Debates of Oct. 24th, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, along those same lines, I wonder whether the member also wants to talk about not just instances of particular investor protection agreements, but also the cumulative effect of constantly building these types of provisions in, whether they appear as independent agreements or as ISDS provisions in trade agreements, and the kind of chilling effect that has on government decision-making long before anything is brought to a trade tribunal.

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

Madam Speaker, as ever, the member for Elmwood—Transcona is brilliant and absolutely right. There is a chilling effect. When the Government of Canada acts to ban a toxic substance, as it did to ban a gasoline additive called MMT, it is found to be very bad and naughty, and it has its hand slapped. By the way, this was because the Chrétien government decided to settle this before there was a decision on MMT. This had the effect that the people at Environment Canada, who thought this had better be banned because it is a neurotoxin already affecting the health of Canadians, got sanctioned. The money that was paid out to Ethyl Corporation, in that case, came out of the core A-base budget of Environment Canada.

There is a real chilling effect every single time Canada, the sovereign state, takes a measure for the environment or human health and gets told that it was bad to do it because a foreign corporation did not like it. It is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry. Unfortunately, there is only so much time. I know it is a very passionate and important issue.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate about changes to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

I will start by stating again our full support for Ukraine in the war against Russia, which started with an illegal and unjustified invasion on Ukrainian territory in February of last year. Our support is not only in response to some of the atrocities committed by Russian forces in the region but also is a firm stance in favour of international law and a rules-based order that Ukrainians are very literally on the front line of today. It is important that when we choose our allies, we choose allies that are committed to those values and to the application of international law and that we hold them to high standards when it comes to their observance of international law in what they do.

There are many ways we can support allies. Of course, Canada has sent various kinds of aid, whether financial or military, to Ukraine, but being a helpful trading partner in times of strife is also something that is important. However, at the high level, while we are very committed as New Democrats to supporting Ukraine, details do matter, which is why there are established procedures for the House and departmental guidelines for ensuring that parliamentarians have time to do their job of proper scrutiny.

We know that sometimes, under the auspices of good causes, governments have been known to sneak a few things in, which is why the department's own policy on tabling treaties in the House of Commons requires 21 sitting days between the tabling of the text of the treaty and the tabling of enabling legislation. Given that the text of the treaty was tabled on October 17, just a few days ago, normally that would mean that we would not be seeing enabling legislation until November 22. Instead, it has come much more quickly. It has been about a week since the text of the treaty was tabled, and we find ourselves in the second day of debate. This is a contravention of the department's own guidelines on tabling treaties in Parliament, a document that, as New Democrats, we take very seriously because we take the work of this place seriously.

One of the practical consequences is that, even though we are on the second day of debate about changes to an international trade treaty, caucuses have not had the opportunity to meet since the bill was tabled, so it is a very tight turnaround. To ask parliamentarians to be speaking with authority on just a few days' turnaround to such a large document with some important implications and a lot of detail does not manifest in spirit, and in this case not even in the letter, the government's words about taking Parliament seriously as part of the trade process. I think this is an important thing for Canadians to know and understand.

Often in this place, there are debates that touch upon the role of Parliament and the seriousness with which government takes Parliament, and I think this is one of those examples. These are the times not because it is a big controversial thing but precisely because it is not. We know that the government had signed this treaty well before it was tabled in the House of Commons. There were opportunities to bring Parliament into the loop and follow the appropriate policy, but for whatever reason, the government chose to take a pass on that as it too often has in the past.

For those in government who mean it when they say that they take this place seriously, we would exhort them to talk to their colleagues in cabinet to make sure they are following, at the very least, the established procedures for conducting these kinds of debates and discussions in the House of Commons. When they get good at, at least, following through on their own commitments and their own established policies, then we can talk about how to do it better. There certainly are ways to do it better, ways that involve the legislature much earlier on in the process, and build a tighter mandate for enabling legislation when it hits the floor of the House.

There has been a lot of talk already about some of the language in this agreement. I thank the previous speaker for pointing out that flowery language in preambles and elsewhere, if not accompanied by proper enforcement mechanisms that have teeth that would catch the attention either of our own government or the governments with which we are entering into treaties, does not really amount to much.

I am going to lay out what I think is a small but symbolic test of the government's commitment, not just on its process for trade treaties but also in the context of this particular one. In some of the flowery language, there is talk about an indigenous chapter and indigenous rights. I know the government also had flowery language on that file when it came to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement.

However, I moved an amendment to the enabling legislation that would be a non-derogation clause for indigenous rights. It just said that nothing in that legislation, nothing in the agreement, would impinge on the already established rights of indigenous people in Canada. When I did this, I watched the Liberals vote with Conservatives to not have such a clause, just a reminder that indigenous people do have rights in this country and that nothing the Liberal government does in the context of an international trade treaty could undermine that or take away some of those existing rights.

I was disappointed at the reticence of the government members to endorse that as a basic principle and to put it in the legislation. Now we see flowery language about indigenous rights. Let us be sure that, at a minimum, we are including that non-derogation clause in this enabling legislation. That is an important point.

I want to talk a little about one of the issues that I know certain Conservative colleagues have raised in respect of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and, since the war began more largely, the supply of Canadian oil and gas to Ukraine. I want to point out that, regardless of whether someone supports more natural gas and oil development in Canada for export to Ukraine, when Conservatives talk about this, they are implying that we should have a greater role for government in deciding who the customers of Canadian oil and gas companies are. I do not find that particularly offensive, in principle. I think that is a conversation we should be having.

We should talk about what a reasonable level of extraction for oil and gas is, in barrels per day or barrels per year, and we should have a conversation about the best way to use those finite resources. They are finite because they are not renewable resources and because, if we are doing it right, we should have some kind of cap on how much extraction could happen in a year. This should be devised with our climate commitments in mind.

Oil and gas becomes a very precious resource indeed, as Canadians already know, with the prices they are being forced to pay. Conservatives would have us believe this is because of carbon tax, but, in fact, if we look at the record profits that oil and gas companies have been experiencing over the last number of years, price gouging is actually a much bigger concern, or should be a bigger concern, for Canadians.

Whatever government is taking in the form of a carbon tax and delivering back to Canadians in the form of a rebate is a hell of a lot less than what oil and gas companies are taking out of their pocket and sending off to international tax havens. That is costing Canadians a heck of a lot more.

It is rich for the Conservatives to get up and pretend that, somehow, they are in support of talking about how a public regulatory framework could guide export relationships and contracts for the oil and gas industry. That is not something they support. They support getting more oil and gas out of the ground faster. They support those companies selling it wherever they can make the best buck. However, for the government to get involved and actually say that we should not be buying oil and gas from these countries, that we should be exporting oil and gas to those countries, invites a lot more public involvement in the oil and gas industry than I think they have the stomach for.

This is a debate that I welcome. The best, most efficient and most prosperous use of finite oil and gas resources is something that, from many perspectives, we should be talking about. However, I do not believe this is a conversation they are serious about having. In contexts such as this, the Conservatives use it to score cheap political points, and Canadians should pay attention and not take them at their word on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the member's opening comments.

We need to put in perspective that this agreement was actually signed off on just last month, between the Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine.

Now we have the legislation before us, which was done in a relatively quick fashion. We have to put it in the context of the fact that we have an illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine. It is a time of war, when allied countries around the world are coming to support Ukraine. There is a huge sense of Ukrainian solidarity. Canada is the first country to actually enter into a trade agreement, even in a time of war. It is there not only for the economic benefits of both Canada and Ukraine but also to send the right type of messaging to the people of Ukraine and Russia.

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that it was signed off on just last month, when President Zelenskyy visited Ottawa, but our understanding is that, in fact, the terms and conditions of that agreement were finalized much sooner. It is important for members of the government not to confuse their own communications imperatives and their desire to have nice press conferences and fancy signing ceremonies with the imperatives of a war; that does a disservice.

It seems to me that, actually, the agreement was in a position to be signed off on sooner, and then the members of the government could have followed their own policy and had the legislation in Parliament sooner. We can honour the imperatives of the war without taking seriously the government's own communication strategy.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's speech. However, it did concern me that he was somewhat disparaging toward our oil and gas industry. The member accused some in this House of scoring cheap political points, but when one does that, one had better not be guilty of doing the very same thing; unfortunately, he is the guilty one here.

Natural gas is one of the solutions to the world's greenhouse gas emissions challenges. We can displace dirty coal elsewhere around the world by exporting much cleaner natural gas to those countries. There is some urgency in doing this for Ukraine. Does the member not believe that Canada should put in place every single strategy available to us in order to get our liquefied natural gas to a country like Ukraine, which is in such deep straits and turmoil because of Russia's invasion? Does he not agree that this is an urgent situation where we should be providing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the member to respond.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to repeat myself. I actually said that this is a conversation I am open to.

However, the member just did the very thing that I have warned against. He says that Canada could be sending oil and gas to countries that are currently burning coal, which is fair enough. This is to talk about the government's selecting places in the world where we think we have a strategic best use for our own oil and gas reserves. That is fine; let us have that conversation. However, I do not think that is a conversation Conservatives really want to have, because they actually want a free market in oil and gas. They are not interested in having that kind of government intervention.

It is telling that the member found my comments disparaging; they were disparaging not of the oil and gas sector in this case, but of the Conservative Party. He conflated my critique of the Conservative Party with a critique of the industry. It is telling that the Conservatives feel those two things are so closely tied at the hip.

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

Madam Speaker, I just want to refer back to oil and gas. In this place, we continue to see the Conservatives try to focus on a diversion. They talk about the carbon tax. Last year, it went up two cents. The oil and gas profits went up 18¢ on every litre of gas; the Conservatives do not talk about that. We do not need oil and gas lobbyists here on Parliament Hill when we have the Conservative Party right here in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask about the true cost of oil and gas companies' not paying an excess profit tax right now. Big corporations are getting off the hook when it comes to not paying their fair share in countries such as Canada and Ukraine. What impact does that have on the economy, and how does apply it to trade agreements when we look at corporations getting off the hook?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for highlighting once again the incredible impact that outsized profits in the oil and gas sector have been having on Canadian household budgets. I would also say that, often, one of the ways that their lobbyists in the Conservative Party like to defend that is to say one cannot help a wage earner without helping the wage payer. However, these guys do not need help; they are making money hand over fist. Not only that, but after the last Alberta election, they turned around and laid off 1,500 employees. They did this even though they were making more money than ever before.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege today to speak on behalf of the good people of Peace River—Westlock to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023.

I am a free trader. I believe in free market economies. I believe that Canada is a trading country, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to pursue free trade agreements around the world. Canada is blessed to have a huge amount of natural resources, a large land mass and resilient people, who are able to produce those natural resources. We are able to outproduce our own need by multiples of hundreds, whether that is the food production that happens in this country, our forestry or the oil and gas sector.

I want to just talk a little bit about the Supreme Court decision around Bill C-69. It is connected to this by the fact that, when Bill C-69 was brought into force, it ended the pursuit of 14 LNG projects in this country. Prior to the Liberal government coming into power, these projects were being pursued; after Bill C-69 was brought in, they were abandoned.

At the time when Bill C-69 was put on the Order Paper and we were discussing it here in this place, we said that the bill was unconstitutional and that it would have a marked effect on the pursuit of major projects in this country. We were right on both counts. We saw 14 projects just disappear. The proponents of those projects said that there was no longer the business case to do them. The business case was entirely impacted by government regulation. We also saw, after five years of that bill being in place, that the Supreme Court agreed with us, saying Bill C-69 was unconstitutional.

Why does that matter in the context of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? I would remind everybody that Ukraine is now in a war with Russia. Energy is the major export of Russia to the world. What is funding this war is the energy that people are buying, no matter where they are in the world.

We just heard the NDP talk about how we should pick and choose which countries we should do business with when it comes to oil and gas. I would argue that the world market for energy is the world market for energy. If we put good clean Canadian oil and gas on the world market and compete on that market, we could displace other oil and gas. When we just take our products off that market, somebody else will go in and fill that void. That might be Russia; in many cases, it is Russia.

Now we know that the Germans, for example, have come to Canada and specifically asked Canada to increase LNG production. They said that if they do not get more LNG coming to Europe, they will have to revert to coal mining. When our Prime Minister was asked about that, he said there was no business case. He failed to recognize, or perhaps purposefully did not say, that the business case that no longer was able to be made by LNG companies in this country was predicated entirely on the backs of the new bill, Bill C-69. Those projects were in the works until Bill C-69 came into place and then slowly, one by one, the businesses that were pursuing LNG projects said that there was no longer a business case for them. So we have seen that go away.

Another thing that I am excited about in terms of free trade and free trade agreements is just how our Canadian technology can then move around the world. Our leader has often said that we will fight climate change with technology and not taxes. Our ability to then export those technologies around the world comes from when we sign free trade agreements.

I am sitting in the House here next to the member for Abbotsford. I know that, when he was the trade minister, he pursued an aggressive free trade agenda under the previous Harper government. He signed over 40 free trade agreements, which allowed our Canadian technology to then be transferred around the world. That made Canadian companies wealthy. That gave Canadians jobs. It also did amazing things for other countries.

Canada is a leader in agricultural techniques and technology. We often lead the way when it comes to dryland farming and those kinds of things. We are able to export not only our equipment, but also our know-how around the world.

When it comes to energy production with our small nuclear reactors, it is a flagship Canadian technology. When I was in elementary school, our social studies bragged about the CANDU reactor and how we would power the world with this Canadian technology. Free trade agreements have had a great impact on allowing our technology to pursue other markets around the world.

Also, our ability to export our LNG products also allows our clean technology products to be transferred around the world.

We export other things such as coal, which is mined in the most ethically sourced manner. In most cases, it is extremely mechanized. There are very few people involved in the actual mining of coal, mostly equipment operators. The rates of injury compared to the tonnes of coal being produced are the lowest. We have some of the best labour practices in the world when it comes to coal production.

Therefore, when our coal ends up on the world market, although we do not necessarily know what the end result of that is, we can say with confidence that our coal, our oil, our lumber and our power are the most ethically sourced. We know that our labour and environmental standards are second to none around the world. When we are exporting these products, we know we are doing good in the world, because we are displacing products that may not have those same standards being enforced.

When it comes to free trade agreements, I want to talk about competitiveness. When we enter the free market, we do not necessarily know where our products are going to end up and we do not necessarily know with whom we are going to be competing. There are price signals that impact our ability to sell our products.

Over and again, representatives from many companies come to my office to talk to me about competitiveness. They say that they have the best technology and labour laws in the world, as well as great ideas, yet they are unable to attract investment in their products because of regulatory uncertainty, high labour costs, high interest rates, these kinds of things. Therefore, more companies are saying they need to be more competitive on the world stage. The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement would not only allow our products to go to other places, but would also allow Ukrainian investment to come in our direction, and we are very excited about that.

I know more companies are saying that their competitiveness is being undermined specifically because of things like the carbon tax. I am not sure if Ukraine has a carbon tax in place, but it could be a major challenge. If Ukraine does not and we do, we could hamstring our own companies if we enter into a free trade agreement with Ukraine or other countries around the world. Our companies would be competing with other companies that do not have a carbon tax on their products.

Let us say we want to sell LNG. Maybe another reason why there is no market plan for these LNG projects is because of the carbon tax, which came in around the same time as Bill C-69. Companies may say that if they are being charged a carbon tax on the production work they do in Canada when an LNG project in Australia does not have that tax on it, it is an increased cost that their competitors do not have to bear. We have to be concerned about this as we enter into these free trade agreements. We need to ensure that we not only have the ability to send our products out, but we are also able to compete with those companies in those countries.

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

Madam Speaker, I will ask more of a general question regarding trade. The member wants to talk a lot about the oil and gas industry. One option he may want to consider is to recommend to his House leadership team that the Conservatives have an opposition day to talk about that issue.

For me, trade equals good-quality middle-class jobs. No government in recent history has done more to advance the issue of trade than this government has. Over a million jobs were created pre-pandemic when we first came into office. It demonstrates clearly that it has an impact.

On this trade agreement, it is more than just the economic benefits for Canada and Ukraine. It also sends a very strong and powerful message with respect to the war going on in Ukraine. One of the ways we can send a strong message is to get behind this legislation and see if we can get it passed before Christmas.

What does he have to say about that?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I listen to the hon. member, he would have us think that Canadians have never had it so good. The reality is that after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians just cannot afford the cost. The carbon tax is killing the middle class. Housing prices are forcing middle-class Canadians out of their homes and into poverty. Everything in our country is broke. Crime, chaos and drugs are flooding our streets.

We need to return to normal. We need a government standing ready to bring it home for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am flabbergasted and discouraged. Earlier, I went to eat, but I had lost my appetite. From the outset, I have been telling myself that, since we are talking about a bill that is consensual, everyone will agree, that we will say that it is good to have free trade agreements, to show solidarity with Ukraine and to strengthen our mutual economies.

However, for some time now, the Conservatives have been talking only about oil, and I am going crazy. I think they could have told us about western beef, British Columbia's tall trees, western grains or Pacific salmon, but all they are talking about is oil and gas. It is as if this free trade agreement with Ukraine is all about selling oil and gas to Ukraine. Anyone who would like to see infrastructure built to transport it there had better be up good and early, and they will find the Bloc Québécois in their way.

I would like my Conservative colleague or one of his colleagues who spoke before him to tell me whether the Conservatives are capable of talking about anything other than oil or the carbon tax. Are there any other topics they are able to address here?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, perhaps the member lives under a rock. There is a war going on in Ukraine right now. The opponent to Ukraine is Russia. The single largest competitor that Russia has is in the oil industry. We can displace dictator oil, Putin's oil. Russia's oil sales are funding the war in Ukraine. If we do not sell Canadian oil or LNG, we continue to fund that war.

Our other resources are forestry and farming. They are big parts of my riding and I am happy to support those as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I will follow up on the question of my friend from the Bloc. We are talking about trade. What do the Conservatives want to talk about? The carbon tax.

The carbon tax, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, is contributing 0.15% of inflation, which was affirmed as well by the PBO last Thursday at the OGGO committee, which I am on. The Conservatives do not want to talk about corporate profits. The carbon tax was a two-cent increase last year. The 18¢ increase on every litre of gas was profits for oil and gas companies. Suncor makes massive record profits. What did it do? It laid off 1,500 employees.

When they go back to headquarters at Suncor, the Conservative headquarter, do they ever talk about something to protect jobs as part of the agreement they have with oil and gas?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for reminding me that the carbon tax is driving inflation. I did not even mention that in my speech. What I did mention is that the carbon tax is driving our competitiveness issues. Many of our competitor countries do not need to pay the carbon tax, so our companies are starting from behind.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, I want to remind members to pay more attention to the signal I am give them. We are eating into the time of other speakers, so someone may end up not being able to speak.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I am joining the debate. I was worried that perhaps I would be one of those unfortunate members of Parliament to be cut-off before being able to speak on behalf on my constituents.

I am glad to join the debate on Bill C-57, the modernization of our free trade agreement with Ukraine. Off the top, I should first begin by mentioning that I absolutely continue, as many members on this side of the House do, to support Ukraine in its very difficult battle against the Russian Federation.

Many members know this, but I was born in Poland. My father was a hard anti-communist, and remains a hard anti-communist. He will not watch this, because he does not watch CPAC, ever. However, I come from a long line of family members who have always feared Moscow's intentions, the Kremlin's intentions in eastern Europe.

For 60-plus years, many eastern European countries were occupied by the Soviet Union, and I specifically use that term. None of those countries were able to pick their governments. Their people were not allowed to pick who was responsible for making policy decisions or government decisions in those countries. I continue to support the people of Ukraine and the government of Ukraine. This is, in fact, a battle of survival

Modernizing agreements will give them some hope. It hopefully will lead to better people-to-people connections between Ukrainians and Canadians. We have those. I count six waves of migration of Ukrainians coming to Canada. Now, under the CUAET visa, I think over 200,000 Ukrainians have fled the war and found refuge in Canada. Canada is a land of refuge. Not too far away from this building, a monument is being built that represents Canada as a place where people from all around the world have found refuge and a home. I know many of those CUAET visa holders some day will become permanent residents of Canada and I hope will become citizens of Canada.

When the original agreement was passed back in August of 2017, the goal then was the elimination of about 86% of tariffs off Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. It has been a good deal. We all understood that at the time the agreement was signed and ratified, it would be to the benefit of Ukraine in the short term. It was Canada's way of providing some material support to a country that is still trying to build out of that original Soviet occupation.

Ukraine did have it much worse than a lot of other eastern European country, which, nominally at least, had some level of autonomy. There were local communists in charge, who were obviously supported by the Kremlin, but Ukrainians did suffer much more deeply for longer under Soviet tutelage. Its heavy industry base is mostly based in the eastern part of Ukraine, but much of its industry, such as agriculture, was collectivized and privatized after the fall of communism in eastern Europe.

Ukraine is still building out of it. It is a long process and is not something that can be done over a couple of decades. It sometimes takes half a century to build out of a hole someone else has made. Therefore, supporting Ukraine is important. Agreements like this would tend to do that as well.

In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was about $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. When the ratification of the original CUFTA happened, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew 28.5% between 2016 and 2019.

I have been going through the details of the agreement, and I want to highlight a couple of points. I have not finished reading the whole agreement. I want to ensure I read all the different parts. This was signed in September. Now, in October, we are being asked to ratify it. This is a very detailed document, so it takes quite a bit of time for parliamentarians to go through it.

As I go through it, I note the sections that drew my attention and interest, such as sections on public consultations and transparency measures, which are a good thing. They are found under article 26.7. I was reading through exactly what the expectations were of both Canada and Ukraine when we are parties to this deal.

I want to raise a section on agriculture, “National Treatment and Market Access, which is in chapter 2, section D, article 2.13, subparagraph 4 (a) to (d). There are a lot of sections to the agreement. There is a subcommittee on agriculture that was created in 2017, and this agreement would continue that deal. We of course know a lot of exports from Ukraine will be agricultural goods.

Ukraine is often called one of the breadbaskets of the world. Much of its wheat exports, barley exports and other agricultural products are shipped through the Bosporus Strait, across the Republic of Turkey, to places in northern African, the Middle East and all around the world. It is why the export of grain, wheat, barley and other products has been one of the focal points of the Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine. It is trying to blockade those very important agricultural shipments to try to starve Ukraine of funds and starve it of the ability to continue building support internationally. Many countries rely on Ukraine's agricultural exports, and if we can provide some measure of support in giving them a different market or the opportunity to use our market as a shuttling point to another market, we should provide that. I note that the subcommittee on agriculture will be committed to that work. I would like to see a way for our farmers and agricultural producers, but also our upgraders, processors and wholesalers, to have an opportunity to purchase Ukrainian agricultural products and then resell them on the world market.

I think we Canadians have shown ourselves to be entrepreneurial. Entrepreneurship is a highly valued set of principles. We always try to get our kids to start a business. I encourage my kids to do just that if they want to do that when they graduate, so I think it is something we hold very dear as Canadians. If there is an opportunity to help Ukrainian businesses and Ukrainian people, we should take it. I note this because it is in there and is important for people, especially in western Canada and the Prairies.

There is an entire section of the agreement that speaks specifically about country-of-origin labelling. This has been a sore spot for us with our American cousins to the south and the different agreements we negotiate with them, because they keep trying to change the terms of the agreements, or at least in how they interpret them. I was looking to find in this agreement, but have not found it yet, specific sections on how goods and services from Luhansk, Donetsk, Crimea, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson would be dealt with.

These are all the provinces of Ukraine occupied by the Russian Federation. I had expected this to be dealt with in the agreement. I am still looking for the specific sections on how goods and services would be dealt with and how they would be treated, because they are not from the territory of the Russian Federation. The four referendums held in the oblasts were illegal, unjustified and not recognized by the international community, because they were essentially just rammed through. People do not get a free vote when it is done at the pointy end of a firearm or with armoured vehicles from the Russian Federation overseeing how they vote.

I would like to know how the products and goods and services these territories produce would be dealt with. Would we have a certain measure and way to distinguish them from Russian goods? When, not if, Ukraine is able to restore its control over those provinces, I am hoping we will be able to deal with those goods and services and set them aside, perhaps giving them special treatment within our tariff system and within our country-of-origin labelling system.

There is a Yiddish proverb that I often like to use. This is not a proverb that I think is recognized, but it should be if it is not because I think it applies to the House: The late minyan has the least number of people arriving on time. At any shul, basically nothing starts on time, but we need 10 persons present at a synagogue to begin service.

I hope for that during the debate on a free trade deal. I am a free trader, I believe in free trade and our party believes in free trade, but not every agreement is exactly the same. I have noted some of the things I am looking for. I have noted that I have not been provided a briefing on the contents of the agreement itself, so all I really have to go on is what is in Bill C-57, which makes a lot of references to the agreement and the previous agreement as well.

I hope more members will be allowed to participate, to be part of that minyan and be here to rise on behalf of their constituents to raise specific points that are of concern to them. I come from Calgary. It is a big oil and gas town but also a big agricultural town. We have a lot of major agricultural shippers, manufacturers, producers and processors that are very much interested in the eastern European market and especially the fate of Ukraine and making sure we support it.

Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are home to a huge Ukrainian diaspora, and many of them are watching this agreement and watching what the future of Ukraine will be like. An agreement like this gives them hope, but we need to look at more of the details before we pass judgment on it.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague, as I try to do most of the time when he is speaking on the floor. I am quite surprised. Given what is going on in Ukraine and the desire of everyone to get this agreement through properly, faster and effectively, I am surprised. Maybe I misunderstood my hon. colleague, but I was hoping that we were going to complete these discussions on Bill C-57 fairly quickly and move it to committee, where we look forward to having a very detailed conversation with other members. Did I misunderstand the comments from the member?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

No, Madam Speaker, the member did not misunderstand. The committee is the right place for going into the details of the agreement. It is an opportunity for stakeholder groups to come before the committee, those that have gone into the weeds of it to see what it would mean for the customs code and what the implications are of expanding certain sections.

What I was referencing is that I would like to hear from more members on the floor of the House as to what their views are. I am sure our House leaders are talking right now, and we will see what they decide to do about when we see this bill at committee and how much time would be devoted to reviewing the specific contents of it. As I mentioned, I am looking at the sections on how goods and services will be treated in the territories occupied by the Russian Federation, which are rightfully Ukrainian territories.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, I too am concerned about many of the panels, committees, subcommittees, working groups, expert groups and other bodies, because here in Canada we have a bureaucracy of highly technical issues that sometimes can be an irritant for another country, such as Ukraine. We also know that the government has been terrible in its record on the Canada-Europe free trade agreement, the CETA, for not getting working groups together. We find all sorts of regulatory trade barriers that stop the legitimate trade between Canada and the European Union.

Is the member concerned that, given the record of the government, there could be similar issues if the government continues on its current path on trade?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I am concerned because with the Canada-Europe free trade deal that was signed, I do not think Canadian companies have been able to take full advantage of what is in the agreement.

When it comes to agricultural goods, we know that is a sore point with the United Kingdom. I remember that when I was in the United Kingdom travelling for a study by the parliamentary association, it was very difficult to find any Canadian meat products. Markets were very good at selling and showing off British products and products made in Wales or Scotland, but getting our agricultural goods into European continental and non-continental markets should be of great focus. The department should be facilitating this and encouraging our companies to provide goods and services there.

Part of that is about making sure that when we negotiate these agreements, all of the stakeholders in Canada are part of them. In this particular situation, as I mentioned, we are still going through the agreement and trying to find how these different groups work.

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

Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's question, given the war taking place in Europe today, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the messaging that could be sent by the House of Commons in having the bill pass before Christmas, having gone through the system. Would he see that as a positive thing, not only economically but with all the other messaging that could be tied to it?