Debates of Dec. 13th, 2016

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the trade agreement would do two things. We have a great deal of room to expand the amount of trade between the two countries, but we also need to go beyond that. We should confer with stakeholder groups like the Canadian Ukrainian Congress or individuals within our constituencies, where there is no shortage of ideas and thoughts as to how Canada and Ukraine can deepen their relationship, a relationship based on respect. Whether it is the arts and culture or electoral reform, Canada has played an important role in Ukraine, participating in monitoring its elections. There are so many ways.

Lloyd Axworthy, as the president of the University of Winnipeg, would often visit Ukraine to try to bridge post-secondary education facilities. There are so many ways. When we look at passing this bill, yes, there are specifics that deal with tariffs and so forth, with the idea of more and easier trade between both countries, but it also sends a stronger and, I believe, an equally important message that we want to take it another step forward in enhancing the relationship between both Ukraine and Canada. There is great value in both aspects.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since this may be the last time I will speak in the House this week, I would first like to take the opportunity to wish my constituents in Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe a very merry Christmas and a happy holiday season. I look forward to representing them and working closely with them in the new year.

I would also like to thank my learned colleague for sharing his reflections on this bill. I am wondering if he could take a few minutes to perhaps elaborate on the benefits of this trade deal between Canada and Ukraine, as well as how it would enhance our own economic performance in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I could talk from a Manitoba perspective about the aerospace industry, I could talk about the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast, or I could talk about the impact it would have on B.C.'s exports, which are already a great percentage of Canada's exports.

The point is that it will affect Canada from coast to coast and everywhere in-between. All regions of Canada, I would argue, would benefit from this particular trade pact. That should come as no surprise. When I was sitting in opposition back in 2012, I asked why we were not exploring the idea of free trade with Ukraine. The discussions about advancing trade with Ukraine has been on the record in the House for a number of years. I know that Jean Chrétien moved forward on a number of treaties in advancing that relationship.

That is why, when I think of what we are debating today, it is yet another significant step in the right direction that would continue to build a more solid foundation of friendship. The president of Ukraine said in this very House how much he valued that friendship. This particular agreement would go a long way in solidifying it. This is a win-win for everyone.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to continue debate on our free trade agreement with Ukraine and what will be happening next. I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona. I am looking forward to her comments.

I think this agreement shows the connections with Ukrainians that are so evident across this country. It will be symbolic in effect, given some of the Ukrainian cultural connections we have across Canada. Ukrainians have been coming to Canada and establishing settlements here in organized civil society for over 125 years. This was celebrated this past November in particular. There were Ukrainians here before then, but the marker for the community is 125 years ago. It is important to note the history of that settlement here as we move forward. It is important to note as well that there is a great connection today with the Ukrainian community over social justice in many respects, not only because of what they have faced in their home country but also here in Canada.

I would be remiss not to note that from 1914 to 1920 Ukrainians were interned in Canada under the War Measures Act by Prime Minister Borden of the Conservatives. It is something that was noted in the House of Commons with Bill C-331. Without getting too much into the details of the debate, the bill was the result of a Conservative, NDP, and Bloc effort to push this issue forward. Importantly, it encouraged us, as part of our solid foundation, to make restitution for injustices that have taken place. We saw support for making such restitution for past events become unanimous in the House. Even during World War II, up to 10 million Ukrainians suffered, either through forced labour or by being killed by the Nazi regime. Subsequently we have seen continual problems and challenges.

One of the things we can do as Canadians right now is to continue not to hide from the challenges that currently facing Ukraine from Russia, and how we can do things we can control and support. One of these things is entering into better, more mature, and value-added trade agreements that will be mutually beneficial. As New Democrats, we support that.

For example, in the past we have often seen trade agreements that have been reached for ideological reasons and for business at the expense of people. This agreement would truly be a better opportunity for people-to-people trade, especially since there are no investor-state provisions in it that would give an edge to the corporate element and brand. The trade that could happen among our people is significant.

I think of no less than St. Vladimir's church in my riding, where we have seen people involved with Ukrainian traditions and heritage. In fact, we had a memorial for the Holodomor established in a prominent park. I want to congratulate the entire community for doing this together. We did this before, as we have done for other monuments, most recently for the genocide in Srebrenica. The Holodomor itself is genocide that this House of Commons has recognized. It is recognized in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg as well. It is truly important because the survivors are no longer with us in the numbers they used to be, but the memories and the families live on, and the tradition that we have now of connecting that to our day-to-day actions is important.

The trade agreement that we are discussing today would improve trade relations in a number of different ways. The agreement really shows the strength of the Ukrainian contribution to our country when it was new and relied upon hard labour to make its mark in the world, and continues to do so in many respects.

The issues that we have on a number of different products and goods to be traded will dissipate as our tariff levels on trade are reduced. Tariff levels are in the 80s and 90s right now, so there would be a reduction of those by up to 99%, and in the high 80s, if not low 90s, for the reciprocal. It is close to getting together.

We have iron, steel, industrial machinery, beef, pork, pulses, canola oil, fish, and seafood. My riding has steel, machinery, and industrial development. The reason the strength continues is the mere fact that we have men and women who have contributed to the social development of a society here, which is very much in tune with our collectively working together to make a difference. In my riding, it was the creation of the unions in the sense that Canada, with the auto industry, really made a difference with the Rand formula. The contributions one can make and the work they have done over the years for social justice, equality, and a whole series of different things that benefit the workforce really came from a foundation of immigrants coming to Canada who have played a role in our country to get things done. Steel, industrial machinery, and equipment are part of that. Also, when we go out west and see the word “canola”, we remember the profound farming and agricultural footprint from this contribution. What makes us part of a whole as a country is the fact that this trade continues to happen in a much more robust way.

I mentioned that the agreement is more mature. That is because, for example, on labour, there are enforceable provisions in the bill, which are critical. Those enforceable provisions come to light when we look at the trading elements that are important to us as New Democrats. Labour and environment are privileged issues to many, but for us, they are about justice. When working on a trade agreement, we will focus on the beneficial aspects of those issues, because of the strength or benefit to both trading partners from the longevity of those benefits. It is not a matter of trading for a quick return at the other's expense, because after three or four years we do not see that element coming into play.

The Liberals and Conservatives brag about certain trade agreements they have set, but we have sold out some of our industries in them. Shame on our country for selling out the textile industry on two fronts. The first front is our jobs and our workers. The second front is allowing countries like Jordan to take advantage of poor people, who are almost forced into labour camps to do the jobs they stole from workers here who actually had provisions in their agreements that provided for benefits and safe working conditions. These may not have been the best of jobs, but they were working class jobs with a family heritage that could have provided for a future. We sold them out to places where they now use migrant labour. They use the country just like a storefront, or, as the Liberals might understand, a flag of convenience for corporations. It is a shortcut.

Hence, we have this agreement. I am proud to support it. I know that our member for Essex will be watching over this as it goes through committee. We will be looking at not only enhancing the trade provisions between Canada and Ukraine, but doing what I think it wants, which is looking at enhanced provisions that respect people, justice, the environment, and creating a relationship that is not about trying to be a winner or a loser through the entire process, but about creating a partnership that will be mutually beneficial for all of our citizens.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor West for his passionate speech here today in the House. As he is the former trade critic in our party, I thank him for all the work he has done throughout the years to ensure that we have responsible, respectful, thoughtful trade that is coming through this Parliament and that is looked at on balance.

The member for Windsor West was talking about this being a type of trade deal that we can support, and largely because this is a bilateral trade deal, we were able to sit down and advocate for Canada in the best possible way, because we were only dealing with one other country.

The way we see trade deals going forward in this country, which we are pursuing under this government and the previous government, is as large multilateral trade deals. These multilateral trade deals mean that we have to sit down and look at a whole bunch of other countries, and often, unfortunately, we seem to be getting lost inside of these deals.

I am wondering if the member would agree, as the former trade critic, that moving forward, it is important for countries to focus on bilateral deals rather than these multilateral deals that are sacrificing working class manufacturing jobs in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the excellent question. Let me personalize that a little bit, because I think it really is the crux of the difference between what we see as trade and maybe what some others see.

I think about people like Leisha Nazarewich and Petro Mycak from Windsor, who have been active in trading, not only in their community but also in Ukrainian relations across this country. What is important is that I want to be able to go back to them and talk about something that is helpful for both our countries.

To answer the question, we look at Canada's trade and the agreement that is settled here. I talked about the percentages of trade earlier: 86% of Canadian tariffs would be reduced going into the Ukraine. It would hang on to a little bit of protection tariffs for its economy, in terms of Canada, but it would also have 99% of Ukrainian tariffs coming into Canada reduced, and that is because we actually have a trading surplus right now. It is an imbalanced relationship.

What we would do with this agreement is, yes, we would continue to have some tariffs on our goods going out there because we have such an imbalance, but coming in, it would then be able to develop those exports and imports at a rate that is bilateral.

I think that is the comprehensive agreement, because we see the agreement as growing for both of us, not serving some other purpose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am actually quite pleased that the NDP has chosen to support and vote in favour of this particular trade agreement. I am encouraged by that.

As I listened to the member's speech and his answer to the last question, the thought that comes to my mind is this. Are there some aspects of the current agreement that the NDP is concerned with, or is the legislation fairly whole in terms of its support?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think our concern will be how we work within the current context right now, with internal and external pressures on Ukraine, and how issues like human rights, for example, are dealt with in this actual relationship as we continue to work with it.

It is important that we recognize those conditions. As we work through the trade committee, hopefully we will be able to strengthen some of those elements to help protect Ukrainians for those elements, because we know that the situation with Russia is highly complex, to say the least. We also know the types of repercussions that have been forced upon them, the injustices that have taken place; so how do we make sure we do not contribute to further propagate those types of things?

That is one of the key elements we have as New Democrats, looking at how labour is enhanced and how rights are protected. It might mean that we actually support and help develop those elements, so that further injustices and further exploitation of Ukrainian citizens is not taken advantage of by Canadian trade.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Order. 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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Public Services and Procurement; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Automotive Industry.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed from Edmonton Strathcona and the proud representative of many Ukrainian Canadians. I like to brag that I come from the city with the most Canadian Ukrainians, and I duke it out all the time with Winnipeg and Toronto, but I am sure I am correct.

As others have shared, Canada and Ukraine have had a long friendly relationship, except for, as my colleague mentioned, a period of repression during the internment, which we still need to deal with.

I personally have had the great experience of Christmas eve dinners with the 12 courses of Christmas—and I am wondering how many in this place can reiterate what those 12 courses are—enjoying blueberry petahe brought back from Winnipeg by a Ukrainian Canadian friend for me to enjoy, and my father's many clients in Smoky Lake who were of Ukrainian descent. One cannot be an Albertan without having the experience of being Ukrainian by osmosis, even if I am a proud Scottish Irish Canadian.

Our two countries continue to enjoy a positive bilateral relationship with close historic ties of friendship that have been forged through many generations of Ukrainian immigration to Canada. Many of the Ukrainians who immigrated to Canada arrived in Alberta at the station in my constituency before heading off to establish successful farm operations. A beautiful display of this 125-year immigration story, crafted by the Kule Folklore Centre in my riding, has been travelling across Canada this past year. I would encourage anybody who has the opportunity to take a look at that. It is a beautiful memorial of the immigration of Ukrainians to Canada.

Along with my colleagues, I have been inspired by the determination of our Ukrainian interns, as well. It is very sad that this program has not continued. I would encourage the government, as it moves forward with a trade agreement, to try to come forward with the funding to bring back more of those interns, because I know they have gone back to Ukraine and are doing the hard work of restoring democracy to that country.

In December 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence. That was followed by the establishment of diplomatic relations, development assistance toward sustainable development for Ukraine, a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation, and a bilateral air transport agreement. There have been many initiatives over time by governments in support of better relations with Ukraine.

The proposed trade agreement would eliminate almost 100% of the trade duties on Ukrainian imports and 86% of Canadian imports into Ukraine, over approximately seven years. As my colleague mentioned, this is a good route to go because we are trying to even off the trade and give greater benefit to Ukraine as it tries to develop its struggling democracy and its economy.

It is important to keep in mind that, from what I understand, there is currently only $70 million in trade benefits to Ukraine from trading with Canada. Therefore, we are not talking about a sizeable economic benefit. Rather, this is more a gesture of friendship, to serve as a powerful message that Canada supports the economic development of Ukraine and is willing to trade with and work with this new government as it tries to develop economically. It is also a means to open up more opportunities for investment in trade between our countries. Many in my province export grains, pork, beef, and so forth. It is also intended to provide an incentive for Ukraine to institute further economic reforms for the benefit of the people of Ukraine and investors. There has been a long history in Ukraine, prior to the revolution of dignity, when the people of Ukraine were not the beneficiaries of economic development. It is important for us to keep that in perspective, as many members in this place have raised the issues and concerns of human rights.

As the government has said, in addition to generating commercial benefits for Canadian businesses, the deal would also help spur economic reform and development efforts of Ukraine and strengthen the Canada-Ukraine partnership for peace and prosperity. Many have mentioned the problems in eastern Ukraine, the perils that Ukrainians face with the intrusion of Russian troops, and the end of peace and any potential for economic prosperity. The deal would also pave the way for long-term security, stability, and broad-based economic development in Ukraine.

Hope has increased for democratic governance for Ukraine post the revolution of dignity led in the Maidan and the election of a new government. I was privileged to participate in international monitoring missions for several of the recent elections.

Prior to this change in the regime, Canada identified numerous concerns with the erosion of democracy and rule of law and the infringement of human rights. These concerns were documented in a report prepared by the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs. Among the concerns we identified in 2012 were concerns expressed by chambers of commerce in Ukraine about the lack of legal protections for foreign investors.

The current Ukrainian government is committed to addressing improved investment law and corruption in the courts, but it will be very important, as we proceed with this trade agreement, which will be encouraging more Canadian investors to invest, that they must be careful. We were forewarned that, unless they had deep pockets, their investments might be at risk.

Nonetheless, since that date, we do have a new government. There is greater faith in its commitment to democracy and rule of law reform, but we still receive serious reports of corruption in the courts.

In this deal, there are some environmental measures but no evidence of equivalent actions on the part of Ukraine.

It would have been helpful, as I have mentioned on the CETA deal, and it would have been better to actually establish an independent secretariat, as was done under the NAFTA agreement, so that the Ukrainians could benefit by having an independent assessment of whether or not the government is moving forward and making sure that environmental considerations are factored in—as, for example, there may be Canadian investment in fracking in that country.

There is an additional area where Canada could offer extensive expertise and products in trade, including in conservation, ecological tourism, or pollution control.

Another area where Canada could offer its expertise is in energy efficiency. Ukraine was required to initiate a reform program toward ending substantial subsidies on gas as a condition to its IMF loan. As a contracting party to the European energy community, it must make reforms to comply with EU directives on energy efficiency. The country has consequently initiated measures to transform its outdated system of providing energy, including establishing a state agency of energy efficiency and energy saving. There, perhaps we could learn something from Ukraine. Canada could offer expertise in delivering the necessary programs at the national and local levels to increase the level of knowledge and public awareness and support for investments in improved energy efficiency.

Canadian municipalities could also share their experiences with Ukrainian cities that are interested in switching to use of biofuels.

We could also assist Ukrainian entrepreneurs in marketing their energy technologies in North America. I am delighted that one of my former Ukrainian interns is involved in marketing an award-winning energy-efficiency meter designed by a start-up Ukrainian technology company.

Canadian firms will be exploring the potential for developing energy reserves in Ukraine. It will be, as I mentioned, important that we also promote our technical expertise in alternative energy sources.

As I mentioned, there have been many concerns about the erosion of democracy and corruption in the courts. In fact, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress actually recommended to audit before it would sign on to a trade deal. It actually attached conditions on human rights, rule of law, and adherence to fundamental democratic principles

The UCC, as well as many of us here, now recognizes that there is a new government with more commitment to these reforms, but it is important that, in this trade deal, we watchdog for the purposes of Ukrainian benefit and also for Canadian investors, to make sure that these reforms are in place and so these investments are safeguarded.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague across the way. I know we have had the opportunity, actually, to be election observers in one of the elections and make a trip there. I think members will find that there are a number of members of Parliament who have had the opportunity to go to Ukraine, to take a look at what is in Ukraine and what it has to offer. I would suggest there is a lot to offer coming from Ukraine to Canada and, vice versa, from Canada to Ukraine.

I am anticipating, with this particular trade agreement that we are going to be voting on, hopefully later today, that we will see an enhanced relationship that would ultimately lead to more trade in different fields, as the member made reference to the different levels of expertise and the different types of things Canada can offer.

My question for the member is this. Would she not agree—and I must say I appreciate the support the NDP has indicated toward this bill—that this is a significant step forward in enhancing the relationship between two great countries?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the signing of a trade deal, as I mentioned, would send a message that Canada has faith in Ukraine and wants to encourage greater Canadian investment. However, it does not go far enough.

Canada previously has given some level of aid to Ukraine to develop its institutions, including at the local level, and to work toward engaging Ukrainians who have not had a lot of experience with democracy.

It is our obligation, in entering into this trade agreement, to make sure that Ukrainians themselves, not the oligarchs, benefit from any trade with Canada.

I encourage the Government of Canada to increase that level of investment and work with the brilliant interns who have served us so well here in Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a shout-out to two important institutions in my riding, the Holy Eucharist Cathedral on Fourth Avenue in New Westminster, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, which is on Eighth Street in New Westminster.

All of us right across the country have significant Ukrainian communities in our constituencies. I wonder if the member for Edmonton Strathcona could talk a bit more about the impact on these closer ties between Canada and the Ukraine in her own community, which she is very active in and supportive of.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are Ukrainian Canadians right across this country and they have contributed considerably given the way that they were originally treated and have gone beyond that. A Ukrainian Canadian became the premier of my province of Alberta. Many have served as cabinet ministers and now a number serve as members of Parliament in this place.

The Ukrainian community in Edmonton has raised substantial funds to support the people who are fighting in eastern Ukraine to get back their liberty and have spoken up on behalf of the Tatars. They have also spoken up for the benefit of Ukrainians so that they can develop a true democracy and their families back in the old country can benefit from the economic development that they hope will come soon.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by indicating that I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

I am pleased to rise on second reading of Bill C-31 to express support for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

I come from a part of the country, Elmwood—Transcona that, like many parts of the country, has a very strong Ukrainian community, of which I am a part. My mother's father's parents originally came to Canada and settled around Gilbert Plains. They were farmers there. When my grandfather left the farm, he served in the Second World War and ultimately landed in Transcona working for the Canadian National Railway, as many Ukrainians did. Ukrainians came to be an important part of Transcona, and an important part of the railway there, which is my heritage. My grandpa worked decades for CN in the shops, and like many with a good employer, good benefits, and a good pension, was able to make a life for his family, retire, and live out his retirement comfortably in Transcona.

I am proud to be a member of the Ukrainian Canadian community. I am proud to represent a riding where that community is strong and active. I am, therefore, also proud to support this agreement.

There are many issues that I had expressed yesterday about the comprehensive economic and trade agreement with Europe that do not present themselves in the case of the bill before us, starting with the government following its own process: tabling the implementing legislation 21 days after tabling the agreement; and actually submitting the assessment that it is required to submit, including an environmental assessment. Therefore, in terms of process, I would say that the government has done a really bad job of CETA, but has succeeded in following its own rules with respect to CUFTA, which I think helps in terms of engendering a sense of trust and confidence in the process. This is thing number one.

Thing number two that is different is that we do not have the same contentious investor-state dispute settlement clauses in CUFTA that we have in the Canada-Europe trade agreement. This also goes a long way to alleviate some of the concern on this side of the House about the nature of this deal. It allows us to look at what it really is as a trade deal. It is a deal to lower tariffs on Canadian goods going into Ukraine and lower Canadian tariffs on goods coming out of Ukraine into Canada. On balance, when we look at that, there is already an existing trade relationship. There was a lot of business done already with Ukraine, and this is an opportunity to expand that level of trade. Therefore, overall, it is a good thing.

Members on this side have said, and I will say again, that we think it is important that there be a tougher human rights monitoring provision alongside this agreement to make sure that our trade is not being used to further the interests of an oligopoly in Ukraine. However, we are nevertheless supportive, and we would like to see it ultimately come to fruition. We believe this is something that should be part of the process going forward, but not a reason to stop the process here.

Another difference with this agreement over CETA is that there is an important political point, economics aside, to this particular agreement, because of the rich history between Canada and Ukraine, and because Ukraine is in a very difficult position with a belligerent neighbour that has already annexed part of its territory and has made it clear that it intends to and wants to dominate Ukraine. I think this agreement sends an important political message that Canada stands behind Ukraine, because economic muscle is a real tool that belligerent neighbours use against those they want to control. We are willing to help people in Ukraine who want markets to be able to sell their goods and continue doing business. Canada is open to being a good friend and ally to them, and not force them into trying to trade with a belligerent neighbour.

We want to provide Ukraine with positive options that allow it to continue to have a market for its goods through trying times. That is an important political statement to be made about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, especially important to make at this time.

Those are my general thoughts on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. A nice thing we could do, because Global Affairs Canada has actually issued some information about the agreement and what the government believes the impact on trade would be, is talk about some of the details. We do not have a comparable document, unfortunately, for the Canada-European Union free trade agreement.

I know some hon. members have gotten into those details. I will spare the House from going over them once again, but I want to highlight the fact that we can actually dig down into those details, because the government has endeavoured to make some of them available. That should be standard practice and it is shocking to me that it is willing to do that for a smaller bilateral agreement but when we talk about larger multilateral agreements that, it is fair to say, have a much larger potential impact for the economy, it is ridiculous that we do not have better information. If we want to make sound economic decisions, we have to do it on the basis of numbers. We have them for this agreement, but we do not have them for some larger potential agreements.

Before I sit down, I want to draw the House's attention to that and implore members on the government side to do a far better job when it comes to the larger agreements. There is a template for it with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and it is one that they ought to apply to other larger deals.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the issue of human rights, which is interesting to bring up in this debate. It is relevant, because when we trade with another country like Ukraine, we have to ensure what whatever we are trading with it is not then used in the oppression of the people locally or potentially used by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory to further their interests on the ground.

I would ask the member if he would support something like the Magnitsky Act. There is a private member's bill before the House that is being considered and I know this is being considered by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as well. I would like to hear his thoughts on how Canada could better improve our human rights sanction regime in the context of trade.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will have to admit that I am not familiar with the details of that particular act, but in the context of trade with Ukraine and, in particular, in light of its situation, we need some kind of strong oversight mechanism. It is a dynamic situation and we certainly do not want to be doing things that would strengthen the hands of Russian actors within that country. If we are going to say that we are committed to human rights and not having the proceeds of Canadian trade perversely fund the oppression of Ukraine, then we need to also be committed to bringing about a realistic process that could give us the right information about what is actually happening on the ground and then assign some meaningful consequences.

I am not familiar with the particular details of the act that the member mentioned, but that is where we need to go. To the extent that we may or may not be going there, then those are the criteria that I would use to assess that particular proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier to some of the member's colleagues, we are very happy that the New Democrats have decided to support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We see that as a positive thing given the benefits that could be had by both countries with this agreement, not only economically but in terms of building upon the wonderful relationship we currently have.

My question to the member is related to the NDP's support. As I indicated, it is great to see the support. Are there any specific concerns in the legislation that the NDP has today?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member, too, represents a riding with a very strong Ukrainian community and heritage. The Ukrainian Labour Temple is in his riding, among other important Ukrainian institutions in Winnipeg, and he is very fortunate to have that community in his riding.

As I mentioned before, going forward, the NDP's focus, in terms of improvement of the bill, would be to ensure that there is a fulsome and adequate process for monitoring the human rights situation in Ukraine and ensuring that if the information coming back is that there are significant abuses or that the proceeds of Canadian trade end up going to help Russian aggression within the region, we are able to take meaningful action in order to quell that outcome and get things back on track.

From the NDP point of view, that is the main focus of improvement with this act.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elmwood—Transcona mentioned that the government had followed its own process for this agreement. Does the member have any insight as to why the government did not follow its own process for CETA?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I wish I did, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot say that I do. It makes sense that as the size of the agreement increases, the importance of following that process increases as well. When the government tables a trade bill as large as what is called the comprehensive economic trade agreement with Europe, and then asks members to debate it in the House in very short order, without the period the government's own policy suggests MPs need to get up to speed on it, it makes no sense at all.

I do not know why the Liberals chose to do it that way. They felt a false sense of urgency about this all along. Perhaps the member for Regina—Lewvan can take up this theme in his remarks.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of all the Canadian provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are the two that have the highest population share of Ukrainian ancestry. It is certainly a heritage of which we are extremely proud.

One of our great premiers, Roy Romanow, was of Ukrainian ancestry. He often told stories about his father emigrating from the Ukraine and working on the railroad, so there is a lot of excellent common heritage there. Mr. Romanow himself has made many great contributions to this country, first and foremost as premier of Saskatchewan, but before that he played a critical role in the patriation of the Constitution. After his time as premier, he also chaired a very important report on the future of public medicare in Canada. He would be just one example of an important Ukrainian Canadian from Saskatchewan.

Another example, from the same realm, was a fellow named Ed Tchorzewski, who was perhaps a bit less known nationally. He was a deputy premier of Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, he passed away recently, but his son, Dion Tchorzewski, continues as a very active lawyer in Regina and a very important member of the community.

I would like to turn to the trade agreement with Ukraine we are considering today. I would like to note that I rose in this House both on Friday and on Monday to speak against the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. I made two main points in opposition to that deal. The first had to do with trade flows. I made the point that Canada has a deep trade deficit with the European Union, and in fact, that trade deficit is even deeper if we exclude the United Kingdom, which is leaving the EU in the wake of the Brexit vote. I made the point that simply amplifying or trying to amplify trade flows between Canada and what is left of the European Union would likely result in an even larger trade deficit, which would be a detraction from Canadian output and employment. That was one critique of CETA: its potential negative consequences in terms of trade flows.

My other critique of CETA was its investor-state provisions, which have very little to do with trade and everything to do with empowering foreign corporations to directly challenge our democratic laws, regulations, and public policies through a special, secretive commercial tribunal process, which CETA would apply to the municipal level of government for the first time.

As I said, my objections to CETA were the current pattern of trade between Canada and the EU as well as the investor-state provisions.

The reason the NDP is pleased to support this trade agreement with the Ukraine is that there would be a very different pattern of trade present. Currently, Canada runs a significant trade surplus with the Ukraine, and there is every reason to believe that this liberalization of trade could actually improve that trade surplus and could actually add to Canadian output and employment in modest but important ways. We think this agreement could actually be positive in terms of its effect on Canadian trade flows. That is the first important distinction between this deal and CETA.

The other important distinction, as my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona already explained very well, is that this deal does not include these pernicious investor-state provisions that would allow foreign investors to sue the Canadian government when our public interest regulations interfere with some sort of potential future or hoped-for profit. A major problem with CETA is that it would carry on these investor-state provisions and would impose them at the municipal level. The agreement with the Ukraine does not include those provisions, so we are happy to support it as a trade agreement.

Having said all that, I want to also express some concerns about the situation in the Ukraine and its potential ramifications for trade with Canada.

To be blunt, in Ukraine there is a lack of human rights, a lack of labour rights, and a lack environmental protections. Those can have some very negative consequences for trade flows. One example I would cite is that Ukraine has been a major source of steel dumping in world markets. There is a large-scale industry in Ukraine. It is really not subject to a lot of labour standards or environmental rules. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has applied anti-dumping duties on Ukrainian steel. Just a few months ago, it renewed those duties, because it found that the problem still persisted that Ukrainian steel coming into Canada was very much underpriced.

I do not want to give the sense that everything is well with trade between Canada and Ukraine, but we see this agreement as a potentially useful tool to remedy that situation, in part because the agreement would allow Canada to continue to use those trade remedies to deal with the underpricing of Ukrainian steel.

I mentioned that there are a lot of people of Ukrainian origin in Regina. There are also a lot of people in Regina who work for a steel mill, so one of the things that is important to me about the agreement is the fact that it preserves Canada's ability to use trade remedies to correct some of the problems we see with Ukrainian steel imports.

Beyond steel, given the problems with human and labour rights in Ukraine, it is very important that the agreement also be accompanied by a human rights assessment. That is something the NDP is going to be proposing when the bill is before committee. We think it is very important, in supporting the agreement, to also support a robust human rights assessment to make sure that the benefits of trade are actually helping the people of Ukraine and are not just lining the pockets of oligarchs.

To sum up, there is a very proud Ukrainian heritage in our country, especially in the prairie provinces, especially in Saskatchewan. I think, for example, of the Regina Walsh Acres NDP Ukrainian banquet. It is a fantastic event in the northern part of my riding that I am often keen to attend. It is always a fantastic meal, with great dancing. It is a great social event.

In terms of the trade deal itself, the NDP is pleased to support it, because we have a constructive trade relationship with Ukraine. We run a trade surplus. We see the possibility that the agreement could actually add to Canadian output and employment while at the same time helping with Ukraine's economic development.

We are also happy to support the agreement because it actually is a trade agreement. It does not include these investor-state provisions that would allow foreign corporations to directly challenge our laws, regulations, and public policies.

Finally, we salute the fact that the agreement preserves Canada's ability to use trade remedy provisions when necessary to deal with some of the problems that exist with Ukrainian products, like steel, coming into Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the New Democrats have chosen to support this trade agreement is a very strong positive for all Canadians.

We believe that when we have these sorts of trade agreements, it is good for Canada's economy. It is good for our middle class and those aspiring to become part of our middle class. It is, in good part, about creating jobs.

Canada is a trading nation. We are very dependent on world trade. What makes this very special, as the member himself attested, is that it is with Ukraine. If one is from the prairies, one has to appreciate Ukrainian heritage. I thought it was really quite nice that we had perogies served for lunch. I suspect it was somewhat of a coincidence, but it was a nice coincidence.

My question for the member is one I have posed to other members across the way. We understand the economic value. We benefit from that, both Canada and Ukraine. Is there anything else the member would like to add in terms of other aspects of the agreement, such as the idea that this is a significant step forward in enhancing a very special relationship between two countries? Perhaps he would like to add some further thoughts on that or possibly on the people of Ukrainian heritage and the ways they have helped form government policy. I am thinking specifically of organizations like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and people in our communities who have had an impact on what we are debating today.

[Erin Weir, NDP, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North is unusually magnanimous today, and I greatly appreciate his kind question.

He did sort of broaden NDP support for this trade agreement to a general statement in favour of free trade deals helping the middle class. I think this is an important distinction between the NDP and the government. While the government believes that any and all of these trade deals are a good thing and should be blindly supported, we in the NDP think it is very important to look at the specifics of the agreement and evaluate it on that basis.

It is for that reason that we had some very serious concerns with CETA, but we do not find those concerns present in this agreement. In fact, we see good reasons to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree that CUFTA, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, does not include an investor-state provision. However, I was surprised to discover that it was because we already had an investor agreement with Ukraine. It was brought in in 1994. It has not resulted in any cases that we know of, although one of the odd features of such investor-state agreements is that the Canadian public does not have any right to know about all the cases that come before them, depending on the language. The CETA provisions are different.

I would like to ask about the the lack of transparency as Canada enters into, bit by bit, bilateral investment treaty after bilateral investment treaty, weaving a web of increased corporate rule at the global level.