Bill C-57

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine

This enactment implements the Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, done at Ottawa on September 22, 2023.
Among other things, the enactment
(a) sets out rules of interpretation;
(b) specifies that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of that Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada;
(c) approves that Agreement;
(d) provides for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the institutional and administrative aspects of that Agreement;
(e) gives the Governor in Council the power to make orders in accordance with that Agreement;
(f) requires the Minister for International Trade to ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in the Agreement; and
(g) amends certain Acts to give effect to Canada’s obligations under that Agreement.
Finally, the enactment repeals the Canada–Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act that was enacted in 2017.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the study of Bill C-57 will go quite well. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill. In any case, parliamentarians have a rather limited ability to amend a bill like this one. We know that Canada is the one that negotiates state-to-state agreements and that we then amend our internal laws to include those new provisions.

In this case, we do not necessarily want to amend the agreement. However, in the event that we did have proposals or changes we wanted to make, should we not review the way the Parliament of Canada, or Canada in general, deals with these international agreements to perhaps give more freedom to parliamentarians and even to the provinces, which may have valid input on areas under their jurisdiction? Only the leaders get to have a say in the actual negotiations between Canada and other countries.

Should we not review that entire parliamentary structure?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, our trade negotiators, as I indicated earlier, are the best in the world. They really and truly are. We can just take a look at the number of agreements we have been able to achieve and what we have been able to achieve.

They do their homework. Part of their homework is to take a look at the very many stakeholders in Canada. Canada is a big country with many different regions. One of that member's colleagues made reference to the pork industry. Manitoba and Quebec have very significant pork industries, and this trade agreement, at least in part, would enable more pork, from what I understand, to be sold.

The negotiators ultimately put forward an agreement, which ultimately we and the Prime Minister have signed, much like Ukraine signs an agreement. If we already have the agreement signed, we really cannot change the agreement through legislation because that would potentially void the agreement that was signed. We are very much dependent on what was said in the standing committees and debates that take place here. They make sure our negotiators are informed and have a very good sense of what the different regions are and what the many different stakeholders are wanting to see, in how we develop as a nation and in world trade.

All in all, I believe they have done exceptionally well, and our numbers clearly demonstrate that. As I say, we have created literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, and just over a million jobs prepandemic. A lot of that had to do with the many trade agreements we have signed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government has really been letting down our allies when it comes to responding to their needs in the area of energy security. Most of the world's democracies are geographically small and densely populated nations, such as our partners in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, that need the import of natural resources to not have to rely on hostile actors, such as Russia, to meet their energy needs. However, while Europe has been crying out for more energy exports from countries such as Canada, the Prime Minister has effectively shut the door because of his extreme anti-energy ideology.

This agreement would be an opportunity for Canada to say more and do more to promote the export of our vital energy resources to Europe to make our European partners less dependent on energy imports from hostile powers, but the government was more interested in facilitating the export of Russian energy to Germany when it granted the Siemens turbine waiver than in supplying Canadian energy fuelled by Canadian workers to those Europeans.

Why is the government letting down Ukraine, and Canadian workers, by hanging onto its ideological opposition to Canadian energy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's assessment. For those people who might be following the debate, let us be very clear on the whole issue of energy. In 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, how many miles of pipeline were put into place to tidewater? It is a bit of a trick question, but the short answer is zero. In 10 years, it was zero.

We can contrast that to the first few years of this government, and there is absolutely no comparison. Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation, I would suggest, to say that we do not support industries. It is just not true, and we have demonstrated that. We are talking about hundreds of miles compared to not an inch, under Stephen Harper, in 10 years.

When we take a look at it from the perspective of Ukraine and the war, the other thing I would highlight to the member is that one does not just wish pipelines and infrastructure into existence. They take time to develop. In fairness, we need to recognize that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague if he could highlight what he is hearing in his riding.

There are businesses across Canada that want to help to support the rebuild of Ukraine. Allowing for free trade agreements creates economic opportunity in Ukraine and allows for businesses here in Canada to support Ukraine and those efforts to rebuild. Could he highlight why free trade agreements give certainty in businesses?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada can demonstrate strong leadership with Ukraine. Let us recognize the fact that Ukraine will prevail. It will win, and there will be a need to assist Ukraine in rebuilding.

Because of this particular agreement and of the relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the people of both Ukraine and Canada will be able to contribute that much more to Ukraine rebuilding to be the nation it has the potential to be. Canada is in a much better position than many other countries, whether it is because of the more than 1.3 million people of Ukraine heritage here or things like this trade agreement, to support Ukraine and make sure it is able to continue to prosper well into the future.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this implementation bill for the modernization of the Ukraine free trade agreement.

I always welcome opportunities to talk about trade. It is one of my passions, which is why I was somewhat disappointed by the disparaging remarks made by my colleague from Winnipeg North regarding the previous Conservative government's record on trade, especially Stephen Harper's focus on trade as the linchpin of Canada's economic strategy.

During the Harper years, the government set an unprecedented pace for negotiating trade agreements. When the Conservative government was first elected back in 2006, Canada had trade agreements with five countries: the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel. By the time we were finished some nine years later, we had free trade agreements with 47 additional countries, an astounding number. That included the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. It included the TPP, which morphed, of course, into the CPTPP. It also included South Korea, which was a very difficult negotiation but was successfully concluded.

One of the agreements that former prime minister Stephen Harper really wanted to get done was between Canada and Ukraine. Even back in 2010, Ukraine was facing difficult challenges. It had a very weak economy and was struggling in trying to deal with Russia. The Prime Minister at the time, Stephen Harper, said the government was going to negotiate a trade agreement with Ukraine that would be unique in that the outcome would be asymmetrical. What that meant is that the benefits flowing each way were not necessarily going to be equal or balanced, at least at the beginning. The phasing in of market access and the elimination of tariff barriers would be done on a differentiated basis so that the outcome was not a quid pro quo in the perfect sense of the term. The Conservatives did that because we wanted to give Ukraine a leg up and help Ukraine re-establish itself as economically viable and strong.

I should indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

When the former Conservative government negotiated the trade agreement, the negotiations started in 2010 and were concluded in 2015. We left office in 2015. These agreements sometimes take a number of years to come into force, so the agreement came into force in 2017 and has served Ukraine well. Our trade with that country has increased. It was not completely unexpected that when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, trade flows declined. In fact, the current government and Ukraine stopped negotiating for a while because of the invasion by Russia into Ukraine.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and made sense out of the fact that Ukraine still needed to move forward economically and put in place the economic structures that would allow it to be successful. Negotiations were then recommenced in 2022, and here we are, a year later, in a position to pass the implementing legislation.

The purpose of modernizing this free trade agreement is that the free trade environment around the world, the playing field, is evolving rapidly. Some things are happening that are not necessarily good. For example, the world is becoming more protectionist. We are putting up more and more tariff and non-tariff barriers.

The United States, under Donald Trump, turned inward. In fact, members may recall that it was former president Donald Trump who pulled the U.S. out of the TPP negotiations. Why? I do not know. He was running for office. I suppose he saw it as politically beneficial.

The whole premise for the TPP was to take advantage of what is called comparative advantage. Every country has its own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to manufacturing goods and delivering services. If we can take the strengths of each country and cobble them together into a coherent trade strategy, we can ensure that the outcome for partner countries is optimal.

Unfortunately, the United States has pulled out, and since that time, it has really turned inward. It is not negotiating free trade agreements. When we go to the World Trade Organization, we notice that large countries, such as Brazil, China, South Africa and India, often block consensus on trade liberalization.

This causes us to reconsider how we engage with the world and open up new opportunities for Canadian companies to do business abroad and expand exports. That is why this agreement with Ukraine, which was negotiated under the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, is now being modernized. Many of these factors that were not in play back when we first negotiated this agreement now call for us to update the agreement and modernize it.

For example, there are 11 new chapters included in this agreement. There is a chapter on cross-border trade in services. There is a chapter on investment, which is very important. There is a chapter on temporary entry for business purposes, to facilitate the travel of business people back and forth between our countries. Financial services are covered, as is telecommunications. There is a chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises.

There is also a chapter on digital trade, because digital trade has evolved so quickly that it has left a lot of our trade agreements behind. One of the reasons that our free trade agreement with the United States was updated is that we had no chapter on digital services. People are doing business online now. Amazon has become an obscenely profitable company. Why? It is because of online purchasing, which is digital trade. There is a separate chapter on that.

There is a new chapter on how labour and workers will be treated, and the high standards that both countries want to set. There is also a chapter on the environment.

The bottom line is this: We as Canadians need to step up and stand in the gap for Ukraine. Canada has a large Ukrainian diaspora that expects us to partner with Ukraine in its time of need. That is what this agreement does. That is what the original trade agreement did.

In my home city of Abbotsford, many Ukrainians have fled their home country and made their home, or at least their temporary home, in Abbotsford. We now have something called the Ukrainian village, which is reinforcing why it is so important for all of us to work together with our Ukrainian diaspora and with the people of Ukraine to put in place a trade agreement and structure under which the Ukrainian economy can be lifted back up. Both of our countries can benefit from that.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member across the way played a significant role in a lot of the trade negotiations that took place. He would be very familiar with the individuals who have the type of expertise that I said is second to no other in the world. I would challenge him with regard to his conclusions on the trade agreements, but we will leave that for another day.

What I would not challenge him on is that a trade agreement was signed with the Republic of China, and it was done in a very secretive manner. I noticed the member did not make any reference to that particular trade agreement. Can he provide some insight into why Stephen Harper signed that particular agreement without anyone knowing at all that there were discussions taking place between Canada and China?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am chuckling a bit because the member talked about a trade agreement. What Canada signed with China was not a trade agreement; it was an investment protection agreement. The purpose of that agreement was to protect Canadian investors when they invest in China, because China does not respect the rule of law the way we do in Canada.

We worked very hard for many, many years to get that agreement in place because we had identified situations where Canadian companies had made significant investments in China. One example was gold mining. After the prospecting was done and after a very productive deposit was found, guess what happened. The Chinese government stepped up and said it wanted to have Chinese businesses develop the mine and take the profits out of it. That is why we needed an investment protection agreement. It is not a trade access agreement. It does not provide new access to Canada for China to trade. It protects Canadians when they do business in China.

I encourage the member to please get his facts right and make sure he understands the agreements that Canada is signing.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that just about everyone here in the House agrees with the idea that a free trade relationship should be established between Canada and Ukraine. That relationship already exists and, as we all know, this agreement improves or modernizes it.

Earlier, my colleague addressed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, and I did not hear a real answer to her question, which I consider extremely important. It is my understanding that, unlike in most other democratic countries, the Canadian government can sign agreements without considering the House's opinion.

We are now coming to the stage where we need to ratify the agreement. Basically, the government does not know what the House is going to say. Since we all agree, we will probably vote in favour of Bill C‑57 and the agreement can be ratified.

In the event that we disagree, however, does the Liberal government intend to muzzle the House and prevent MPs from making an informed decision? I doubt it. At least, I hope not. I would have liked to hear my colleague respond to that. I will ask my Conservative colleague instead, since it is his turn to answer questions.

Is it not a bit brazen, a bit freewheeling of the government to enter into international agreements without first ascertaining the House's position on them? What if the House said no to Bill C‑57? Would the government retract its agreement with Ukraine? What would happen?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot speak for the Liberal Party. What I can say is that free trade agreements are always brought to the House for discussion and full debate, as we are having today, and then those agreements have to be ratified by the House. If they are not ratified, it is a big problem because the government cannot move forward with implementing them.

I do not know if the member has a misunderstanding of the process required to get free trade agreements in place and implemented, but I do know that robust discussions take place in this House and have taken place in this House for many years, starting with the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which was the first major trade agreement Canada ever had. It morphed into NAFTA, which is now called CUSMA. Since that time, Canada has negotiated trade agreements with a total of 51 countries. It has opened up new trade access for Canadian businesses to export and to have the opportunity to grow.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been here for a while, which is why I want to ask a specific question.

There was an initiative connected to Parliament to help Ukraine go through its democratic transition whereby MPs went over to Ukraine as observers during its elections. That should not be lost, because we are part of the renewal of democracy in Ukraine.

I would like to hear what he has to say about this connecting to the full transition to further normalize trading agreements, because I think this goes back to a substantial commitment that a lot of MPs made in this place and the successful return we have seen from Ukraine.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right that the most effective way of speaking to the institutional capacity of countries that are struggling, that are perhaps coming out of troubled histories, is to engage with them on trade. As we do so, it opens up opportunities to speak to their democratic institutions, law enforcement institutions and human rights. It is all based on developing trust. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that Canada remain engaged.

The negotiation of trade agreements is, of course, at its heart, about our Canadian economic interests. However, it is amazing how these negotiations open up these opportunities to help countries such as Ukraine, Colombia and Peru to emerge from their difficult histories and start to develop strong, democratic institutions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to address the House this afternoon and to speak about one of the critical challenges facing the world today. That is the ongoing illegal, genocidal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the important work that Canadians need to do in order to continue to support Ukraine in this struggle. This is an existential struggle for Ukraine, as well as a critical battle for the defence of the free and democratic world.

A critical part of this emerging new cold war is the struggle between free democratic nations on the one hand and the neo-revisionist powers that are increasingly working together to combat the idea of universal human dignity, human rights and democracy on the other. With this broader frame in mind, it is critical for our security and for the values that we share as Canadians that Ukraine be able to prevail in this struggle and that we do all we can to support Ukraine to achieve as quick a victory as possible under the circumstances.

Today, we are of course debating a proposal for a next step with respect to free trade between Canada and Ukraine. It is important to recall that this process of pursuing Canada-Ukraine free trade started under the previous Conservative government. In many cases, we have seen trade deals that were begun and negotiated, and even had the negotiation process completed, under the previous Conservative government, and the current government has accepted that process. In one famous case, the current government fought to rename the treaty that had been negotiated by Conservatives and, of course, now it is eagerly taking credit for those steps. However, it is important to underline the work that has been done and the ongoing work that needs to be done to support a strengthened free trade framework, especially between Canada and like-minded nations. That partnership with Ukraine in the midst of this ongoing struggle and invasion is so important.

It is important to acknowledge that the invasion of Ukraine is not in the news or in public discussion as much at the moment. It is the nature of news to comment on things that are new; to some extent, other world events and challenges are capturing public attention right now. Those situations obviously need to be addressed as well. However, the fact that it is maybe not being discussed as much or is not in the news as much does not mean that the struggle is not going on and is not more critical than ever.

In fact, we are seeing escalating abuses and horrifying atrocities as part of this illegal Russian invasion. We are seeing, for instance, multiplying instances of the abduction of children; children are being stolen from Russian-occupied parts of Ukraine, taken away from their parents and sent to Russia. This is a horrific crime, and I cannot imagine the pain that those families are going through to be living in occupied territories and then to have their children taken away from them.

We are seeing sexual violence as a weapon of war on a massive scale not seen in Europe since at least the Second World War. There are horrifying volumes of sexual violence that are being systematically perpetrated by the Russian regime.

These instances of abduction of children, systemic sexual violence and indiscriminate bombing and targeting of civilians led the House to recognize in the early days of this invasion that it constituted an act of genocide. We stand as this House, I hope, united in continuing to recognize that. We need to recognize that, as people follow this now, a year and a half since the further invasion, we hope that this war comes to an end quickly. We want this war to end in a quick Ukrainian victory. Do we want this war to go on for much longer? No, we do not. We want it to end in a clear, decisive Ukrainian victory where Ukrainians can exercise sovereignty over all their territory, as well as democratic self-determination.

However, we must also countenance the possibility that things will not end quickly. Wars do not always follow the timelines that we hope for. It is an obligation for us to stand firm in supporting Ukrainians in the midst of these circumstances. This is why Conservatives have been there from the beginning. In fact, Conservatives have been calling for more support earlier, at every stage. It was Conservatives who led the G7, after the initial invasion in 2014, in having a strengthened international response. We pushed back when the current government, upon taking office, stopped sharing RADARSAT images with the Government of Ukraine. We fought back against that.

We called for tough sanctions to be imposed on the Putin regime prior to the further invasion beginning last February. Much of the world community anticipated this invasion. We called for pre-emptive sanctions beforehand, to try to deter it. The comment is on the record of the House and committee. The international community failed to really recognize the threat that was coming from the Putin regime and to impose measures in advance that might have stood a chance of deterring this horrific invasion. We called for those sanctions earlier.

We called on the government to do more to support Ukrainian energy security and to supply the needed equipment and weapons. Of course, the government has taken some steps to support Ukraine, but our criticism has been that, in order to bring about a Ukrainian victory, it is vitally necessary not just to make the announcements, but to supply the equipment and support required and get the delivery of that equipment as quickly and as early on in the process as possible. This is what we need in order to have Ukrainian victory, for Ukraine to have the tools and equipment it needs to secure victory; this is very important.

I hear from time to time from people who are skeptical or critical of our support of Ukraine. To them, I would say a number of things. First of all, I welcome conversations with people, regardless of their opinion on this issue. They should not hesitate to call me or my office. There are many good reasons we should be supporting Ukraine, and I am happy to make that case to anybody who is interested in having the conversation and listening.

Some people ask about how much this is costing us. I would point to the costs of inaction. What are the costs of failing to stand up to the bully in the Kremlin? We can look historically at the growing appetite for aggressive action of the Putin regime: where it started and where it has continued. There has been the action in Chechnya, the invasion of Georgia, the continuing Russian presence in Moldova and the invasion of Crimea in 2014. If, at each of those points, there had been a stronger response from the international community, we might not have seen the aggression move on to the next step. It was much more costly at every next stage, in terms of human life and the response that has been required.

We can now look back and ask, “What if we had done more at some of these earlier points?” There was the continuing strategy by Germany, for example, to be heavily reliant on Russian gas, which continued after Ukraine was already invaded in 2014. Germany continued to pursue Nord Stream 2 even after Russia, illegally, had already annexed Crimea and was continuing to be present in other parts of Ukraine.

What are the costs of inaction? If we did not support Ukraine, then this aggression would continue. It would proceed, I believe, to threaten NATO countries. It could threaten Canada's north. The cost of inaction is very high, because this aggression would continue.

Canada has a unique obligation in the midst of this challenge. Most of the world's democracies are small, densely populated nations. Canada, as a geographically vast energy-producing country, needs to be fulfilling our responsibility within the community of democratic nations to supply the democratic world with the energy security it needs. We need to step up and produce more energy, export more energy and relieve our partners and allies of their dependence on Russian energy. Purchases of energy from Russia are fuelling its war machine and the ongoing slaughter, the systemic sexual violence and the abduction of children. These things are being fuelled financially by those energy exports.

As such, recognizing the unique opportunities and responsibilities we have, Canada needs to expand our energy production. Yes, that would benefit our economy and Canadian workers, but even more importantly, we would be fulfilling our responsibility in the world to provide the energy security that all countries need. It is for such a time and such a responsibility that Canada is here, yet the government has its ideological head in the sand and is missing the opportunity and the responsibility we have to do more on the energy front.

I support expanding our trading relationships with Ukraine and other countries, but we need to do more in the energy security area. We need to make sure that, when announcements are made, we are delivering the goods as quickly as possible to ensure the vitally necessary victory for Ukraine and the forces of freedom everywhere.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise here again. I enjoyed my colleague's speech. I want to ask him about the importance of getting further into the discussions about trading with Ukraine, because some of Ukraine's allies have had some discomfort with grain and other types of trade. It is actually really important, in my opinion, to start sorting out some of the rules of engagement.

There is also what I really believe in, which is that Canada can really pay really good dividends back and forth, with cybersecurity and other things from Ukraine. I have enjoyed having Ukrainian interns in my office during a number of different years, and I have found their work ethic and expertise exceptional.

To my colleague, how important is it to get an agreement and work on that agreement so we can avoid trade disputes and other disruptions that could potentially cause problems among allies? We just have to look at ourselves and the United States, for example. Also, second to that, perhaps with cybersecurity and cyber issues coming up, how could we benefit from that working together as well?