Debates of Oct. 24th, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I think it is number two.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, a piece of legislation that would formalize the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This agreement offers the chance for us to look back on the opportunities that Canada had on the world stage and some of the context as to where we are now with Ukrainian trade and, more generally, European trade as whole.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Europe found itself in a tough spot. Almost overnight, countries had to look for new sources of energy, oil and gas. They needed to act fast. Canada was in a prime position to fill that void, to be the reliable country that Europe needed in that critical moment, but what happened? We dropped the ball. We did not seize the opportunity. Germany, for example, one of the most advanced nations on earth, had to scramble to keep houses warm in the winter when Russian natural gas was no longer an option.

In an era when we talk day and night about green energy and reducing emissions, Germany had no choice but to look toward other sources of energy to power the country. Why were we not prepared? We tied our own hands with endless red tape, long wait times and bureaucratic hurdles. Our energy industry, once a global leader, has been reduced to a shadow of its former self, unable to act when the world needed it the most.

We did not just fail Ukraine or Europe; we failed ourselves. We missed a golden opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on the world stage, to help Ukraine in a tangible way and to quickly divert European reliance on Russia. This is not just about missed business opportunities. It is about missing the chance to do good when it was needed the most.

There is a narrative we need to correct. The idea that all oil and gas is created equal and that it all has the same environmental footprint is simply not true. Canadian liquid natural gas, known as LNG, is among the cleanest in the world. If Europe were to replace its current oil and gas imports with Canadian products, there is a good chance we would be replacing imports from countries that have lower environmental standards. Our oil and gas sector has invested heavily in technology to minimize environmental impact.

It is not just about economics; it is also about responsible energy production. Using Canadian LNG would offer European countries a cleaner alternative to what they are strongly sourcing. This is an important aspect when looking at trade with other countries. We need to make sure we are creating access to our reliable and clean energy for Ukraine and other European nations.

It is a win-win situation, one that would benefit both our economy and the global environment. When we talk about missing opportunities, we are not just talking about financial gains. We are talking about missing an opportunity to make a real, meaningful impact on global carbon emissions, something the NDP-Liberal government should care deeply about. Instead, Canada missed out on this opportunity. We could not help Ukraine with energy reliance, and we could not help the rest of Europe either.

There is another layer to this as well, an ethical one. If we do not step up, Europe has no choice but to buy oil and gas from dictatorships that do not share our values, places where human rights and environmental concerns take a back seat. We have a moral duty to offer a better alternative, and Canadian LNG is that alternative.

Ethics matter. Where we get our energy is not just a question of economics or even of environmental protection. It is a question of values. When Europe buys energy from autocratic regimes, what message does that send? What sort of behaviour does it endorse? These regimes do not think twice about suppressing their own people or destabilizing their regions.

We saw this immediately after the onset of the war in Ukraine. However, this is not an isolated situation. There are several exporting countries that fall under this umbrella of unethical or autocratic governance.

Canada stands as a beacon of democracy and human rights on the world stage. When people buy Canadian, they are not just buying a product. They are buying into a set of values, values that respect human dignity, prioritize environmental sustainability and advocate for peace. Imagine if Europe could shift its dependency from other oppressive regimes to a country that shares its core principles. It would not only send a powerful message to the world but would have a direct, positive impact on our allies such as Ukraine. By strengthening our energy infrastructure and expanding our LNG capabilities, we can offer that alternative, an alternative that aligns with the values we hold dear in both Canada and democratic societies around the world.

Last year, the leader of the official opposition hit the nail on the head when he spoke about Canada's missed opportunities in the energy sector. While Europe, including Ukraine, was scrambling for alternatives to Russian gas, we sat on the sidelines. Why? It is because we lacked the necessary infrastructure and political will. Our inability to provide Europe with a viable alternative made it turn back to less than ideal options.

The leader of the official opposition was absolutely right. We had a shot at not just benefiting our economy but also elevating our role on the global stage. We could have been the solution that Europe, including Ukraine, was desperately searching for. What stopped us was red tape and a lack of foresight from the Liberal government.

This is not just about energy. It is about seizing strategic opportunities when they present themselves. As we discuss Bill C-57, I urge all of us to reflect on the broader implications of our international trade policies. We are always looking at the possibilities of strengthening our free trade around the world. However, we must also address missed opportunities that have significant global impacts.

This bill will likely bring up the topic of energy as it develops, a sector where Canada has failed to take the lead at crucial moments. The leader of the official opposition was clear last year about the shortcomings of the Liberal government. We need to move beyond the endless paperwork and bureaucracy that stall progress. I cannot help but stress that Canada had a chance to supply Ukraine and Europe as a whole with our natural gas, which is a cleaner, ethical option compared to what they are getting now. Instead, European countries, including Germany and Ukraine, were forced back to less desirable options because we did not have the infrastructure to support their need.

As we consider Bill C-57, let us not just look at words on the paper. Let us think about what those words mean in the context of Canada's role on the world stage. Are we simply going to be participants or will we be leaders?

As we look to possibly expand our trade with Ukraine, let us also make sure we are positioned to make the most of similar opportunities in the future. It is not just about economics. It is about taking a stand for cleaner and ethical trade that benefits us today and sets us on the right path for future generations.

I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, toward the end of his comments, the member said that we could be leaders here, and the member is right. What we are seeing is legislation that would clearly demonstrate Canada's leadership in the world.

This would be the first trade agreement for Ukraine at a time when it is going through a war, as we all know. We all want to give that support to Ukraine in whatever way we can. The general consensus seems to be that the House is in favour of the legislation. The legislation, if passed, would not only be economically in the best interests of both Canada and Ukraine, but would send many other positive messages.

We are the first country that would have an agreement with Ukraine during a war. I am wondering if the member will join the leadership being demonstrated, get behind the bill and hopefully agree we need to see it pass before Christmas. Would he not agree with that?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not really certain what kind of question there was in the member's long statement, but I know he is saying he wants the bill to pass before Christmas.

With any trade agreement we need to make sure that everything is proper for both countries. We do not want to see one country taking advantage of another, and right now Ukraine is going through a war situation. The whole purpose of this free trade agreement is to make sure that it aligns not only with Canadian values but also Ukrainian values, and make sure that it is also economically viable for each country. As well, there are morals and values that should be placed forward in this free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that we need the political will and the infrastructure to export oil and gas. Even if the political will had been there, it would have taken 10 years to put the necessary infrastructure in place. In Quebec, building the necessary infrastructure would have meant running pipelines on, beside or under 800 waterways, including the St. Lawrence River, which supplies drinking water to the majority of Quebeckers.

Pipelines are relatively safe, but accidents happen. What would we do if an accident deprived a population of its water supply?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that everyone tries to fearmonger a lot and talk about the issues they are having. What I am talking about is replacing liquid natural gas with either coal or other types of energy that are very reliable.

I love how people talk about going to wind and solar. Every time we seem to save one tonne of carbon in Canada, we go to solar energy that is produced mainly in China, which uses coal electricity. It produces two or three tonnes more than what we take out, and we are saying how green this is. If we are talking about the climate crisis around the world, why are we not limiting the amount of emissions that are coming out of China? Why is our first choice always to go to China in order to get things built? This is why I propose we go with natural gas in countries such as those in Europe to offset all the carbon emissions that China is producing in this world.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about doing business with China, but I will go back to FIPA, the agreement the Conservatives signed under Stephen Harper. It is like people have amnesia around here, because before they signed that agreement, they forgot to tell us that they brought 30 executives, CEOs, including oil and gas executives, to China, and guess who paid for it? It was the Canadian taxpayers.

Does my colleague agree that trade missions and the Government of Canada should fund CEOs going to another country before we have a trade agreement? If he does think that, does he think that labour should be invited to jump on the plane that is being funded by Canadian taxpayers?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think the member misunderstands that we are actually talking about the free trade agreement with Ukraine. I am really not certain why he keeps bringing up China and talking about how it was a free trade agreement that Harper signed. It was never a free trade agreement. He is well aware of that, yet he continues to push that aspect. After 10 years of being in operation, there have not been any trade issues related to that.

I think the member needs to focus on Ukraine as opposed to China.

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

Madam Speaker, the relationship between Canada and Ukraine is special. Our country is home to more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian descent. The size of the Ukrainian diaspora is matched by few others in Canada, and it only continues to grow.

As was mentioned by my colleague, the member for Abbotsford, our city is now home to a Ukrainian village. In the spring of 2022, I had the opportunity to hire a Ukrainian student, studying here in Canada, as an intern. The city of Mission is home to a vibrant Ukrainian Orthodox community. We have people-to-people ties that run deep and are only growing.

In fact, before I begin my speech, I would be remiss if I did not mention the multitude of service organizations, such as MCC, which have been at the forefront of welcoming Ukrainian refugees into Canadian society and integrating them into our community and civic organizations. When I think about the Canadian spirit, that is what it is all about. I thank all the organizations that continue to do this very important work today.

As Ukraine has established itself as a modern, democratic nation, Conservatives have been steadfast in our support of expanding economic ties and standing with Ukraine as it distances itself from Putin's Russia. That is why Conservatives were committed to getting a free trade deal with Ukraine done when we were in government.

Since Russian troops invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Conservatives have remained steadfast in our support of the Ukrainian people as they fight against authoritarianism and to protect their sovereignty as a modern, democratic nation. Ukraine will win this war. Canada must ensure that we are prepared to assist the Ukrainian people as they rebuild, and we must ensure that it is the aim of any trade agreement with Ukraine going forward.

On December 2, 1991, the day after Ukraine officially declared its independence from the U.S.S.R., Canada joined Poland as the first two nations to officially recognize a sovereign, independent Ukraine. As was mentioned yesterday by my colleague from Prince Albert, it was Canadian farmers who exported technology to Ukraine, allowing Ukraine to modernize its farming practices and turn itself into a powerhouse of agriculture that feeds many other nations.

Canada can, and should, step up to the plate again, and we could do it by giving Ukraine a hand-up through trade. That begs the question: Does this agreement allow us to do that? Can this agreement help us provide a hand-up to the Ukrainian people? Does it have the necessary tools to provide for a prosperous Ukraine after the war? These questions must be answered as we debate this bill and as it moves through the legislative process.

Let us briefly touch upon the history of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. The original agreement entered into force on August 1, 2017, and eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. It was initially an asymmetrical agreement that was designed to provide more benefit to Ukraine than Canada.

Following the ratification of the original CUFTA, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. In July 2019, the governments of Canada and Ukraine agreed to modernize the CUFTA. Canada-Ukraine bilateral trade reached its highest level ever in 2021. Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalled $219 million, and merchandise imports from Ukraine amounted to $228 million.

Canada and Ukraine announced the launch of modernization negotiations in January 2022. However, the Russian invasion in February 2022 has obviously had a very negative effect on our overall bilateral trade and investment, leading to a 31% fall in Canada's exports to Ukraine.

In 2022, Canada's top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. Total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million: $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports.

The CUFTA updates the following chapters: rules of origin, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, digital trade, labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption. For the first time in a Canadian FTA, the environment chapter includes provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade- and environment-related policies. The CUFTA has new chapters in investment, cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, development and administration of measures, financial services, telecommunications, trade and gender, trade and SMEs, trade and indigenous peoples and regulatory practices. For the first time ever, a Canadian FTA will include a chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. The CUFTA now replaces the 1994 FIPA in the investment chapter as well.

When Conservatives took office in 2006, Canada had trade agreements with just five other countries: the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel. By the time Prime Minister Harper left office in 2015, Canada had free trade agreements with an astounding 47 additional countries. I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for all his hard work.

The Harper government began negotiating with Ukraine all the way back in 2010. Ukraine had a weak economy at that time and, of course, it was struggling to deal with Russia. Despite this, as my hon. colleague from Abbotsford mentioned yesterday, Prime Minister Harper was adamant that Canada pursue free trade with Ukraine.

Building a strong economic relationship with Ukraine and giving it a leg up in establishing itself as a modern democratic nation with a strong economy remains a priority for Canada today and one that I am proud of. As we reflect on the broader implications of Canada's trade policy, we have to look to supporting a country like Ukraine. The Conservatives will continue to stand with Ukraine as it continues the fight against Putin's authoritarian regime.

Canada should be looking for ways to use our economic strength and strategic advantages to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia.

I look forward to questions.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has to know I am going to challenge him on saying that Stephen Harper had 40-plus signed trade agreements. History and the facts will very clearly show that the member is wrong. In fact, those were agreements that were signed by this government. The bottom line is it is good. The Conservative Party supports the agreements that we actually were able to bring across the goal line and get signed. I see that as a good thing.

The trade agreement that we are debating today goes far beyond just the economic benefits for both Canada and Ukraine. At a time when we are seeing the war taking place, the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, we can send a very powerful message that goes well past the economic benefits. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of that message, whether that is to Putin, that we are moving forward with a trade agreement with Ukraine, and that is a very positive thing for both countries.

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

Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Winnipeg's first point, I remember fondly when I was still a political staffer a historic moment in the House of Commons when the Deputy Prime Minister walked across the aisle and the member for Abbotsford walked across the aisle and they embraced each other in love and friendship over Canada's long-standing policy, supported by our two major political parties' support for trade. That was a positive moment—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I just want to remind members that, if they want to have conversations, they are to go outside, and if they have follow-up questions, they are to wait until it is the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has nine seconds left to respond.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North, during this debate, has spoken often about all the trade agreements the Liberal Party of Canada has signed. I would be remiss if I did not mention the challenges caused by the government's policies on trade when it took the CPTPP and tried to put those different clauses at the end—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do have to allow for other questions. I know the time goes by really fast.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Madam Speaker, sometimes, especially when treaties are involved, partisan politics needs to be left at the door. A treaty is usually the outcome of lengthy negotiations. A government of a certain stripe negotiates the treaty, but a government of another stripe signs it. Sometimes this happens for the best, sometimes, for the worse. One example of the worse is Phoenix, which was negotiated by one government and implemented by another.

That said, Canada has a wide range of exportable resources aside from oil and gas. I would like my colleague to name a few of the resources that we can export that would be of major assistance to Ukraine. When I say resources, I am also referring to knowledge, not only material resources.

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

Madam Speaker, thanks to this agreement with Ukraine, Canada can improve its ability to export not only agricultural products, but also agricultural equipment. This agreement with Ukraine can help us meet this challenge.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. He mentioned that MCC is very active in Abbotsford in helping refugees from Ukraine settle in our beautiful community. I would invite him to expand on that.

Where have they settled? How are they integrating into our community?

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

Madam Speaker, right by Bourquin Crescent in Abbotsford, there is a townhouse complex. I believe it is called Lakeside Terrace. MCC has coordinated for many of the refugees to live at Lakeside Terrace.

On Sunday afternoons, when I am taking my kids for a walk at Mill Lake Park, which is adjacent to Lakeside Terrace, I hear many children speaking Ukrainian. A great way to integrate new refugees is to put them close to our pre-eminent park in Abbotsford. It is allowing the kids to integrate more quickly, and it is building those friendships that are so important to making newcomers feel welcome in our wonderful community.

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

Madam Speaker, I begin the discussion today on Bill C-57, which is the updated Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

We have had some conversation already this morning on the subject of the differences between trade agreements and investor protection agreements. I would like to approach that topic again and talk about the updated Canada-Ukraine trade agreement.

I would also like to put a frame around the fact that a number of Liberal MPs said that this agreement makes an effort to name climate change and to tackle climate change in trade agreements. I wish that were so. We have a long way to go if we are going to confront the ways in which the World Trade Organization and its creation have undermined the climate agreements, and multilateral environmental agreements in general.

With that frame, I will move very quickly through some of the larger issues here because it is unusual for us to have any opportunity in this place to address the trade and investor protection agreements and how they impact climate, and they do.

Let us start by looking at the last effective multilateral environmental agreement that the world has ever seen and that was the most effective. It was negotiated in 1987 in Montreal. It is, of course, the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer.

I was honoured to participate in those negotiations as senior policy adviser to the federal minister of environment in the Mulroney government back in those days.

If we look at the success of the Montreal Protocol, it is astonishing. We have not only arrested the destruction of the ozone layer through various ozone-depleting substances but also expanded that agreement with the Kigali Amendment so that it has also been an effective treaty that has helped reduce greenhouse gases.

One of the key reasons the Montreal Protocol was so successful was that the agreement to protect the ozone layer had enforcement mechanisms. It had penalties for countries that chose to ignore their commitments to protect the ozone layer. In fact, those treaty sanctions were so effective, they never had to be used because countries abided by their commitments in the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer.

The effective sanctions were trade sanctions. It is very hard to imagine any kind of international treaty that binds nation states and that has an effective punishment system that would be other than trade agreements. It is the most logical place in which we can inflict some degree of penalty on non-compliance.

The way the Montreal Protocol worked was that if any country ignored its commitments to reduce its use and to stop the production of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting substances, then that country would be subject to trade sanctions from any other country that was a party to the Montreal Protocol.

Since every country on earth was a party to the Montreal Protocol, that was why it was a very effective mechanism. Ten years later, in 1997, in Kyoto, Japan, when we negotiated the Kyoto Protocol, tragically, Canada changed its position 180 degrees.

Instead of being a country that championed making those agreements effective by including trade sanctions, our minister of environment headed to Kyoto saying that if trade sanctions were included in the Kyoto Protocol for climate action, Canada would not sign.

What happened? In that 10-year window, there was the creation of the World Trade Organization. The end of the Uruguay Round negotiations resulted in a more established centre for trade work globally.

All of this emanated from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had, since just after the Second World War, when it was negotiated, set aside and protected from trade sanctions those actions that were considered to be part of natural resource conservation and so on.

Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade set aside, essentially, environmental protections without using that language. It certainly did not reference climate. We had the window there to protect what we did as nations, not for trade-motivated reasons or protectionist animus but for the legitimate pursuit of environmental protections. We could not be sanctioned by trade deals.

That all changed with the creation of the World Trade Organization. It created a committee called the Committee on Trade and Environment and instead of asking the useful question of whether we have trade agreements that get in the way of environmental protection, it asked a different question: Do we have environmental agreements that get in the way of trade? It spotted the Montreal Protocol and did not like that. It did not like the Basel Convention, which allows trade sanctions, or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, CITES.

We already had a number of agreements that said we were allowed to take measures to protect the environment and in those agreements, we said trade could not get in the way. The trade Hydra raised its many ugly heads and said, no, it did not want us to do that.

There was never any decision, by the way. There was no ruling. It was just a matter of, in every national capital all around the world, the powerful trade ministers at every cabinet table turning to their less powerful environment ministers and saying they could not use those tools anymore. As a result, not a single climate agreement that Canada has ever signed has had any sanctions at all. The only sanction in the Paris Agreement is essentially the annual global stock-taking of language. That is coming up at COP28. The global stock-taking is essentially a sanction based on global shaming and embarrassment as there is no sanction there at all.

We really need to deal with this. Although the window here with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is pretty well closed because the negotiations are done, let us take this moment to say this is wrong. Certainly, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine has been one of the most outspoken champions. The war that Putin launched illegally against Ukraine must not get in the way of climate action. President Zelenskyy knows it and champions it. This is a good time to make sure all of the climate agreements are protected from trade limitations.

This is a good time to dust off some of the decisions that have been wrongly assumed to say that we cannot pursue climate agreements without violating trade deals. For instance, there are the tuna-dolphin case and the shrimp-turtle case. Both of those cases, at the WTO appellate level, left out very clear language. It does not say that we can never protect the environment under the WTO but that we cannot do it one-on-one. We cannot say the U.S. makes its own rules and then tells Mexico what to do.

However, it did say, in the context of a multilateral agreement that is negotiated, that trade has to back off and to respect those commitments. That is the case with the Paris Agreement. Every country on earth is bound by it. It is a perfect opportunity for our government to step up and to start saying that countries cannot use trade agreements to limit action to protect climate, as has been done. There are sanctions against India for moving to renewable energy, and so on. We recently had another investor protection agreement decision that hampers climate action.

To go back, trade deals are different from investor protection agreements, but in Bill C-57, in the existing Canada-Ukraine trade deal, there is an investor protection agreement. Those are very corrosive of democracy in that they say a foreign corporation has a right to sue a government if it does not like something that a government does that reduces its expectation of profits. Our government got rid of it in negotiating for the new CUSMA with the U.S., so what was chapter 11 of NAFTA is now gone.

We should be moving quickly to remove investor protection agreements that undermine our democracy, our environmental protections and our labour protections. Getting rid of investor protection agreements, or at least ensuring that they do not give foreign corporations more rights than domestic corporations, would be very welcome, indeed.

Bill C-57 as an improvement in modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is fine as far as it goes, but it would not do the things that many Liberal MPs have said it would. They have not been misleading the House, as they absolutely believe to be true that the Canada-Ukraine agreement as reflected in Bill C-57 would modernize and include more protections to the environment. It would not really, because unless we get at the basic conflict that trade agreements and the WTO have set themselves up to be superior to multilateral environmental agreements, like the Paris agreement, we are always at risk of trade deals and trade decisions from bodies like the World Trade Organization undermining and sabotaging global climate efforts.

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

Madam Speaker, within Bill C-57, there are references to our environment. There are references to unions and labour standards, if I can put it that way. When I look at previous agreements, I do believe we are moving the ball forward.

The member makes reference to the World Trade Organization and so forth, and at the end of the day, this particular agreement would achieve a significant amount in the right direction with respect to the environment.

My question to the member is this: Can she provide her thoughts about the Green Party's position with respect to this specific deal? Does she anticipate voting in favour of it?

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the parliamentary secretary. There is language about climate. There is language about labour rights and language about indigenous rights. The difficulty here is that we can put in all the language and pretty words we like, but if the effect of the supremacy of trade deals and the World Trade Organization remains untouched, then anything we put in pretty words is undercut by the effective hard impacts. It is like having a set of really sharp scissors that cut through that paper. We do not really make the progress we think we are making by just saying we care about climate. However, if there is going to be an investor protection agreement that says, “I do not like the decision someone just made” to the government of international agreements that makes sure we start changing technologies and moving toward renewable and so on, the ability of a foreign corporation to sue over that undercuts the pretty words. That would be the point.

I will say to the hon. parliamentary secretary—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spent a lot of time talking about investor protections, and she suggested that foreign investment protection promotion agreements are corrosive to democracy and to how we represent Canada's sovereignty at home and abroad. However, I would ask her a question. There has been an investor protection agreement in place with Ukraine since 1994, for 30 years. Can she point out one or two cases under those provisions that have resulted in Canada's sovereignty's being impaired?

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

Madam Speaker, in the generic category of investor protection agreements that damage Canada's sovereignty, I would point more to what used to be called NAFTA, where we had decisions taken by Parliament that were reversed because of complaints by U.S.-based corporations. Canada has lost out over and over again in those agreements. In the case of the one with FIPA and China, since all those decisions are secret, we do not know how often it has been used to challenge.

I think the hon. member for Abbotsford knows that the answer is that I cannot think of a time the Canada-Ukraine agreement has been used in ways that preferred Ukrainian corporations over the Government of Canada. However, the reality of investor protection agreements is that, in the context with a bigger power, the Canadian companies have lost out in U.S. challenges under arbitration, as Canadian governments have lost out when U.S. corporations challenge us. It is a consistent thing through investor protection agreements that the larger economic power, whether it is the investor or the nation state, whichever is the larger—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. I do have to allow for one more question.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.