Debates of Dec. 12th, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Madam Speaker, the entire culture needs to be changed. We heard some pretty amazing things in the debate on our supply management bill, which my colleague and I sponsored and for which we toured Quebec twice, virtually in 2021 and in person this year.

We heard some pretty amazing things, like Parliament should not have anything to say on the matter, because it would interfere with negotiators' methods. We live in a democracy. The first idea we need to adopt in our culture and our way of doing things is that debates should take place before the negotiators get to work. That is the first thing.

Then, through legislation rather than policy, there should be time built in to make amendments to the agreement and to produce an explanatory memorandum. We do not need a policy, we need a law. I emphasize this point.

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

Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, a great deal of interest goes well beyond this chamber, whether it is from the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or President Zelenskyy.

A letter that I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. The letter says, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill”. I think that would be in our best interests. At one point, it seemed that everyone inside this chamber was behind Ukraine and showed Ukrainian solidarity given what is taking place in Europe. The trade agreement is sound and solid.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Conservative Party rethinking its position so we can get unanimous support for this trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I would also invite the Conservatives to rethink their position. I radically disagree with their arguments. I think a lot of them could easily be disproved by the facts.

That being said, let us be clear about one thing: A trade agreement is not a religion. It is reasonable to raise questions and to disagree with certain aspects. If they are fundamentally opposed to most of them, they can oppose them. I do not want to send them to the stake for opposing those things. They are entitled to disagree.

That being said, of course, their argument has obvious weaknesses. For that reason, I also invite them to rethink their position.

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

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to once again speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, this time at third reading, the final stage of debate.

The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over one million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Shortly after that recognition, in 1995, Canada signed an early foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, with Ukraine, so we have always supported attempts to strengthen our trade with Ukraine.

In 2017, Canada signed the first version of this free trade agreement. Let us remember that, at that time, Ukraine was already involved in conflicts with Russia. It was recognized that a broader, more complete agreement would be needed. The two countries agreed in 2019 to begin the process of creating this new agreement. That treaty was completed early in 2023 and signed at the end of September when President Zelenskyy visited Ottawa.

The text of the treaty, however, was not released until this implementation bill, Bill C-57, was tabled on October 17. Debate on the bill began only a few days later. The compressed timeline of parliamentary debate on this agreement is problematic, and I will speak to that later.

Ukraine is now literally fighting for its life in an illegal war instigated by the Russian invasion in 2022. Canada has been providing aid in many forms to Ukraine since that war began. With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply-managed products such as poultry to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but it is fair to say that most Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during this horrific time in their struggles.

I mentioned the FIPA that predated the free trade agreements with Ukraine, an agreement signed in 1995. FIPAs allow foreign corporations to sue Canadian governments if they feel the new laws or regulations in Canada impact their profit. The most famous of these in Canada is the FIPA that Stephen Harper signed with China in 2012 without any debate in this place. That still haunts us to this day.

FIPAs now find their way into broader free trade agreements in the form of investor-state dispute systems, or ISDS. It is no secret that New Democrats are not a fan of ISDS. When we have voted against free trade agreements in the past, whether it was the CETA with the EU or the CPTPP agreement with Pacific nations, it was almost always because those agreements included ISDS clauses.

New Democrats were happy when the new CUSMA agreement with the United States and Mexico eliminated the ISDS provisions that had been included in the original NAFTA, so we are very disappointed that this new agreement with Ukraine has inserted ISDS provisions in its investment chapter. It basically rolls the old FIPA conditions into this treaty with some updated language. We joined the Bloc Québécois member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in committee to try to remove the ISDS implementation in this agreement, but we were voted down by the Liberals and Conservatives.

The world is moving away from ISDS language in trade agreements. Canada should be at the forefront of that trend, not a laggard trying to catch up. Australia and New Zealand have negotiated side letters with the United Kingdom taking out ISDS language in the CPTPP agreement as part of the U.K.'s accession process to that agreement. The U.K. Parliament is actively debating whether it wants to include ISDS provisions in future trade deals. The European Union is moving away from ISDS, and Canada should do the same.

Bill C-57 passed second reading on November 21. Surprisingly, the Conservatives voted against it. They voted against a trade agreement that Ukraine very much wanted full support for. Why? The Conservatives found very deep in the environment chapter the words “carbon pricing”. They concocted a scenario of Canada forcing Ukraine in its time of need to agree to support carbon pricing.

The fact is that Ukraine has had carbon pricing since 2011, long before Canada put the carbon tax in place. Ukraine strengthened that resolve in 2018 as part of its efforts to join the European Union. If anything, Ukraine has been leading Canada in the carbon pricing scenario. The mention of carbon pricing in this agreement in no way obliges either Canada or Ukraine to implement or continue carbon pricing.

Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians noticed that the Conservatives voted against the agreement. They pleaded for unanimity. What did the Conservatives do in response to Ukraine's concerns? Well, they voted against funding for Ukraine aid in the supplementary estimates last week. They voted against funding for Operation Unifier as well. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress commented online, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier and other support for Ukraine in the supplementary estimates. Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.”

Just a few minutes ago, the Conservatives doubled-down and once again voted against the Ukraine free trade agreement at report stage. Then they added an amendment to send the bill back to committee, further delaying a bill that the Ukrainian government has asked us to pass without delay. We cannot make this stuff up.

I would like to turn back to the issue of how we debate free trade agreements in this Parliament. Too often in the past, we have barely known that a trade agreement was being negotiated before it was presented with a signed agreement that we were asked to ratify, a fait accompli. The NDP thinks it is important that Parliament have input into trade negotiations before they begin. When the government negotiated CETA and CPTPP, Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deals were already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point. It is not too much to ask for input on these important policies. The United States Congress has the right and ability to debate what priorities its country will have before entering into free trade negotiations.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona wrote a letter in December 2019 to the Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Finance, regarding increased transparency around the negotiations for the new Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. In response to that letter, the minister agreed, on February 19, 2020, to change the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. Those changes were to “require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” That is three months. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the committee on international trade. The second one was to “require that the objectives for negotiations toward the new free agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” Under normal parliamentary procedures, those objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade.

As I mentioned previously, there were discussions with some stakeholders around the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but the international trade committee was only able to provide input well after negotiations had begun. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. We should know what the treaty contains as soon as it is signed.

The standing policy of this place is there should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and the tabling of implementing legislation. At the same time, the government must table an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment.

When the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was tabled in 2017, the government followed that policy, but that did not happen at all with this agreement. The treaty and the implementing legislation were tabled on the same day with the memorandum. On top of that, the minister tabled the legislation on a Tuesday, and we began debate the following Monday. As the Conservative member mentioned, it is hardly enough time to read a very large agreement, find out what it is all about and really make meaningful debate in this House to properly discuss the ramifications of these treaties that mean a lot to Canadian companies and Canadians.

This has to change. MPs should have the opportunity to debate the priorities of free trade negotiations before they begin and should have ample opportunity to debate the implementation of treaties after they are signed. I urge the minister and her government to follow the standard policies on how to introduce treaties and implement legislation before Parliament. These are not minor details. They are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine in 2017. Our main caveat for free trade agreements in general is that they must be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs and protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment and promote the well-being of all citizens.

The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian corporations. They must include measures of good labour agreements both here and in the countries we are making deals with and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well. These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved.

This new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us which would implement this agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine and to prepare for the rebuilding of Ukraine after its victory over Russia.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear the member's points about the process in negotiating free trade agreements and have taken that under advisement and to heart.

One of the things he did speak about was that the carbon tax purportedly is the reason the Conservative Party has voted against this agreement and does not support this agreement. I am wondering if he could share with the House and with Canadians what his point of view is on the Conservatives' rationale for opposing this free trade agreement.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives, and I really cannot understand their position here. We have mentioned in this agreement carbon pricing in a way that would not hold either Canada or Ukraine to having a carbon price, or increasing it or promoting it. It simply talks about this in a broad list of environmental objectives.

As I mentioned, Ukraine already has a carbon price. It has had one for 12 years, which is much longer than Canada. We heard in debate here today the Conservatives think that this is some kind of poison pill. I cannot imagine Volodymyr Zelenskyy would sign an agreement that had a poison pill in it. It is the height of illogical thinking that Canada would put a poison pill in a free trade agreement so the Conservatives would vote against it. It simply does not make any sense at all, and so I am baffled. The member should ask the Conservatives that question.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's fair criticism of the decisions that the Conservatives have made on this, unlike the hyperpartisan rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. He talked about how President Zelenskyy signed this agreement and wants Canada to go forward with it, so he accepts that what President Zelenskyy says means something.

I am wondering if he wants to comment on President Zelenskyy's comments about how this Liberal government allowed a gas turbine to be exported from Canada to pump Russian gas, to actually help fund Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy said, “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also [dangerous] for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. The Canadian ambassador said, “Russia is using energy as a weapon, in Europe and all over the world. This money and fuel are going to support the war in Ukraine.”

Does the member also agree with President Zelenskyy that this was a terrible decision by the Liberal government that actually helped fund Putin's war machine?

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

Madam Speaker, yes, I think it was the wrong decision, for all of the reasons he mentioned.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have always appreciated the hon. member's solidarity with indigenous peoples and the work that he does to meet the needs of his constituents.

One of the things that seems quite important about this particular modernization of this free trade agreement is the chapter on indigenous peoples and trade.

I think that these are important acknowledgements about what we need to do for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, we have been hearing about causes trumping these kinds of important issues. I wonder if the member can speak to what the difference is, in terms of advocating for human rights, indigenous rights, as well as how fighting for a cause might not be as effective as what we are seeing today.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her important and wonderful voice here in this Parliament, constantly reminding us about the rights of indigenous people. It gives more than just words and thoughts to their rights, and actually puts those rights into action in our agreements and our laws.

Yes, I am very happy that we have a chapter here on indigenous rights in this agreement. It speaks to the Tatar people of Ukraine, as well as the indigenous people here in Canada, and that these types of chapters will be in further agreements.

We had the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have recognized here in Canada. British Columbia has laws. We have to make sure that, every day, we think of what those rights mean and how we make our laws and decisions here to uphold those rights.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a wonderful member of the international trade committee, who contributes very significantly to whatever the discussion or debate is in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way. I understand, after the next election, he is not going to be returning to the House, which I think is a real loss for the House of Commons, because he adds a tremendous amount in the House and at the committee level.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the concerns of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and so many other organizations that have echoed their support for this. President Zelenskyy sat right in front of me and urged us to pass this free trade agreement very quickly.

Was my hon. colleague concerned with the amount of opposition that was led by the Conservative Party of Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Humber River—Black for those warm regards and for being a wonderful chair of the international trade committee.

Yes, as I said before in answer to a previous question, I am surprised at the Conservative response to this agreement. The Conservatives seem to have reacted to a couple of words in the agreement and used that to vote against it when Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians have been very vocal in calling them out on this decision. We should be unanimous in our support for Ukraine. I was surprised that the Conservatives doubled down today and have done a couple more things to try to slow down this bill, when Ukraine wants it passed right now.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the point of this trade agreement, or part of it, is allegedly to help rebuild Ukraine. That is some of the rhetoric that we hear from the the Liberal Party. However, one thing that actually is a problem is that Canada is the only G7 country that has not offered wartime insurance to Canadian business operators who want to rebuild in Ukraine. That means that the projects that they undertake are subject to enormous risk because, of course, it is a war. Every other G7 country has recognized this risk and has provided wartime insurance to business operators. Canada has not. Was the member aware of that, and does he think that is another major failure of the current Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is valuable member of the international trade committee. This issue of wartime insurance for Canadian companies is important. I do not believe it belongs in a free trade agreement, just as I do not believe that calls for more munitions to Ukraine or natural gas to Ukraine belong in a free trade agreement. These agreements are about taking tariffs off things and not about trying to promote one thing or the other.

This is something that the government should be looking into. This is an agreement that is supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and right now we are talking about issues within the war experience.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.

As we speak, the Ukrainian people are risking their lives and sacrificing their lives to defend their homeland. Notwithstanding the courage and resolve of the Ukrainian people, the situation in Ukraine is dire. There are millions of refugees inside and outside Ukraine. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine every day. We have heard about many forms of war crimes, including the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, as one example.

There are hundreds of millions of people in the global south who are facing food shortages and famine because of Russia's invasion and blockade of Ukrainian ports. The war is the primary reason for food and energy price inflation around the world, including here in Canada. When Canadians pay higher prices at the pumps and the grocery store, the primary reason for that is Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

This is an existential threat to global security and to Canada's security. It is critical that Ukraine win this war, not just for the sake of the Ukrainian people and not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is important to us. Ukrainian people are not just fighting for themselves, but they are also fighting for us. I believe we should be fighting for them.

The Government of Canada has been fighting for them. Canada has been a leading country in supporting Ukraine. We have provided over $5 billion in financial aid to Ukraine. That is the largest amount of financial aid per capita of any country in the world.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

My Conservative colleague is heckling me as I speak, so clearly he does not support that.

Madam Speaker, we have provided about $2.4 billion in military support that is going to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the front line fight against this invasion. There has been over $350 million in humanitarian assistance, $127 million in development assistance, and over $102 million in security and stabilization assistance. We have the implementation of the CUAET visa program that has allowed about 200,000 Ukrainians fleeing the war to come here for temporary refuge in Canada.

We have been a leader in supporting Ukraine's entry into NATO. We have been advocating for Ukraine's entry into the EU. There was some talk earlier in this debate about what we can do to help Ukraine rebuild. The reality is that Canada is a leading country. We are making sure that we are seizing Russian assets here in Canada, and other countries are looking to our leadership on that, to make sure that we can sanction Russian assets here in Canada and use them to help rebuild Ukraine.

We are leading in terms of working with Ukraine, the International Criminal Court and others to make sure that Russia's war crimes are prosecuted. We have trained 40,000 members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces through Operation Unifier. Let us just imagine 40,000 Ukrainian men and women fighting and giving everything to defend their homeland, and they were trained by Canada. I think that is something that, as Canadians, we can be very proud of.

One of the things we can be very proud of is the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which I would note was negotiated in record time at the request of the Ukrainian government while it was under attack by Russia. These are steps that we can be very proud of. These are important, material steps to help Ukraine win the war.

The reality is that this will not be enough until Ukraine achieves a decisive victory. To me, a decisive victory means it wins the war, but it also wins the peace. Winning the war means they recapture all of their territory, and that includes Eastern Ukraine, Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.

Winning the peace, to me, means many things. It means that Ukraine is secure as a member of NATO, that we secure reparations from Russia to help rebuild Ukraine, that there is justice for Russian war crimes and that we help rebuild Ukraine's economy. That means not just helping to rebuild the physical infrastructure that has been destroyed in Ukraine, but it also means helping Ukraine's economy rebuild so it can be prosperous and so the Ukrainian people can achieve the freedom, the democracy, but also the prosperity that they are fighting for every minute of every day, and that tens of thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives to defend.

That is where this Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement comes in. It is actually incredibly important, not just to Canada's economy, but also to Ukraine's economy. Ukraine's economy, since the invasion started, has declined by over 30%. Let us imagine a 30% decline in a country's economy. The reality is that is why signing free trade agreements, with countries like Canada that are interested in not only trade, but also investing in Ukraine, is so critical, especially at this time.

If Ukraine is going to fight this war, it will need an economy that is functioning, that is allowing it to fund the war by collecting taxes to pay for munitions and everything else it needs to pay for. I think it is very important that we appreciate the importance of this agreement for that purpose.

The other reason this agreement is important is that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement we currently have in place covers goods. It covers the trade of physical material, physical stuff, that goes back and forth, which is very important. However, the bigger economic opportunity is in trade and services and allowing investment to flow between our countries.

Just from a purely Canadian perspective, it is good for Canada to have this trade agreement with Ukraine. It is an economic opportunity for our workers and our business people, so it should be unanimously supported. It is equally important for Ukraine from an economic perspective to trade services and allow investment to flow. It is critical and urgent for Ukraine, not just because we need to help Ukraine's economy but because the flow of investment is critical to helping Ukraine rebuild. Ukraine cannot rebuild without investment from individuals and businesses who want to invest to build businesses and help rebuild Ukraine.

This trade agreement was asked for and signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It is supported by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It is supported by the Ukrainian ambassador. Ukrainian MPs have travelled to Canada to ask MPs of all parties to support it. It is widely supported. It is beneficial to Ukraine and is beneficial to Canada, but there is a problem: Every single Conservative MP continuously votes against it. They just voted against it an hour or two ago here in this House again.

The argument they have put forward is that there is mention of a carbon price in the agreement. First of all, the mention of a carbon price does not require Ukraine to do anything. It is just a mention. The second thing is that Ukraine has had a carbon price in place since 2011. It had a carbon price before Canada had one. It needs one to join the EU. Ukraine committed to a carbon price long ago and has committed to a carbon price for the future, so nothing here is being imposed on Ukraine.

The other thing that is a little odd is the suggestion that Canada somehow imposed this on Ukraine. This is the government, its leader and the people fighting to defend themselves from the second-largest military in the world and somehow Canada imposed something on them. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument in my life from the Conservatives.

The Conservatives have argued here in this debate that they know better than President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government what Ukraine needs. They have said we should delay this agreement, we should amend this agreement and we should remove segments of the agreement, all of those things because this would be better for Ukraine. Do members know who knows better what Ukraine needs? Ukrainians do. We should be listening to them. They have asked us to pass this agreement. We should respect their decision and respect the fact that they want this agreement signed and need it urgently.

Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern now that has emerged since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives talk about what Brian Mulroney and Diefenbaker did. That is great, but we are not talking about them because those folks are not sitting in the House today.

The member for Carleton is the leader of the Conservative Party, and since he has become the leader, members of the Conservative Party and he specifically have never advocated for more military, financial or humanitarian support for Ukraine. He has been silent on Russia's acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people. He has echoed the false narratives that the war in Ukraine does not affect inflation around the world when expert after expert tells us it does. The other day on—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. If members are not in agreement with what the hon. member says, they can raise it during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre has a little over a minute.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party has echoed false narratives about the war, suggesting the war does not affect us and does not affect inflation in Canada. He has said that in this House multiple times, which is of course not true. We know that not to be true.

The Conservatives specifically challenged spending in our budget and voted to cut Operation Unifier, Canada's training mission of Ukrainian soldiers, through which we have trained 40,000 of them. They voted to cut military aid to Ukraine on Friday. Now they have voted again against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Every single Conservative MP did that.

This is part of a pattern. The Conservative Party under its leader does not support Ukraine. It is very obvious and apparent. I think it is important that we all support Ukraine. Ukrainians are fighting for themselves but they are also fighting for us.

Let us unify. Let us support Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the member is astounding. He says we should listen to President Zelenskyy. Well, what he said on Canada exporting gas turbines is that it was “absolutely unacceptable”. “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world.”

President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. Where was the member when that was going on? Was he condemning his government? Was he standing up and saying that we have to listen to President Zelenskyy? No. The member was quiet as a church mouse on an issue that is serious: a gas turbine being used to pump Russian gas to fund the war in Ukraine.

He did not listen to President Zelenskyy then, but somehow it is outrageous that we disagree with President Zelenskyy on a trade agreement. How does the member square his hypocrisy?

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, during this debate and during their consistent opposition to measures that help Ukraine over the last few weeks especially, Conservatives focus on the past, on nostalgia: what Mulroney did, what Diefenbaker did, what somebody did 10 years ago, what somebody did two years ago.

What the Ukrainian people need is not nostalgia. They need help. They are fighting for their lives, and they are fighting for us. The members opposite should stop focusing on what happened 10 or 20 years ago and focus on today.

Today, President Zelenskyy is asking us to pass this free trade agreement because it is vital to Ukraine winning this war. Let us support them. Slava Ukraini.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind members they had an opportunity to ask a question. They were not disturbed while they were asking the question and should return that respect when they are listening to the answer. If they are not in agreement with the answer, they should wait for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the efforts of my colleague, along with many other members of the House of Commons, to advance this free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and the importance of it.

We know Ukrainians are fighting an illegal Russian aggression against them. I would like to know what else the hon. member suggests we could be doing to advance and promote the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is critical that we continue to work with our allies and encourage them to support Ukraine until it wins. That is a critical step.

We have seen some wavering of support among some in the United States. It is important that we buffer that support. Canada can help Ukraine by continuing to send military aid to Ukraine, by continuing to train the Ukrainian armed forces and by continuing to send humanitarian aid. Also, let us expand our economic relationship with Ukraine and work toward Ukraine's rebuilding after the victory.

If we stay resolved and work with our allies to stay resolved, Ukraine will win. If Ukraine wins, we all win.