Debates of Dec. 13th, 2016

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech. I certainly appreciate what I know is a genuine commitment to the friendship between Canada and Ukraine. Obviously our party supports free trade and we are very supportive of this free trade deal.

I know the minister is an advocate for Ukraine and that she is bound by the conventions of cabinet solidarity, but I do want to ask her about an important issue with respect to another portfolio that deals with Canada's co-operation with Ukraine, because under the previous government, Canada was sharing satellite imagery with Ukraine that was very important in their fight against Russian backed rebels.

I assume she knows the issue and that as of May 6 of this year, Canada stopped providing that satellite imagery to Ukrainian authorities. Having been to Ukraine and knowing about the Ukrainian people's ongoing struggle, I know that any support we can provide is critical. Something as simple as the sharing of data strikes me as a no-brainer. The pulling back from that information sharing has been interpreted by many as a powerful signal that this new government is trying in some way to recalibrate that relationship.

I suspect the minister agrees with me. I do not know if she can say so, but I want to hear her perspective for the House on why that happened, and maybe if we might see the government restore that information sharing at some point in the near future.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for that question, and since we have been debating which town or city in Canada is the Ukrainian capital, I think Sherwood Park should be in contention. It also has a very strong Ukrainian community. I also want to thank the hon. member for his recognition of my strong personal commitment to the Canada-Ukraine relationship. I think we are hearing today that this relationship goes beyond our own partisan affiliations.

Let me say one thing very clearly. Under our government there has not been and will not be any recalibration of our relationship with Ukraine. Canada stands strongly with Ukraine, as it has done under previous governments, both Liberal and Conservative. We continue to do that. I really want the people of Ukraine and Canadians who are listening to our discussion today to hear that very clearly and very firmly.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister opposite for her presentation this morning. I can obviously see she is a strong supporter of Ukraine and its culture by her attire today.

However, a colleague on my side of the House, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, asked a clear question this morning and I listened intently for an answer, but did not hear even a hint of an answer.

Does the minister support the Ukrainian heritage that is obviously present in the town of Vegreville? Is she concerned, and has she addressed the 400 jobs that are being taken out of that community, or has that been a trade deal with the minister in Edmonton who will receive those jobs?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. for North Okanagan—Shuswap for his strong advocacy for his constituency.

I am extremely proud of my own personal prairie heritage, and I am proud of the strong role that Ukrainian Canadians have played in the prairies, including very much my home province of Alberta.

I think it is important for the Canadians who are listening to understand that no jobs will be lost in Alberta. In fact, there will be more jobs in Alberta. That is very important.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, as the minister was saying, it is indeed a pleasure to stand today and start to see the finalization of the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement. Everyone is in agreement. I am not sure why we do not just do this on division and move on to something else after lunch. I am sure if we did put the question there would be a no from somewhere because that is the way things work around here.

It is unfortunate that there are so few issues like this that actually unite this House, in that there are so many more issues that tend to divide us. This is one where we have all come together. As the discussions have gone on over the years leading up to this point, certainly there has been growing appreciation of what this deal would represent, especially for the people of Ukraine as it would tend to draw them west as opposed to the eastern pole that we see chewing at their borders on a day-by-day basis.

I would like to congratulate the minister for getting this across the goal line. Of course it was in the red zone, if I use football vernacular. It was right there on the goal line, all she had to do was step over carrying the ball, but the minister has done it, and we welcome that. I congratulate her for that. I know the minister was a freelance writer in Ukraine over the years, and to be the person who actually signs this off is quite a kick. I felt that same thrill when we saw the end of the old monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board on the Prairies. The minister will have to work with her colleague from Prince Edward Island to not bring that back. He will face the wrath of western farmers if and when that happens.

Of course, Ukraine is a large wheat-producing area as well. I have never had the opportunity to actually set foot on the ground, but I have seen the pictures and met with the ministers; I have done everything but set foot there. It just did not get into my schedule and that is unfortunate. I will fix that one issue on my bucket list at some point in the future. There are fantastic grasslands and farmlands all across Ukraine. I was at the world grain symposium in Sochi, Russia a couple of weeks ago, and met with a number of farmers who work that ground.

In fact, one guy I had lunch with one day, and he and his corporate entity cover some 100,000 hectares in Ukraine. He was ecstatic about the potential that this trade deal would now start to bring the agricultural technology that Canada is so famous for to those fields and those yards in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are very similar to us in that they have the potential to grow, and grow exponentially, but their constraint is logistics, very similar to what we face here in Canada. We had discussions around the handling system, the grading system, how they can continue to grow their operations, take use and make use of Canadian enterprise and expertise, and continue to show themselves as the breadbasket of Europe.

Certainly we cannot deny the minister's passion. She is dressed for success today. We welcome that. It is always good to see that passion on issues in this great country. We saw that same passion brought to bear by the folks at Global Affairs Canada. They have a fancy new title, and I am sure they all have new shirts as well. They are very proud of what they do.

At the end of the day, it was Marvin Hildebrand who carried this load across the line. We had the opportunity to talk to Marv at our trade committee. He is still the most gracious, unassuming gentleman one would ever want to meet, but when it comes to trade negotiations, he has a backbone of iron and a will of steel. He had that same steely-eyed glaze that our former prime minister Harper had when he took Mr. Putin to task for what he was doing on the Ukrainian frontier. Marv is certainly a class act. He worked diligently with his staff, with his communications team, and with two different governments to actually bring this to fruition. Being the professional that he is, he did not want to take any of the credit at all. He wanted the credit to go to the great people of Ukraine and the great people of Canada who embraced this.

The minister talked a bit about the Ukrainian heritage on the Prairies. Certainly that is a major part of the area that I represent. If my friend from Cariboo—Prince George talks about Vegreville being the Ukrainian capital of Canada, certainly North Battleford and that area running east is second to that if not a tie. They are very enterprising people with strong family ties and religious groups who make sure they celebrate the wealth they have enjoyed in Canada. We go back to those first few years when they were on the Prairies in sod shacks, isolated from their families and friends in Ukraine, but they have made all that work and they have built enterprises out there in my part of the world that are second to none. Certainly this helps them celebrate all the work that they have done to get us to that point.

We are seeing a second wave of pioneers coming from Ukraine into my area as the oil patch grew. It is hurting right now and we have heard different applications of why that is.

At the same time, we have had a number of shortages with respect to tradespeople throughout Saskatchewan. Part of the provincial nominee program was to identify the shortages. We are talking about machinists, welders, pipefitters, metalworkers, and all sorts of different trades. However, good, strong Ukrainian families have picked up that challenge and moved into the area to become part of the fabric of my constituency. These are fantastic people. They work hard, they play hard, and both their families and business expertise are growing at the same time. They continue to astound us with the work ethic they bring, and how diligent they are in making sure that their families get here as quickly as they can to reunite that strong family unit.

My friend from Selkirk—Interlake is nodding his head. He has a strong Ukrainian heritage as well. He has the tie on today, not the shirt, but we will forgive him for that. We know he has other meetings to attend.

At the end of the day, this is more than just geopolitical. I know I said this about Europe writ large, but with respect to the family reunification trade agreement, Ukraine has especially strong ties to the Canadian Prairies, and elsewhere in Canada as well, as their kids have gone on to be doctors, lawyers, and everything across Canada.

It has been a pleasure to work with former Prime Minister Harper and the trade ministers of the day, such as my good friend from Abbotsford, who carried this one across the line. That particular member is having some health issues right now. Strange things happen to us when we get ready for a CBC interview. He is a bit under the weather, but we know he will struggle back. We know he is watching today and helping us celebrate all the hard work that came into the fulfillment of this landmark trade agreement. It is a wonderful day when all parties agree to move forward with this. I have heard the NDP members get up and say that this is one of very few that they will support. Generally, when they talk about trade, they support every agreement but the one we are talking about. However, today we can all celebrate. We are all here today and we are all smiling. I know when we had that discussion around the Korean free trade agreement, I think they mistakenly thought it was North Korea, but we welcome their support for that deal as well. Here we are again with a third one, I think it is now, and that is a wonderful thing.

There is still quite a bit of work to be done in Ukraine. There are a lot of pockets of resistance to moving into a free market economy. There is still a lot of the old Soviet-type of enterprise there where people pay me and I make this happen, then I pay them and they make that happen. We are hopeful that this new deal will give them a different geopolitical base to work from. We have had people there over the last number of election cycles watching how things progress. It is better each time. I know the member for Selkirk has been there himself and has told us stories of how things are evolving, some of which are horror stories but others that are good stories.

We are now marking 25 years of independence in Ukraine. That is a short amount of time in a country's history. The Ukrainian people go back generations and centuries and have slowly and steadily plodded toward this free market economy and democracy, and they are winning. When we start to link arms with them, as we are doing with this free trade agreement, we start to see that win become almost palpable in the streets of the cities in Ukraine, and of course across the rural countryside, as they recognize the potential they have. Now that potential has doubled and tripled when they link arms with a strong democracy like this country we call home. We are happy to work with them, to bolster them, to bring them into the 21st century. When it comes to trade agreements, democracy, the rule of law, and standards for the environment and labour practices, these are all welcomed in Ukraine, and of course we take them for granted in Canada. We really do not understand how much they look forward to that.

Agricultural exports to Ukraine have been small from Canada's perspective. We export $60 billion and Ukraine is a $20-million item on that ledger sheet. However, this tremendous opportunity puts a lie to just that small number at this point. There is no reason to think that cannot go up by multiples of 10 when we look at the opportunity that is there to work with them at putting biotechnology to work, and all of the technology that we have now used over the last couple of decades in Canada, with zero till, and micronutrients going into the fertilizers, and different things like that, and the ability to grow a top quality product, not just a quantity product, as we have seen Ukraine produce.

Logistics is a major factor that Ukraine is working with as well. We do have the opportunity to step up and help it with that. We face the same criteria here. It is a long way from tidewater, just like we are, and it has to rely on other countries at some points in order to get that product to market, and of course there are costs from both a political as well as a practical sense.

We had EDC representatives at committee. The point I made was that Export Development Canada has identified that the lady who leads the charge in Ukraine does speak fluent Ukrainian, but she is based in London, England, which is a long way from Ukraine. She makes bi-weekly trips, or whatever it is, to make connections, which is not the same as when one is sitting there day by day, eye to eye, taking a coffee break with people and saying, “Here's how we can do it”. Therefore, we put that task to the minister, if it was at all possible that we could start to see people actually anchored in central Ukraine, and work with the country as a whole with Export Development Canada.

Of course, they then quarterback that by bringing in business-to-business connections and all of the bridges that need to be built to actually take advantage of the framework agreement that we see here in this CUFTA. We are hopeful that can happen. I know it takes dollars, but there is a tremendous opportunity for our livestock genetics, our crop genetics, and a lot of the infrastructure people we have developed here in Canada handling systems, and all of those different things, and we will see a huge potential there.

We have seen a number of trade agreements come and go out of this place over the years when we were government. Of course, there was a tremendous number. We have seen CETA start to inch its way towards the finish line. We are still dealing with it at committee. Hopefully we will have a vote on it later tonight and move that forward as well.

I was really happy to see that the minister did not tinker around the edges with this one as she did with CETA, and we actually lost some pretty important clauses at the very end in the negotiation trying to make it more progressive. Somehow, it tended to go backwards as opposed to ahead.

The stability that is required for business-to-business investment is going to be shaken a little bit when we do not have an adjudication process for ISDS claims. Every country in the world has hundreds of bilateral agreements with other countries when it comes to FIPA, financial investment protection acts, ISDS-type resolutions, and other tools in the tool kit to help business-to-business make investments; and be assured and secure that in making those investments, they cannot be taken away with a change of governance and so on. Of course, we see a lot of push-back on that from certain sectors here as well, but we will have to wait and see how that is.

We also have the Magnitsky Act, which is very important when we see how these things are brought into the court system. Why Canada is a laggard in implementing that, I am not sure. I am sure that my colleague will have words to say about that when he makes his presentation later today.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Canadian industry, for the services industry as well, which is very robust and very mature. There are a number of things that we can move forward on, and start to enhance and strengthen Ukraine's stance on the world stage working with us.

I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to thank the trade negotiation team for doing what it is doing. I thank the minister for the job that she did getting it across the final line and stepping over it.

I also want to take time to mention the great work that Prime Minister Harper did on this file. He was there in 2010, which was a very contentious time, as we all know, in Ukraine. He made three or four trips over that two-year period in order to make sure Ukraine was looking west and not east. He had met with all of the major players over there, as have I on the edges of other meetings. Of course, my good friend, the then minister of trade, the member for Abbotsford, spent a lot of political capital in bringing this one to fruition.

However, it was Stephen Harper who actually had the wherewithal, at a meeting in Australia of all places, to look President Putin in the eye, and say, “I guess I'll shake your hand...but...You need to get out of Ukraine.” He put the marker down that these types of incursions are not acceptable in today's geopolitical systems in the world.

I am thankful that Canada has a footprint and a presence there along those lines, but at the end of the day, we are also hearing that we pulled back on the satellite imaging that the Ukrainian forces need to know exactly what they are up against on a moment-by-moment issue. Hopefully, the government will rethink that and start to realize that underpinning this is our ability to make sure that Ukraine has a strong coastline, and a strong ability to push back the Russians should that ever happen.

Hopefully, it will, but at the end of the day, it was the great work done by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to actually start this, to push Ukraine to keep thinking about this as opposed to the incursions it was facing on several fronts. Therefore, kudos to him. He has gone on to work in the private sector, and I am sure a lot of his future work will be based on the great job that he did working on these types of trade agreements.

We also have other trade agreements sitting in the wings, like the trans-Pacific partnership. For some ridiculous reason, we seem to be holding back. The Japanese, the crown jewel in that whole agreement, in the 12 countries that were involved in that, have ratified it. They are good to go. They have moved it through their parliamentary system. It was finalized on December 6 or 7. They are waiting for a partner to dance with, and we are not on the floor. We are not even in the hall. It is unconscionable to me why we would walk away from that.

We will celebrate this one today, but we could have a bigger celebration and a lot bigger win, if we started to get past the “Americans have to lead this” ideology. We know they are going to step away. They may take the full two years. There is no reason we have to. With Japan already done, they are going to find some willing partners in Australia, New Zealand, Chile, or Mexico, and they will start trading. This means we will be coming from behind, trying to get market share in that valuable market.

If anything, let us get this one done so we can bring TPP to the floor and get it moving forward expeditiously as well.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first time dealing with this issue. I want to compliment the minister who has done an incredible job on the trade file.

I know our Ukrainian community has a great sense of pride, moving forward. Over the last number of years, the Government of Canada has demonstrated so much support.

The member across the way was here when the president of Ukraine presented to the House. In a part of that speech, he talked about that important relationship between two great countries. He suggested that he wanted to see a trade agreement.

Would the member reflect on the special relationship that Canada has with Ukraine, which bridges all parties in the House? Not only have a good trade agreement, but it has far more benefit than just economics. Would the member agree?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is very important that Canada continue to show leadership on the world stage.

That brings me to the question of why the member will be voting tonight against the Crimean Tatar private member's bill, recognizing some of those situations that happened a few years ago. The member is saying one thing, but in actual fact he is going to stand and do the opposite tonight.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster for his work on the trade committee. We enjoy working together. Although we may not always agree, we work very hard on that committee on many different issues. I believe his party and my party are trying to get these issues addressed, issues like steel and softwood, which are incredibly important.

The NDP has supported two of the pieces of legislation, one that received royal assent. We worked hard on Bill C-13 at the committee. It received royal assent last night, and is now in law. I believe we will continue to work together on many critical issues that are important to Canadians, and certainly to working Canadians, like softwood lumber.

The NDP and the Conservatives agree in principle with CUFTA. We agree on the need for the government to do more on the softwood lumber deal. Could the member speak to his concern about the government's failure to get a deal on softwood lumber and how this will result in job losses and mill closures?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her great work on the trade committee. As a committee member of one, she does a tremendous job of putting forward her issues on a day-by-day, case-by-case basis. Good for you for doing that.

It is a busy committee. It is an exceptionally well-run committee and a good committee. We have a chair who understands that there will be disagreements and that we need to put them on the floor and talk them through. We have done some heavy listing in the last little while with a number of these agreements that are coming to fruition. I will agree with the member that good debate, disagreement on points, can bring about a stronger end result. If we do them with that in mind, we will make things happen.

I am as concerned as she is with the whole Canadian-American overarching agreement to disagree now that there has been a change of governance in the United States. President-elect Trump is already saying that he will approve Keystone XL. The Conservatives welcome that. We have to do that. This is a good opportunity to move forward.

However, at the same time, when we talk about resources, we have movement on Keystone XL getting oil and gas to market, which the U.S. needs, but we also need to move softwood lumber into that market. We have a 35% market share simply because it needs 35% to fill its market. The right hand is actually slapping the left hand in the U.S. at the moment, but at the same time we have a problem in Canada. There is not the recognition on the front bench to know how hard and how tough this will be.

The Conservatives took over as government in 2006, and I will give credit to my good friend David Emerson who actually crossed the floor, which is never an easy thing to do. He did it knowing that Prime Minister Harper was going to give him the opportunity to resolve that issue, and he did it within months. We had an agreement that continued on for almost 10 years, with the two-year extension that my good friend from Abbotsford was able to renegotiate.

The Liberals had a year to get this thing fixed, a year where everything goes quiet, the lawyers talk, and everybody agrees that we have to do something. Last March, they had a solution. It was going to take 100 days. The bromance was going to fix this. We were going to have a little hug and a love-in and within 100 days we would have an answer. That was 250 days ago. We do not need even have a direction, let alone an answer.

We are very concerned. We put together a softwood lumber task force—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately time has run out. There is still time for questions and answers.

At the beginning of the member's response, he referred to the member as “you”. I would ask him to address his answers to the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are getting closer to the holiday season and maybe we could be a little more generous in what we do today. I believe it is a good news story in the House.

One of his colleagues, possibly even the member, indicated how nice it would be if we could push this bill through. There seems to be support from the Conservatives and the New Democrats. We have acknowledged the work of the previous government. There seems to be fairly sound support for the legislation.

Could the member reflect on what kind of statement we could make if somehow, some way, we could build the support in the House that would ultimately get this bill through the House of Commons?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think there is agreement on the bill moving through the House, but what the Conservatives are not going to agree on is the softwood lumber file. There will be no holiday for all of the mill workers in the small towns that rely on that one industry to keep them solid and whole throughout this season. It is going to be a pretty tough Christmas for them.

We will celebrate this deal. We will get this done. I will make that pledge to the member opposite. We put our heart and soul into designing it, working with the Ukrainian people to get this done, and they put some energy in to shoving it across the line. We welcome that. At the end of the day, we will get this done exponentially, but we also have to get our heads around the softwood lumber agreement, the steel dumping situation, some of the tougher work for which we need to roll up our sleeves and really get ourselves together.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for all of the work he has done on this and other trade-related issues.

I would ask him to more broadly reflect on the connection between trade and the economic benefits of it, but also the connection to our values. Members have spoken about the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal as being about something more than the economy, about deepening the strategic partnership between Canada and Ukraine. That is very important. At the same time, we see in other areas the government actually moving in the opposite direction in trade.

He mentioned the trans-Pacific partnership. We know that the trans-Pacific partnership was about strategic co-operation, as well as economic benefits. It was about strategic co-operation between like-minded countries in the Asia Pacific area. The Liberal government has not said yet, as it still has not made up its mind on TPP, but at the same time it is talking about pursuing a bilateral trade deal with China, which is a country that on many fronts does not share our values.

If the government takes seriously this idea of the connection between trade and strategic partnerships with countries that share our values, as it seems to on the issue of Ukraine, it makes its actions in the Asia Pacific with respect to trade much harder to understand.

Could the member reflect on that and on why it is important that we understand the connection between the economic benefits, but also the strategic partnerships that these trade deals represent?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I guess the proof is in the actual numbers. One in five jobs in Canada rely on trade in order to drive the economy of our great country. Those are good, strong, middle-class jobs. However, it is also very important to have diversity in a trade portfolio, the same as we would in an investment portfolio or banking structure for that matter. By taking our time on TPP, other countries are going to have that ability to trade with Japan before we do, as I outlined a short time ago. The market will be full of certain products that we are now trying to get our market share back in because they have preferential access. It is very important that we get there as a willing partner, soon. We could be the next one to ratify it, which we could do. There is really nothing stopping us from moving that quickly.

I am a huge booster of trade with China. I have made a number of trips there. I understand the potential and, again, there is diversity in our trade portfolio in China. However, to deal with an economy the size of China, we need as many other economies backing us as we can possibly get. It is very important that we would have CETA finished, TPP done, and be starting strong work on the Asian group of countries. Some will stand alone and deal with us. Some will join the TPP and join with us that way. However, it is very important to have all of that well under way, if not completed, before we start to go head-to-head with a powerhouse like China or we will be swallowed whole.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-31, an act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, also known as CUFTA.

We have been speaking a lot in this place these last few days about trade deals; namely, about the Canada-EU deal. I am certainly not surprised that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues, once again, agree that CUFTA should move ahead with no questions asked.

I will note that in this case, unlike with CETA, the government fulfilled its treaty tabling obligations by tabling Bill C-31 at least 21 sitting days after tabling the treaty, tabling an explanatory memorandum, and completing a final environmental assessment. None of these three elements were done for CETA.

I would like to speak in greater detail about CUFTA.

There are certainly some positive elements of this agreement. It would provide opportunities for both Canadian exporters and for the Canadian government to strengthen our long-standing friendship with Ukraine.

I would also like to speak about some concerns with the agreement, which I hope can be addressed during Bill C-31's legislative process.

CUFTA is an important agreement, particularly for our friends in Ukraine. Their country has faced tumultuous times over the past number of years, countering Russian aggression that culminated in the annexation of Crimea. At that time, the NDP called for greater financial aid for Ukraine and tougher sanctions against Russia.

The Canada-Ukraine friendship is an important one. In fact, Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, back in 1991. Today, more than 1.3 million Canadians have Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of this heritage and their cultural traditions.

The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. In 2015, bilateral trade totalled $278 million, with Canadian exports to the Ukraine accounting for approximately $210 million and Ukrainian imports to Canada accounting for $68 million.

Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports. Of course, this should increase with the reduction of tariffs under this agreement.

CUFTA would lead to Ukraine eliminating tariffs on 86% of Canadian imports, while Canada would eliminate tariffs on 99.9% of Ukrainian imports. Many of the tariffs would be eliminated immediately, although some would be phased out over three to seven years.

Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal, including the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, the Canadian Pork Council, and the Canadian Meat Council. As they are with all trade agreements that reduce or eliminate tariffs, they are of course pleased to have new opportunities to diversify and to increase their exports.

Additional Canadian products that may benefit from CUFTA include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood. I was initially concerned about the elimination of tariffs on steel, although stakeholders have not been too concerned that this would lead to a barrage of new imports.

As members in this place know, Canadian producers are already faced with a low global price for steel, which is caused by dumping, in part. There have been multiple cases brought before the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, including against Ukrainian exporters.

It is very clear that Canada needs stronger measures to tackle this very serious issue. The Canadian Steel Producers Association and the United Steelworkers have been very clear that the government needs to do more. Canada's trade remedy system needs an overhaul so it can do a better job of protecting our steel industry.

It is an issue of jobs and keeping these good-quality jobs in the communities where they are needed. The member for Hamilton Mountain has been working tirelessly on behalf of steelworkers in his riding. I commend his efforts to bring these issues to the forefront. He is fighting every day to protect good steel jobs in Hamilton.

I know we are both looking forward to the international trade committee completing its study on steel issues, like dumping, that are hurting Canadian producers' ability to compete internationally.

Coming back to CUFTA, I have spoken quite a bit about tariffs because that is largely what this agreement is about. It also includes chapters on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, government procurement, intellectual property, environment, and labour.

On the procurement chapter, in this regard CUFTA is quite different from CETA. CUFTA would open access to government procurement at the federal and provincial levels. On the other hand, CETA would, for the first time, also open up procurement at the municipal and school board levels. This is very concerning. It is why we saw many municipalities coming out against CETA.

By and large, Canadians like to support Canadian jobs and Canadian products. We like to buy locally and procure locally, because we know the benefits are going to our neighbours and our communities.

There are many concerns over opening up procurement contracts to non-Canadian companies. It already happens, but do we really want to continue expanding that practice? I am glad CUFTA does not follow the same route as CETA.

I have spoken about what is in the agreement, but it is also important to discuss what is not in the agreement. CUFTA does not include chapters on cross-border trade in services, investment, financial services, telecommunications, or temporary entry. However, there is a review that would happen two years after CUFTA comes into force, and the government has been quite clear that it would like to extend the agreement to additional areas, such as services.

I ask that the government be forthcoming with these negotiations when they happen. I also note that Canada is currently in negotiations with several dozen other countries for a trade in services agreement, or TISA. The Liberals have been quite silent on this, but this agreement could be quite significant. It would liberalize international trade in services and set binding international rules on how countries can regulate services. It could cover a wide range of services, including banking, telecommunications, health, and energy.

I hope the government will be forthcoming with this agreement and set a different tone from how the Conservatives like to negotiate trade agreements. There is absolutely no reason why a government cannot tell its citizens about what is on the table before a deal is finalized. I think Canadians have been very clear that they do not like the way their government negotiated TPP or CETA. Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deal was already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point.

I reject the notion that Canadians who want to know about negotiations can simply sign a confidentiality agreement and jump right in. It is obviously an exclusive process that is not designed to inform average Canadians on trade negotiations. The government must do a better job of updating all Canadians on the status and scope of negotiations, not just those who are well connected.

I would like to speak about another aspect of CUFTA. While the agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it does not include ISDS, investor-state, provisions. However, it is important to note that these provisions actually existed before CUFTA came to be. Back in 1995, Canada and Ukraine signed a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which includes these investor-state provisions.

New Democrats have gone to great lengths these past few days to draw attention to the ISDS provisions in CETA. These provisions do not belong in trade agreements, yet so many of Canada's agreements include them. We have long maintained that foreign companies should not be granted special privileges above and beyond those enjoyed by domestic companies. Foreign investors should be obligated to go through domestic courts before being granted access to a special court where they can sue our governments.

New Democrats analyze trade deals as a whole. We have supported deals in the past, including the South Korea deal. This is because we are able to step back and examine all parts of a deal and draw our conclusions based on the sum of its parts. New Democrats support trade. We always have and always will. That does not mean we are going to go blindly into every trade and investment deal. Our approach is similar to how we have approached omnibus budget bills. There are many aspects that we support, but there can also be egregious aspects that are worth standing up against.

Yesterday, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona gave a great analogy about how other parties tend to talk about trade and their blind support for any and all trade agreements, no matter who the partner, no matter the provisions the agreement contains. He compared this to a large company looking to merge with another company. Imagine them sitting down in the boardroom and saying, “We don't have the time to study this. We don't need the numbers to analyze the deal, because obviously, bigger is better. This is a good economic principle, and therefore we just need to go ahead, no questions asked”.

Obviously, this sounds ridiculous, and yet I see the government pushing ahead with deals like CETA without having done the same due diligence. Where is the analysis of the benefits and the costs? Where is the analysis of where we are going to gain or lose jobs? Where are the consultations? Where are the studies? Canadians should expect better from their government.

My colleague the hard-working member for Vancouver Kingsway has done a lot of work on the trade file in the past. He developed a very pragmatic approach to assessing trade deals on the whole. He outlined several criteria for how we as parliamentarians could do our due diligence in assessing whether a trade deal is in fact in Canada's best interests.

First, is the proposed partner one who respects democracy, human rights, environmental and labour standards, and Canadian values? If there are challenges in these regards, is the partner on a positive trajectory toward these goals?

Second, is there a significant or strategic value for Canada in having a deal with the proposed partner?

Finally, is the deal itself satisfactory?

There are no easy answers, but this lens is very helpful in looking at deals and deciding whether, on balance, they make sense for Canada. I certainly considered this lens in evaluating the Canada–Ukraine FTA and, on balance, I do think this is an agreement New Democrats can support. That said, there are some areas of concern. Ukraine has had a tumultuous few years. It certainly appears to be on a positive trajectory toward a stronger, democratic society that upholds human rights, environmental standards, and labour standards. On the other hand, there continue to be conflicts and tensions, as well as some human rights concerns.

It was not very long ago that the EU postponed its trade agreement with Ukraine over concerns with human rights and democratic values. Therefore, I am hopeful that Ukraine will continue on its positive trajectory. We need to be realistic about the ongoing challenges, and therefore I would like to see a human rights impact assessment as a component of this agreement.

I have noted that the Canada–Ukraine trade relationship is a relatively small one. However, we are also historic friends, and Ukraine needs its friends very much right now. Canada sent a training mission to Ukraine in 2015, known as Operation Unifier. There was no debate in this place before 200 troops were deployed, which is a dangerous precedent. Now Ukraine is asking for Canada to extend this mission.

We also know that last year the government launched a consultation on the possible addition of Ukraine to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List. Adding Ukraine to this list would make it permissible to export Canadian-made weapons to Ukraine. The government has been dodging questions on the results of this consultation and on whether Canada will in fact add Ukraine to the list. It is time for the government to be forthcoming on this, particularly as we debate ratifying a free trade agreement with this country.

I would also like to note an environmental concern with this agreement. I read through the government's final environmental assessment of CUFTA, which is a requirement as part of the government's treaty-tabling process. The assessment makes really no mention of the impact of increased imports and exports of coal. We would like to get some more information on this, also at the committee level.

Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to ask these questions of the minister when she came to our committee the other week. We had just an hour of her time to cover both CETA and CUFTA. I do hope the minister will make herself available again, as I do believe it is important to give these agreements proper study and due process.

I would like to end by reiterating that New Democrats intend to support the Canada–Ukraine free trade agreement at second reading. I have outlined some concerns with the agreement that we would like to see addressed. However, I have also outlined many benefits of the agreement. It would allow us to strengthen our historic friendship with Ukraine and would benefit various Canadian exporters. This would be the second of three pieces of trade legislation that have come before this Parliament that New Democrats support.

As I have outlined, New Democrats are strong supporters of good trade that benefits Canada. The trend of multilateral deals that deal with everything but the kitchen sink is not the way Canada should be engaging with our partners. Bilateral deals, such as the one before us today, have much clearer benefits and do not ask average Canadians to bear the brunt of extending corporate privileges to foreign investors. I look forward to seeing Bill C-31 come before the trade committee and to participating in today's debate.

As I believe this will be my last speech in this place before the House rises until January, I would like to wish my constituents and my colleagues very happy holidays and a merry Christmas. I would like to particularly thank all the people in this House who work behind the scenes to make Parliament function so well every day. I thank everyone who helps in Parliament. Merry Christmas.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I obviously welcome the support. I am a bit stunned, but I am happily stunned, I must admit, by the NDP's support for this trade agreement.

I am curious in terms of the criteria that the member for Vancouver Kingsway has put forward. One of the things that the hon. member has pointed out in applying those criteria is the way in which trade agreements help to structure larger kinds of political relations for the positive. I am curious as to why this kind of weighting was not given to the CETA.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the parliamentary secretary that there was exactly this type of weighting in looking at CETA, on balance, and at the impact, both positive and negative.

In CETA we see 25% of the bill impacting patent extension rights. That means that every Canadian will pay more for pharmaceuticals. We certainly see seafarers losing a great number of jobs, 3,000 jobs upon the signing of CETA, because we will not have Canadian-run vessels anymore for our own Canadian seafarers.

There are the ISDS provisions, which are not included in CUFTA but are part of CETA. There is the court system that is being created. There is the declaration, which is a side agreement that Wallonia and the Belgians were able to bring forth for themselves, but we will not share those benefits. There are many pieces that are of concern in CETA, and it is quite shocking to me, actually, that the parliamentary secretary does not have as part of his process that he would review all aspects of a trade agreement and not just slap a gold stamp on something that was negotiated in the previous government.

As a parliamentarian, I take my role very seriously in looking at trade agreements, the entire agreement, and listening to Canadians about the impact it will have on them. I encourage all members to do that on every piece of trade legislation in this House.

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

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I appreciate the fact that the NDP will be voting in favour of this trade agreement. I see that as very positive, and I encourage the House, as much as possible, to move relatively quickly on this for a multitude of reasons.

I am wondering to what degree the New Democrats, for example, gave any consideration whatsoever to the TPP. We knew that the decision was made even before the ink was dry that the NDP would not be supporting the TPP. If the member is truthful with the House, as I am sure she will be, could she indicate why it is that the NDP said no to the TPP before anything ever came out with respect to the TPP?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite has been in this House for quite some time past my own time here, but I would encourage him to be respectful of other members of the House, and I would appreciate that respect, please, as a member.

I would like to speak about the fact that New Democrats have supported two of the three pieces of trade legislation going through this House. As a matter of fact, I followed the procession for royal assent last night on Bill C-13. I was pleased to do so.

At the trade committee level, we have been working incredibly hard and asking difficult questions, questions the government, on the other side of this House, seems unwilling to address.

When we talk about CETA, the government will not speak about the impact on the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians. It simply will not answer. The minister herself visited the trade committee and refused to answer our questions.

Yesterday New Democrats stood proudly in this House debating a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, on CETA, the largest trade agreement we have entered since NAFTA. It is not just me who thinks that. The minister herself stated that in the previous Parliament.

New Democrats will always look at every aspect of a trade agreement. As for the TPP, I encourage the member opposite to read the 6,000 pages, because I can assure him, I have done so. I have done my due diligence as a parliamentarian. I have travelled with the trade committee to every province in this country and seen more than 400 people. I have held seven town halls on TPP. I promise the member that I am doing my due diligence as a parliamentarian on all trade agreements.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her extraordinary work on this international trade file.

I hope that the Minister of International Trade's staff is busy revising her little book of prepared answers and that they will delete the line where it asks the NDP when it will finally support a free trade agreement, because today it is supporting one. I look forward to her not repeating that statement when she answers questions.

In any event, can my colleague tell us why this time the NDP can support the agreement we are debating today? What is the difference between the agreement with Europe and the one with Ukraine? How is it that today the government is fortunate, at least I hope they think so, to have our support for this agreement?

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is true that the minister herself has been talking about progressive trade and what that is. What we see today in CUFTA, in Bill C-31, is a bilateral agreement, an agreement that addresses labour concerns, that was tabled properly in the House, that talks about environmental assessment, and that provides all the pieces that are necessary. It also provides us with greater flexibility.

I was so pleased, when the department officials debriefed me on the bill, to know that they had created some specific language around phytosanitary and sanitary measures, because this is incredibly important to our agriculture. They told me that the reason they were able to do that in this agreement and not in others, like CETA and TPP, is that it is a bilateral agreement. It is more of an intimate conversation between two countries about what will benefit them.

The issue we have with large multinational agreements is that we become lost in the details. We end up giving up more than we are getting. We have to look at these agreements on balance. With CETA, Canadians will be paying higher costs for drugs. We will be giving up our sovereignty by having a new court system that will exist above our Supreme Court and that will be appointed by the minister.

There are so many flaws in these multilateral agreements, and it certainly is not reflective of the things we share in common with those countries. It is well known that we share great things in common with our European partners. The issue is the cost for Canadian people, Canadian jobs. There would be 30,000 jobs lost. The EU, in one of its parliamentary committees last week, said that they will not support CETA, because they are going to see 200,000 job losses.

We support CUFTA because we are able to have more leverage in our negotiations. This deal makes sense for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to support the response of my hon. colleague from Essex to the parliamentary secretary earlier, who asked why any party would be against the trans-Pacific partnership agreement before the ink was dry. It is a very simple, straightforward answer. There is logical, principled consistency in opposing any trade agreement that allows more foreign corporations from more countries to have superior rights to those awarded to Canadian companies.

Why should companies from Vietnam or Japan have the right to sue the Government of Canada if they do not like a provision that protects the environment or human rights or workers' protection? Why should all the countries in the EU have corporate rights that exceed those of domestic corporations? Those characteristics of investor-state agreements apply to TPP and apply to the comprehensive economic trade agreement but do not apply to Ukraine.

I ask my colleague if the NDP members are now prepared to take a position for all time that they will not support any trade deal that includes an investor-state agreement, as, unfortunately, they have in the past on some in the 41st Parliament.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on the provisions in trade agreements. We are the most sued country in the world under chapter 11 in NAFTA. The experience has not been good for us when investors have been able to sue our country.

Initially in NAFTA, when we engaged in it, it was because of concerns about corrupt court systems in Mexico. It has not been Mexican corrupt court systems that have hurt us; it has been international corporations that have sued our government when we have attempted to legislate on behalf of all Canadians.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak to Bill C-31 before us today. The bill calls on the government to take all necessary legislative steps to ratify the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, something I encourage all of us to support.

Moving forward with the ratification of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement will help to further strengthen Canada's support for Ukraine as it works toward securing its future as a stable democratic and prosperous country.

Since the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine in November 2013, Canada has been at the forefront of the international community's support for Ukraine. As part of Canada's response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its ongoing support of the insurgency in eastern Ukraine, the Government of Canada has imposed nearly 300 sanctions, in coordination with international partners, against Russian and Ukrainian individuals and entities. It also has committed more than $750 million in assistance to Ukraine, including $400 million in low-interest loans to help Ukraine stabilize its economy and more than $245 million in bilateral development assistance.

The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement complements the objectives of Canada's assistance to Ukraine: to expand opportunity to Ukrainian citizens and to contribute to a higher standard of living. This benefits Canada in terms of both promoting stability for an important ally and building a stronger market into which Canada can sell its goods.

Canada-Ukraine trade relations have been relatively modest to date, with two-way merchandise trade totalling $278 million in 2015. Canadian exports that same year totalled $210 million, while imports from Ukraine reached $68 million. There is room to grow.

Ukraine's economy has significant potential and offers diverse commercial opportunities for Canadian business, given its strategic location between Europe and Central Asia, its solid industrial base, its abundant natural resources, in particular in the agricultural and energy sectors, and its well-educated population.

The Canada-Ukraine FTA will enable our companies to take greater advantage of these opportunities with new market access and by creating more predictable conditions. That is why the legislation before us today is so important.

Let me elaborate on that. An important aspect of the agreement is the opening of new markets for Canadian goods. When the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement enters into force, it will eliminate tariffs on about 86% of current Canadian exports to Ukraine. That means that Canadian exporters will see an immediate benefit from this agreement. The balance of Ukraine's tariff reductions and eliminations will be phased out over a period of up to seven years.

At that point, the agreement will have basically eliminated all tariffs on the goods that are currently being exchanged between Canada and Ukraine. The agreement will also create more favourable conditions for exporters through important non-tariff measures. For example, the agreement includes provisions that will ensure that market access gains are not undermined by unjustified trade barriers.

This agreement includes trade facilitation measures to reduce red tape at the border, and protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, which will allow Canadian IP rights holders to do business in the Ukrainian market with increased confidence. As part of the agreement, Canada and Ukraine both commit to not levy customs duties or other charges on digital products that are transmitted electronically.

I will now talk about how this agreement will result in real benefits for Canadian businesses. In particular, the Canada-Ukrainian free trade agreement will create opportunities for important sectors of the Canadian economy, including industrial products, fish and seafood products, and agriculture and agri-food products.

From 2011 to 2015, Canada's industrial exports to Ukraine averaged approximately $123 million a year.

However, those exports are currently subject to tariffs of up to 25%. On the day the agreement comes into force, virtually all of those tariffs will be eliminated. This is good news because it will make our industrial exports to Ukraine more competitive and help our exports grow. Iron, steel, industrial machinery, and plastics are some of the products that will benefit from the agreement.

Canada's fish and seafood industry also has a lot to gain from preferential market access under the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Canada is one of the top exporters of fish and seafood to Ukraine, with average annual exports of $31 million between 2011 and 2015. Canada is the largest exporter of frozen shrimp and cold-water shrimp to Ukraine and is one of its main suppliers of frozen hake. As in other sectors, these products are subject to tariffs of up to 20%. Once the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement eliminates tariffs for this sector, Canadian fish and seafood products will be much more competitive.

Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector will also benefit from the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Between 2011 and 2015, Canada exported an average of $18 million worth of agriculture and agrifood products to Ukraine per year. However, those exports are subject to tariffs of up to 30%.

Once the agreement comes into force, it will eliminate the majority of those tariffs. Virtually all of the rest will be eliminated over a seven-year period. The main Canadian agricultural products that will benefit from duty-free access are beef, pulse crops, grains, canola oil, processed foods, and animal feed. Greater market access for Canadian pork exports was of particular interest during the negotiations, and one of the first things the government did to meet people's expectations was obtain duty-free access for fresh and chilled pork.

As far as the export of frozen pork and pork products is concerned, Canada will enjoy a duty-free tariff rate quota that exceeds current exports by a large margin. These tariff outcomes put Canada's pork industry on equal footing with the European Union, a key competitor in this sector. This agreement will also give Canadian companies a leg-up on competitors in all the other countries that have not concluded a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Those are just a few of the benefits of this agreement. Our government has said from day one that trade and open markets are essential for ensuring Canada's economic prosperity. Canada is a trading nation. We know that with increased trade come more well-paying jobs.

Our government also wants to work on growing a more inclusive economy to ensure that the trade benefits are distributed better. We must ensure that the increased trade and investment strengthens the middle class. We must also ensure that the trade benefits do not come at the expense of environmental protection, labour rights, and the rights of governments to make rules in the public interest.

Our government is committed to making trade progressive, as we have demonstrated with the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union, and we continue to demonstrate with this agreement. The Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement integrates a number of key progressive trade components to ensure that economic gains are not achieved at the expense of the values and priorities that are important to Canadians.

The labour-related commitments made in the agreement require both countries to enforce their laws in this area, and those laws must be in line with the International Labour Organization's 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. This includes strengthening the freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of child labour and forced labour, and the elimination of discrimination in the workplace.

The agreement also includes occupational health and safety protections, acceptable minimum employment standards, and non-discrimination provisions to protect migrant workers.

The commitments made in this agreement also emphasize the importance of co-operation on labour issues and include mechanisms to monitor compliance with labour-related commitments, as well as a dispute settlement mechanism that can result in monetary penalties. These are the most comprehensive labour-related commitments ever negotiated by Ukraine.

The Canada-Ukraine FTA also includes a chapter on the environment that involves substantive and binding commitments. The agreement's environmental chapter contains commitments to maintain high levels of environmental protection as we intensify our trade relationship. Importantly, both Canada and Ukraine commit to not lowering their levels of protection in order to attract trade or investment.

This agreement's environment chapter reflects Canadian values that trade liberalization and environmental protection should be mutually supportive. To support these obligations and ensure that they are respected, the environment chapter includes a distinct dispute resolution mechanism with recourse to an independent panel of experts. Canada and Ukraine also agreed to work together to implement the panel's recommendations.

In addition, the agreement contains commitments ensuring the transparency of the parties' domestic administrations including the prompt publication of legislative, regulatory, procedural, and administrative rulings.

Furthermore, the agreement contains a robust state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism that includes a binding, compulsory panel procedure. This dispute settlement mechanism reinforces Canada's commitment to transparency.

The Canada-Ukraine FTA also includes a number of commitments on anti-corruption. For instance, it obliges the parties to adopt, maintain, and enforce anti-corruption legislation and related measures, in particular to adopt or maintain measures to establish acts of bribery and corruption involving public officials as criminal offences. It also obliges Canada and Ukraine to ensure that they have jurisdiction over these criminal offences. These obligations are also supported by a dispute settlement mechanism involving an independent panel if parties are not able to resolve an issue related to these anti-corruption commitments.

Furthermore, the Canada-Ukraine FTA contains provisions ensuring the ability of the governments to regulate in the public interest, including specific provisions that preserve the right to protect national security; human, animal, or plant life or health; as well as the right to pursue cultural objectives.

Finally, trade-related co-operation is another important element of the Canada-Ukraine FTA, which will indeed facilitate co-operation between Canada and Ukraine, with the objective of maximizing the benefits from the agreement and contributing to sustainable development, for example, through capacity-building, joint activities in research, and the transfer of technological skills and practice.

Canada's strong friendship and partnership with Ukraine has very deep roots, stretching back 125 years to the arrival of the first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada, the first of successive waves of immigrants who would leave lasting and indelible impressions on the fabric of our Canadian society, economy, and political landscape.

Today, there are more than 1.2 million Canadians with Ukrainian heritage, including a number in this House, making the Ukrainian community one of Canada's largest ethnic communities and an important source of information and support in the political, security, and commercial spheres for both Canada and Ukraine. Such deep ties are important for many reasons. Strong trade relationships depend on strong people-to-people relationships.

Our government believes that these uncertain economic times call for more global partnerships, not less. Moving forward with the timely ratification of the Canada-Ukraine FTA will establish a more stable trading environment that will be beneficial for both Canada and Ukraine, strengthening our bilateral relations, supporting Canada's foreign policy objectives, and enhancing commercial opportunities that can contribute to sustainable economic development.

I therefore urge all hon. members to support Bill C-31 to help us to accomplish that and a great deal more.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, while I have the floor I want to thank the cafeteria staff for feeding us perogies at lunch today, which was very appropriate given the deal we are debating.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade for bringing forward a trade deal to this House that the New Democrats are happy to support. It removes tariffs from steel to seafood, and aids exports, and adds Canadian jobs, without any of the downside of the other trade deals the government has been supporting, which give more rights to foreign investors to challenge disputes in the new investor court in the EU, for example, and undermine our environmental and social regulations.

Both the parliamentary secretary and the trade minister on the Liberal side have talked a lot about progressive trade deals. I would like to learn more, because we have had two very different types of trade deals in the House, one the New Democrats support and one we do not. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us more about his view of what constitutes a progressive trade deal and how this one fits with that?