Bill C-57

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

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

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the words that come to my mind right away are “all MAGA, all the time”. To me, that is what this vote was all about. I think the vast majority of Canadians truly understand what we just witnessed, and this is not the first time. The Conservative Party today has gone so far to the right—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Standing Orders say we are not allowed to reflect on a vote that has been taken in this House, and the parliamentary secretary is doing that.

Also, the parliamentary secretary consistently rises in this place and extols very toxic rhetoric. We have the Minister of Trade sitting right here. Should she not be addressing this instead of the parliamentary secretary?

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

That is definitely not up to the opposition to decide.

The hon. member for Kingston and Islands, on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, the issue of reflecting on a vote and talking about how one has voted previously is something we all do in this House all the time. I do not know where the member is coming from, other than the fact that he does not want to hear the truth about—

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

We are not going to get into a debate on this. I will make sure this is the case in just a moment.

Standing Order 18, on page 12, says, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.” This is in the Standing Orders, and I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to retract.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am going to continue to reflect on the behaviour of the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party consistently votes against Ukraine.

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

The hon. member was told that is not allowed by the Standing Orders.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, not only do I take great offence to the fact that he referred to the Conservative Party as far right, but I would also note that according to the Standing Orders, that is not the subject of the debate at hand today.

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

Yes, and I have reminded the hon. member that we shall not refer to votes taken in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that the Conservative Party is a little sensitive right now, because at the end of the day, more and more Canadians are going to come to the realization that the Conservative Party of today is far to the right. It is a pattern we have seen now for months, where the Conservative Party is becoming, as much as possible, the extreme right. I think it is appropriate to point—

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

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, we all know that Liberal Party members do not like to participate in debate. They defer to the member for Winnipeg North to do their dirty work—

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

We are not going to enter into that debate.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen this happen before, and it is about the procedure in this House. I know sometimes when this member speaks and sometimes when I speak, there is a coordinated effort among Conservative members to stand up on points of order that quite often are not anywhere near points of order, as the member just did.

I am looking to you for guidance, Madam Speaker, as to how you will deal with this procedurally if they continually get up on points of order, especially when they are not relevant or not real points of order. How will you ensure that the member has the opportunity to properly debate in this House?

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

Absolutely.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, on the same point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, my point of order was on Standing Order 18, which you definitely ruled on. I have still not heard the member for Winnipeg North retract his inflammatory statements.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years, and if we say that a member cannot reflect on a vote, one has to take a look at the traditions. It is not just what is in the book but also the traditions, and traditionally—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that if another member feels something is disruptive or offensive, we have to act on it. The standing order does say that we do not reflect on votes, so I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to retract.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarity on the issue, because I think this is really important.

At the end of the day, I cannot imagine how a member of Parliament or any parliamentarian would not be able to challenge a member for the manner in which their caucus is voting. I cannot imagine a world where it would be unparliamentary to do that. Every political party that I am aware of has done that throughout my 30 years in Parliament, whether it is here or at the Manitoba legislature.

I would ask, with all due respect, that we reflect on the traditions of the House. Just because one opposition party is sensitive to the truth, I should not be censored from being able to express the reality on the floor of the House of Commons in Canada today.

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

While the hon. parliamentary secretary may be right in terms of traditions, I have to refer to the Standing Orders as they stand. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman rose on a point of order, and there is a standing order reflecting that we cannot refer to votes, so I have to apply it. I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to retract.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Nobody raised it at the time so it passed.

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

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

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

I just want to say—

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

We are judging artistic capacity here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

It is saying indirectly what members cannot say directly, so I would remind the hon. member that he cannot make those implications.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for having an effect on the sensitivities of the Conservatives on this issue.

As I said, Canadians would be very surprised and disappointed because of what we have witnessed, not only today but also the other day during the voting marathon, of the Conservative Party being influenced by MAGA from the deep south in the United States, where there is a movement that is very real and tangible and is being ushered into Canada through the leader of the Conservative Party. We see that the positions Conservatives are taking are now starting to impact Canadian public policy, to the degree that they are detrimental to our communities.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it goes without saying that Canada is a sovereign nation. For a member to suggest that we are influenced by certain—

[Jennifer O'Connell]

Debate.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

No.

Madam Speaker, when the member brings into question whether Canada is being influenced by a foreign government on certain policies—

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

That is debate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I am concerned that, through points of order, the Conservative Party of Canada, the so-called freedom party, is trying to limit and censor what I am saying in the House. I find that—

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

That is debate.

I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was explaining that we have the MAGA Conservative who has actually infiltrated the leader of the Conservative Party's office. We see that—

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

I have another point of order from the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 18, I would consider that to be disrespectful and offensive language. I am not MAGA. I do not refer to myself—

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

That is another point of debate.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue his speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, they are a little sensitive on the other side. At the end of the day, they should take responsibility for their behaviour. The Conservatives, on one hand, want to take certain actions, but when they get called out on it, they get a little sensitive. They say they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about this, and they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about that. They are trying to censor what I say.

This is the first time in 30 years I have heard people say we cannot tell people how we voted. I have news for them, despite their trying to prevent me from talking about how they voted inside in the chamber. They may have limited success inside the chamber, but I am going to let people know about the behaviour of members of the Conservative Party of Canada and how they are being influenced by the MAGA movement from the United States coming into Canada. It is very serious stuff. They are not going to stop me from talking about that issue.

It is shameful the way members of the Conservative Party today are playing a destructive force, not only on the floor of the House of Commons in preventing legislation from passing, but also in their behaviour, which other people as well as myself have witnessed, in limiting the types of things that can actually be said.

Members can think about it. They do not want me, from the floor of the House of Commons, telling Canadians how they voted on legislation because they are embarrassed. I am not talking about any specific piece of legislation. I am talking about the principle of my being able to tell Canadians through this platform how they behave inside this chamber. They will not allow me to say that the Conservative Party voted x on any piece of legislation or any motion. That is what they do not want me to say—

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

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not the Conservative members or the official opposition. It is Standing Order 18, which states, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except”—

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

Yes. I did remind the hon. parliamentary secretary of that. The hon. parliamentary secretary is making very broad comments on voting history.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, cry me a river. At the end of the day, he can cry all he wants, but Canadians are going to know how the Conservative Party is behaving within the House of Commons. They are going to know how its members are trying to limit debate and the freedom of individuals like me to tell Canadians specifically how the Conservative Party is voting within the House of Commons.

Conservatives find a standing order. For the first time in 30 years, I see an opposition party that is so scared to be pointed out and told how its members are behaving. It is because they do not like what they are hearing. I believe there is a number of members in the Conservative caucus who feel very uncomfortable with the manner in which they have been forced to vote.

Let me talk about some of the issues. The Conservative Party of Canada demonstrates very clearly the degree to which the MAGA movement in the United States has influenced its members. On the Ukraine trade agreement, there is no other trade agreement I can recall that the Conservatives were in opposition to. This is the only trade agreement they seem to be in opposition to. I am being very generous when I say “seem to be in opposition” because their actions over the last number of weeks, and in fact months, clearly show they have taken that far right stand in support of Russia and against Ukraine.

All one needs to do is take a look at the voting marathon, when the Conservative caucus said it was going to challenge the government of the day. We went line by line, and discussions and votes occurred, as we went line by line. I will not say how the Conservatives voted because, after all, they do not want Canadians to know how they voted, but Canadians would be very disappointed. It is consistent with what we saw today on this particular legislation.

On the issue of funding to reinforce Canada's support of Ukraine, which is better known as Operation Unifier, Canadians would be very disappointed to see how the Conservatives voted. I cannot tell the House because apparently the Conservatives are super sensitive. They do not want Canadians to know.

[An hon. member]

They didn't vote the same way we did.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Well, I do not know if I can say that. They might jump up.

[An hon. member]

I voted no. You can comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one member says that I can say that he voted no. I do not want to be called out for being out of order, but it was a Conservative member who said I could say that, so I had permission to say it.

At the end of the day, Operation Unifier is something that supports Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. When one takes—

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

I need to interrupt the hon. member.

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

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

Madam Speaker, you have very clearly made a ruling with respect to a standing order on reflecting on a vote. This is not a matter of what individual members want or prefer, it is simply a matter of enforcement of the ruling you made.

This member is continuing to show disrespect for the Chair, which is against another standing order, by doing everything he can to make a point that the Speaker has said he cannot make. It is not for me to say what the standing order should or should not be or what the Chair should or should not have ruled, but this member is showing profound disrespect to—

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

I will refer to our book, the Bosc and Gagnon book on procedure. On page 590, chapter 12. It reads:

It is not in order for Members to “reflect” upon (i.e., to reconsider or comment upon) votes of the House, and when this has occurred, the Chair has been quick to call attention to it. Members have also occasionally called attention to the rule.

I will remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that it is not only a standing order but has also been addressed in House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the report back from the Chair.

On that particular point, and I am rising on a point of order, I would like to use the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent as an example, when he stood up and indicated:

The Liberals voted against that request and even the Bloc Québécois voted against. It is outrageous.

The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑234, but it voted against asking the Senate to adopt it.

We find endless examples like this one, and that is the reason it is important that we—

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

I agree with the hon. member. There have been many examples of references to votes but today, the standing order was invoked. That is what we are dealing with. Until such time as the Chair comes back with a decision, I think we have to abide by it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was going through what had taken place during the voting marathon in which the Conservative Party continued to demonstrate its lack of support for Ukraine.

When one thinks of Operation Unifier, that is something that literally trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and contributed positively to the war. The way in which Canada contributes can be found in many different ways. One of those was on that particular vote and that was actually Motion No. 54. I would encourage Canadians who want to find out exactly how the Conservatives voted to look it up.

Another vote was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, which, again, complemented Unifier. That was on Motion No. 55. Again, I will not say how parties voted, but I would indicate that Canadians might want to take a look at the votes and proceedings, to see how the Conservative Party voted.

Motion No. 56 was on funding for military aid. Think about that: military aid for Ukraine. This item received funding from the Treasury Board vote 5, which is government contingency funding, for the expanded contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is budget 2023, funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine.

If those who are following the debate want to understand why I have said what I have said and have expressed my disappointment in today's Conservative Party, all they need to do is look at the voting record on those motions and, I would suggest, the report stage of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement bill. A lot of Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition.

I would suggest that the reason we have seen that voting pattern by the Conservative Party is the MAGA right movement in the United States of America and how that movement is coming north. It is being jumped on by the leader of the official opposition.

In fact, as I have suggested in the past, we need to be concerned about patterns. One of the patterns that I have witnessed coming from the leader of the official opposition's office is the misinformation and how the official opposition is using that style of politics of MAGA right in order to generate the type of attention that the Conservatives want. They will do it at all costs.

Ukraine is but one—

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

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I continue to rise on points of order because the language we are hearing from the member from Winnipeg is contrary to Standing Order 18. It is implying that the Conservative Party of Canada is breaking laws related to treason in Canada.

As a member of Parliament, I find that offensive to assume that we are influenced by a foreign government—

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

I do not think the hon. member was implying such a thing. He was referring to influences, not necessarily to being treasonous.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would point out that the Conservatives often make false claims about associations and such—

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

We are not going to start a debate on this.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague knows well the rules about accusing people of lying or being liars in the House—

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

I do not think the hon. member did such a thing. She said that people on both sides accuse each other of different things.

I will let the hon. parliamentary secretary continue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, guilt is a wonderful thing at times. When I look across the way, I see a lot of heads that are down and those members look somewhat depressed. I suspect it might have to do with something that has taken place in terms of their behaviour with respect to Ukraine. Canadians have unified and understood the importance of what is taking place in Ukraine today, but they are disappointed in what they have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party.

The President of Ukraine, at a time of war, came to Canada. While in Canada, he signed a trade agreement that is very meaningful not only for economic purposes, but also for morale and making a strong political statement to countries like Russia. It shows that Ukraine is building relationships with the European Union and North America, because Ukraine wants to be able to expand its economy and its relationships through trade agreements.

The president, during a time of war, took the time to come here. Let us go back to when we first introduced the bill. In September, he was here. A couple of months later, we are actually dealing with the legislation.

If we look at the comments that I put on the record back then, I said I suspect that all members of the House would be glad to see the legislation pass and how wonderful it would be to pass the legislation before Christmas. When I said “pass”, I meant that it had to go through the entire process, including in the Senate. The House will rise in a couple of days, and we have not even got out of third reading.

The solidarity for Ukraine is not there because the Conservative Party of today has made the decision to do what it can to deny the unanimous support that is required to get this legislation through. What we have seen today is the Conservative Party does not want us to tell anyone how it is actually voting because the Conservatives feel ashamed about it. That is why.

Never before have I been limited in any way, which is why I am very anxious to hear the ruling on being able to tell Canadians how another entity or individual in the House voted. However, I will respect what you have said, Madam Speaker, in the hope that we will get clarity on the issue. I suspect there are many people in this chamber who want to be able to ask the Conservative Party why and challenge it on its actions.

The best excuse the Conservatives have come up with is the issue of the price on pollution. That is a red herring. That is all that is. The Conservatives say the reason they are uncomfortable with the legislation is that it has a price on pollution. What they do not recognize is that Ukraine already has a price on pollution. It has had one for over a decade. The whole European Union is moving toward a price on pollution.

Only the leader of the Conservative Party here in Canada believes that there is no need for a price on pollution and that there is no need to have a plan for Canada's environment.

I heard one of my colleagues say that it is going back to the Stone Age. I can appreciate why she would say that. They have climate deniers. They do not recognize it. They feel that all they have to do is one thing, but I am scared that if I say the word “mislead”, they will jump up like beans saying that I cannot say that.

Let us think about it. Here is what the Conservatives actually say, coast to coast to coast. Conservatives with their shiny-new leader say they are going to cut the tax, that they are going to garbage the price on pollution, and that they are going to make life more affordable. That is what we see today from the Conservative right.

I could provide a 20-minute comment in regard to their lack of respect for the whole issue of the environment, but rather, what I would like to point to is just the degree to which they are misleading Canadians. In essence, they are saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution for the residents of Winnipeg North, and that means they are going to axe the tax. That is what, in essence, the Conservatives are saying. They are saying that they would be making life more affordable. I say balderdash. At the end of the day, the Conservatives would actually take money out of the pockets of my constituents because 80-plus per cent get more money back in the rebates than they pay into the price on pollution. That tells me that the Conservatives would take money away from Canadians, but they do not tell Canadians that, because that is not part of the MAGA movement.

The MAGA movement says to mislead, and that is what the Conservatives are doing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are deceiving real people. They are hurting Canadians. They are not helping on the affordability file—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member's time is up.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Madam Speaker, opposition parties oppose, and they oppose legislation that they think is bad. That does not cause harm to anyone. The parliamentary secretary's argument that somehow voting against a bill is bad makes no sense. However, something that was bad was the current government's granting—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member just told Canadians, on the floor of the House of Commons, that the opposition party voted against a bill and that was just—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but that is not a point of order. That is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Madam Speaker, with respect to that point of order, the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It was not a point of order.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, on the question.

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

Madam Speaker, what actually has harmed Ukraine was the government's decision to grant a waiver to export a gas turbine. It is interesting. The Liberals use President Zelenskyy's name all the time in support of their cause to try to score cheap political points. President Zelenskyy had a few things to say about that waiver.

If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exemption to sanctions, what exemptions would it want? Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine but for all countries of the democratic world. Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse that decision. The Ukrainian ambassador went on to say that Russia is using energy as a weapon in Europe and all over the world and this money and fuel were going to support the war in Ukraine. Do the Liberals regret that they actually aided President Putin in his war by exporting that gas turbine?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, as the member tries to change the channel, we need to recognize the reality of today. The reality of today is that there is one political entity, better known as the Conservative Party of Canada, that seems to want to take the side of Russia over Ukraine. That has been clearly demonstrated—

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

No, giving the turbine to Russia—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. The hon. member had an opportunity to ask his question. Now, whether he likes the answer or not, he needs to take the opportunity to listen. If he has other questions, he can wait until I ask for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Madam Speaker, for the member to suggest that I support Russia is despicable and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Actually, the hon. member's question seemed to indicate that on the other side as well. I would ask members to please refrain from doing that. We know that everybody in this House does not support Russia. That has been reaffirmed in the House. I would ask members to please refrain from saying that during their questions and during their comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I see some individuals on the other side, just as they should well be, are very ashamed of the way they have conducted themselves when it comes to issues with respect to Ukraine. Where there should have been unanimous support for Ukraine at a very difficult time in its history, we see the Conservative Party under its current leadership looking south to be inspired by MAGA politics. That is to the detriment of Ukraine. The Conservatives have to take responsibility for their actions, and by that I mean their votes, and not try to hide behind the Speaker's back.

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.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be worth our while to discuss this bill. I would like the member for Winnipeg North to tell me about his vision for the free trade agreement with Ukraine. We obviously agree on the bill, though it still has some shortcomings. The Bloc Québécois has long objected to the fact that private companies can sue governments under free trade agreements by claiming that a government's legislation is detrimental to a company's trade. We see this as a mistake that needs to be corrected.

Is my colleague willing to study this issue and make improvements?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member is likely aware, there are very serious limitations as to what we can do with respect to making changes. The simple reason for this is that we have an agreement that is signed off on, and it is more of a ratification process. I do not know the details of what kind of modifications would, in fact, be acceptable without having to sign a different agreement.

Having said that, the real benefits of the agreement for both Canada and Ukraine deal with everything from infrastructure to high-tech companies, as well as many agricultural benefits. In essence, it enhances opportunities for both countries to be able to develop stronger and healthier trade links.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the other thing I very much appreciate about this trade agreement is the chapter that talks about trade and indigenous peoples. I understand that modernizing the agreement is important, and ensuring that indigenous peoples are allowed economic opportunities through this trade agreement is particularly important.

Will the member make sure that, when his party is creating the bilateral committee, it will include indigenous representation from all indigenous groups?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am confident in knowing that, when we talk about trade agreements, economic development and the social impacts of these agreements, a wide spectrum of things are considered. These include the absolutely critical role, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated, of ensuring that we operate as two governments, making sure that indigenous and Canadian interests are being served well.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the obsession that the Conservatives have around pricing pollution, which will actually take money out of the pockets of his constituents. He also spoke about the influences from the Trumpist MAGA Republicans in the U.S. Is the member at all concerned that the Conservatives seem to be advocating for the far right in this country, which supports Russia, as well as big oil instead of constituents?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and that is the reason I would reference a pattern. What we have actually seen is that the Conservative Party of today is not the same Conservative Party even of Stephen Harper. Under the current leadership, it continues to move farther to the right.

The MAGA right is very real. It is a movement that is in the United States, and it is coming north. The one who is selling it the most today is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the price on pollution is an excellent example of that.

A bunch of Conservatives travel the country saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution and make things more affordable; in fact, it is just not true. A vast majority of Canadians would actually have less disposable income as a direct result of the Conservatives' policy, yet they would not know that from what they are being told by the Conservative movement today. Canadians need to be made aware of it. American-style politics is coming north through the leader of the official opposition.

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

Madam Speaker, of course, different sovereign states disagree from time to time about policy. Last summer, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned, and the President of Ukraine publicly and repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure over the fact that this government granted a sanctions waiver for a turbine that was to facilitate the export of Russian gas. This was a very serious issue for the Government of Ukraine. One does not summon an ambassador lightly, but that is what the Ukrainian government did.

The member is sort of on his high horse about how, somehow, we should never disagree with a country that we are friends with. Of course, Canada supports Ukraine; Conservatives support Ukraine. However, this member is now saying that we should do exactly what the government wants.

I want to ask the member: Where was he last summer? Did he make any statements about the sanctions waiver? What, if anything, did he have to say when the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned by President Zelenskyy to express his displeasure?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to accept the changing of the channel. At the end of the day, whether it is the President of Ukraine, the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or the Canadian Ukrainian Congress, not to mention millions of Canadians, they can see the behaviour of the Conservative Party today when it comes to the Canada-Ukraine agreement and the line-by-line allotments of support to Ukraine. The Conservative Party has been nothing but a disappointment; the far right has taken over the party on certain policies, and this is one of them.

I say shame on the Conservative Party for not getting behind this and continuing to have that unanimous support. Rather, it caters to the far right. I think that does a disservice to all of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, as I rise for this third reading debate, I have to express my deep disappointment at the inflammatory rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. Its members are desperately trying to change the channel from the misery that they have brought to Canadians, whether in terms of the millions of Canadians visiting food banks or the 800,000 people in Ontario who have to rely on a food bank now. This would be the same as the fourth-largest city in Ontario being completely dependent on the food bank to survive. That is the result after eight years of the Liberal government.

Liberals try to change the channel about a principled decision by the Conservative Party to vote against this free trade agreement. There are many reasons to do so. Of course, we have talked about the fact that there is a reference to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. There is also, as the Liberals like to call it, the polluter pays principle, with policies that those who pollute the environment should bear the cost of that pollution. Most Liberals say that emitting carbon is pollution. Therefore, as Ukrainians are in the middle of a war and are trying to heat their homes, the Liberal government is saying that they are polluters, because most Ukrainians use carbon-based fuels for heating.

We get to have a principled objection to this free trade agreement on that basis alone. There are many other reasons we would be opposed to it that we have not debated in great detail. Opposition parties get to vote against what they consider to be bad legislation. The Liberals say it is no big deal that there are some references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. However, what will they do in the next trade agreement they try to sign? This is the first time carbon pricing and carbon leakage have ever been in a trade agreement. Is it in the free trade agreement with the European Union, the CPTPP, our trade agreement with the United States or any other trade agreement that Canada has ever signed? No, it is not.

This is the first time Liberals have put it into a trade agreement. What will it be the next time? Will Liberals mandate a certain carbon tax within a trade agreement? That is what they are trying to do. The Liberals are desperately trying to entrench the carbon tax and their version of carbon pricing into international trade agreements. What will be the next step they take on that?

We get to oppose that on principle. The really despicable thing that has happened as a result of this is that the Liberals suggest that this is the Conservative Party not supporting Ukraine and, in fact, somehow supporting Vladimir Putin and Russia. That kind of toxic rhetoric is actually quite despicable. The Liberals should be ashamed that they are using it on the very principled position that Conservatives have taken on this free trade agreement.

As we know, there are two other parties in the House that have supported this free trade agreement, so this is actually going to pass. Our vote will cause no harm to Ukraine as we voice our principled opposition to the Liberal government's obsession with carbon taxes and carbon pricing.

When we look at—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is, if not directly, then indirectly, talking about how the Conservative Party has voted. It was ruled earlier that we cannot do that.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. These far left, mega disruptive tactics from this member have no place in the House. He should be ashamed of himself.

The member in question was talking about his own decisions, which the other member has done, and he says this should be allowed.

Again, I encourage these far left-importing tactics—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

From what I can see, we are starting to go down that road again that was ruled on earlier this morning based on all the points of order that were being raised. I would recommend that members go back and look at the rules of order we already have in place. If they have a point of order, members should make sure it fits within those rules, one that we can actually take in.

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

Madam Speaker, the party that complaints that points of order are disruptive makes a ridiculous point of order.

I will go back to my point, which is that my decision as a Conservative to vote against this agreement is a principled decision. I will not stand for trade agreements having carbon pricing or taxes, because who knows what the Liberals are going to do next time. I get to do that. As we know, this legislation is going to pass, so there is no harm being caused by that.

When we look, for instance, at what happened with the waiver of the export permit that the government granted for a gas turbine, that caused significant harm to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy said, “If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exception to sanctions, what exceptions will it want tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? ...it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Liberal government to change its decision.

The Liberals say we should listen to President Zelenskyy on the trade agreement, but Conservatives get to disagree with them on that. We think it is not a good trade deal. It is not good for Ukraine and not good for Canada. However, President Zelenskyy saying that the Liberal government should not grant the export waiver that is aiding Russia is somehow no big deal, there is nothing to see here. Their hypocrisy on this is really astounding.

Then the government turns a principled vote in the House of Commons against including carbon taxes, carbon leakage or carbon pricing in a trade agreement for the first time ever into somehow aiding Russia or Vladimir Putin. Not only is that language despicable, it is completely unhelpful to the debate. Liberals saying Conservatives are supporting Russia is giving Russia some kind of a win.

Conservatives, of course, are not saying that. We are saying it is a terrible decision and the decision helped Russia pump gas, which has helped fuelled its war. President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian ambassador said that. Those are their words, not ours.

If we look at who is actually causing harm to Ukraine, it is the Liberal government in its decision to grant that export waiver. Many Liberal members stand and claim that Conservatives are doing terrible things to Ukraine as a result of our principled decision. Where were they on this decision? They are not there, which, to me, is deeply hypocritical. Ukrainian Canadians know exactly which party supported the export of that gas turbine. If that was all, I would say that is pretty bad, but not absolutely awful.

However, let us look at what else has happened. There are now media reports that Canadian detonators are in Russian mines. That is a complete lack of export control by the government. We know that Liberals are not very good at doing much, but to allow Canadian detonators to find their way, as the media has reported, into Russian mines is inexcusable. They say our principled vote against the bad things they put in this trade agreement is somehow aiding Russia and Vladimir Putin, but they exported a gas turbine used to pump Russian gas to fund the war and Canadian detonators have found their way into Russian mines that are used during the war. If we compare these things, some things are desperately harmful to Ukraine and other things do not cause any damage whatsoever.

If that was all, Conservatives would say it is terrible, though not absolutely awful, but there is more. Canada is the only G7 country that is not offering wartime insurance to businesses. Liberals say Canada is there to help rebuild Ukraine, but they will not put wartime insurance in place for businesses right now. Therefore, any businesses in Canada that want to help Ukraine during the war do not have wartime insurance. Every other G7 country has it. This causes real damage to Ukraine and they have the audacity to say that our principled vote against the trade agreement is somehow aiding Vladimir Putin. These three decisions the Liberals made are aiding the Russian war effort, so their hypocrisy on this is really stunning.

At committee, we tried to improve the trade agreement. The Ukrainian ambassador said recently that they could use, in the future, co-operation on energy security. As we pointed out at the committee, there is nothing in this trade agreement on energy security. It is shocking.

Ukraine needs energy security. Why would we not include a chapter on energy security? I know the Liberals and all their proxies say that has never been in a trade agreement before, so we cannot put it in. Carbon pricing and carbon leakage were never in a trade agreement before either. Clearly, we can put things into trade agreements that have never been in them before.

They are going to ask why it is not in there. It is because when we negotiate a trade agreement, two sides decide what they are going to put in them. The Liberal government's priority was carbon taxes, carbon pricing and carbon leakage. We know the Ukrainians want energy security. The ambassador just said it recently on the news. Why was there not a chapter on energy security in the trade agreement? We can only conclude it is because the Liberal government did not want to put anything in the trade agreement on energy security. We can come to no other conclusion.

The Conservatives tried to fix that. We brought forward a motion at committee to expand the scope of what could be included in the review of this trade agreement to allow for energy security. Every single Liberal member on that committee voted no, which is the exact opposite of what the Ukrainian ambassador was just asking for.

When we talk about what is causing harm, there is only one wrecking ball going through this and it is the wrecking ball of the Liberals because they exported the gas turbine, they will not grant wartime insurance and Canadian detonators are somehow finding their way into Russian mines. I ascribe all of that to gross incompetence because we see gross incompetence from the Liberals on virtually every single thing they touch right now here in Canada.

If that was all, we could say that it is not such a big deal. However, there were eight amendments at committee that we tried to use to improve the free trade agreement so we could actually find a way to support it. One of the amendments that I put forward would have delayed the coming into force of the agreement until the references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage were removed. If that had been done, I would have found a way to vote in favour of it, but that was voted down like every single amendment was voted down that we put forward to make this trade agreement better.

This included an amendment to strengthen co-operation on matters relating to nuclear technology, including the export of Canadian nuclear equipment, expertise and uranium to Ukraine. Ukraine has lost 50% of its electricity-generating capacity as a result of this war from Russian bombing. Would it not have been great to put in this free trade agreement co-operation on expanding nuclear capacity?

I know, everyone is saying surely the Liberals voted for that. It is what Ukraine needs, it is what the Ukrainian ambassador asked for. No, people would be wrong. Liberals voted against it. They want to include their ideological obsession with carbon pricing and carbon leakage, but they do not want to vote for co-operation in nuclear technology, and co-operation on energy to provide energy security.

The other issue is this: There could have been co-operation on LNG capacity in Ukraine and increasing Canadian LNG exports. As everyone knows, Russia's war machine is primarily funded by the exports of gas.

Ukraine is sitting on the third-largest proven reserves of LNG in all of Europe. Imagine a Europe that is getting its LNG exclusively from Ukraine, as opposed to getting LNG from Russia. Imagine if Ukraine got the revenues from being able to export LNG to Europe and to other parts of the world to help it fight the Russian invasion. This would be a double win. It would cut off the blood money that is going to Russia and it would increase the revenues of Ukraine. It would have more money to fight the war.

Surely, Liberals voted for the trade agreement to include LNG co-operation, right? It would be a win-win for everyone. No, they did not; they voted against it, because the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have an ideological obsession with carbon taxes, carbon prices and carbon emissions.

Even to the detriment of a country in the middle of war, a country fighting for its very survival, what is the most important thing for the Liberal government? It is carbon tax, carbon price and carbon leakage. Even in this context, Liberals cannot get out of their obsession with the carbon tax, which is something that absolutely would have helped Ukraine.

I will move on to some of the amendments that were put forward. We put forward an amendment on the donation of Canadian military equipment because we have equipment somewhat past its functional life but not completely unusable. This could be exported to Ukraine and refurbished so it could have more Canadian military equipment to help in its war. Again, surely Liberals voted for that because it would be a direct benefit to Ukraine. No, they did not. Then they have the audacity to say to us that if we vote against this free trade agreement somehow it is a win for Russia and Vladimir Putin. The hypocrisy is really unbelievable.

There are more and more amendments that were put forward—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, only because I do think it is important we get some sort of a ruling sooner as opposed to later. The member has now, on a couple of occasions, been reflecting on votes, whether they were in committee or here, which is a concern all members should be having.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, on what the parliamentary secretary just said, a member is allowed to reflect on their own votes. I do not believe the Standing Orders in the House of Commons directly affect how committees vote. I do not believe it has ever been part of the rules directly.

Votes cannot be referred to in the House that are taken here. Part of the ruling that is made should also include whether we can refer to votes taken at committee, especially a member's own vote, which a member is allowed to reflect on because it is part of the public record. It should be public and they can refer to it when speaking to constituents and speaking in the House on it. That is what the member for Dufferin—Caledon was doing. If not for the interruption by the parliamentary secretary, I am sure he would have finished by now.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I will read very specifically from the standing order I think the member is trying to refer to. This is Standing Order 18, the second half of it, which reads:

No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.

That makes fairly clear that reflecting on a vote of committee is not covered by the standing order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

As indicated before, I appreciate the additional information the hon. members have put forward. I will come back to the House, if need be.

I want to remind members that, according to the Standing Orders, they are not to reflect on how other members have voted in votes that have been held in the House.

I will allow the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon to continue his speech.

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

Madam Speaker, it is amazing to me that the member who complained about points of order during his speech continues to rise to interrupt me when I am giving my speech about continuing to talk about motions that were brought forward to try to make the trade agreement better.

Again, a motion was brought at committee for expanded munitions productions in Canada to increase munitions exports to Ukraine and to support the development of weapons and ammunitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry. A country in the middle of a war and using thousands of shells a day needs expanded munitions, so, of course, we brought forward the motion to say that we want to directly support Ukraine, because, despite the desperate attempts by the Liberal government and its members to say we do not support Ukraine, we absolutely do. Of course, the motion was defeated, with all Liberal members at the committee voting against it.

We try to talk about actual support for Ukraine, and Conservatives have put forward real motions, real amendments to improve the trade agreement to help Ukraine. We have done that. What the Liberal government has done is export a gas turbine and be so incompetent and negligent as to allow Canadian detonators to end up in Russian mines. It has not provided wartime insurance for Canadian businesses to help rebuild Ukraine. We are the only country in the G7 not to do that. Liberals then have had the audacity to stand here and somehow suggest that we are supporting Vladimir Putin. That is a disgraceful comment to make. They should be ashamed of themselves for making it, but—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be really shocking if the Liberals accused the Conservatives of supporting Vladimir Putin, but I think the issue was that they voted against Operation Unifier on three separate occasions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Again, that is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Madam Speaker, what we find is that the hyperbole coming from the Liberals does not match reality. Their criticism is deeply hypocritical. We all know it. They have done things that have directly harmed and continue to directly harm Ukraine with their decisions. They have become the party of disinformation by suggesting that we do not support Ukraine, disinformation that somehow our opposition to the free trade agreement means not supporting Ukraine. We tried to make the trade agreement better so we could support the agreement and, of course, Ukraine. The Liberal government did everything it could to make sure that was not possible. Why did it? It is because it wants to use the trade agreement in a desperate attempt to score cheap political points here in Canada with an incredibly false narrative.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on International Trade with the view to amend the coming into force provision to allow it to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council after the removal of all references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke of the principled approach of the Conservative Party to the agreement, so let us talk about principles.

This is not about the carbon tax, but today the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. Today, President Zelenskyy is in Washington, D.C., desperate to get military support from the United States that is being blocked by the American far right. Today, more than ever, is a day when Ukraine needs the political support, and where is the Conservative Party? Conservatives voted against the free trade agreement today. On Friday, they voted against any military assistance to Ukraine. Today, of all days, is a day when Ukraine really needs political support around the world. Why do they continue to oppose support for Ukraine?

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

Madam Speaker, of course we support Ukraine; that is absolutely true. We voted against the fall economic statement because we have absolutely no confidence in the incompetent, corrupt Liberal government.

The member is talking about munitions. That is great; good for him. We had a motion at committee to support expanded munitions productions in Canada, increase munitions exports to Ukraine and support the delivery of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry. How did Liberal members of the committee vote? They voted against it. The member should perhaps get off of his PMO talking points that he just read to the House and actually understand what his party has done with respect to munitions.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to the amendments to the treaty that the Conservative Party proposed in committee. We disagree with most of those amendments, but we still think that we should have had an opportunity to debate them, because we are in a parliamentary system and a democracy.

However, the way treaties are negotiated in Canada is unique. The government negotiates them behind Parliament's back in a way. The government decides on the content of the treaty, which means that parliamentarians are deprived of all their democratic tools and cannot debate or amend the treaty either in committee or in the House. The only thing they have a say in is the treaty's rules of application. That seems undemocratic to me and it is at odds with what is done in the United States and Europe. The Canadian approach seems very undemocratic to me.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the undemocratic way that Canada negotiates treaties and prevents Parliament from debating amendments.

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

Madam Speaker, coming to Parliament, table-dropping a 700-page trade agreement and expecting Parliament to just immediately rubber-stamp it is the kind of arrogance one gets with the Liberal government. It believes that, somehow, it is so infallible, so perfect, that it has brought to us, as we approach Christmas, something like the birth of Christ. Here it is: the perfect child.

In fact, we get to have real criticisms of the bill. Yes, the challenge is, of course, this: There is a process to bring treaties and trade agreements to members so they have an opportunity to have input. The Liberals did none of that. They brought it here and said it is perfect, and now they are criticizing people for criticizing it. It is an embarrassing way for them to behave.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank our shadow minister for trade for his very thoughtful and well-articulated concerns about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I think he was very clear that Conservatives support Ukraine. Conservatives are the party of free trade.

Unfortunately, the Liberals have stuck carbon taxes into the trade agreement. This is the first time in history. It is unprecedented, and we cannot accept it when we are the party that is opposed to carbon taxes.

I know that the hon. member has already reflected on this, but we have been calling on the government since 2018 to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. It did not wait four weeks to send lethal weapons. It did not wait four months. It waited four years, until the hot, full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine. The member was very clear to say that we have been asking for the government to do more in support of Ukraine. The free trade agreement would not provide the opportunity for the Canadian defence industry to do business in Ukraine. There would be no war insurance provided.

Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces is decommissioning old light armoured vehicles: Bisons, Coyotes and tracked LAVs, the M113s. Why are the Liberals sitting around? We have been asking since March of last year to actually export the vehicles, to send them to Ukraine in the fight against Russia. They have not. Why have they not?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great question. This is actually where we get to where the rubber hits the road. There are real and concrete things that the Liberal government could have done and could be doing to help Ukraine. Instead, it has wrapped itself in the free trade agreement to somehow suggest that this is the only way one can support Ukraine. Of course, it put a poison pill in it. It knew that the Conservatives could not support carbon pricing and carbon leakage.

However, there are real, measurable things that would have made a difference. There was a motion on the exact issue that the member has just raised, to do that. Of course, it was defeated.

Exporting a gas turbine to Russia, the Canadian detonators in Russian mines, no wartime insurance, not sending the armoured vehicle and not increasing munitions production are things that are actually harming Ukraine. Our vote does not harm it. The Liberals should stop talking the way they are. It is disgraceful.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in his remarks, the member spoke about why all Conservatives oppose the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. He cited two things. First, there is the mention of carbon pricing in it, which, of course, is not a legitimate reason, because Ukraine has already had carbon pricing since 2011 and needs carbon pricing to enter the EU, which it is desperately trying to do. The agreement would not even force Ukraine to do anything on carbon pricing, so that is not a reason to oppose the agreement. We already know that.

The other reason he gave was that the government is somehow imposing language about carbon pricing on Ukraine, or imposing something on it that it does not want. However, President Zelenskyy signed the agreement; he came to Canada to do that. He asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian ambassador asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Ukraine MPs who were visiting Canada asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Conservatives seem to believe that they know better than Ukrainians themselves do what Ukrainians want.

My question for the member is this: Why are Conservatives and Vladimir Putin the only people out there who seem to think they know better than Ukrainians themselves what Ukrainians want or need?

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

Madam Speaker, the logical gymnastics the member just had to do are something that could probably have won him a gold medal at an Olympic gymnastics competition.

President Zelenskyy actually asked the Liberals to not send the gas turbine. Did the member stand up against his government and say that it should not happen? No, he did not. There are currently no export controls in place to stop Canadian detonators from getting into Russian land mines. Has he stood up to criticize his government for doing that? No, he has not. However, somehow, voting against a trade agreement is one of the cardinal sins, one of the seven deadly sins. It is ridiculous and pathetic.

The Liberals should be stopping the things I have raised. They should be including the things I have raised. That is how to show support for Ukraine, not this fake straw-man argument they are building up about voting against a trade agreement that includes language that we would never support, because in the next trade agreement, they will mandate a carbon price if we let them get away with it this time.

Canadians know the misery of the carbon tax. We are against it in Canada and we are against it in trade agreements. We will be against it forever.

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

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we are in favour of Ukraine. I want to go back to December 2, 1991, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made us the first country in the world to recognize the independence of Ukraine.

I would ask my colleague to elaborate on the kind of dedication this country has provided to our Ukrainian cohorts, friends and families in Ukraine today, to justify some of the great comments my colleagues have made and to further denigrate what the Liberal government has done with respect to putting a carbon tax into a trade agreement with a country that is at war.

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

Madam Speaker, this could be a meme.

Liberals think that sending a gas turbine that Russia uses to pump gas and make money to fund the war is no big deal, that allowing Canadian detonators to end up in Russian land mines that are killing Ukrainian soldiers is no big deal and that not giving businesses war risk insurance is no big deal. None of that is a big deal, but if we vote against a free trade agreement that we think is a bad trade agreement, they say, “Oh my God, you are supporting Vladimir Putin.” Their arguments on this are pathetic and embarrassing.

Canadians have always supported Ukraine. Conservatives have always supported Ukraine, just like when we were almost the first country in the world to recognize an independent Ukraine. I think Poland beat us by something like 25 minutes. That is the Conservative record. We support Ukraine, so members should not listen to the misinformation and disinformation the despicable Liberals are trying to spread.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member inadvertently referred to the Prime Minister by his name.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do not know. I did not hear it.

Did the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot mention the Prime Minister's name?

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

Madam Speaker, I did not mention the Prime Minister in my speech at all. I am going to ask that my colleague listen before he raises points of order. He might find that useful later on during question period.

That brings me to the matter of returning to the agreement. I have consistently said that I oppose it. Let us keep in mind that all of the Conservatives' amendments were ruled out of order. I was against all of them. Some of what they contained was totally irresponsible and dangerous, such as including the sale of weapons in a trade agreement. We want this to be an agreement for reconstruction and peace, not for what its wording implies, an agreement for perpetual warfare. It made no sense. However, every time that the amendments brought forward were ruled out of order, I voted with the Conservatives so that the amendments could be debated and heard.

The definition of trade agreements has a major transparency problem. Something makes no sense. I intend to talk about it.

Ottawa is not being transparent with its own MPs even though they are the ones chosen by the people to represent them in the House. No matter the issue or the party in power, governments do not like their opponents scrutinizing their actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, Canada's monarchical culture demands secrecy. Canada clings to that monarchical tradition, keeping its trade agreements hidden in the shadows lest they perish like vampires in the sun.

As an MP, I have experienced this on several occasions, including in November and December 2020, when the Standing Committee on International Trade was supposed to study the transitional Canada-UK free trade agreement without actually seeing it. It was a genuine theatre of the absurd. We heard witnesses, experts who told us what they liked and did not like, and who encouraged us to vote for or against certain parts of it. Not one of those people had seen the agreement, not even the MPs who were supposed to study it. What was the point?

When Canada's Department of External Affairs was created in 1909, the Secretary of State presiding over it was required to provide an annual report to Parliament on the department's activities. Logically, this included a report on Canada's international discussions and commitments. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give it a freer hand by granting it jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The requirement for an annual report was abolished at that time.

However, in 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating the following:

...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.

In actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements.

My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois’s efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members. There is currently a policy in place, but no government has had the courage to create binding legislation. That is not the same thing.

As a result, the government can act arbitrarily. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. Also, this process, while desirable in itself but ridiculously inadequate, consisting in asking members what they think after the fact, could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties’ position.

Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector. It is written down. The European Union has members vote before starting negotiations. It asks them which mandates they wish to give negotiators.

The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process.

We might have hoped for progress when yet another agreement was reached between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in 2020. We would have thought there would be more transparency in the process. I remember that we were studying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in the Standing Committee on International Trade. Before CUSMA was adopted, the NDP reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, agreeing to accelerate the adoption of CUSMA in exchange for the government’s commitment to increase transparency in trade agreements. There would be less transparency at the time, because there was less time to study CUSMA but, in exchange, there would be more transparency in the future.

What happened? The next agreement, with the United Kingdom, was referred for consideration for several weeks without us having any text. This tells us how successful the agreement was. Now, there are talks with Indonesia. There were talks with India until not long ago. There are talks with the whole Indo-Pacific region and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There are talks with the United Kingdom for a transitional agreement. Eventually, there will be talks with Mercosur. We know absolutely nothing about any of these. The meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, even when we hear from Canadian negotiators, tell us very little.

That agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada yielded negligible results, which does not seem to have discouraged the NDP from continuing to forge alliances with them. Good for them, but when it comes to transparency, I wish them better luck next time.

I would also like to talk about transparency toward the provinces. There is nothing in Canadian federalism—and this is a misnomer, since there is no longer any federalism; we are on the road to a centralized unitary state—that requires consultation with the provinces.

There was one sole exception. It was for an agreement with Europe, when Quebec was allowed one negotiator. However, that negotiator had no seat at the negotiations table. The chief negotiator for Quebec, former premier Pierre Marc Johnson, has said that he was there just to be a cheerleader for the Canadian delegation, which essentially engaged in backroom negotiations. In contrast, Wallonia nearly scuttled that whole agreement, because it disagreed with one provision, and because that is how the Belgian system works. Perhaps there is something here for Canada to learn, in terms of how it operates. That would be showing real respect for the provinces.

It is a proposal for reform, but it is not my preferred solution. My preference would be for Quebec to be at the negotiating table as an independent country.

I would add that, if the federal government is to represent all Canadians in international agreements and we cannot even manage to enjoy the benefits, Quebec is becoming an increasingly negligible quantity in Parliament. How can we ever gain the smallest advantage if year after year, electoral reform after electoral reform, we are losing more and more ground?

We are going to become a more and more insignificant minority in this Parliament. When I say “we”, I mean the Quebec nation. With the new electoral map coming into effect shortly, Quebec will have 70 seats out of 341 instead of out of 338. Since votes in Parliament are often close, Quebec’s political weight will be reduced, accounting for around 22% of the total number of members. The trend is clear. As Quebec’s demographic weight decreases, its power in the House of Commons will become increasingly insignificant.

Beyond the numbers, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences, because Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is that not the real consequence of our presence in this regime, which seems to be designed to perpetually marginalize us?

Before the creation of the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we had the right to equal representation. We were two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority. Once we became less numerous, the regime magically switched to proportional representation. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up.

I will conclude my speech by repeating that we are in favour of the agreement, but that we would have preferred a much different process in which the provinces and elected members could have taken part in the negotiations.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, his comments, and his and his party’s support for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I would like to ask him why he thinks this agreement is important for Canada and Ukraine.

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

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, this agreement will certainly be good for the economy. For Quebec, I think that there are interesting prospects in the sports and engineering industries. Of course, the agreement will also promote trade, which will also be good for Ukrainians and their country.

However, I will reiterate that I do not understand why Canada elevated multinationals to the status of sovereign powers. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was replaced by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, there is no reason for this. That is why I asked that we vote separately on that particular aspect. I voted against that aspect.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech about the free trade agreement and the bill, which will implement it in Canada. I travelled with him several times to Washington, and I must say that he is a champion of workers’ interests in the labour and battery sectors. Every time we met with the Americans, he would talk about that, trying to convince them.

I think there is something that is very difficult for us when it comes to free trade agreements, even with our closest allies, including the U.S. We need to convince them that Canada can bring something to the table to help them. I think that our trade in goods and services with Ukraine is worth about $1 billion.

In committee, we Conservatives proposed eight amendments to the free trade agreement to try to broaden its scope. I will try to summarize the member’s statements. He says that he wants a free trade system to promote peace. However, Ukraine is at war, having been invaded by Russia under Vladimir Putin. It needs weapons and it needs to be able to manufacture weapons within its borders.

Would it not be preferable to include that in the free trade agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who did travel with me.

He also defended his region’s interests quite vigorously in meetings we had with U.S. elected officials. This being said, it is the prerogative of all sovereign states to sell or donate weapons. Of course, there are ways of doing so, and this is regulated by conventions. However, it is the prerogative of a state to support one of the parties in a conflict.

Still, should this be included in an agreement that is intended to remain in effect for many years? That is where I have a problem.

In the interest of transparency, I want to say something. Although I was radically opposed to every amendment proposed by the Conservatives, I agreed that they should have been ruled in order for debate. I find it sad to have an agreement thrust upon us and not be able to change it later.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his speech.

I would also like to thank him for his support at committee during the discussions on the investor-state dispute mechanism question. I would like to give him some more time to expand on that. He mentioned that the ISDS gives corporations the status of sovereign nations. It puts them above Canadian corporations here in Canada. It brings up the possibility that Ukraine would be on the hook for huge settlements if one of these disputes was made against Ukraine by a Canadian company.

I am wondering if the member could comment on that and comment on why the world is moving away from ISDS agreements while Canada seems stuck in that lane.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why this keeps getting brought up even though it was removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. It is a non-issue.

That said, in terms of the general consequences, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms allow litigation based on the right to profit.

Early on, in the old North American Free Trade Agreement, this was called “expropriation” or “equivalent to expropriation”. That is the vague term that opened the way to every possible kind of abuse. It justified countries being sued for increasing minimum wage, for cancelling certain offshore petroleum developments, and for banning the use of chemicals in certain lawn care products. It was really a step backwards for democracy. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, political will declined partly or completely in 60% of cases. In other words, it was a victory for multinationals or out-of-court settlements.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech and for his continued, meaningful defence of Quebec's interests.

I would like him to elaborate further because, before he arrived in the House earlier, I asked a question regarding that same issue. The parliamentary secretary replied that we were only approving the agreement and could not change it. That is exactly what my colleague has just demonstrated in his speech.

What must we do for this not to be the case in subsequent international agreements? How can we change the way that we reach international agreements?

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

Madam Speaker, the entire culture needs to be changed. We heard some pretty amazing things in the debate on our supply management bill, which my colleague and I sponsored and for which we toured Quebec twice, virtually in 2021 and in person this year.

We heard some pretty amazing things, like Parliament should not have anything to say on the matter, because it would interfere with negotiators' methods. We live in a democracy. The first idea we need to adopt in our culture and our way of doing things is that debates should take place before the negotiators get to work. That is the first thing.

Then, through legislation rather than policy, there should be time built in to make amendments to the agreement and to produce an explanatory memorandum. We do not need a policy, we need a law. I emphasize this point.

[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, I would also invite the Conservatives to rethink their position. I radically disagree with their arguments. I think a lot of them could easily be disproved by the facts.

That being said, let us be clear about one thing: A trade agreement is not a religion. It is reasonable to raise questions and to disagree with certain aspects. If they are fundamentally opposed to most of them, they can oppose them. I do not want to send them to the stake for opposing those things. They are entitled to disagree.

That being said, of course, their argument has obvious weaknesses. For that reason, I also invite them to rethink their position.

[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.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear the member's points about the process in negotiating free trade agreements and have taken that under advisement and to heart.

One of the things he did speak about was that the carbon tax purportedly is the reason the Conservative Party has voted against this agreement and does not support this agreement. I am wondering if he could share with the House and with Canadians what his point of view is on the Conservatives' rationale for opposing this free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives, and I really cannot understand their position here. We have mentioned in this agreement carbon pricing in a way that would not hold either Canada or Ukraine to having a carbon price, or increasing it or promoting it. It simply talks about this in a broad list of environmental objectives.

As I mentioned, Ukraine already has a carbon price. It has had one for 12 years, which is much longer than Canada. We heard in debate here today the Conservatives think that this is some kind of poison pill. I cannot imagine Volodymyr Zelenskyy would sign an agreement that had a poison pill in it. It is the height of illogical thinking that Canada would put a poison pill in a free trade agreement so the Conservatives would vote against it. It simply does not make any sense at all, and so I am baffled. The member should ask the Conservatives that question.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's fair criticism of the decisions that the Conservatives have made on this, unlike the hyperpartisan rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. He talked about how President Zelenskyy signed this agreement and wants Canada to go forward with it, so he accepts that what President Zelenskyy says means something.

I am wondering if he wants to comment on President Zelenskyy's comments about how this Liberal government allowed a gas turbine to be exported from Canada to pump Russian gas, to actually help fund Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy said, “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also [dangerous] for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. The Canadian ambassador said, “Russia is using energy as a weapon, in Europe and all over the world. This money and fuel are going to support the war in Ukraine.”

Does the member also agree with President Zelenskyy that this was a terrible decision by the Liberal government that actually helped fund Putin's war machine?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I think it was the wrong decision, for all of the reasons he mentioned.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have always appreciated the hon. member's solidarity with indigenous peoples and the work that he does to meet the needs of his constituents.

One of the things that seems quite important about this particular modernization of this free trade agreement is the chapter on indigenous peoples and trade.

I think that these are important acknowledgements about what we need to do for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, we have been hearing about causes trumping these kinds of important issues. I wonder if the member can speak to what the difference is, in terms of advocating for human rights, indigenous rights, as well as how fighting for a cause might not be as effective as what we are seeing today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her important and wonderful voice here in this Parliament, constantly reminding us about the rights of indigenous people. It gives more than just words and thoughts to their rights, and actually puts those rights into action in our agreements and our laws.

Yes, I am very happy that we have a chapter here on indigenous rights in this agreement. It speaks to the Tatar people of Ukraine, as well as the indigenous people here in Canada, and that these types of chapters will be in further agreements.

We had the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have recognized here in Canada. British Columbia has laws. We have to make sure that, every day, we think of what those rights mean and how we make our laws and decisions here to uphold those rights.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a wonderful member of the international trade committee, who contributes very significantly to whatever the discussion or debate is in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way. I understand, after the next election, he is not going to be returning to the House, which I think is a real loss for the House of Commons, because he adds a tremendous amount in the House and at the committee level.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the concerns of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and so many other organizations that have echoed their support for this. President Zelenskyy sat right in front of me and urged us to pass this free trade agreement very quickly.

Was my hon. colleague concerned with the amount of opposition that was led by the Conservative Party of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Humber River—Black for those warm regards and for being a wonderful chair of the international trade committee.

Yes, as I said before in answer to a previous question, I am surprised at the Conservative response to this agreement. The Conservatives seem to have reacted to a couple of words in the agreement and used that to vote against it when Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians have been very vocal in calling them out on this decision. We should be unanimous in our support for Ukraine. I was surprised that the Conservatives doubled down today and have done a couple more things to try to slow down this bill, when Ukraine wants it passed right now.

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

Madam Speaker, the point of this trade agreement, or part of it, is allegedly to help rebuild Ukraine. That is some of the rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal Party. However, one thing that actually is a problem is that Canada is the only G7 country that has not offered wartime insurance to Canadian business operators who want to rebuild in Ukraine. That means that the projects that they undertake are subject to enormous risk because, of course, it is a war. Every other G7 country has recognized this risk and has provided wartime insurance to business operators. Canada has not. Was the member aware of that, and does he think that is another major failure of the current Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is valuable member of the international trade committee. This issue of wartime insurance for Canadian companies is important. I do not believe it belongs in a free trade agreement, just as I do not believe that calls for more munitions to Ukraine or natural gas to Ukraine belong in a free trade agreement. These agreements are about taking tariffs off things and not about trying to promote one thing or the other.

This is something that the government should be looking into. This is an agreement that is supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and right now we are talking about issues within the war experience.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

As we speak, the Ukrainian people are risking their lives and sacrificing their lives to defend their homeland. Notwithstanding the courage and resolve of the Ukrainian people, the situation in Ukraine is dire. There are millions of refugees inside and outside Ukraine. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine every day. We have heard about many forms of war crimes, including the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, as one example.

There are hundreds of millions of people in the global south who are facing food shortages and famine because of Russia's invasion and blockade of Ukrainian ports. The war is the primary reason for food and energy price inflation around the world, including here in Canada. When Canadians pay higher prices at the pumps and the grocery store, the primary reason for that is Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

This is an existential threat to global security and to Canada's security. It is critical that Ukraine win this war, not just for the sake of the Ukrainian people and not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is important to us. Ukrainian people are not just fighting for themselves, but they are also fighting for us. I believe we should be fighting for them.

The Government of Canada has been fighting for them. Canada has been a leading country in supporting Ukraine. We have provided over $5 billion in financial aid to Ukraine. That is the largest amount of financial aid per capita of any country in the world.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague is heckling me as I speak, so clearly he does not support that.

We have provided about $2.4 billion in military support that is going to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the front line fight against this invasion. There has been over $350 million in humanitarian assistance, $127 million in development assistance, and over $102 million in security and stabilization assistance. We have the implementation of the CUAET visa program that has allowed about 200,000 Ukrainians fleeing the war to come here for temporary refuge in Canada.

We have been a leader in supporting Ukraine's entry into NATO. We have been advocating for Ukraine's entry into the EU. There was some talk earlier in this debate about what we can do to help Ukraine rebuild. The reality is that Canada is a leading country. We are making sure that we are seizing Russian assets here in Canada, and other countries are looking to our leadership on that, to make sure that we can sanction Russian assets here in Canada and use them to help rebuild Ukraine.

We are leading in terms of working with Ukraine, the International Criminal Court and others to make sure that Russia's war crimes are prosecuted. We have trained 40,000 members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces through Operation Unifier. Let us just imagine 40,000 Ukrainian men and women fighting and giving everything to defend their homeland, and they were trained by Canada. I think that is something that, as Canadians, we can be very proud of.

One of the things we can be very proud of is the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which I would note was negotiated in record time at the request of the Ukrainian government while it was under attack by Russia. These are steps that we can be very proud of. These are important, material steps to help Ukraine win the war.

The reality is that this will not be enough until Ukraine achieves a decisive victory. To me, a decisive victory means it wins the war, but it also wins the peace. Winning the war means they recapture all of their territory, and that includes Eastern Ukraine, Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

Winning the peace, to me, means many things. It means that Ukraine is secure as a member of NATO, that we secure reparations from Russia to help rebuild Ukraine, that there is justice for Russian war crimes and that we help rebuild Ukraine's economy. That means not just helping to rebuild the physical infrastructure that has been destroyed in Ukraine, but it also means helping Ukraine's economy rebuild so it can be prosperous and so the Ukrainian people can achieve the freedom, the democracy, but also the prosperity that they are fighting for every minute of every day, and that tens of thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives to defend.

That is where this Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement comes in. It is actually incredibly important, not just to Canada's economy, but also to Ukraine's economy. Ukraine's economy, since the invasion started, has declined by over 30%. Let us imagine a 30% decline in a country's economy. The reality is that is why signing free trade agreements, with countries like Canada that are interested in not only trade, but also investing in Ukraine, is so critical, especially at this time.

If Ukraine is going to fight this war, it will need an economy that is functioning, that is allowing it to fund the war by collecting taxes to pay for munitions and everything else it needs to pay for. I think it is very important that we appreciate the importance of this agreement for that purpose.

The other reason this agreement is important is that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement we currently have in place covers goods. It covers the trade of physical material, physical stuff, that goes back and forth, which is very important. However, the bigger economic opportunity is in trade and services and allowing investment to flow between our countries.

Just from a purely Canadian perspective, it is good for Canada to have this trade agreement with Ukraine. It is an economic opportunity for our workers and our business people, so it should be unanimously supported. It is equally important for Ukraine from an economic perspective to trade services and allow investment to flow. It is critical and urgent for Ukraine, not just because we need to help Ukraine's economy but because the flow of investment is critical to helping Ukraine rebuild. Ukraine cannot rebuild without investment from individuals and businesses who want to invest to build businesses and help rebuild Ukraine.

This trade agreement was asked for and signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It is supported by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It is supported by the Ukrainian ambassador. Ukrainian MPs have travelled to Canada to ask MPs of all parties to support it. It is widely supported. It is beneficial to Ukraine and is beneficial to Canada, but there is a problem: Every single Conservative MP continuously votes against it. They just voted against it an hour or two ago here in this House again.

The argument they have put forward is that there is mention of a carbon price in the agreement. First of all, the mention of a carbon price does not require Ukraine to do anything. It is just a mention. The second thing is that Ukraine has had a carbon price in place since 2011. It had a carbon price before Canada had one. It needs one to join the EU. Ukraine committed to a carbon price long ago and has committed to a carbon price for the future, so nothing here is being imposed on Ukraine.

The other thing that is a little odd is the suggestion that Canada somehow imposed this on Ukraine. This is the government, its leader and the people fighting to defend themselves from the second-largest military in the world and somehow Canada imposed something on them. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument in my life from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have argued here in this debate that they know better than President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government what Ukraine needs. They have said we should delay this agreement, we should amend this agreement and we should remove segments of the agreement, all of those things because this would be better for Ukraine. Do members know who knows better what Ukraine needs? Ukrainians do. We should be listening to them. They have asked us to pass this agreement. We should respect their decision and respect the fact that they want this agreement signed and need it urgently.

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern now that has emerged since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives talk about what Brian Mulroney and Diefenbaker did. That is great, but we are not talking about them because those folks are not sitting in the House today.

The member for Carleton is the leader of the Conservative Party, and since he has become the leader, members of the Conservative Party and he specifically have never advocated for more military, financial or humanitarian support for Ukraine. He has been silent on Russia's acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people. He has echoed the false narratives that the war in Ukraine does not affect inflation around the world when expert after expert tells us it does. The other day on—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. If members are not in agreement with what the hon. member says, they can raise it during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre has a little over a minute.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party has echoed false narratives about the war, suggesting the war does not affect us and does not affect inflation in Canada. He has said that in this House multiple times, which is of course not true. We know that not to be true.

The Conservatives specifically challenged spending in our budget and voted to cut Operation Unifier, Canada's training mission of Ukrainian soldiers, through which we have trained 40,000 of them. They voted to cut military aid to Ukraine on Friday. Now they have voted again against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Every single Conservative MP did that.

This is part of a pattern. The Conservative Party under its leader does not support Ukraine. It is very obvious and apparent. I think it is important that we all support Ukraine. Ukrainians are fighting for themselves but they are also fighting for us.

Let us unify. Let us support Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

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

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the member is astounding. He says we should listen to President Zelenskyy. Well, what he said on Canada exporting gas turbines is that it was “absolutely unacceptable”. “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world.”

President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. Where was the member when that was going on? Was he condemning his government? Was he standing up and saying that we have to listen to President Zelenskyy? No. The member was quiet as a church mouse on an issue that is serious: a gas turbine being used to pump Russian gas to fund the war in Ukraine.

He did not listen to President Zelenskyy then, but somehow it is outrageous that we disagree with President Zelenskyy on a trade agreement. How does the member square his hypocrisy?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during this debate and during their consistent opposition to measures that help Ukraine over the last few weeks especially, Conservatives focus on the past, on nostalgia: what Mulroney did, what Diefenbaker did, what somebody did 10 years ago, what somebody did two years ago.

What the Ukrainian people need is not nostalgia. They need help. They are fighting for their lives, and they are fighting for us. The members opposite should stop focusing on what happened 10 or 20 years ago and focus on today.

Today, President Zelenskyy is asking us to pass this free trade agreement because it is vital to Ukraine winning this war. Let us support them. Slava Ukraini.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind members they had an opportunity to ask a question. They were not disturbed while they were asking the question and should return that respect when they are listening to the answer. If they are not in agreement with the answer, they should wait for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the efforts of my colleague, along with many other members of the House of Commons, to advance this free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and the importance of it.

We know Ukrainians are fighting an illegal Russian aggression against them. I would like to know what else the hon. member suggests we could be doing to advance and promote the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critical that we continue to work with our allies and encourage them to support Ukraine until it wins. That is a critical step.

We have seen some wavering of support among some in the United States. It is important that we buffer that support. Canada can help Ukraine by continuing to send military aid to Ukraine, by continuing to train the Ukrainian armed forces and by continuing to send humanitarian aid. Also, let us expand our economic relationship with Ukraine and work toward Ukraine's rebuilding after the victory.

If we stay resolved and work with our allies to stay resolved, Ukraine will win. If Ukraine wins, we all win.

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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague opposite, in the context of this agreement, will commit right now to talking to the Prime Minister and to his caucus to strongly commit Canada to repurposing seized Russian assets back to Ukraine. Will he commit to ensuring that Canada leads a G7 effort to send back seized assets to Ukraine?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill.

The 2017 agreement, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine in the wake of the 2014 Russian invasion. As members know, 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. It was negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, but now it seems as though the Conservatives are no longer on board.

Why is that and what impact will that have?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. I do not know what happened to Brian Mulroney's party, which believed in free trade agreements. For some reason, the leader of the official opposition decided to no longer support an agenda that promotes free trade, even though the President of Ukraine clearly indicated that he wants Canada to support this free trade agreement. I do not understand what is happening to the Conservative Party in 2024.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me ask my colleague a question on words versus actions on this. I see a lot of paper and a lot of words, but as far as the actions and supporting Ukraine go, the government has been a day late and a dollar short almost every time.

Will the member commit to actually supporting Ukraine, as he, his party and his government have not done in the past, including returning the turbine when President Zelenskyy said not to return the turbine and cutting off the oil trade that Russia was importing into Canada far later than this party recommended they should, because that is funding the war for Russia on Ukraine?

Will the member commit to actually performing better as far as the real metrics go, as opposed to the paper metrics?

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I am finding it odd that we have Conservative members who are actually standing up asking about the government's position with regard to Ukraine when, in fact, what we have witnessed is that the Conservative Party has completely abandoned Ukraine on this very important issue of Canada-Ukraine trade. For the first time ever, Conservatives are going to be voting against a trade agreement.

I am wondering if my colleague would not agree with me that there is a possibility of an oozing of hypocrisy and disappointment all in one in regard to the way the Conservative Party today is treating a very important trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member. We know that the leader of the official opposition is getting advice on high grocery prices from a lobbyist called Jenni Byrne, but I am wondering if they are now getting advice on foreign policy from Tucker Carlson, who has been a strong advocate in support of Russia.

I just do not understand where the Conservative Party of Canada is going with the lack of support for Ukraine. It is about high time they stand up and support Ukraine and pass this bill as soon as possible.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke is wrong. President Zelenskyy came to Canada last September to sign a trade agreement. That was why, during a time of war, he came to Canada. It was to sign a trade agreement. He asked parliamentarians here, all of us, to support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, as did the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, as did 1.3 million people of Ukrainian-Canadian heritage and others. They want all members of all political parties to get behind it and to vote in favour of this legislation.

Why have members of the Conservative Party chosen to abandon Ukraine when Ukraine has asked for the support of this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is wrong. Conservatives absolutely support Ukraine. We have absolutely said that if the language about carbon pricing is removed from this agreement, we would sign on and would like to add a few more things that Ukraine is asking for, like LNG, like munitions, like some of the ambulances that we have and extra equipment. Things that were seized that belonged to Russia would be an advantage to Ukraine.

There are a lot of things we would like to do, but we certainly do not want to inflict a carbon tax on it that is already doubling costs in Canada and causing unaffordability.

[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, I do not think that the Liberal government can fix anything at all when it comes to corruption, because they are experts in the matter.

We have signed many agreements with other countries and none of them mention the carbon tax. Why does the Canada-Ukraine agreement now talk about that? I do not know. We would support the agreement if any mention of carbon pricing were removed and replaced with something else.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a fairly sizable Ukraine community in my riding, and I want to give a special shout-out to Stefan and Slav, who have worked very closely with me, for doing incredible work in all ways to send money back to Ukraine to help people who are settling here from Ukraine, and in many other functions.

The concern is that they understand Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and one thing that has been very clear in what they are asking of Canadians is to step forward and to provide support. This trade agreement is a fundamental caveat of that ask.

I am wondering if the member hears from those in her Ukraine community how concerned they are that the Conservatives are simply not supporting this when they do not see any attachment to a carbon tax. It just does not make sense to a sovereign nation.

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

Madam Speaker, I meet regularly with the many Ukrainians who have come here. I want to thank the Save Ukraine Sarnia and Lambton County group and people like Dr. Cassandra Taylor who have provided supports and have welcomed our family of Ukrainians. They certainly know that I and the Conservative Party unequivocally supports them. I would remind everyone that we already have a trade agreement and that Ukraine—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by quoting a former colleague of mine, who said, “Ukraine is defending itself against unjustified aggression — the Kremlin’s naked attempt to destroy a country’s statehood, infrastructure & identity.

“Full collective support for Ukraine’s victory is the right legal, moral...military & strategic course of action.”

I strongly support this position. Putin's war of aggression is not just against Ukraine. His war machine attempts to undermine the western consensus for democracy, the rule of law and the pursuit of a quality of opportunity.

I will move now to Canada's role in this fight and the substance of this bill. This bill proposes updates to Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine. I support free trade with Ukraine. I do not support every measure in this bill. I take particular issue with the Liberals' inclusion of a carbon tax within the text. That is because, in the Canadian context, the Liberal carbon tax has dramatically increased the cost of living for every single one of the people I represent, all while failing to bring Canada anywhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is not solving the urgent question of climate change. It is a clearly flawed policy that creates economic harm, and those who adhere to ideology without questions put up roadblocks that have stifled the policy innovation needed to reduce emissions.

I can simultaneously hold the position that I support free trade with Ukraine and the victory of Ukraine over Putin while I oppose a carbon tax. There are tens of millions of other Canadians who feel the exact same way. For the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc or anyone else to suggest that to develop ways for Canada to support Ukraine I need to capitulate on my position on a carbon tax misses the point of democracy, which is what we are ostensibly trying to fight for.

In a dire crisis situation such as the one Ukraine finds itself in, fighting against the war of aggression being waged by Putin, it is the Liberal government that should have been working collaboratively to find a unified path forward. If its members are unwilling to budge on the inclusion of a carbon tax in this agreement, then the onus was on them to build consensus with the Canadian public and acknowledge we can have internal differences on a carbon tax while supporting Ukraine.

It is a dangerous, deadly game for the Prime Minister of Canada and anyone in this place to repeatedly suggest that, if a Canadian opposes a carbon tax, they must support Putin. This is a disgusting, morally bankrupt and fundamentally anti-democratic politically motivated aspersion that serves only to divide our country at a time when it desperately needs leadership that unifies it. It does not help Ukraine. It does not help Ukrainian diaspora in Canada.

The Prime Minister eschewed this approach when he failed to table this agreement in Parliament 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. In February of 2020, ahead of the renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement, the minister at the time made the following commitment “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.” That did not happen in this case. There was no collaborative effort.

Again, I want to re-emphasize that I will oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not help my constituents. It is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not meeting emissions targets. It is a flawed and failed policy. I will stand here and support Ukraine while saying that anybody who is suggesting we should be making politics over this is actually helping Putin. This line of attack disgusts me because I know the people who are saying these things know better. If they want to earn the votes of Canadians, they should be looking at the issues that are pushing their polls so far south, as opposed to desperately trying to cling to some sort of false narrative that only divides our country. It only helps our country's enemies. It is disgusting, and it seriously needs to stop.

Earlier today the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would not commit to asking his government to repurpose seized Russian assets. I am not going to stand here and call him a Putin supporter, so no one on the other bench should suggest that, because I firmly, strongly and backed by evidence reject a carbon tax, I somehow support that. This is exactly what the Russian war machine wants. That is the exact narrative it wants, and it needs to stop.

At the same time, what this agreement should be doing is looking at ways to materially help our allies. Just moments ago, the leader of the Conservative Party issued a press release saying that the Prime Minister must send CRV rockets to Ukraine. He is talking about ways that Canada should be sending surplus weapons to help our allies in their fight against Putin. That is a material way we should be helping, not by casting aspersions or trying to divide our country over this issue.

There is another thing that I want to implore every member of the House, as strongly as I can. I am going to read a small paragraph from a colleague in Ukraine, from a note she sent to me. She writes, “The value of frozen Russian assets is estimated to be at least $320 billion. With no reasonable prospect for Russia paying compensation to Ukraine anytime soon and Ukraine's need for both short- and long-term financial assistance, confiscations of Russian assets become the only just and viable option, especially in view of the fact that up to $1 trillion will be needed for Ukraine to fully recover. Our partners' tax-payers”, and this is from a Ukrainian MP, should not shoulder the burden of Ukraine's recovery alone, especially as they froze and can use assets of aggressors responsible for the devastation.”

These are senior government officials in Ukraine today. In the past, some of those senior government officials have suggested that Canada's military is impotent. If they are going to take that posture, then, at the very least, Canada should be using the laws that are already in place, which have already been supported by all members in the House, to repurpose seized Russian assets and lead a G7 charge to force western allies to do exactly what Ukraine is crying out for in this case.

Putin's is a war of aggression, and there needs to be compensation for Ukraine. They are the aggressor. At the very least, if Canada is true, and if Canada is going to try to make any sort of case that we are some sort of broker in the world, that we have any sort of relevancy, this is low-hanging fruit. We should be the first country to do this. We have the legal mechanisms. There is nothing in this agreement about that, absolutely nothing.

The government has had this tool at its disposal for two years now, and it has not moved on this. Am I going to accuse the government of not supporting Ukraine because of that? I could. Instead, I would rather it would move on it.

This is an issue that transcends petty partisan politics and the desperate attempt of a Prime Minister, who is 16 points behind in the polls, trying to cling on to a disgusting life raft for his political gain. We have to work together.

Our global democracy is at stake, folks. Right now, our allies are fighting a war. We have lost the plot here. Honestly, if somebody stands up and dares to question the fact that I will stand up for my constituents against a policy that does nothing to help them, that does nothing to help climate change.

I have watched this debate. I have watched pundits and former colleagues say, “Maybe the Conservatives should just capitulate on this.” Absolutely not. It is the role of the government to build consensus during a time of crisis, and it has failed to do that.

I beg the government to do something that resembles work, and to work with our partners to stop the funding of the Russian war machine by transporting more of Canada's natural gas overseas.

That should have been in this agreement, but it is not. At the very least, today, there is $300 billion. That is more than the entire sum total of all of the aid that has been sent to Ukraine. Canada could be leading the charge on this. Instead, we have Liberal members of Parliament standing here and saying these things. They have lost the plot. Canadians know this. Canadians are not buying this. Let us do better.

I implore and I beg the government to rethink its posture, both on the carbon tax and its political position on the issue, and on dragging its feet on common-sense measures that Conservatives have been calling for for some time, measures for which there is already consensus in the House of Commons and across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, in every trade agreement, there are all sorts of compromises that are made. Sometimes one agrees with something. Sometimes one disagrees with something. One takes a look at the overall agreement in itself. Let there be no doubt, when the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, there was a consensus.

There are individuals, such as Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who had the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I am sure that former prime minister, reflecting on what the Conservative Party is today, is saying it is nothing but hogwash.

There is absolutely no reason for this whatsoever, outside of the MAGA Conservative outlook coming from the United States into Canada, which is actually driving the Conservative Party's position. This red herring the member was talking about is wrong. It is about the MAGA right.

Why will the Conservative Party not support this trade agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, standing up and using a loud, shouty voice does not negate from the fact that the Liberals did not engage in a collaborative approach on this agreement. They did not table it in advance for the House of Commons. They did not try to seek consensus, and I oppose a carbon tax.

The Liberal carbon tax has brought Canada nowhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is increasing the price of everything for everybody in our country at a time when most Canadians cannot afford it. They are choosing between food and rent.

Yes, I oppose a carbon tax. Yes, I disagree with people, even those formerly of my own political stripe, who suggest that we should not. That is why I am here. That is why I am representing my constituents. I can do that and support strong action by Canada against Russian aggression against Ukraine.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not solve climate change, and it increases the cost of everything. If the government wanted to have a consensus-based approach on this agreement, it would have removed it. It is unnecessary and does not need to be in there. It is in there to be a political wedge, and I will stand up for my constituents.

To my colleague opposite, he needs to go talk to his constituents. They do not support a carbon tax either. They do not want to see an increased cost of living because of it. A carbon tax is not worth the cost. We should be supporting Ukraine with measures such as the one the Conservative leader announced today by sending surplus weapons.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the discussion is focused on a carbon tax right now. When we are talking about this important issue, I am reflecting on the conversations that I am having with people who are arriving in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith fleeing the war in Ukraine.

A single mom and her child were talking with me about the impacts of having to leave behind their families and all that they know in Ukraine. I made a commitment to this now constituent to do all that I can to support Ukrainians at this time. What I am trying to understand is that the leader of Ukraine asked us to sign this agreement. I am not going to pretend to know better than Ukrainians themselves or the leader of Ukraine how to best move forward.

Why would we not support this agreement when the leader is asking us to do so?

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

Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement with Ukraine already exists. The NDP could be pressuring its coalition partners to release frozen assets to Ukraine. It is not doing that right now. That would immediately impact the people that she just talked about, but she should also be trying to lower the cost of living in Canada and fight for climate change by axing the carbon tax.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning about an issue that is very important to Canada, to Ukraine and to the constituents in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Of course, I am speaking about the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. We are not here debating carbon pricing.

It is my honour to stand today in support of the legislation that would implement the modernized free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. As was mentioned already, the modernization exercise for the CUFTA has not only allowed for the addition of new chapters but has also provided an opportunity to update previously existing chapters of the agreement and to reflect the most recent practices in the field of international trade agreements.

Important updates I would like to highlight right from the start are those made to the chapters on labour and the environment. The modernized provisions would commit Canada and Ukraine to the highest standards on labour rights and environmental protection. These updates would help make the CUFTA a fully comprehensive modern trade agreement that levels the playing field while ensuring sufficient flexibility for parties to pursue crucial public policy objectives in these areas. Please allow me to give an overview of the nine modernized chapters of the agreement.

On the matter of rules of origin and origin procedures, Canada and Ukraine agreed to activate and operationalize the principle of cumulation of origin, which would allow the materials originating in other countries that Canada and Ukraine both have free trade agreements with to count toward the originating status of goods exported under the agreement's tariff preferences. The result is that the materials originating from, for example, the European Union; the European Free Trade Association members, which include Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland; Israel and the United Kingdom can be taken into consideration when determining whether the final product qualifies as originating under the agreement and thus benefits from preferential treatment. Concretely, it would give producers greater flexibility in sourcing materials from countries with which Canada and Ukraine both have free trade agreements.

The new digital trade chapter of the modernized agreement is a significant update from the previous e-commerce chapter commitments 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 chapter now contains ambitious commitments to facilitate the use of digital trade as a means of trade between Canada and Ukraine. It includes commitments relating to cross-border data flows, data localization, source code disclosure, open government data and personal data protection. On this last item, it is worth noting that, for the first time in any of Canada's trade agreements, a provision has been included prohibiting government authorities from using personal information collected from private organizations to discriminate against a person on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political opinion.

The modernized agreement now includes a stand-alone competition policy chapter with updated and new obligations to promote a competitive marketplace. The chapter furthers Canada and Ukraine's objectives toward a fair, transparent, predictable and competitive business environment. This is notably done through enhanced obligations for competition authorities on procedural fairness and transparency, as well as new obligations for the identification and protection of confidential information. These new obligations provide assurance that fundamental principles, including the rights of defendants, are guaranteed during competition law investigations and enforcement proceedings.

The monopolies and state enterprises chapter has also been upgraded to include important definitions for state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, as well as updated commitments on transparency and technical co-operation.

In the modernized chapter on government procurement, Canada and Ukraine have clarified that they would be allowed to take into account environmental, socio-economic or labour-related considerations in their procurement processes. This means it is now clear that the agreement would not prevent parties from adopting domestic policies and programs to support initiatives such as green and social procurement. The updated chapter also includes a new article to ensure integrity in procurement processes by committing parties to have legal or administrative measures in place to address corruption in government procurement. Finally, the updated chapter also facilitates greater participation by Canadian and Ukrainian SMEs in government procurement.

The upgraded labour chapter in the agreement is robust, comprehensive and fully subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the agreement. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in the two countries by building on international labour principles and rights. Two particularly notable articles were added: an important prohibition on goods made in whole or in part with forced labour, and a stand-alone article on violence against workers. This chapter confirms that Canada and Ukraine are fully committed to the highest labour rights standards and agree to co-operate further in the field.

The modernized environment chapter of CUFTA is the most comprehensive and ambitious ever achieved in a Canadian free trade agreement. For the first time, the chapter includes provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade and climate change policies, including market-based approaches and trade-related climate measures to achieve green growth objectives. The modernized chapter also introduces new articles to address key global environmental issues, such as plastic pollution and waste, and promotes trade of environmental goods and services and the circular economy. The chapter is reflective of Canada and Ukraine's leadership on trade and environment issues, and of our joint commitment to strengthen our co-operation in the area long into the future.

Last, the new transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct chapter significantly builds upon and improves the 2017 version. It provides a framework for promoting transparency and integrity among public officials and the private sector, while advancing enforceability of anti-corruption laws. Therefore, the new chapter furthers Canada and Ukraine's objective of open and transparent international rules-based trading system that also promotes measures to prevent and respond to corruption. The chapter also includes a new section to encourage responsible business conduct for internationally recognized standards, guidelines and principles.

I thank the House for the opportunity to describe the significant improvements that were made to the existing chapters of the 2017 agreement through this modernization exercise. I believe I have made it clear that these upgrades would be instrumental in making the agreement a modern, fully comprehensive and responsive free trade agreement.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, I just have a quick comment. There was a transfer of leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces training mission, Joint Task Force-Ukraine, just a few days ago. I want to thank all the Canadian Armed Forces members who are part of that mission in training Ukrainians, in particular the leadership of Lieutenant-Colonel James Boddy, who is the outgoing commander, and the new commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Ben Rogerson. I had the pleasure to serve with both of those gentlemen in Afghanistan.

On March 22, 2022, I asked about transferring surplus Canadian Armed Forces equipment to Ukraine, in particular, Bison ambulances. Ukrainian forces are fighting right now, on the ground, and rescuing victims and injured soldiers in pickup trucks. Could the member, with his experience as the parliamentary secretary, provide an update on what the government is doing to get that surplus CAF equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces?

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

Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with the member on a number of very important issues, and I have a lot of respect for his approach to politics. I also want to add my thanks to members of the Canadian military because we all know the good, hard work and effort they put in on our behalf.

With respect to the member's question, I would be happy to speak with him off-line, on another occasion, to provide him with all of the information I can obtain. His question was in a positive tone, which is indicative of his approach to politics, in my experience. I say that because we are here to support our ally and friend, Ukraine. With one exception that I am aware of, which has been raised by the official opposition, Conservatives support the agreement. I would hope that the member, with the approach that he has taken to other issues, would be willing to reconsider his position and to encourage colleagues in his caucus to reconsider theirs and to vote with us so we could unanimously support the agreement and get it passed.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the agreement has to be signed now so Canada will be ready to help Ukraine once the illegal Russian war on Ukraine ends. Ukraine's infrastructure and all sectors of economy have been destroyed. Ukraine needs Canada's help in that respect. About $400 billion needs to be invested. Canadian businesses have the expertise to help Ukraine in all these matters.

I would like to ask the hon. member what Conservatives feel about the need for this agreement now.

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

Madam Speaker, as everybody did, I spent time in my constituency over Christmas and in January. I am very fortunate to have a large Ukrainian constituency. It is a community I have known and worked with since I was a child. Over the holidays, I attended many functions. I spoke with community leader and business leaders. I spoke with people approaching me and trying to find ways to work with government and politicians from all parties on how to get the agreement passed, and also, when we pass the agreement, on how we can work collectively toward rebuilding Ukraine.

One thing that was consistent in every single conversation I had with everybody in the Ukrainian community was that they asked why this is happening. They asked why there is not unanimous support for the agreement, and how we get past this. I said that I share their concern and am working toward achieving that goal. People who know me know that I am not a particularly partisan guy. I believe that there are certain issues that are of such importance that partisan politics should have no part in them, and this one of them.

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to sit down with the member afterward, work through this and talk about the concerns he has raised to see whether we can find a compromise and a solution.

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

Madam Speaker, we have signed more than 50 trade agreements that have never contained any clause at all about carbon pricing. Ukraine already has a carbon price. I do not know why we would put equal carbon pricing, protection against carbon leakage and all of this kind of stuff into the contract. That is exactly what it does not need. Therefore, why will the Liberals not just take it out? We can then unanimously support the trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that the Ukrainians want it in there. I do not know what else there is to say in answer to that question. I have spoken with members of the Ukrainian parliament. I have spoken with members of the Ukrainian community. I was in the room when President Zelenskyy signed the agreement. Ukrainians want it in the agreement; it is as simple as that. An agreement is something that is negotiated between two parties in reaching a consensus, and that is what was done here. They want it there, and that is why.

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

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

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

The question is on the amendment.

If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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.

Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[The Speaker, 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 divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #626

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the amendment lost.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.

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.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[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 will 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.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting hearing the member opposite speak. He, like other members of the Conservative Party when they have been speaking to this bill, spoke about nostalgia. They invoke what Diefenbaker did and what Mulroney did in 1991 or whatever the case may be.

What do the people on the front lines of Ukraine need right now? They need help today. Most of the people on the front lines were not born when Mulroney was prime minister. What they need is help today.

It concerns me that these Conservative MPs consistently vote against the free trade agreement, against military support for Ukraine and against Operation Unifier to train Ukrainian soldiers. These are things President Zelenskyy has asked for. These are things the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has asked for.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why will he not stand with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, with President Zelenskyy and with the Ukrainian people in their existential fight for their survival and our security?

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

Madam Speaker, the people the hon. member opposite is talking about were certainly alive when Canada shipped a gas turbine to Russia that, unbelievably, allowed Russia to increase its production of natural gas, which is sold to western Europe to raise more money to feed the war machine that is killing Ukrainian people today. Do they know that?

He talks about nostalgia. Of course many Canadians are nostalgic for the great days of Conservative governments, and they are looking forward to the day when another Conservative government will be formed in this House. We would fix a lot of the errors the Liberal government made, including ensuring the munitions President Zelenskyy is asking for will actually be delivered.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a common misconception that liquefied natural gas is somehow good for the climate. The recent decision by the U.S. White House to pause LNG investments to protect the climate is an illustration of the point that, especially where LNG comes from fracked sources, the release of methane means LNG is not only not better than coal but also, on the entirety of its production life cycle, LNG has just as much carbon as burning coal. It is just that it is emitted at a different point in its life cycle.

I ask my hon. colleague from Langley—Aldergrove if he would not agree that it would be better to just call it fossil gas instead of pretending it is somehow a natural product that is distinguished from other fossil fuels.

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

Madam Speaker, on the west coast, we know a lot about natural gas, and we now have the technology to convert it into liquid form, put it onto ships and ship it safely across the ocean. This is exactly what western Europe is requiring to get it natural gas coming from Russia. It just makes sense that friends should be helping friends out, particularly in a time of war. This is a missed opportunity by the Liberal government.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed travelling with my Conservative colleague when the transport committee toured the ports of Canada, and I listened intently to his views on this subject.

I had a chance recently to meet in Edmonton with the consul general of Ukraine. We discussed this matter and what he called for was unanimity and the full-throated support of the House. He was a bit astounded that there are members who intend to vote against this free trade agreement.

I wonder if my colleague has had a chance to consult specifically with representatives from Ukraine about the content of this free trade agreement and what they have told him.

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

Madam Speaker, what a lot of Ukrainians are concerned about is something I read in The Globe and Mail today, which is that apparently the Prime Minister's Office had specifically invited the known Nazi who was here when President Zelenskyy was in the House. The invitation read, in part, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event...September 22”. This seems to have come directly from the Prime Minister's Office and Canadians, particularly those of Ukrainian descent, have the right to be concerned about that.

[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—

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

The hon. member is out of time by quite a bit.

The hon. member for Guelph has the floor.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member sits with me on the environment committee. During the committee discussions we have talked about carbon pricing mechanisms around the world. Something we have not talked about explicitly is that Ukraine has had a carbon price mechanism with a net effective carbon rate since 2018 and that the EU is working on carbon border adjustment mechanisms that Ukraine is aligning itself with so that countries that do not have carbon pricing mechanisms will effectively be charged a tariff as they export to countries with carbon pricing.

Could the hon. member comment on how, if we did not have carbon pricing in Canada, we would actually end up hurting our trade with countries that do have carbon pricing, such as Ukraine?

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with that hon. colleague on the environment committee as well. The last time I checked, Ukraine's carbon tax was about one dollar per tonne. Canada's carbon tax is $65 per tonne, and is scheduled to increase to a $130 per tonne by the end of the decade, so I think it is plain to see that expecting the Ukrainians to increase their carbon tax by 130-fold would have a very negative effect on their ability to win the war.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed to hear that we support Ukraine, that they support Ukraine, that everyone supports Ukraine, yet we always find ourselves debating the carbon tax.

The Conservative Party's relationship with the carbon tax worries me.

Is my colleague's relationship with the carbon tax one of obsession, hyper-fixation, anxiety or insanity?

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

Madam Speaker, I think we have to start by asking what the carbon tax is doing in the text of this free trade agreement. The hon. member says that we are the ones who are obsessed with the carbon tax, but we are not the ones who put it in there. What is the carbon tax doing in the text of this free trade agreement, if it has no benefit whatsoever to helping Ukrainians win the war? I wish I knew.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with some of the other questioners about this false narrative that the mention of carbon pricing in this free trade agreement has anything to do with forcing Ukraine to put a price on carbon, because Ukraine already has a price on carbon. It has had one longer than Canada. The member talks about what President Zelenskyy said. President Zelenskyy, in this place, said to please pass this free trade agreement quickly. It was signed when he was here. I met with the Ukrainian consul general in Edmonton, and he said to please tell my colleagues that they want unanimous support for this from all their supporters around the world, and especially Canadians, and he could not believe what the Conservatives were doing here.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember when I was here last September for President Zelenskyy's speech. He talked about the need to help Ukraine to win the war and to push the Russians back across the border. He talked about the need to stop Vladimir Putin from weaponizing his oil and gas exports and his energy exports. He talked about the need to prosecute Russian war criminals, and he had a shout-out for the Holodomor memorial in Edmonton. He did not come here to say to please impose a carbon tax on them. He did not come here to say to please phase out their coal and impose net-zero emissions targets on us. I would encourage the hon. member to go back to the video from last September and re-watch President Zelenskyy's speech.

[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.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Victoria, Environment; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Services and Procurement; and the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Labour.

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

Madam Speaker, there seems to be quite a bit of selective hearing going on on the Liberal benches.

The Liberals talk about listening to Ukraine, but Ukraine specifically asked us not to send the turbine to fund the Russian war machine. The Liberals did not listen to that. The Ukrainians asked for LNG, and the Liberals did not include that in the agreement. The Ukrainians have asked us to send munitions, and the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion. Over a year ago, the Liberals promised an air defence system that still has not been delivered.

Could the member tell us why the hearing over there is so selective, and when the Liberals are actually going to give Ukraine things that would help them win this war?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, what Ukraine has asked us for is free trade and an updated free trade agreement between our two nations.

The President of Ukraine stood in this place and asked for our unanimous support. Apparently that was too much for the Conservatives. That was just asking too much of the Conservative Party. The President literally came to this place, stood here and said that he hoped Ukraine could count on Canada's unanimous support.

This is an honest opportunity for Conservatives to demonstrate that support, to stand in support of a bill that President Zelenskyy, himself, and Ukrainian Canadians, themselves, asked for. They are in the inboxes, and Conservative members know that Ukrainian Canadians have been asking them to reconsider this shameful position on free trade with Ukraine for months now.

It is up to them. Yay or nay.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for a very good speech that called out the quite inexplicable opposition that the Conservatives have to this bill.

The Conservatives talk about hearing only what we want to hear, but they are not hearing the President of Ukraine. I met with the Consul General for Ukraine. He asked why we could not pass this quickly and unanimously. He said that they need our support to show the world that Ukraine has unanimous support among its allies. It is the only the Conservatives that are blocking the support.

Could the member comment on why Conservatives are taking this stand, although I am not sure how he could explain this?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely incredible. It is impossible to rationalize why the Conservatives have made this calculation.

I have gone on to their social media on occasion to see what the comments are like. It is really clear to me what those comments have led those Conservatives to believe is the right thing to do in this case. There are a lot of pro-Russia comments under the tweets and the Facebook posts of the Conservatives. None of those have been hidden by the Conservatives and none of those accounts have been blocked, despite the fact that many of them are definitely Russian trolls and people who are spreading more disinformation and misinformation.

We will not fall for it. We will not placate those far right trolls on the Internet, like some of these Conservatives are so eager and willing to do. We will vote with Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine. We will support Ukraine until they win this war.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, to echo my colleagues' most recent comments, I think it is a shame to see the Conservatives sending such a negative message not only to Canada and Quebec, but also to the world by saying that we are not unanimous in our support of Ukraine.

This is a very simple agreement. In fact, it updates a temporary agreement that was already in place. It implements some important things, including procedures to combat corruption, which is a significant improvement. We know that there is corruption in that corner of the world too. Post-war reconstruction will be massive. It is important that this be implemented.

I would like my colleague to tell us about it.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is simple. Support for Ukraine is simple and easy. It is not very complicated or difficult to understand. Simply put, Ukraine is an ally and a friend of Canada. Supporting Ukraine is straightforward. For some reason, the Conservatives have a hard time understanding that. Why?

Right now, support for this bill should be unanimous.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is so excited to hear my speech. I will try not to let him down.

Here we are again talking about a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think this is something that we never expected to be a contentious issue when we came back in the fall of 2023, at least for just about every member of each party, except for the Conservatives. However, here we are.

The Conservatives have drummed up this narrative. It took them a while to do it. If we go back and look at their record on speaking to this, they did not start talking about a carbon tax or pricing pollution until well into the debate. It was as though, at some point, they realized what their angle was going to be on it and then that became their trumpeting point.

I am here to tell them that nobody believes them. Nobody believes their false narrative; nobody, that is, outside of the base that they represent, the same people who went to see Tucker Carlson in Alberta. Nobody, outside of that hard-core base of all right-wing support that the Conservatives are trying to court, believes for a second that this is a real, genuine reason that they are against this.

I find it quite interesting how Conservative after Conservative, as we heard from the member for Regina—Wascana moments ago, get up to say the carbon tax that Ukraine has is only this percentage of this, and it was barely nothing compared to what Canada is trying to do or what we are trying to impose. There is nothing in this agreement that says anything about it. As a matter of fact, the agreement goes beyond saying nothing about it. Rather, it actually says that neither country can impose their environmental policies on the other.

What Conservatives have picked up on is a little reference to the fact that pricing pollution is something that will happen more in the future and that both countries are aware of this and will respond to it accordingly. That is it. It is in the preamble. The clause has no teeth. There is nothing. As a matter of fact, as I said, the agreement goes beyond that to actually say that neither country can impose its environmental policies or regulations. The Conservatives get up and talk about the Ukrainian people in Canada and their position on this as though they know better than President Zelenskyy and just about anybody else on this matter.

Let me read something to my Conservative colleagues, who are heckling me. This is from the League of Ukrainian Canadians, who wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on December 21, 2023. It reads:

Not long ago, the [Conservative Party] was a global leader in support for Ukraine, as Operation Unifier was launched under...Harper...in 2015 in response to the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas. Canadian Armed Forces trained over 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers, modernizing their military doctrine to NATO standards. In return, those Ukrainian soldiers did Canada proud by heroically repelling the Russian invasion forces from Kyiv in February 2022, when the world was predicting the capital would fall within days....

And yet, just weeks after voting against the renewal of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, the CPC voted to cut funding to Operation Unifier. Clearly, the 1.36 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community see it for what it is: A vote against Ukraine's victory....

Many...constituents have spent nearly two years volunteering, advocating, working late nights packing medical supplies into containers, spending their rent money on drones and body armor to keep their friends alive. And some made the ultimate sacrifice by traveling to Ukraine to defend it against Russian aggression. They laid down their lives in the name of freedom for Ukraine and the West, including Canada. They understood that Ukraine must win the war against Russia, otherwise Europe, Canada and the United States will be next in defending themselves against Russian aggression, with soldiers from NATO countries, including Canada, shedding their blood.

If Russia is not defeated, it will be as much a threat to Canada in the future as it is to Ukraine today. We are not insisting you make Ukrainian independence your cause. We are just asking you to think through the war in Ukraine and the need to support Ukraine from the point of view of your own interests, as well as Canada's national interests.

Most Canadians understand that supporting Ukraine is in Canada's security interest, except apparently the Conservative Party of Canada.

That was a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition on December 21, 2023.

Conservatives will come in here and say that Ukraine needs what they say it needs. The only person I know who says that what Ukraine needs is what he says it needs is Vladimir Putin; Conservatives are acting just as he acts with respect to dictating.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is getting a good laugh out of this, but it was just two days ago that Tucker Carlson was in Alberta with his premier. Where is Tucker Carlson now? Reportedly, he is in Russia about to interview Vladimir Putin. One would think the member would at least understand that perhaps now is not the best time to be trumpeting these lines, yet he does.

I am going to end with this: I have spoken to this many times. It is time for us to finally vote on this.

I know Conservatives calculated how they would try to address this in the fall. It was very deliberate: How could they ensure that they would maintain the support of that alt-right movement against Ukraine?

Earlier today, I heard a Conservative talk about pining for the good old days of the Republicans and Conservatives, who came together to create these great free trade agreements. Comparing the Conservatives of today to the Brian Mulroney Conservatives is exactly like comparing Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan. It cannot be done. They are two completely different parties. Their logo might be the same colour as the one Brian Mulroney had, and they might have the same talking points, but they are certainly nothing like the Conservatives who brought in free trade, despite pining for those days, as though only they could ever protect free trade. It is quite the opposite.

Conservatives are going down the exact same route as are the alt-right Republicans I previously mentioned. That is where they are going. That is the base they are trying to protect. I will remind them that nobody believes this narrative they have created around a price on pollution and not supporting Ukraine, even after the President of Ukraine himself stood five feet from where I am standing and asked us to support it. Nobody believes their false narrative on this, because they are wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember when President Zelenskyy was addressing Parliament last September. I paid very close attention to his speech. When I checked Twitter that evening, it seemed that the member for Kingston and the Islands was not paying attention to the speech; rather, he was recording a video of the leader of the official opposition and making fun of him for the way he was clapping.

Could the member for Kingston and the Islands explain to Parliament how his actions have helped promote public support for Ukraine?

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

Madam Speaker, I can confirm that I definitely shared that video. However, I did not record it.

I will say this: I find it very interesting that the member wants to talk about what the Leader of the Opposition was doing at the time when the President of Ukraine was here.

Do members know that the Leader of the Opposition never once mentioned on his Twitter, Facebook or Instagram feed, or anywhere, that the President of Ukraine was here? He did not make a single reference. As a matter of fact, it was almost like an act of defiance. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back a year to retweet and repost what the Leader of the Opposition had said when the President of Ukraine appeared before us virtually.

This is the narrative I am talking about, of trying to deceive and suggest something else is going on. I am sure that, within their caucus meetings, they have had to battle the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on it. He is in the front row now, but he was not before Christmas. I am sure that was the trade-off to get him to be quiet.

The reality of the situation is that Conservatives have been against Ukraine because they do not support Ukraine.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's disdain for the Conservatives' position. It is deplorable. However, as long as we are discussing the free trade agreement, we should discuss its contents.

I would like to hear him comment on a section of this agreement that still allows private companies to sue governments on the ground that they are preventing these companies from fully capitalizing on their investments. The Bloc Québécois considers this problematic, and we believe that a committee should be struck to work on it.

Would the member agree that we should study this issue in detail to prevent private companies from being able to sue governments under free trade agreements?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say that, with the amount of time that the Conservatives have spent holding up this piece of legislation, we have had the opportunity to study it thoroughly.

The member is right about one thing: It is going to provide private companies the opportunity to work on and to build infrastructure in Ukraine. That is why the Ukrainians and the President of Ukraine are so interested in this deal. He knows he is going to win this war, and he wants to have the necessary tools in place when that happens to start rebuilding the country. This is going to involve investment from outside countries in terms of rebuilding infrastructure. That is where we have the opportunity. This is the trade-off for Canada that will position us well to be part of that rebuilding process of Ukraine.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, if Parliament were to swallow the amendment like a pill, what would the member say the side effects would be?

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

Madam Speaker, we voted on the amendment earlier today. The amendment the Conservatives tried to put forward was defeated, and now we are back to talking about the bill without the amendment. I am sorry if that is not what the member was referring to.

However, we need to pass this legislation, and the only thing that is really troubling when it comes to it is the fact that it is not unanimous. It should and could easily have been unanimous. This narrative about a carbon tax in here and how that is somehow impacting it is a complete red herring, nothing more, nothing less.

It is very unfortunate that the House will not pass this bill unanimously. However, I think that Canadians will remember and that the Conservatives will be held accountable for their vote on it.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, if we are to believe what the member just said, if we are to believe that this free trade agreement is only about the price on pollution and if we are to believe that, other than that, Conservatives completely and fully support Ukraine, can the member explain why, when his party separated 138 items on a budget, he and his Conservative colleagues voted against supporting Ukraine for Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance? They voted against the military.

What people are going to hear from them is that those were confidence votes, and they always vote against the government on a confidence vote. I have news for them: They could have voted for just those two items and still could have had 136 other opportunities to vote on confidence.

Why could they not have brought themselves to vote for just those two issues with respect to supporting Ukraine if there was not more to it than what he is proposing?

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

Madam Speaker, let us be clear: What the member opposite is doing is quite malicious. What he is trying to do is to exploit situations where people may not understand details of our parliamentary procedure to create a false impression about where Conservatives stand on the issue.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, he is saying that I am trying to be malicious, and members are not supposed to infer that any member is not acting in an honourable way. If the member is saying that I am being malicious just because I am pointing out what he did, then he should just answer the question.

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

It is a point of order because it is an inference of intent. I actually did react right away to the hon. member's use of the word. Therefore, I recommend that a more judicious wording would be appropriate.

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

Madam Speaker, I would have expected a thicker skin from that member, especially given what he says about other members.

Here is the point: He is, through this line of argumentation, trying to exploit what may be a gap in some people's understanding of the mechanics of the parliamentary process. The way the process works is that when we are voting non-confidence in the government, we are voting non-confidence in the government. Through that vote, we are expressing the fact that we do not have confidence in the government.

Of course, if we go through the budget, we will find there are specific measures we would maintain, and there are specific measures we would change or alter in some way, naturally. We have been clear, and we will continue to be clear that we do not have confidence in the NDP-Liberal coalition. We do not have confidence in it because of the damage it is doing in this country and, in part, because of its failure to actually deliver the support Ukraine requires.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are being disruptive, and not necessarily in a good way. They are relentlessly harping on the carbon tax, almost to the point of obsession, and that makes me worry for the future.

If that party takes power in Canada, how is Canada going to be able to sign even the simplest little international treaty? What will international relations with the rest of the world be like? I am worried about that, because we have before us an incredibly simple bill. I wanted to comment on that.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is asking how a Conservative government would possibly carry out international relations if it does not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. It is very simple: We will not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. We will negotiate to ensure that agreements we sign do not include a carbon tax.

In this particular case, I think it would be very simple. I have no proof of this, but I suspect that this provision on carbon pricing and carbon leakage is only in this agreement because the Government of Canada wanted it to be in there for political reasons. If we had a Conservative government and a Conservative trade minister saying that we actually did not want a carbon tax in the agreement, I suspect the government of Ukraine would say it was no problem and let us focus on getting weapons into the hands of soldiers who need them to defend their country.

I think that standing up for our principles at home and abroad will be entirely uncomplicated for international relations.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I keep coming back to something in these debates, and it is just so disheartening. I do not understand it. This is not a debate about the carbon tax. This is a debate about the fact that the leader of Ukraine has asked us to sign this agreement to see that Ukrainians get the help they need.

I am hearing from Ukrainians who are being forced to flee their country. They are coming to Canada. The commitment I made to them is that I would do all that I could, in my position, to fight for the rights of Ukrainians at this time.

Can the member share why this is turning into a political issue for the Conservatives, when Ukrainians and the leader of Ukraine are asking for this to be put through?

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

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. If the member is serious about supporting Ukraine and all of its needs, I wish it were her and not her NDP colleague who had been on the committee at the time we considered my amendments. When I put forward my amendments, which would have facilitated more weapons going to Ukraine, the NDP joined with the Liberals in order to block those amendments from going forward. It was her colleague from Edmonton Strathcona who spoke out against giving lethal weapons to Ukraine. The NDP record, in terms of giving weapons to Ukrainian soldiers, is decidedly terrible. I would like us to come together in the House.

I would add as well that the NDP has a long history of opposing trade deals. In the past, the NDP has always opposed trade deals. I would never say that because it opposed a trade deal with another country, it does not like, does not support or does not want to have good relations with the country. I respect the fact that New Democrats have come to different conclusions than I have about trade in general, which is why they generally vote against trade deals. However, I think they would understand that anytime we consider a trade deal, we have to consider the particulars of what is in the trade deal. We cannot just say that we like the country with which it is negotiated, so we will pass it. We have to look at the details.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party position has consistently been to vehemently oppose a carbon tax, so it is not surprising that we would oppose a carbon tax in a trade deal. What is surprising is the consistent and deliberate pro-Russian energy policy of the Liberal Party. Because we cannot build a pipeline in this country, we imported $400 million of Russian natural gas into Canada in 2021 because of a pro-Russian Liberal energy policy.

I wonder if the member can comment on the impact that unwillingness to sell Canadian oil and gas to the international market has on Russian sales of oil and gas around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, of course, that Canada produces commodities that Russia also produces, so we are in a unique position to displace those commodities. We are in a relatively unique position to reduce the world's dependence on Russian oil and gas.

It is not just Russia. We could give many examples of dictator oil around the world. We could talk about the Burmese regime and how the government's failure to apply sanctions on the Burmese junta, consistent with what our American ally has done, is allowing investments in the Burmese energy sector, which are fuelling that country's campaign of aggression against its own population.

In many of these cases, we see how the Liberal government is willing to turn a blind eye to the advancement of dictator oil instead of supporting Canadian energy development. It makes no sense. Canadian energy development is good for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, but, more importantly, it is good for the advancement of peace, justice and freedom around the world.

If we could do something that is good for Canadian workers and good for the advancement of peace, freedom and justice around the world, it is a no-brainer, yet the Liberals, because of their extreme green ideology, are opposing Canadian oil and gas development and are trying to insert carbon tax poison pills into trade deals. It makes no sense. We need a government that puts the Canadian national interest and the cause of freedom ahead of extreme green ideology.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is more shameless “Consplaining” from the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is incredible to watch Conservatives twist themselves into knots to try to justify their shameful vote against Ukraine.

My questions for the member are simple: Who does their vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement satisfy or make happy? Who asked the Conservative members to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? It was not one of their constituents. It was not the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or anybody else. Who asked them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Parm Gill on becoming a Conservative. I know he will ask very good questions in the House.

This is a matter of looking at the details of the agreement, which the member clearly is not even familiar with. I read out details that he claimed did not exist. I think it is the responsibility of legislators to know what is in legislation they are voting on. I doubt that the member has even read the agreement. If he read it, he would know that the section I read obliges Canada to promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage.

Conservatives are opposed to that and are supportive of Ukraine. When it comes to supporting Ukraine, the Liberal government should be focusing on delivering weapons, not just making announcements, but actually following up and giving Ukraine the weapons it needs in order to secure victory.

[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.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the chance to rise and ask the hon. member across the way about this agreement. I know we are generally in agreement in this House, with the exception of the Conservatives, on supporting Ukraine and supporting it through trade deals. What has not been talked about a lot in the House is the benefit to Canada of a deal like this. Canada is importing animal fats and vegetable oils from Ukraine and iron and steel where they have expertise in heavy casting, which is used for our agricultural, rail and electrical equipment. Could the member comment on the benefit to the Canadian economy of having a free trade deal with Ukraine?

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

Mr. Speaker, free trade agreements, or fair trade agreements as we like to promote them in the NDP, are beneficial to both parties. They have to be, or nobody would sign them. The reason Ukraine would like us to sign this bill, as the ambassador put it when she was before the international trade committee, is that it would benefit Ukrainian businesses. It benefits Canadian business owners who are working to help rebuild Ukraine after this war is over. It benefits all of us, and that is the reason we negotiate free trade agreements with countries. This is a revamping of an earlier free trade agreement that was done in 2017. I remember speaking to it then.

Therefore, these free trade agreements are solely designed to be beneficial for both countries. We can disagree on minor details within those bills and the NDP has concerns about some of the investor-state dispute mechanisms in this bill, but we want to support Ukraine. We are voting very much in favour of it.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us what the international fallout might be if we were not to vote unanimously in favour of this agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that Ukraine is looking to the world for support in its struggle against Russia. It is looking to the world for fighting the war now and rebuilding later. What is noticed around the world is when countries have divisions within their parliaments and legislatures with respect to support for Ukraine. We are seeing that in the United States. This is very concerning to Ukrainians and they are very concerned about seeing the same pattern here in Canada. They really want to see unanimous support to show the rest of the world that we are behind Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now we are voting on a bill to implement an agreement. To my knowledge, members of Parliament are never included in the process of negotiating agreements. We are presented with a fait accompli.

Since we cannot amend agreements, what does my colleague think of the attempts that we are seeing in the House to amend agreements and policies, instead of voting on a bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I would rather we have a culture in this place where Parliament is asked about free trade agreements and negotiations before they happen, which is what I mentioned in my speech about the minister telling us here in Parliament when her team is going into negotiations with another country, in this case Ecuador, so that we can look at that situation and say what our priorities should be for Canadians and Canadian workers. That way we can have an influence over the negotiations and give advice to the negotiators before things happen. As the member said, we are just simply presented with a fait accompli, and we have to vote yea or nay on that. I think we should have more say before negotiations start and we should have a proper amount of time to examine the bill before this debate happens, and that, I am hoping, will happen in the future.

[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, there is a lot in that question.

I would first say that there is nothing in this free trade agreement that forces a carbon tax or carbon pricing on Ukraine. Ukraine already has that. However, there is a statement in the agreement that says that nothing in this agreement will force either of the two countries to change their environmental policies or laws. That is just a false argument from the start.

Second, we had an amendment about Canada providing more military support and armaments to Ukraine. I voted against that for two reasons. One, it was totally out of the scope of the bill and so we could not really listen to that; we could not hear it. Two, this is a free trade agreement. It is about setting the rules between two countries on how they trade with each other. It is not about sending aid to Ukraine.

Ukraine needs armaments. I remember the very first day of the war that President Zelenskyy said, “I need ammunition, not a ride”. However, this is a totally separate question. If we had voted in favour of that amendment, it would have sent the whole agreement back to the negotiating table, and it would have set it back weeks or months, who knows how long. Of course, I voted against that.

Ukraine wanted this bill passed as it was, it wanted it passed unanimously, and I am proud to say that is what I am doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy hearing Conservatives say, “Mr. Speaker, what Ukraine does not need”. However, what Ukrainians do not need is the member for Barrie—Innisfil telling them what they need. Ukraine does not need that. What Ukrainians need is for the member for Barrie—Innisfil to actually start listening to them when they tell him what they need.

A lot of this discussion has been on the carbon tax specifically. I could not help but notice that yesterday even the darling of the alt-right, Elon Musk, tweeted out, “The only action needed to solve climate change is a carbon tax.” Even Elon Musk is jumping on board and saying the same thing.

When it comes to the carbon tax, how out of touch are these Conservatives?

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

Mr. Speaker, I saw that tweet from Elon Musk, and I would disagree with him in saying that it is not the only thing we need, but it is the first thing we need. It is the easiest, cheapest way to bring down our emissions and help solve the climate crisis. We will need to do everything else, but that is the first thing we need to do.

We have had it in British Columbia for over a decade and it has worked, despite what Conservatives say, and despite Conservatives telling my constituents that we should get rid of the federal carbon tax to help my constituents; we do not pay a federal carbon tax in British Columbia. However, it is an essential part of any country's fight and any jurisdiction's fight against climate change.

I am boggled by the fact that the Conservatives do not get that. I am happy that Elon Musk gets it, because I do not agree with everything Elon Musk says. It is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to fight climate change, and we need to do it and everything else.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Even though I do not agree with everything he said, his speech was very eloquent. It is a pleasure to hear arguments and a speech that is well thought out.

In his speech, he demonstrated how one can be critical of a bill and still support it. I would like him to elaborate on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the debate was hijacked, basically kidnapped by people in the Conservative Party who wanted to turn it into a debate on the carbon tax is deplorable. It is truly unacceptable.

We are talking about helping a country at war through a free trade agreement that we are revising. However, we have done everything but that. Frankly, they found problems where none exist, and I completely agree with the member that it is time to take action. Even if the action is minimal, we have to do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the only amendment made to the bill was our own. It aims to make the agreement a little less about appearances and a little more about obligation.

It is all well and good to include several chapters on responsible business conduct, but if there is no real follow-up mechanism, we are left with fine principles. That is why I am quite pleased that the amendment we brought forward in committee was the only one accepted.

I was against all of the Conservative amendments because I think it is extremely dangerous to include arms sales in a trade agreement. It is nonsense, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I always voted when it was time to accept their admissibility, because I do not think it makes any sense for us to always be presented with a done deal when it comes to trade agreements.

My colleague was apparently an ethicist in a former life. I have read his biography. Does he think it is ethical to have such a lack of transparency or such a lack of control in a so-called house of democracy when it comes to something as important as a huge agreement between countries?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are always straight to the point and quite brilliant.

What enables trust in a given environment? I would say that it is the ability to understand. If people want to understand, they need to be informed.

Certainly, being presented with a bill, law, or treaty that is essentially a done deal does not allow us to engage with each other and make it our own. We can assess it, but we do not really own it. I believe that our aim here, in the house of democracy, must be to build trust. To do this, we need to be better at sharing information.

The risk is quite simple: If we do not build trust, we breed mistrust. If we do not address mistrust, we end up with non-confidence.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 6 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:54 p.m., so that we can start Adjournment Proceedings.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

[The Speaker, 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 divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #627

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.