Debates of Oct. 24th, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we want to help Ukraine in every way possible and that modernizing the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is one way we can do that. I think this is a good step forward.

What concerns me about the bill we are debating today is that the whole process of bringing the new agreement to the House was flawed in every way in terms of the standard policy around bringing new trade agreements to this place. First of all, we were supposed to have a period of debate before beginning the negotiations so members could have some input into that. Second, there is policy around enough time after the treaty has been tabled, to see that, and then time to debate here. None of that was done for this bill. It has been done in the past, so it is not impossible. It is important that people here have a chance to properly debate our free trade agreements. I just wonder whether the member could comment on that.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say a couple of things. One is that I cannot speak in depth about the process. I can speak about the contents of the bill. As I said during my remarks, I really do think this is a great bill for Canadian workers and businesses and a great bill for Ukraine economically as well.

I would also say this when we think about the process around this bill: As I mentioned during my remarks, it was in 2019 that our Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy announced that they were going to negotiate a modernized CUFTA. COVID hit, and then came the war on Ukraine. Despite the war, Ukraine and Canada wanted to negotiate, so a lot has been done to try to finalize negotiations and bring this free trade agreement here to the House as quickly as possible under very difficult circumstances. I just hope that is something we take into consideration as we think about the process that got us here.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleague from Etobicoke Centre for his speech and his commitment. We have the pleasure of serving together on the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group. I know how deeply committed he is to Ukraine in general and also to the current situation, which affects him personally, as we all know.

The Bloc Québécois is certainly in favour of Bill C-57. We are also in favour of establishing trade relations with Ukraine. This will enable Ukraine to make a quick recovery once the conflict is resolved, once Ukraine's victory is confirmed. This will allow Ukraine's economy to recover quickly.

I have a question about this bill in particular, with respect to the trade agreements Canada enters into with foreign countries.

Why is the government still insisting on leaving clauses like the investor-state dispute settlement, which can hurt democracy in some cases? I would like to know if my colleague is familiar with this concept and what he thinks about it.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and for his work. As he said, we work very well together on many issues and as members of the parliamentary friendship group. We all support Ukraine together. I appreciate his support.

Perhaps we should have a conversation outside the House regarding the details. From what I have seen and from all the advice from trade experts, I am confident that this agreement between Canada and Ukraine will benefit both countries.

I would be pleased to speak to him when I am finished here.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what has been really clearly demonstrated is that Canada and Ukraine, the people of the two countries, definitely share really strong ties. Canada is here and remains here for Ukraine.

Canada is naturally a trading nation, so to be able to increase the number of countries we trade with is always a benefit, but how would this perhaps benefit the people of Ukraine? I would like to hear the member's comments on that.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her advocacy for and support of Ukraine during this important time.

There are two points here on how this would help Ukraine. The first is that it would be of tremendous economic benefit, just like it would be to Canada. I think that is something we need to remember. This is a critical time for Ukraine, in terms of its economy, given the damage that Russia has done and continues to do to Ukraine's exports and its economy.

The second thing is that when Ukraine wins this war, it will need to rebuild and it will need investment. This free trade agreement would provide an opportunity and a format that allows for a much greater investment in Ukraine in a sustainable and safe way that would ensure that Ukraine would receive the funds and the private sector investment it needs in order to rebuild.

I think that is good for Ukraine and good for all of us.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I do hope that my own voice will last for the 10 minutes I have been allotted.

It is an honour today, especially, because we are talking about Canada and our relationship with Ukraine, specifically about Bill C-57, which addresses a possible trade agreement enhancement. I not only bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, but I also feel an affiliation with Canadians with an ethnic heritage from Ukraine. I put myself in that latter category. All four of my grandparents were born in Ukraine, of Mennonite background, and I have personally visited Ukraine three times. I will come back to that later in my speech. Today I literally wear my heart on my sleeve, as well as on my lapel, and the colours of my suit and tie are meant to signify my solidarity with Ukraine.

Conservatives were the first to successfully negotiate the current CUFTA agreement, brokered by then international trade minister, my colleague, the member for Abbotsford. With the opportunities facilitated by the 2017 CUFTA for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses, Canada-Ukraine bilateral trade reached its highest level ever in 2021, with Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalling $219 million and merchandise imports from Ukraine amounting to well over $200 million.

We want to ensure that Bill C-57 is beneficial for both Ukraine and Canada, especially for Canada. At a time when our world is becoming increasingly unstable, an agreement that is favourable to both of our countries would go a long way toward bringing about much-needed stability to both countries and, of course, to our allies. We are committed to looking at this bill, with its 600 pages of text, and consulting with stakeholders from across Canada to ensure that we do get it right for the benefit of Canadians, including Ukrainian Canadians, and for Ukraine.

Ukraine has always been considered one of the breadbaskets of the world. At a time when so many nations are facing food shortages and food insecurity, there is nothing we would like to see more than Ukraine's reclaiming this title once again. Ukraine has 25% of the world's topsoil. My grandparents farmed there. They came to Canada and they farmed here. I am the third generation to live on the home farm. In my home office, I have a small sample of the topsoil from both my paternal grandparents' home farms.

My first visit to Ukraine was in November 2005, a year after the Orange Revolution. I distinctly remember the drive south from Kyiv with an Australian tomato grower, a friend of mine, Louis Chirnside. It is about a 700-kilometre drive to Nova Kakhovka, the city that has been in the news recently. It is built up the road from Kakhovka, “Nova” meaning new. It was built in the 1950s when the dam was built there, the dam that was recently destroyed on June 6 of this year.

A few hours into the drive, we noticed a trench being dug alongside the highway to facilitate the burying of a cable of some sort. Both Louis and I, coming from farm backgrounds on opposite sides of the world, asked our driver to stop. We got out and looked into the trench, down about four feet. We were looking for the horizon line, the line between topsoil and subsoil. We could not see it. It was pure topsoil. As a youth, I remember the stories of my grandfather Epp who grew up on the banks of the Molochna River. He used to say that if a horse passed away, it could be buried standing in their backyard with six feet of topsoil over its head. He was also prone to exaggeration, a quality that was not passed down genetically. Ukraine does have the natural resources in place, if the conditions are right, to return to being the breadbasket of Europe.

In July, 2022, there was a glimpse of hope on the horizon when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports and exporting over 32 million metric tons of Ukrainian-produced corn, wheat, sunflower oil, barley, rapeseed, soybeans and other products. It was successful for almost a year, until its termination on July 23, a year later almost to the day. Russia announced its intention to exit this agreement. Upon withdrawing from the deal, the Russian foreign ministry provided a lengthy justification for its decision that included criticisms of the implementation of the agreement and its impacts on global food security.

The free world saw this for what it was: an attempt by Russia to exert its control and dominance over the rest of the global community by creating food insecurity and further dependence upon Russia. According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, ironically, Russia is also accused of having stolen nearly 6 million metric tons of Ukrainian wheat and selling it as Russian product. Interestingly, the contribution of agriculture to Russia's GDP increased by 22% from 2021 to 2022. That is according to World Bank data. I wonder how that happened.

The impacts of the BSGI were global and helped to ease the world's food crisis. In addition, this initiative allowed the easing of global grain prices, which hit an all-time high in March 2022, in response to the invasion. Under the deal, the UN World Food Programme, the WFP, was able to export 80% of its wheat purchases from Ukraine, shipping over 725,000 metric tons of wheat to alleviate food insecurity in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

Earlier I referenced my three personal visits to Ukraine. My first, in 2005, was actually at the invitation of a company that had established a mayonnaise and ketchup factory in Nova Kakhovka. It is called Chumak. I was invited, along with my Australian friend, Louis, and a Scotsman processing tomatoes in Turkey, as part of a benchmarking exercise to compare the growing Ukrainian tomato-processing industry to the rest of the world, to compare its competitiveness.

Our host company was founded in the early 1990s, after the Berlin Wall fell and Ukraine became independent. Within a decade, many fledgling industries, once opened to capitalism, were growing rapidly, including processed tomato production. Ukrainians were reaching out to the world, to their allies for tech transfer. Canada and Ukraine in particular have two broad sectors where we should be natural partners: agriculture and agri-food and our natural resources.

Let me be clear. In order for Conservatives to agree to this legislation, it would have to be reciprocally beneficial for both Canada and Ukraine. The deal would have to allow both countries to be profitable, and the advantages would have to be for both countries as well. Conservatives would like to see the exports of our abundant natural resources, such as LNG, to Europe, including Ukraine, to break the European dependence on Russian energy and the subsequent consequences for world peace.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government do not seem to agree with that sentiment. If Canada truly wanted to make an impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, exporting our LNG, to replace coal and Russian-sourced energy, would top the list.

When the Prime Minister took office, there were 15 proposals for natural gas export terminals on his desk. Not one has been completed. This is just one more example of the government's failure to get major projects built, when the world needs LNG. Again, I restate that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting our LNG to break European dependence.

The world needs the energy security Canada can supply. Now, more than ever in our history, the world needs Canadian LNG. Only Canada's Conservatives are focused on securing energy security for our allies and restoring the faith in our nation as a trusted partner on the world stage. As we did in 2017, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interest of Canada and of all Canadians. By working closely with our stakeholders across the country, we will get feedback on this legislation. We believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies in all ways, including trade. Again, we will ensure that this deal is jointly beneficial. I cannot say that enough times.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague talked about the rich natural resources and topsoil, which are so important to agriculture, that exist in Ukraine. He talked about what Canada can do with our incredible natural resource of liquefied natural gas and its potential, as well as how the current government is stymying that from happening and the threat this poses to energy security and, therefore, global security. Could he expand on that?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we also have the natural resources. We are not necessarily competitors of Ukraine, but we have the expertise. That is particularly where I hope this deal will go. When we look at the 600 pages, the opportunities are there for tech transfer, both in our energy fields, with our expertise there, and, in particular, in our agricultural fields. Seed banks will be traded back and forth. There is agronomics. We have world-class educational institutions in the fields of agriculture. I have personally participated in that. Processing tomatoes is a very narrow field, but we share so much grain production. We have that expertise in our industry leaders, as well as in our educational institutions. That applies equally to our fossil fuel sector.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech. Like him, I am a Mennonite with family that immigrated from Ukraine. There are many within our Conservative caucus who have Ukrainian roots and take great interest not only in the terrible situation Ukraine finds itself in right now, with the war and invasion by Russia, but also in the many Ukrainians who have been displaced, found their way to Canada and are here as refugees.

Could the member comment a bit on the Ukrainians who are settling in his area of Canada? How are they being received, and how are they doing right now?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of many refugees from Ukraine who have settled in our region. In fact, I am working with several sponsors who are looking to facilitate the next steps in the process for these hard-working folks who have come here. Some want to return, but the majority of those I have run into want to make Canada their home. As I understand it, there are some pathways that are now beginning to open up for them to extend their stay beyond their three-year visa and become citizens of Canada.

Canada needs to do a better job of turning immigrants into taxpayers. The Ukrainians whom I have run into, and those whom many of my colleagues have had association with, will make phenomenal citizens and taxpayers of Canada.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague who spoke a lot about energy and large multinational oil companies.

Unfortunately, this type of agreement often puts multinationals, the big oil companies of the world, on the same footing as states. It is rather shameful and I would like my colleague to comment on that. With this agreement, we missed the opportunity to give more power back to states so that they take precedence over multinationals. There is a danger in letting these companies lead the world and take the place of states.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to a response on this very issue by Mario Lévesque, who is the chief executive of the Quebec-based Utica Resources. He said that the rationale for exporting natural gas from Quebec is “crystal clear” and would generate “tens of billions in royalties and taxes” for Ottawa. He went on to say, “Quebec has enormous quantities of natural gas (about 20% of Canada's total recoverable gas), enough to replace all Russian imports into Germany for 20 to 40 years.”

I did not have time in my speech to get into all the opportunities that Canada has lost, which would have benefited Canada and our allies.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook and to speak to Bill C-57, with respect to the very important Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

I want to start off by saying, of course, that trade agreements are very important for countries, especially Canada. We have probably among the best and most innovative workforce in the world. Therefore, we are bringing a lot to any trade deal from which we would benefit, and we have seen some large benefits for Atlantic Canadians. In many trade deals, we have seen benefits, including this one, which we signed in 2017, with respect to seafood. Atlantic Canadians are well known for supplying to the world, and Canada is number one with respect to that.

I will take a moment to talk about the first major free trade agreement, which was signed in 1987-88. At the time, the Macdonald commission, named after its chair, Donald S. Macdonald, a former Liberal politician, produced a report that concluded upon analysis that Canada was well placed to enter into a free trade agreement with the United States, that it should take the risk and seize this ideal opportunity.

I must congratulate and thank Mr. Mulroney, who accepted that report and began the work to prepare Canada to fulfill its commitments. Hon. members will recall that in 1984, during his election campaign, Mr. Mulroney was against free trade. In 1988, he changed his mind and decided to campaign in favour of free trade. Thanks to that, the first major free trade agreement was signed, and I am very pleased about that. At the time, I was not so sure.

Since forming government in 2015, we have delivered three major agreements.

The CETA agreement was a major one that we brought forward in 2018. Following that, we had the TPP, the trans-Pacific partnership agreement, and then there was the CUSMA, the agreement with Canada, Mexico and the U.S. I will talk about that one in a special way, because there are extremely important points I want to make.

The CETA agreement is with the European Union, the second-largest market in the world for Canada, and 98% of the tariffs were removed. That was from 25%. It opened up the market and dropped the prices for Canadians and European countries at the time. We had to make a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom afterward, because it left the European Union. The deal with the United Kingdom was $29 billion a year back and forth in 2019. The U.K. is the fifth-largest trading partner with Canada after the U.S., China, Mexico and Japan.

With the trans-Pacific partnership in 2018 that we were successful in signing on to, Canada gained trading potential with Asia, which has half a billion people and is a very fast-growing market. It eliminated up to 98% of trade tariffs, but 100% on seafood; this benefited Atlantic Canadians, which I am sure my colleague from Nova Scotia is proud of.

I want to talk about CUSMA, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement. I cannot thank the Minister of Finance enough, because she was very patient and effective. We know that, at the time, we were dealing with Trump, who was on the warpath. We know what he said. Prior to the negotiations, he said that there would be no deal if supply management was included. Did we get supply management? Absolutely, we did.

Then Trump said that there would be no deal unless we changed the courts and the judges. He wanted only American courts and American judges. Did he get that? Absolutely not. He would send tweets out early in the morning. He said that there would be no agreement unless there was a five-year sunset clause. Did he get that? Absolutely not. Why not? We cannot expect the business community to invest billions of dollars if there is a five-year limit. The business community needs to know it is ongoing and will be successful.

Our government was very successful in delivering that agreement. It is very important to note that it represents $2 billion per day. We saw what effect there can be on our economy when the truckers shut down the bridges at the border.

I want to note the Conservatives were saying to sign it at all costs because we could not afford to lose the deal. We stood our ground and we delivered for Canadians. We delivered for Canadian workers. We delivered for Canadian businesses. I am extremely proud of that.

I want to talk about this important Canada-Ukraine agreement. The agreement was signed back in 2017. In 2017, that agreement was very important. In 2019, trade was worth $447 million, with $220 million in imports and $227 million in exports, which is pretty well even. The top priority export to Canada was seafood in 2021. In 2022, it changed because of the war of course, and the main trade was in armoured vehicles and parts, medicine and again seafood.

What we import to Canada from Ukraine are fats, oils, iron, steel and electronics. These are very important for Canadians. It is important to support Ukraine. We have been there from the beginning. However, it is important we do it now so when the war is over, when Ukraine wins that war, Canada's business community and workers are ready to deliver. That is what is important in this deal. That is why there will be more good-paying jobs as we move forward.

The benefits are preferential market access, but the new chapters are where we need to focus. There are new chapters on trade in services, on investments, on temporary entry, telecommunications, financial services and inclusive trade. There are updated chapters on labour, the environment, transparency and anti-corruption. There is a new chapter that has been put in place for the first time between both countries on trade and indigenous peoples, in addition to chapters on trade and gender and small businesses. This would allow marginalized Canadians and Ukrainians to access this free trade agreement and prosper.

Some key areas in the chapters include the development and administrative measures. We will see a reduction in red tape and a lower trade costs. In the investment chapter, we see the modernized dispute settlement, which is not like the one the Americans wanted but is one that strengthens the alternatives to avoid arbitration. In trade deals there should not be winners and losers. We should all be winners and work together to achieve the same goals.

The temporary entry chapter is extremely important. It would allow Canadians to work and contribute in Ukraine without having to get a work permit. It would allow spouses to do the same. These are great opportunities for Canadians to support but also invest in and help build Ukraine after it wins the war.

I want to close by talking about one key area Canada wants to ensure, which is the cultural piece. We have made sure there would be an exception for the cultural aspect in both countries.

This is a great deal. It is a great opportunity for Canada to continue to work and support Ukraine. Do not forget we welcomed many Ukrainians in the last two years because of the war. There is a large population of Ukrainians in Canada. The trading between both countries will be great and prosperous as we move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is great to see the hon. member's voice is back. Last week he was having a really hard time with that voice of his.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

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

Mr. Speaker, we still do not understand why, following a health crisis and after having removed investor-state dispute settlement from NAFTA, Canada insists on including it in new agreements. It poses a constant threat to democracy and the right to legislate. In the case of Ukraine, for example, we would not be able to seize assets, as Ukraine has done with some of its citizens for collaborating with Russia, because we could end up in court.

Why does Canada continue to insist on including clauses that promote the power of multinationals over democracy?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question, but I would remind him, as I said in my speech, that there is a process in place at the tribunal where both parties will be able to work closely together. There will be fewer wins and losses, with a focus on collaboration instead to ensure that both parties can continue to move forward and find success in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask more or less the same question that the Bloc member just asked about the investor-state dispute mechanisms. He said it was not like the investor-state dispute mechanism that the Americans wanted. I wonder if the member can explain more about that. How does it differ from the investor-state dispute mechanism in the Canada-Europe treaty and the CPTPP? Those are things the NDP is not in favour of. Is this some sort of ISDS light? What is it that we can and cannot do, and can face as governments being sued by multinational corporations?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague, as I did with my colleague from the Bloc, that each country has a right to regulate on key areas themselves so they can control certain aspects of it. The other part is a modernized dispute-settlement mechanism with strengthened alternatives to avoid arbitration. This, hopefully, would ensure that both countries are winners in the process.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the revisionist history that my colleague recited here in this House. He should know that as the minister who was responsible for negotiating the original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, I would be supportive of any reasonable steps we can take to improve our economic relationship with Ukraine and help it up on its feet.

My question for the member has to do with liquefied natural gas. As he knows, Ukraine has an energy security problem because it can no longer get natural gas from Russia. The obvious place for Ukraine to turn to is Canada, and yet our Prime Minister has said that there is no business case to be made for exporting LNG. Does my colleague actually support the moral case for Canada exporting its LNG to Ukraine to help Ukraine with its energy security challenge?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that article 19.2 commits both countries to review this agreement within two years and to expand it where it needs expansion. This is a great opportunity to have conversations around different strategies to support Ukraine as we move forward.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in terms of the benefit to Ukraine for Canada to be able to export to it, as well as for it to have open access to our market, and how that really helps Ukraine in its recovery methods.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the timing could not be more crucial. We know that Ukraine is in a very difficult situation in a fight for its life. We know that Canada is behind Ukrainians supporting them in any way we can. For Canada to be ready to move forward right after Ukraine wins this important fight will build Ukraine much faster. Both countries will benefit from that success.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can see that you have been enjoying listening to the debate on the proposed free trade agreement with Ukraine, so we will continue with that.

This is important. This is a free trade agreement. We have already announced our position, so no one will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois will support the implementation of this agreement. Today, we are not discussing the content of the agreement, but rather its implementation.

We know that Quebeckers are in favour of free trade. We have historically been in favour of free trade. Since the time of the free trade agreement with the United States, then NAFTA with Mexico, Quebeckers have always been leaders in trade with our friends and partners. Back in the day, Ontario was against NAFTA, and the auto industry was against it. We Quebeckers were for it because we believe that countries with smaller economies benefit from free trade. The day Quebec becomes independent, international trade will be part of the solution to our economic equation, just as it is for Canada, which is a very small economy.

We support this proposed agreement. Obviously, the timing is important; there is a war in Ukraine, and it is important to show our solidarity, so we support it.

Today, the government would have us believe that we are discussing the content of this free trade agreement among parliamentarians. However, it is very important to understand how a free trade agreement is negotiated. When two countries meet to negotiate a free trade agreement like this one, the first step is very easy. The countries sit down together and establish a certain number of key principles. For example, they may choose to be in favour of trade, freedom or what have you. Once they have agreed on the key principles, which is easy and takes about two hours, and that is hardly an exaggeration, they establish the exceptions. From that point on, the free trade agreement negotiations are focused on exceptions. We could be talking about cultural exceptions, since Quebec is the only francophone nation in North America, or agricultural exceptions that seek to protect supply management. We could be talking about all kinds of exceptions for our industries.

It is at these critical moments that Quebec usually gets sacrificed. Take, for example, supply management. We know that when the agreements were negotiated with the European Union, the United States and, right now, the United Kingdom, the government said that it would sacrifice Quebec aluminum and Quebec dairy farmers and that it would protect the auto industry. The devil is in the details.

Obviously, the problem is that we have no control over what the negotiators negotiate. We have absolutely no say in the matter. What we are currently discussing is the implementation of the agreement.

Earlier today, the parliamentary secretary and member for Winnipeg North, who is chatting with his colleagues across the way, told us that we Quebeckers are lucky because this time, supply management, our farmers and our dairy farmers were not sacrificed in any way. However, the truth is that the country in this particular case, Ukraine, did not have any surplus milk to export. When it comes to Wisconsin, which does have surplus milk to export, we are suddenly part of the exceptions that are set aside and supply management is sacrificed. When it comes to French cheese in the context of our negotiations with the European Union, supply management is sacrificed, just as it is in the case of British cheese.

In this case, apparently these irritants do not exist, because the major exceptions that Quebec typically calls for were not central to the negotiations.

The fact remains that we are sitting here like a bunch of puppets, discussing the implementation of something that was negotiated over our heads. In the U.S., Congress and elected officials give the mandate to negotiate treaties, whereas here in Canada, mandates come from the executive and ministers. Parliament has absolutely no say. That is the root of the issue, and that is why, in many cases, we disagree with certain provisions in these free trade agreements.

It is similar in Europe, where treaties are ratified with the European Union, and member states, even the smaller ones, have a strong voice. We saw this with Belgium's grievances in relation to the free trade agreement with the European Union, for example. In these cases, the smaller states are very involved in making decisions. In the present case, however, Quebec was not consulted.

The job of implementing free trade agreements is left to provincial legislatures like the Quebec National Assembly. They are told that they are going to have to change their laws to implement a free trade agreement about which Parliament was never consulted. The same thing is happening today. We are being forced to vote on the mechanics of a car without having chosen its make, colour or options. Still, it is up to us to legislate on the spark plug about to be replaced inside the car. That is essentially what is happening and it is obviously problematic.

Not everything in this treaty is perfect. My colleague with the fantastic tie, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, talked about the fact that our Liberal colleague was unable to answer the question about relations between states and multinationals. There is the matter of multinationals suing states for what could amount to expropriation, depending on how it is defined in the free trade agreements. This has always been a problem. We saw it with NAFTA. At the time, the multilateral agreement on investment was derailed because of that.

These are the kinds of provisions that say, for instance, that if Canada decides to apply environmental policies that are not strict, but modern, a Ukrainian investor who invests here and feels affected by these policies could sue the Canadian government, the Canadian taxpayer and the Quebec taxpayer because they felt aggrieved by these environmental policies. This is a major problem.

Earlier, the Liberal member was unable to answer the question on this subject. He did not even understand the question, because he confused the state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, which exists in an agreement like this and is an arbitration mechanism that works relatively well in most cases, with the dispute settlement mechanism between a multinational corporation and a state, which involves the courts. This denies Canada its sovereignty. It denies our state its sovereignty. It is highly problematic and should no longer be included in free trade agreements.

I will also come back to how it is negotiated. Parliament does not grant negotiating mandates. It is the government and the ministers who, following discussions behind closed doors, decide to grant a negotiating mandate. Cabinet solidarity keeps them mum. Then this all comes before us and we have nothing to say about it. Parliament needs to get in the habit of restricting the power of the executive branch in advance, before it negotiates these agreements.

That is precisely the objective of Bill C-282, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. Since we were never asked our opinion, we decided to introduce a bill that requires the government to respect our supply management system and preserve it in its entirety when negotiating free trade agreements. Why do we have to take this unique approach, which involves locking the government into something ahead of time? The reason is that Parliament is never asked to have its say, and that is a big problem.

I would like to add that there are obviously good things about the bill to implement the 2023 free trade agreement. There is a chapter about corruption, transparency and responsible business conduct. The provisions on responsible conduct propose voluntary, non-binding codes of conduct.

I would like to remind the government that, this week, we will be debating Bill C-290, which deals with the protection of whistleblowers. It is a bill that the government itself should have introduced a long time ago. All of the wonderful principles of transparency and respect for institutions that are set out in this bill are found in Bill C-290. The government will have to put its money where its mouth is. If it is good for the Canada-Ukraine agreement, then the government must support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C-290 at third reading.

In closing, this is an important free trade agreement that builds diplomatic ties. It is symbolic and an expression of goodwill toward Ukraine. Of course, Ukraine is a small trading partner.

The effect this agreement will have on our economy will therefore be minor, but it is important to express our solidarity with Ukraine at this time.

I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bloc members are supportive of the legislation.

Economic trade agreements are very positive overall for the nation in that they create all forms of middle-class jobs, opportunities for entrepreneurs and so forth. We have seen that first-hand. However, this is a unique trade agreement in the sense that it is with Ukraine, and Ukraine is at war. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on how the House passing this legislation in a timely fashion could have a very positive impact in Europe, given the war taking place today.