NDP support the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement because it upheld those basic principles I mentioned previously.

The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports. Following the signature of the original trade agreement, Canada's non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. Total merchandise trade reached an all-time high of $447 million in 2021, although that of course declined in 2022 because of the illegal invasion.

The original free trade agreement eliminated most of the tariffs on Canadian imports to Ukraine and Ukrainian imports to Canada. Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal. Canadian products that benefit from the free trade agreement include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood.

While the original free trade agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it did not include the investor-state dispute settlement system, ISDS provisions. It is important to note that these provisions actually existed before the free trade agreement came into place because in 1995, Canada and Ukraine signed a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which included these investor-state provisions.

The NDP, in general, does not like ISDS provisions because they allow foreign corporations to literally tell Canadian governments at all levels how they should be protecting their environment or protecting their people. We believe that is an infringement on our sovereignty and we think that ISDS provisions do not have a place in any foreign free trade agreement. We are happy to see that the new Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement did not include them. They were in both the Canada-Europe trade agreement and the CPTPP. We believe that foreign investors should be obligated to go through domestic courts before being granted access to a special court where they can sue our governments, and that should be done at the state-to-state level.

New Democrats analyze trade deals as a whole. As I say, we have supported trade deals in the past, including the Ukraine agreement and the South Korea deal.

The original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement entered into force in 2017. It has a review clause that it be reviewed within two years of entry into force with a regard to expanding it and that was done. In 2019, Canada and Ukraine agreed to modernize the free trade agreement with expanded sections. There were public consultations held in the winter of 2020, but those consultations did not seem to include the Parliament of Canada. I will talk more about that later.

Canadian and Ukrainian officials conducted negotiations from May 2022 to April 2023. The new agreement includes more chapters on a broader array of services and business. It covers professional services like engineering, legal, computer services and telecommunications. It covers investment. It covers temporary entry for business persons. There are other sections that promote more broad interactions around trade and commerce. These are chapters that are included in other free trade agreements that Canada has with other countries and we welcome them here.

The agreement also has an updated environment chapter, which is subject to dispute settlement, aiming to ensure parties do not lower the levels of environmental protection to attract trade or investment. Again, that is obviously an important part of trade agreements. Trade agreements should raise the level of the standard of living of people in both countries in commercial and financial terms, but also in terms of their environment, human rights and labour dealings.

This bill has an updated labour chapter, which is again subject to dispute settlement provisions. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in both countries.

As I say, the NDP in general supports this kind of free trade agreement. Whether we support this bill or not, I would like to say here that, unfortunately, this bill was tabled only last Tuesday and I have not had time to bring it before the NDP caucus for discussion, which happens on Wednesdays, as we all know. This is a big, complex agreement and the NDP caucus likes to discuss all legislation before we decide whether we will support it.

We think it is important to allow Parliament to have input into trade negotiations before they begin. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. When the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was tabled, the government followed that policy. It tabled the enabling legislation along with an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment more than 21 sitting days after tabling the treaty. However, the government did not follow any of these standard procedures when introducing CETA, the Canada-Europe trade agreement. We were happy when it followed those procedures in the previous first version of the Canada-Ukraine agreement, but it seems that the government has forgotten those policies with this new agreement.

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 deal was already finalized, and the government said that 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 the priorities of their country will be 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-U.S.-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:

To require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the [committee on international trade].

To require objectives for negotiations towards a new free trade agreement to 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 about the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but as far as I can tell, and we have done some research on this, the matter was never referred to the international trade committee or tabled in the House.

The government also seems to have broken standard policies on introducing implementation legislation for free trade agreements and other treaties. There should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and tabling of legislation, and that did not happen with this agreement. On top of that, as I mentioned, the minister tabled this legislation last Tuesday and here we are debating it on Monday. This is a big, complicated bill. There was no opportunity for opposition parties to discuss this in caucus last Wednesday.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine and we will be discussing this new legislation in caucus on Wednesday. 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; these are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C‑57, which seeks to modernize the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, or CUFTA. I rise as the Bloc Québécois international trade critic, and I am pleased to speak on behalf of my political party today.

I just want to remind the House that our party is continuing a tradition, because Quebec's independence movement has been advocating for free trade since the 1980s with a view to exiting the Canadian economic framework, which is too narrow. It has been a quite a deal for our SMEs, whose expertise is as valuable as it is diverse. I should note, however, that our position is not categorical: A trade agreement may be bad, and it is what it contains that determines whether or not we support it. If an agreement is going to be harmful to our key sectors, commodify our public services to an unreasonable degree, give multinationals the upper hand or hurt the environment or workers' rights, we would not support it merely because we believe in the virtues of international trade.

In the present case, I will say right now that we will be voting in favour of the principle of the modernized 2023 agreement, since we are still at the principle stage. However, we have a major concern about something that I will talk about a bit later, something that we will be urging the government to commit to changing.

Let us first look at the context. We are talking about modernizing an agreement that dates back to 2017, but we could basically call it a new agreement. The 2017 CUFTA, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine, a symbolic stance, since trade with Ukraine was rather marginal at the time. The negotiations ended in the summer of 2015, just before the election, but the agreement was signed by the current government during the Ukrainian Prime Minister's visit to Ottawa in 2016 and it took effect in 2017. The Bloc Québécois supported that agreement. Given that we wanted to move forward quickly since Ukraine was looking for international support, the 2017 CUFTA was pretty bare-bones. More work could have been done, particularly with regard to the implementation mechanisms that were meant to ensure compliance with the agreement. They were rather weak.

What we have before us today is a real trade agreement. Bill C‑57 is 15 pages long and merely amends Canadian legislation to align it with the agreement's requirements so that the government can go ahead and ratify it. Bill C‑57's clauses are largely technical, as most of them change references to the 2017 CUFTA or other agreements, replacing them with references to the modernized 2023 agreement for consistency. It also authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement and the various dispute settlement bodies.

The modernized 2023 agreement is a comprehensive agreement. We are talking about 1,000 pages. It contains 30 chapters covering trade in goods and services—including special provisions in a number of areas—as well as investment, government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labour law and environmental law. It also includes provisions to favour SMEs or businesses owned and operated by women and indigenous people. It casts the net wide.

For starters, we were pleased to see that the content of the June 2022 order was not included in this agreement. Countries in difficulty or at war are often exempted from Canadian tariffs, but this was the first time supply management was included. Ukraine became totally, or almost totally, exempt from supply management in relation to Canada and its borders. Chicken farmers were very concerned, and for a year, they suffered the ill effects of that access. It was unacceptable. There was no reason for this to happen, especially given the rather ridiculous reasoning behind it. For example, it was alleged, on the basis of studies from several years ago, that there is no bird flu in Ukraine. However, we know that viruses can mutate and that one of the main sources of bird flu in Europe is Poland, which is right next door. Until proven otherwise, birds, such as chickens, do not respect borders. They are not screened at the border. If there were a major outbreak in Poland, it would be surprising if there were no cases, contrary to what was being said in Ukraine.

In short, this agreement covers the components of trade and various related sectors likely to impact trade. Among its 30 chapters, 11 are new since the 2017 CUFTA. The “Cross-Border Trade in Services” chapter sets out the rules applicable to services. The chapter entitled “Development and Administration of Measures” ensures that administrative practices are predictable and consistent. The “Investment” chapter protects investments and replaces the 1994 bilateral agreement for the protection of investments.

The annexes on services and investment non-conforming measures complement the chapter on cross-border trade in services. They clarify its application in specific areas and list the exceptions that both countries wish to retain.

The “Temporary Entry for Business Persons” chapter is a necessary provision for business to occur between the two countries. It did not appear in the 2017 CUFTA.

Although the “Telecommunications” chapter does not completely open up access to the telecommunications market, it guarantees access to the telecommunications infrastructure. It does not cover broadcasting and therefore has no impact on cultural policy. Fortunately, the cultural exemption, as we call it, remains intact, and a good thing too, because we certainly would have fought this provision if it violated the cultural exemption.

The “Financial Services” chapter, which complements the chapter on cross-border trade in services, sets out the rules applicable to financial services without completely opening up the market. The Canadian banking market remains essentially protected. This chapter sets out the rules that facilitate the use of financial services in the other country and the simple flow of capital.

Three chapters are being added to the 2017 CUFTA concerning the participation of certain groups in trade, specifically SMEs, women and indigenous people. This allows preferential measures to be put in place.

There is also the chapter entitled “Good Regulatory Practices”, which codifies the manner in which regulations are adopted to ensure transparency and predictability.

Eight of the chapters in the 2017 CUFTA are being amended. The chapter entitled “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures” relaxes the rules of origin for products containing materials that come from a country with which a free trade agreement has been concluded. The chapter entitled “Digital Trade” clarifies the rules that apply to electronically transmitted data to ensure more efficient flow. The chapter entitled “Competition Policy” clarifies the competition rules that could hinder trade, particularly in the case of Ukraine, where mass privatization occurred after the fall of the U.S.S.R. State monopolies were replaced by private quasi-monopolies that were difficult to break into. The agreement will help address that. The chapter entitled “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” includes the provisions of the 2017 CUFTA, but in a separate chapter to facilitate its implementation.

The chapter entitled “Government Procurement” was in the 2017 CUFTA, but in the form of a statement of intent only. The new agreement includes provisions from the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, which takes it away from the WTO's dispute settlement bodies, which have been paralyzed for years, and gives it instead to the panels under the Canada-Ukraine agreement. This chapter is very important, considering the huge contracts that will be awarded for rebuilding Ukraine, presumably in the near future, as soon as the war is over, which we hope is not too long from now.

The chapters on the environment and labour, which were also statements of intent in the 2017 CUFTA, will now be binding.

Now let us talk about the chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct”. The 2017 CUFTA contained anti-corruption measures. The 2023 agreement adds provisions on responsible business conduct. We know that the government is boasting about this chapter. This section encourages businesses to adopt internationally recognized guidelines and principles of responsible business conduct and corporate social responsibility, but these codes are purely voluntary. It is merely a fine principle. It is completely empty. There is nothing in it but encouragement to follow lofty principles. There is no body to oversee or verify compliance with this chapter.

In other words, we should disregard the siren songs of the Liberals, who are bragging that this chapter will do even more to help in the fight against corruption in Ukraine. That concludes the overview of the new and amended chapters.

Now, there are some potentially predictable effects that would encourage us to support the principle of this agreement. Even though trade between Canada and Ukraine is up by one-third since the 2017 agreement was signed, Ukraine remains a small trading partner for Canada. In 2022, the value of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine was $150.2 million, or 0.02% of the $760 billion in goods Canada exported last year, even in the context of a country at war. The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Again in 2022, imports from Ukraine were valued at $271.2 million, or 0.04% of the $780 billion in Canadian imports. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment.

The trade impact of this new agreement will therefore be marginal, especially given that most of the goods and services are already subject to free trade, because, until proven otherwise, like Ukraine, we are still part of the World Trade Organization. However, this agreement will bring greater predictability than the previous 2017 agreement, which should make things easier.

I will point out that the 2023 agreement provides one extra year of guaranteed access to the Ukrainian market for 20,000 metric tonnes of Canadian pork, a major production sector for Quebec. These provisions should please pork producers. The chapter on government procurement could also become very important during Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, especially for Quebec engineering firms, some of which are very successful internationally. They could be enlisted to help rebuild the country's infrastructure. Dam building, for instance, is an area where our expertise is internationally recognized.

I will now address the concerns we have. As usual, the main one is transparency. Parliament's ability to amend Bill C-57, the subject of today's debate, is fairly limited. Amendments must relate only to the bill and cannot affect the agreement itself. This limitation of parliamentary powers is not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement; indeed, the people's elected representatives in this House, the issue of a monarchical culture, have very little involvement in international treaties. Their power is limited to saying yes or no to whatever the government has signed. We have this agreement before us and there is very little we can do. We cannot say that one item or another needs to be improved or that we are opposed to certain aspects. It is just not possible. We cannot influence the contents of these agreements in any way. By the same token, while provinces are responsible for implementing the parts of the treaty that pertain to their jurisdictions, they are not involved in the negotiations, as opposed to what is done in Europe, for instance, where member states play an integral part. Even if the treaty is with the European Union, negotiations happen with the parliaments of member states.

Again, these democratic shortcomings are not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement. The entire Canadian approach to signing treaties has to be reviewed. Regardless of the issue or political stripe, governments do not really appreciate it when their opponents look too closely at what they do. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is in order. Canada, with its deep-seated monarchical traditions, keeps the treaties it signs in the dark, afraid that they might turn to ashes like vampires if they see the light of day. As a member of Parliament, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to experience that first-hand. In November and December 2020, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, we were forced to examine the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement without seeing the text of the agreement. During that sad bit of absurd theatre, we had witnesses, experts and groups telling us about an agreement about which they knew as much as we did as elected representatives, which is nothing at all.

When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations. This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments.

In 1995, when globalization was in full swing, the legislation governing the department was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. The requirement to submit an annual report was abolished. A Parliament worthy of its name should have procedures to increase democratic control over agreements. The Bloc Québécois tabled seven bills on this between 1999 and 2004.

The other irritants in this agreement are the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. They are in there. This mechanism allows foreign multinationals, foreign investors to sue a state if a policy hampers their ability to turn a profit. This is extremely serious. These types of dispute settlement mechanisms found their way into each and every agreement when signing such agreements was all the rage during the aggressive, triumphant neoliberal years, but it is very serious that Canada is continuing to persistently accept, negotiate and encourage these kinds of agreements.

There are a few things we need to remember about this. These are clauses that have enabled multinationals to sue governments over increases in minimum wage, environmental measures, taxes on soft drinks to counter obesity epidemics in certain countries and moratoriums on drilling. These are protection clauses, a legal tool available to foreign investors to undermine the government's ability to act by leaving the perpetual threat of legal recourse from foreign companies dangling overhead. It is a threat to national sovereignty. It makes it increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues such as social justice, the environment, working conditions and public health if a transnational company believes its right to profit has been infringed. This is censorship of the democratic will.

According to a 2013 UN report, states won these suits 42% of the time and corporations, 31% of the time. The remaining disputes were settled out of court. This means that plaintiffs were able to override the political will of states in 58% of cases either in part, through agreements, or in whole, by winning their case. This quantitative figure, however, overlooks one important factor, namely, the pressure put on states by investor protection clauses. States give up on certain policies early in the discussion and decision-making process to avoid being sued. They self-censor for fear of ending up in court.

In 2014, a report by the European Union's Directorate-General for External Policies stated that these investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms were indeed a public policy roadblock. I remind members that this is the Bloc Québécois's fight. In 2021, I presented a motion that led my committee to undertake a study on the impact of these mechanisms. At our last convention, opposing these mechanisms became part of our platform.

After a health crisis, there is no reason for Canada to stubbornly continue to support such provisions, especially since they were removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. They were included in NAFTA, but removed from CUSMA. Why continue to defend the sovereignty of multinationals and the right to profit, rather than democratic rights and the sovereignty of states?

In the specific case of Ukraine, let me first point out that it will be a rather fragile post-war state. Even though there are opportunities for Quebec and Canadian companies, do we want to colonize that country with a mechanism that could be embarrassing for Ukraine and could incite it to adopt certain measures, because it would be afraid of the backlash from Canadian and Quebec companies looking to make a profit?

At the same time, allowing a company to sue a foreign country directly without obtaining the consent of its home country could have consequences for us. In the case of Ukraine, we know that it has sanctioned several of its own citizens for collaborating with Russia. These sanctions could go as far as seizing their assets. If these Ukrainian citizens who collaborated with Russia also have investments here, and Ottawa decides to mimic the Ukrainian government and seize their assets here, the federal government could be sued for discriminatory expropriation under the agreement.

I will close by urging the government to move forward with an exchange of letters if this agreement is adopted in order to remove this dangerous and unique provision.

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This is not the first time I have stood in this House to introduce a new trade agreement, but this trade agreement is special. I rise today to enter into the record the story behind this agreement, because all members in the House, all Canadians and, especially, the 1.3 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, should know how it came about.

The story of this agreement begins with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's first visit to Canada back in 2019. During that visit, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister announced a mutual intention to modernize the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. Following that announcement, public servants in both countries went about doing their respective homework to prepare for renewed negotiations.

That homework often takes many months. It is just part of the routine for our respective civil servants and trade negotiators. However, there was nothing routine about the way these negotiations unfolded.

First came the pandemic, which stalled progress for over a year. Then, when we were finally ready to launch negotiations, Russian troops were massing along the Ukrainian border.

On January 27, 2022, I held a virtual event with Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine's deputy prime minister and minister of economy, to announce the start of negotiations on this agreement. Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine at that time, but it was already clear that the situation was reaching a precipice. The world was seeing that an invasion was imminent, and there was a lot of uncertainty.

A short time before that announcement, I asked my Ukrainian counterpart if she and her government were still willing and able to move forward with negotiations. Her answer was candid and unequivocal: She told me that her government was determined to move ahead, and she told me how much it mattered that Canada was showing confidence in Ukraine at a time when many were beginning to question its resolve.

Ukraine knew then which path it wanted to take for its future. Ukraine had chosen the values of democracy, openness and transparency, as well as a rules-based international order. A sovereign Ukraine was seeking to modernize its infrastructure, its economy and its laws. A comprehensive and progressive free trade agreement would be an important step toward modernization for Ukraine, and Canada would be its gateway.

One month after that announcement, on February 24, 2022, Russia moved in with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and it invaded for all the reasons I just listed: Ukrainian territorial and economic sovereignty, values of openness and democracy, and a rules-based international order. Vladimir Putin despises all these things, and he could not stand to see Ukraine embrace them, uphold them and blossom into a great modern nation. That is why he invaded Ukraine.

On that day, I knew, the Prime Minister knew and the government knew what we had to do. As long as the government of Ukraine stood, we would stand with it. Since the war began, Canada has committed $9 billion in military, humanitarian, financial and development assistance to Ukraine. We also understood that standing with Ukraine meant that we would see these trade negotiations through to the end.

At the outset, it was not easy. The war made travel dangerous and even routine calls impossible for our Ukrainian counterparts. Negotiations had barely begun; suddenly, they came to a standstill. They stayed at a standstill for four months, until I travelled for meetings at the OECD in Paris. That is where I met Ukraine's chief negotiator, Taras Kachka.

It is important to understand that we did not plan a formal meeting that day. He and I, along with Canada's chief negotiator, simply sat in the cafeteria of the OECD building and talked. Mr. Kachka recounted the first 120 days of the war and the challenges he had to overcome just to make that one trip to the OECD. I again asked if Ukraine was able and willing to begin negotiations. Mr. Kachka said yes and I said yes, and negotiations began in earnest.

A few weeks later, at the G7 summit in Germany, I finally met Deputy Prime Minister Svyrydenko face to face. We revisited our earlier conversations and talked of how our earlier hope of avoiding the conflict had been so savagely dispelled. We reiterated our mutual intention to reach an agreement, and then we hugged.

The private conversations I had with my Ukrainian counterparts moved me in ways that are hard to describe. If they had told me that they were not yet ready to begin trade talks, of course we would have waited. Canada would have given Ukraine as much time as it needed.

Ukraine's quiet resolve to move forward was unmistakable and unbreakable. These negotiations were driven by the very values of openness and self-determination that Ukrainian soldiers were and are fighting and dying for. I can tell the House today that, even in the midst of an all-consuming war effort, Ukraine's commitment to those values never wavered and neither did Canada's.

I am proud to say that this agreement was achieved in record time, a mere 12 months from start to finish. That shows the resolve that Canada and Ukraine share on this crucial matter. This process reached its conclusion just a few weeks ago, when our Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy signed this agreement as part of President Zelenskyy's second visit to Canada. It is my true honour to speak to it in this House.

It is not just that we reached a deal in 12 months; it is that we reached an exceptional deal. In trade circles, it is known as a “high-quality agreement”. It includes provisions for trade in services and investments, a binding dispute settlement mechanism to ensure fair treatment, and labour protections. It recognizes the importance of small- and medium-sized businesses, women-owned businesses and indigenous-owned businesses, and it includes environmental protections that are the strongest of those in any of Canada's trade agreements currently on record.

In terms of its contents, it is on par with best practice agreements such as CUSMA, the CPTPP and CETA. With this agreement, Canada becomes the first country to sign a comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine.

Ukraine has told us that this trade deal would serve as a model for further agreements with other prospective partners. That is one of the reasons I said this agreement is special.

Above all, this agreement is special because Canadians support Ukraine's fight against Putin's barbaric invasion. They demonstrate their support through their government with military, humanitarian and financial aid. However, support for Ukraine is not limited to government alone. Here in Canada, many individuals and organizations are helping by welcoming Ukrainian families fleeing the war. Many more Canadian organizations and businesses want to join that effort, both here at home and in the Ukrainian heartland.

This agreement opens up new avenues for Canadians to support Ukraine. It establishes the rules by which Canadian companies could invest in Ukraine's reconstruction, modernize its infrastructure and create jobs in Ukraine, as well as here in Canada. There are Canadian companies already active in Ukraine, and more are joining as we speak. The Canadian construction firm of Aecon is now forming partnerships in Ukraine under a memorandum of collaboration for the construction of a hydro power plant in Ukraine.

The presence of Canadian companies will help Ukraine persevere amid the strife of war. Thanks to this agreement, more can and will join them. Through all these activities, Canada and a victorious Ukraine will strengthen our shared values in our pursuit of peace, mutual success and prosperity. At the end of the day, trade is not just about business; it is about shared values.

Ukrainians and Canadians both want a free, modern and democratic Ukraine. This trade agreement is a manifestation of those shared values. I am truly proud to have been a part of it.

Today, I urge the House to reaffirm its commitment to those values and its support for Ukraine by ensuring the swiftest possible passage of this bill. Slava Ukraini.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.

I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.

Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)