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

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

moved that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This is not the first time I have stood in this House to introduce a new trade agreement, but this trade agreement is special. I rise today to enter into the record the story behind this agreement, because all members in the House, all Canadians and, especially, the 1.3 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, should know how it came about.

The story of this agreement begins with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's first visit to Canada back in 2019. During that visit, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister announced a mutual intention to modernize the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. Following that announcement, public servants in both countries went about doing their respective homework to prepare for renewed negotiations.

That homework often takes many months. It is just part of the routine for our respective civil servants and trade negotiators. However, there was nothing routine about the way these negotiations unfolded.

First came the pandemic, which stalled progress for over a year. Then, when we were finally ready to launch negotiations, Russian troops were massing along the Ukrainian border.

On January 27, 2022, I held a virtual event with Yulia Svyrydenko, Ukraine's deputy prime minister and minister of economy, to announce the start of negotiations on this agreement. Russia had not yet invaded Ukraine at that time, but it was already clear that the situation was reaching a precipice. The world was seeing that an invasion was imminent, and there was a lot of uncertainty.

A short time before that announcement, I asked my Ukrainian counterpart if she and her government were still willing and able to move forward with negotiations. Her answer was candid and unequivocal: She told me that her government was determined to move ahead, and she told me how much it mattered that Canada was showing confidence in Ukraine at a time when many were beginning to question its resolve.

Ukraine knew then which path it wanted to take for its future. Ukraine had chosen the values of democracy, openness and transparency, as well as a rules-based international order. A sovereign Ukraine was seeking to modernize its infrastructure, its economy and its laws. A comprehensive and progressive free trade agreement would be an important step toward modernization for Ukraine, and Canada would be its gateway.

One month after that announcement, on February 24, 2022, Russia moved in with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and it invaded for all the reasons I just listed: Ukrainian territorial and economic sovereignty, values of openness and democracy, and a rules-based international order. Vladimir Putin despises all these things, and he could not stand to see Ukraine embrace them, uphold them and blossom into a great modern nation. That is why he invaded Ukraine.

On that day, I knew, the Prime Minister knew and the government knew what we had to do. As long as the government of Ukraine stood, we would stand with it. Since the war began, Canada has committed $9 billion in military, humanitarian, financial and development assistance to Ukraine. We also understood that standing with Ukraine meant that we would see these trade negotiations through to the end.

At the outset, it was not easy. The war made travel dangerous and even routine calls impossible for our Ukrainian counterparts. Negotiations had barely begun; suddenly, they came to a standstill. They stayed at a standstill for four months, until I travelled for meetings at the OECD in Paris. That is where I met Ukraine's chief negotiator, Taras Kachka.

It is important to understand that we did not plan a formal meeting that day. He and I, along with Canada's chief negotiator, simply sat in the cafeteria of the OECD building and talked. Mr. Kachka recounted the first 120 days of the war and the challenges he had to overcome just to make that one trip to the OECD. I again asked if Ukraine was able and willing to begin negotiations. Mr. Kachka said yes and I said yes, and negotiations began in earnest.

A few weeks later, at the G7 summit in Germany, I finally met Deputy Prime Minister Svyrydenko face to face. We revisited our earlier conversations and talked of how our earlier hope of avoiding the conflict had been so savagely dispelled. We reiterated our mutual intention to reach an agreement, and then we hugged.

The private conversations I had with my Ukrainian counterparts moved me in ways that are hard to describe. If they had told me that they were not yet ready to begin trade talks, of course we would have waited. Canada would have given Ukraine as much time as it needed.

Ukraine's quiet resolve to move forward was unmistakable and unbreakable. These negotiations were driven by the very values of openness and self-determination that Ukrainian soldiers were and are fighting and dying for. I can tell the House today that, even in the midst of an all-consuming war effort, Ukraine's commitment to those values never wavered and neither did Canada's.

I am proud to say that this agreement was achieved in record time, a mere 12 months from start to finish. That shows the resolve that Canada and Ukraine share on this crucial matter. This process reached its conclusion just a few weeks ago, when our Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy signed this agreement as part of President Zelenskyy's second visit to Canada. It is my true honour to speak to it in this House.

It is not just that we reached a deal in 12 months; it is that we reached an exceptional deal. In trade circles, it is known as a “high-quality agreement”. It includes provisions for trade in services and investments, a binding dispute settlement mechanism to ensure fair treatment, and labour protections. It recognizes the importance of small- and medium-sized businesses, women-owned businesses and indigenous-owned businesses, and it includes environmental protections that are the strongest of those in any of Canada's trade agreements currently on record.

In terms of its contents, it is on par with best practice agreements such as CUSMA, the CPTPP and CETA. With this agreement, Canada becomes the first country to sign a comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine.

Ukraine has told us that this trade deal would serve as a model for further agreements with other prospective partners. That is one of the reasons I said this agreement is special.

Above all, this agreement is special because Canadians support Ukraine's fight against Putin's barbaric invasion. They demonstrate their support through their government with military, humanitarian and financial aid. However, support for Ukraine is not limited to government alone. Here in Canada, many individuals and organizations are helping by welcoming Ukrainian families fleeing the war. Many more Canadian organizations and businesses want to join that effort, both here at home and in the Ukrainian heartland.

This agreement opens up new avenues for Canadians to support Ukraine. It establishes the rules by which Canadian companies could invest in Ukraine's reconstruction, modernize its infrastructure and create jobs in Ukraine, as well as here in Canada. There are Canadian companies already active in Ukraine, and more are joining as we speak. The Canadian construction firm of Aecon is now forming partnerships in Ukraine under a memorandum of collaboration for the construction of a hydro power plant in Ukraine.

The presence of Canadian companies will help Ukraine persevere amid the strife of war. Thanks to this agreement, more can and will join them. Through all these activities, Canada and a victorious Ukraine will strengthen our shared values in our pursuit of peace, mutual success and prosperity. At the end of the day, trade is not just about business; it is about shared values.

Ukrainians and Canadians both want a free, modern and democratic Ukraine. This trade agreement is a manifestation of those shared values. I am truly proud to have been a part of it.

Today, I urge the House to reaffirm its commitment to those values and its support for Ukraine by ensuring the swiftest possible passage of this bill. Slava Ukraini.

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

Mr. Speaker, article 13.10 of the trade agreement, subsection 8(d) says, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources.”

We know that the Russian war machine has been powered by energy exports. This certainly seems to contemplate the transition from coal to other less-polluting fuels. To me, this is a massive opportunity for Canada to work on exporting LNG from Canada, which many European countries have asked us to do.

This would not only to starve the Russian war machine of funds but also be good for the environment. Does the minister now admit that this is something Canada should do?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question from my hon. colleague, the critic on the trade file.

We see in this agreement an effort to establish a framework that would not only enable Canadian businesses to participate in the reconstruction of Ukraine, but also, indeed, include the highest environmental protections of any trade agreement on record. It would very much allow Canadians to participate and allow Ukrainian businesses and investors to rapidly pursue that transition to a greener economy.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech and for these negotiations, which are very important. I would like to ask her a two-part question.

First, supply management was included when the order to import products from Ukraine duty-free was adopted. The groups that were impacted and the opposition parties fought hard to have this removed when the order was renewed, and it was in fact removed. Can the minister assure me that supply-managed products are not covered by this agreement? That is the first part of my question.

Second, I would like to make a comment. The section on investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms puts multinationals and governments on the same footing. This means that, technically, it would be possible for a multinational company to sue a government that is hindering trade. I find that unacceptable.

Does the minister not feel that this would have been a good opportunity to make this clarification?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague and all members in the House. At a time when Canada chose to unequivocally support Ukraine, there was a tariff-free ability for them to export into Canada, including the supply-managed sector. I know what a commitment that took for Canadians to permit that to take place, and that really did show the support that Canadians have and that my hon. colleague had, for Ukraine. Of course, in this agreement, it is clear, just like in our other trade agreements, that the supply-managed sectors are not, and are excluded from this agreement, just as they have been with others.

I believe that this is a very important and progressive agreement and a good agreement. It has provisions for investment protections. There is a chapter that deals with binding dispute settlements. Therefore, this is very much the modern agreement that we have negotiated with Ukraine, and it would facilitate what Canadians want to do, which is to participate in that reconstruction in due course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's speech on this important free trade agreement. The NDP supported the previous agreement, and we are looking into what this new agreement looks like.

One thing we do like about the old agreement is that it did not have the investor state dispute mechanism in there. That is something that we have held as essential for any new trade agreements going forward. CETA and CPTPP both have that in them, and we do not like that. The NDP supports free trade, but we do not like foreign corporations telling governments what to do.

One thing I am disappointed with is the speed at which this is coming before us. I have not had time to bring this before caucus to even have a basic discussion. Why was this being rushed through without following any of the standard procedures about introducing treaties and agreements before the House?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I am really proud about in this agreement are the highest standards in environmental protections of any trade agreement that we have on record today. We would agree that is really important, particularly in the trade agreements that we negotiate today, in which we can indeed support an economy and protect the environment at the same time.

What is also remarkable about this agreement, which members heard me say in my opening remarks, is the speed at which we were able to reach an agreement with Ukraine and how much the Ukrainians participated in this, despite the fact that they have been and continue to be in a war effort.

I am encouraged by the work that we always do in ensuring good debate on something like this, which we all agree with, and is continuing to support Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister has rightly highlighted the unique nature of trade with a democracy on the front lines of the fight against totalitarian threats. This is important. Ukraine is not the only country in that situation. I wonder if she can share the government's position on Taiwan's application to the CPTPP?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP is an excellent agreement and many Canadian firms and exporters have benefited. It is not just a good agreement because of its commercial success, but it also has some of those very high-quality provisions for the environment, for inclusiveness.

As my hon. colleague will know, CPTPP colleagues around the table, who party to that agreement, make those decisions about accession together. We are very pleased that the first accession candidate is the United Kingdom, another of Canada's trading partners. We have just finished that very important work.

No doubt we will continue to work, along with our partners, with all the other applicants for accession.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a question asked by my hon. colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé that the minister did not have time to answer. My colleague asked her two questions. She answered the question about supply management.

However, concerning the fact that the government and multinationals are on an equal footing and that multinationals are therefore able to take legal action against states, would this not have been a good opportunity to reassert government jurisdiction over multinational corporations?

I think it would have been a good opportunity. What does she think?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the other agreements, governments have the right to regulate within their jurisdictions. That is not different for this agreement.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform us as to how she sees this trade agreement being so important, given what has happened in Ukraine over the last year and a half. Once Ukraine ultimately wins this war, which we know it will, why will this be such an important trade agreement, not just for the benefit of Canada but indeed to help our ally, Ukraine?

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the first country to have a comprehensive and progressive free-trade agreement with Ukraine. It is going to set the framework for Canadian companies, exporters and investors to very much be a part of the reconstruction when Ukraine wins the war. We have heard a lot from Canadian exporters and Canadians with respect to their support for an agreement like this with Ukraine.

When I reflect on the early days of the negotiations, before the war had begun, Canada was there, and continues to be there, with unequivocal support for Ukraine, showing confidence in it, especially in a matter like this, an economic trade agreement, which is so important. As Canada showed its confidence, we were also able to demonstrate that to others, which really did make a difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have a very long, storied and proud tradition of supporting free trade. We only have to look back to the negotiations of the original Canada-United States free trade agreement, which was, of course, something Conservatives were in favour of and that Liberals campaigned very hard against. I was a young lad back then, but I remember a commercial from the Liberal Party on this, talking about free trade. It said that there was only one more line that we had to remove, and then it erased the border between Canada and the United States. That was a long time ago, but I just want to talk briefly about how strongly Conservatives support free trade. We believe in free trade between free nations as an integral part of improving the prosperity of all people.

We were also the people who started the negotiations on CETA. The CETA deal is a Conservative deal that was started by Prime Minister Harper as part of our aggressive trade expansion. The same thing with the CPTPP, which was a Conservative initiative. Conservatives are very supportive of free trade.

This original free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine was originated by a Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper. The member for Abbotsford, from the Conservative Party, was the lead negotiator on that. He will speak to this, and we will have some wonderful insights on this agreement.

When we talk about the importance of the Canada-Ukraine relationship, we have to talk about the 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin who live here in Canada. Many of them were integral in the development of western Canada. They are an incredible and important part of the social fabric of Canada, and their contributions to Canada cannot go unnoticed. As a result of that, in part, we have very strong people-to-people ties between Canada and Ukraine. Of course, we are strong supporters of Ukraine during the illegal invasion being prosecuted by Russia.

With respect to this agreement in particular, this modernization would build on the 2017 agreement, which updated or added 11 new chapters to the free trade agreement. The updated chapters included rules of origin and procedures, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, electronic commerce, digital trade, labour, the environment, transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct.

There is also a significant number of new chapters, 11 new chapters, in this trade agreement, and I will talk a little more about that later in my remarks. However, these are on investment; cross-border trade and services; temporary entry for business people; development and administration of measures; financial services; services and investment, non-conforming measures; telecommunications; trade and gender; trade and small and medium-sized enterprises; trade and indigenous peoples; and good regulatory practices. This is a substantial change from the original agreement that was signed in 2017.

On that, I would echo some of the comments made by the NDP, which is that this agreement is actually substantial. It is a very large trade agreement. Of course, we have to take our time to make sure we study free trade agreements in detail and thoroughly. However, it does seem as though the government is trying to rush this forward, and I am not sure that is necessarily the way Parliament should look at things. We should do our jobs as parliamentarians.

I would like to talk about the original trade agreement. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. The way the original agreement was designed, as it was negotiated by the Conservative government, was that this would be, in a sense, a bit of an asymmetrical agreement.

It was set up such that Ukraine would have a little more advantage in the early stages of the agreement, with the anticipation that there would be a final agreement in which more things would be added. Originally, this was primarily a merchandise agreement. We can see now that a lot of chapters have been added on the services side. I suspect that as a result of that, we will see the trade balance perhaps narrow between Canada and Ukraine, but in general increase the trade between the two countries.

After the ratification of the original agreement, exports to Ukraine, other than coal, grew about 28% between 2016 and 2019, which reinforces the view that trade, especially free trade, is good for both countries. We saw a significant increase in the two-way trade between two countries as a result of the free trade agreements, which goes back to why Conservatives absolutely and unequivocally support free trade agreements.

Interestingly enough, the top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. The top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats, oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. Canadian businesses certainly have an opportunity to expand their trade with Ukraine.

I have undertaken to consult with industry with respect to this. I have spoken with agricultural companies, agricultural industries, etc. The challenge of course is the very condensed time frame, and I should explain this.

What we have before Parliament is the enabling legislation to implement the free trade agreement, but that is probably not what we are debating today. We are not actually going to look at and debate whether “subsection 42.1(1.1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph after (a).” I suspect that is not what we will debate here today.

The implementation legislation is how we implement the changes to relevant statutes and other things to implement the actual free trade agreement. This implementation bill's enabling legislation does not seem to have much in it that any of us will spend a lot of time debating in this chamber, although I could be wrong, as some members do enjoy debating those kinds of things.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan might enjoy going through and deciding whether “paragraphs (b) and (c) of the definition Ukraine in subsection 2(1) of the act are replaced by the following” is a good or significant change, but that is not what I will talk about today.

What we can talk about are the general principles of supporting free trade and the free trade agreement itself. In that is some of the difficulty that was expressed by the NDP member. He said he had not had the time to discuss this legislation with his caucus and colleagues, which takes me back to discussions with stakeholders.

As part of looking at whether this will be a trade agreement that benefits Canada, we want to talk to stakeholders to see whether they view some of the changes to this free trade agreement as being good or bad. In particular, in the agricultural sector, we are going to be talk about things like sanitary and phytosanitary measures. We are going to look at whether the quotas that will be allowed, the products that are coming in without tariff, are appropriate. This could be in the beef sector, the pork sector or in a whole bunch of agricultural sectors.

Those consultations are ongoing right now. I have reached out to the industries that would be affected by that to find out where they stand on it.

When I attended law school, we had professors very clearly say that the devil was often in the details. I am not 100% sure that Parliament should just pass things without any scrutiny whatsoever. We have learned that when other trade agreements were put forward by the Liberal government and passed rapidly, we ended up with some challenges.

If we look at, for example, free trade with the European Union, we have all kinds of challenges now with the sanitary and phytosanitary measures surrounding beef and pork. It is a particular issue right now in our negotiations with the U.K. It is almost impossible for Canadian beef or pork producers to export into the United Kingdom. They also have great difficulty exporting into the European Union. Why? It is because there are sanitary and phytosanitary measures preventing those exports from taking place. We would think that after this amount of time that these things would be resolved. However, for both things, there are very complicated dispute resolution procedures in place to try to resolve issues of sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures are important. They are put in place to ensure the health of people consuming the products. They are also protections put in place to protect biodiversity, to ensure things are not contained within certain products that could harm biodiversity. These measures are important, but sometimes these sanitary and phytosanitary measures are used as non-tariff barriers, or NTBs. NTBs have become sort of the new way to frustrate free trade. As we look around the world, we see that NTBs are growing in number and there are challenges in resolving those free trade agreements.

I took the time to look at the section in this free trade agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. I am pleased to see that this section sets out that they will be resolved within the rules set out by the World Trade Organization. That is quite a difference from the measures that have been put in place for the resolution of sanitary and phytosanitary measures within CETA, which the U.K. benefits from in the transitional agreement. Trying to resolve those issues through that process has proven to be, if not incredibly complicated, almost impossible. It is good to see that is in this agreement.

If we look at the opportunities for Canada, one of the things I raised in my question to the minister was that the agreement talked about the phase-out of coal. However, in Europe, we have seen the rise in the use of coal by a number of countries as a result of them trying to stop buying Russian gas. As we all know, the purchase of Russian gas is providing revenues and profits to Russia so it can use those monies to fund its illegal war in Ukraine.

Many European countries have asked Canada to export more LNG, and the United States has actually taken that up. It has built a number of LNG export facilities over the last number of years to take advantage of the demand for LNG, including that demand in Europe. Unfortunately, Canada has not taken advantage of that and, in fact, has lost all kinds of opportunities.

However, when talk about transition, we do not transition from coal to a solar panel. Those kinds of transitions generally do not work. We do not transition from coal to a wind turbine and solar. Those things do not work. Both of these things provide intermittent power. Intermittent power makes maintenance of the electric grid more expensive and it is unreliable when there are surges in demand. We need a strong baseload of electricity generation.

I hope that when I have the time to go through this agreement in full, I will see this addresses a great area of potential opportunity for Canada and Ukraine with respect to electricity generation. We have amazing expertise in the production of nuclear reactors, as does Ukraine. Canada has all kinds of uranium that it can export. I really hope there will be some things in the agreement that talk about furthering this kind of development and partnership. It would be both good for Ukraine and good for Canada.

However, transitioning from coal would be beneficial to the world. When we look at energy transitions, we know they do not happen rapidly. In fact, they take a long time. All we have to do is think about how coal was discovered 200 to 250 years ago. We have had gas, natural gas and nuclear for a much shorter period of time, but they have not completely displaced coal even though the power density for both gas and nuclear is far more dense than for coal. Therefore, it makes sense to transition to these things.

This is the challenge in suggesting we transition from coal to solar or wind, because the actual energy density is so much smaller. An electricity plant that would use LNG or nuclear would take up 20 acres, but to get a similar amount of energy from wind or solar, we would be looking at 10 to 100 times that amount of land. The suggestion that we can make those transitions quickly from coal to wind and solar is not feasible and it does not make sense. We should be exploring the opportunities that Canada has with LNG and nuclear.

The Conservative Party is 100% behind supporting Ukraine, supporting trade and free trade. Free trade between free nations is something we support 100%. I look forward to going through this agreement and to the debate on this agreement in the House.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like how my colleague touched on the fact that when this type of legislation and these types of agreements come before the House, it is necessary for us, as parliamentarians, to do wide consultation with stakeholders.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for five and a half years now. One of the concerns brought up to our committee by Chicken Farmers of Canada was the Ukraine remission order that allowed Ukrainian poultry to come into Canada.

It is not that Chicken Farmers of Canada does not want to support our Ukrainian allies, but it felt that more time was needed to ensure that the high standards we have in Canada, especially with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, were in place. Before we had such a system, it felt it was rushed too quickly.

Could my colleague expand on that one notable example? Perhaps there is more that he knows on why with these kinds of agreements, while we know they are being done in good faith and for good reason, we still, as parliamentarians, owe it to the Canadian public and to stakeholders to ensure we iron out all those very fine details because of the unintended consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. In the particular circumstances of that remission order, I agree. I was certainly consulted on that. Chicken farmers were not against supporting Ukraine, but it looked like that was rushed and not all details were looked at. I did talk about that in my speech.

I still remember my contracts professor in my first year of law school saying that the devil was always in the details. We do not look at things in broad strokes if we want to be a good lawyer. We have to get down into the nitty-gritty.

When we look at this agreement, which is somewhere in the range of 600 pages, and we are asked to rush this through, that is how mistakes happen. That is how we end up with agreements with unintended consequences by not scrutinizing them.

It is the job of parliamentarians to scrutinize this and reach out to stakeholder groups that will also be looking at this. They will ensure they look at those details. We should ensure that work gets done.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such enthusiasm for this bill today. We know that there is no shortage of emergencies, including the housing crisis and the climate crisis, but these topics are not on the government's agenda.

My colleague mentioned several interesting things in his speech. We know that we are not reinventing the wheel today; we are modernizing the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which has been in effect since 2017. The fact is that trade with our trade partner Ukraine has grown significantly.

I have a question for my colleague. There was a whole saga in the House about the standing ovation for a former SS soldier, in yet another blunder committed on the world stage by the federal government, or rather the Liberal government. That all happened in conjunction with the presidential visit, when he was here to sign the agreement on September 22.

It seems to me, or rather I am quite convinced, that the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy to come to the House before implementing the new agreement. We are hearing that it is really urgent for us to study this bill today as a priority, and that it must take precedence over the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he think the government could have done this sooner? Does he think the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy's visit to try to restore its image after all the blunders we have seen, such as Chinese interference and the conflict between Canada and India?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the motives are. I do know that this agreement was signed much earlier. If it had been tabled in Parliament earlier, we would certainly have had more debate and more time to scrutinize this particular piece of legislation.

The members of the Liberal Party were chirping when I was speaking about taking the time to study something. There is an old adage saying that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. A government that thinks it can do no wrong and has birthed the perfect agreement is also a fool because mistakes are made. We know that. We know that with respect to beef and pork access to the EU. The Liberals thought they had a deal with a side letter that was going to resolve all kinds of things, but in fact it did not. There is no access, effectively, for beef and pork.

Parliament should do its work. I wish this bill had been brought to Parliament sooner so that there would not be the rush the government is making to get it through Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about the aggressive approach this government has had, virtually since 2015, in recognizing the importance of international trade and how it supports Canada's middle class. In fact, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government. That is a fact.

The member opposite, at the beginning of his speech, said they did this, they did that and they had this in the making. It was this government that ultimately signed and brought to a conclusion a number of deals that have been critically important for fostering more trade between Canada and countries around the world, whether it is the United States, Mexico or those in Europe and Asia.

Would the member not recognize that this is yet another agreement modifying an agreement signed off by the current Deputy Prime Minister a number of years ago and is a positive step forward that both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from?

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

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 people know one can make up statistics about anything. That is effectively what this member is doing in saying they have done the most. Anyone can make up statements about anything.

It is great that they came to the trade party, but they came to the trade party late. I still recall their vehement opposition to free trade with the United States. I led in my speech with what they said about the one final line they would like to change, and they erased the border between Canada and the United States. The member is saying not to go back in time, yet every time we talk about things, they talk about former prime minister Harper, from 2006. It is typically Liberal: They want it their way one way but everybody else has to have it a different way.

I am glad this free trade agreement has been modernized. I look forward to looking at it, examining it and doing the due diligence that it seems like parliamentarians want to do, whether they are in the NDP or the Bloc. The only members who do not seem to want to study this agreement are the Liberals, because as usual, in their arrogance, they believe they have birthed the perfect child and nothing could be wrong with it. We want to verify if that is true.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did an excellent job of highlighting the Liberal failure to support Ukraine in the area of energy security. European countries vitally need the natural resources that Canada is ready to produce and sell.

Last summer, we had emergency hearings at the foreign affairs committee because, instead of supporting the sale of Canadian energy to Europe, the Liberal government gave a sanctions exemption to allow a turbine to be sent to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Germany. We were more interested in facilitating the sale of Russian gas to Germany than in helping to relieve European dependence on Russian natural resources by providing Canadian resources as an alternative.

Could the member share more about the Conservative vision for Canada to be a leader in supporting global energy security by enabling our European allies to no longer be dependent on imports from Russia?

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

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question, the best one so far. The issue the member raised with respect to the export of those turbines was a shameful affront to Ukraine. The Liberal government and Liberal members should be ashamed of that.

If we look at LNG exports to the European market, the United States is at 26%, Qatar is at 24% and Russia is at 20%. Canada could absolutely fill that need if we had a government that recognized that LNG exports are good for lowering emissions, are good for the Canadian economy and would be very good at disrupting the Russian war machine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C‑57, which seeks to modernize the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, or CUFTA. I rise as the Bloc Québécois international trade critic, and I am pleased to speak on behalf of my political party today.

I just want to remind the House that our party is continuing a tradition, because Quebec's independence movement has been advocating for free trade since the 1980s with a view to exiting the Canadian economic framework, which is too narrow. It has been a quite a deal for our SMEs, whose expertise is as valuable as it is diverse. I should note, however, that our position is not categorical: A trade agreement may be bad, and it is what it contains that determines whether or not we support it. If an agreement is going to be harmful to our key sectors, commodify our public services to an unreasonable degree, give multinationals the upper hand or hurt the environment or workers' rights, we would not support it merely because we believe in the virtues of international trade.

In the present case, I will say right now that we will be voting in favour of the principle of the modernized 2023 agreement, since we are still at the principle stage. However, we have a major concern about something that I will talk about a bit later, something that we will be urging the government to commit to changing.

Let us first look at the context. We are talking about modernizing an agreement that dates back to 2017, but we could basically call it a new agreement. The 2017 CUFTA, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine, a symbolic stance, since trade with Ukraine was rather marginal at the time. The negotiations ended in the summer of 2015, just before the election, but the agreement was signed by the current government during the Ukrainian Prime Minister's visit to Ottawa in 2016 and it took effect in 2017. The Bloc Québécois supported that agreement. Given that we wanted to move forward quickly since Ukraine was looking for international support, the 2017 CUFTA was pretty bare-bones. More work could have been done, particularly with regard to the implementation mechanisms that were meant to ensure compliance with the agreement. They were rather weak.

What we have before us today is a real trade agreement. Bill C‑57 is 15 pages long and merely amends Canadian legislation to align it with the agreement's requirements so that the government can go ahead and ratify it. Bill C‑57's clauses are largely technical, as most of them change references to the 2017 CUFTA or other agreements, replacing them with references to the modernized 2023 agreement for consistency. It also authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement and the various dispute settlement bodies.

The modernized 2023 agreement is a comprehensive agreement. We are talking about 1,000 pages. It contains 30 chapters covering trade in goods and services—including special provisions in a number of areas—as well as investment, government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labour law and environmental law. It also includes provisions to favour SMEs or businesses owned and operated by women and indigenous people. It casts the net wide.

For starters, we were pleased to see that the content of the June 2022 order was not included in this agreement. Countries in difficulty or at war are often exempted from Canadian tariffs, but this was the first time supply management was included. Ukraine became totally, or almost totally, exempt from supply management in relation to Canada and its borders. Chicken farmers were very concerned, and for a year, they suffered the ill effects of that access. It was unacceptable. There was no reason for this to happen, especially given the rather ridiculous reasoning behind it. For example, it was alleged, on the basis of studies from several years ago, that there is no bird flu in Ukraine. However, we know that viruses can mutate and that one of the main sources of bird flu in Europe is Poland, which is right next door. Until proven otherwise, birds, such as chickens, do not respect borders. They are not screened at the border. If there were a major outbreak in Poland, it would be surprising if there were no cases, contrary to what was being said in Ukraine.

In short, this agreement covers the components of trade and various related sectors likely to impact trade. Among its 30 chapters, 11 are new since the 2017 CUFTA. The “Cross-Border Trade in Services” chapter sets out the rules applicable to services. The chapter entitled “Development and Administration of Measures” ensures that administrative practices are predictable and consistent. The “Investment” chapter protects investments and replaces the 1994 bilateral agreement for the protection of investments.

The annexes on services and investment non-conforming measures complement the chapter on cross-border trade in services. They clarify its application in specific areas and list the exceptions that both countries wish to retain.

The “Temporary Entry for Business Persons” chapter is a necessary provision for business to occur between the two countries. It did not appear in the 2017 CUFTA.

Although the “Telecommunications” chapter does not completely open up access to the telecommunications market, it guarantees access to the telecommunications infrastructure. It does not cover broadcasting and therefore has no impact on cultural policy. Fortunately, the cultural exemption, as we call it, remains intact, and a good thing too, because we certainly would have fought this provision if it violated the cultural exemption.

The “Financial Services” chapter, which complements the chapter on cross-border trade in services, sets out the rules applicable to financial services without completely opening up the market. The Canadian banking market remains essentially protected. This chapter sets out the rules that facilitate the use of financial services in the other country and the simple flow of capital.

Three chapters are being added to the 2017 CUFTA concerning the participation of certain groups in trade, specifically SMEs, women and indigenous people. This allows preferential measures to be put in place.

There is also the chapter entitled “Good Regulatory Practices”, which codifies the manner in which regulations are adopted to ensure transparency and predictability.

Eight of the chapters in the 2017 CUFTA are being amended. The chapter entitled “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures” relaxes the rules of origin for products containing materials that come from a country with which a free trade agreement has been concluded. The chapter entitled “Digital Trade” clarifies the rules that apply to electronically transmitted data to ensure more efficient flow. The chapter entitled “Competition Policy” clarifies the competition rules that could hinder trade, particularly in the case of Ukraine, where mass privatization occurred after the fall of the U.S.S.R. State monopolies were replaced by private quasi-monopolies that were difficult to break into. The agreement will help address that. The chapter entitled “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” includes the provisions of the 2017 CUFTA, but in a separate chapter to facilitate its implementation.

The chapter entitled “Government Procurement” was in the 2017 CUFTA, but in the form of a statement of intent only. The new agreement includes provisions from the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, which takes it away from the WTO's dispute settlement bodies, which have been paralyzed for years, and gives it instead to the panels under the Canada-Ukraine agreement. This chapter is very important, considering the huge contracts that will be awarded for rebuilding Ukraine, presumably in the near future, as soon as the war is over, which we hope is not too long from now.

The chapters on the environment and labour, which were also statements of intent in the 2017 CUFTA, will now be binding.

Now let us talk about the chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct”. The 2017 CUFTA contained anti-corruption measures. The 2023 agreement adds provisions on responsible business conduct. We know that the government is boasting about this chapter. This section encourages businesses to adopt internationally recognized guidelines and principles of responsible business conduct and corporate social responsibility, but these codes are purely voluntary. It is merely a fine principle. It is completely empty. There is nothing in it but encouragement to follow lofty principles. There is no body to oversee or verify compliance with this chapter.

In other words, we should disregard the siren songs of the Liberals, who are bragging that this chapter will do even more to help in the fight against corruption in Ukraine. That concludes the overview of the new and amended chapters.

Now, there are some potentially predictable effects that would encourage us to support the principle of this agreement. Even though trade between Canada and Ukraine is up by one-third since the 2017 agreement was signed, Ukraine remains a small trading partner for Canada. In 2022, the value of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine was $150.2 million, or 0.02% of the $760 billion in goods Canada exported last year, even in the context of a country at war. The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Again in 2022, imports from Ukraine were valued at $271.2 million, or 0.04% of the $780 billion in Canadian imports. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment.

The trade impact of this new agreement will therefore be marginal, especially given that most of the goods and services are already subject to free trade, because, until proven otherwise, like Ukraine, we are still part of the World Trade Organization. However, this agreement will bring greater predictability than the previous 2017 agreement, which should make things easier.

I will point out that the 2023 agreement provides one extra year of guaranteed access to the Ukrainian market for 20,000 metric tonnes of Canadian pork, a major production sector for Quebec. These provisions should please pork producers. The chapter on government procurement could also become very important during Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, especially for Quebec engineering firms, some of which are very successful internationally. They could be enlisted to help rebuild the country's infrastructure. Dam building, for instance, is an area where our expertise is internationally recognized.

I will now address the concerns we have. As usual, the main one is transparency. Parliament's ability to amend Bill C-57, the subject of today's debate, is fairly limited. Amendments must relate only to the bill and cannot affect the agreement itself. This limitation of parliamentary powers is not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement; indeed, the people's elected representatives in this House, the issue of a monarchical culture, have very little involvement in international treaties. Their power is limited to saying yes or no to whatever the government has signed. We have this agreement before us and there is very little we can do. We cannot say that one item or another needs to be improved or that we are opposed to certain aspects. It is just not possible. We cannot influence the contents of these agreements in any way. By the same token, while provinces are responsible for implementing the parts of the treaty that pertain to their jurisdictions, they are not involved in the negotiations, as opposed to what is done in Europe, for instance, where member states play an integral part. Even if the treaty is with the European Union, negotiations happen with the parliaments of member states.

Again, these democratic shortcomings are not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement. The entire Canadian approach to signing treaties has to be reviewed. Regardless of the issue or political stripe, governments do not really appreciate it when their opponents look too closely at what they do. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is in order. Canada, with its deep-seated monarchical traditions, keeps the treaties it signs in the dark, afraid that they might turn to ashes like vampires if they see the light of day. As a member of Parliament, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to experience that first-hand. In November and December 2020, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, we were forced to examine the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement without seeing the text of the agreement. During that sad bit of absurd theatre, we had witnesses, experts and groups telling us about an agreement about which they knew as much as we did as elected representatives, which is nothing at all.

When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations. This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments.

In 1995, when globalization was in full swing, the legislation governing the department was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. The requirement to submit an annual report was abolished. A Parliament worthy of its name should have procedures to increase democratic control over agreements. The Bloc Québécois tabled seven bills on this between 1999 and 2004.

The other irritants in this agreement are the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. They are in there. This mechanism allows foreign multinationals, foreign investors to sue a state if a policy hampers their ability to turn a profit. This is extremely serious. These types of dispute settlement mechanisms found their way into each and every agreement when signing such agreements was all the rage during the aggressive, triumphant neoliberal years, but it is very serious that Canada is continuing to persistently accept, negotiate and encourage these kinds of agreements.

There are a few things we need to remember about this. These are clauses that have enabled multinationals to sue governments over increases in minimum wage, environmental measures, taxes on soft drinks to counter obesity epidemics in certain countries and moratoriums on drilling. These are protection clauses, a legal tool available to foreign investors to undermine the government's ability to act by leaving the perpetual threat of legal recourse from foreign companies dangling overhead. It is a threat to national sovereignty. It makes it increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues such as social justice, the environment, working conditions and public health if a transnational company believes its right to profit has been infringed. This is censorship of the democratic will.

According to a 2013 UN report, states won these suits 42% of the time and corporations, 31% of the time. The remaining disputes were settled out of court. This means that plaintiffs were able to override the political will of states in 58% of cases either in part, through agreements, or in whole, by winning their case. This quantitative figure, however, overlooks one important factor, namely, the pressure put on states by investor protection clauses. States give up on certain policies early in the discussion and decision-making process to avoid being sued. They self-censor for fear of ending up in court.

In 2014, a report by the European Union's Directorate-General for External Policies stated that these investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms were indeed a public policy roadblock. I remind members that this is the Bloc Québécois's fight. In 2021, I presented a motion that led my committee to undertake a study on the impact of these mechanisms. At our last convention, opposing these mechanisms became part of our platform.

After a health crisis, there is no reason for Canada to stubbornly continue to support such provisions, especially since they were removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. They were included in NAFTA, but removed from CUSMA. Why continue to defend the sovereignty of multinationals and the right to profit, rather than democratic rights and the sovereignty of states?

In the specific case of Ukraine, let me first point out that it will be a rather fragile post-war state. Even though there are opportunities for Quebec and Canadian companies, do we want to colonize that country with a mechanism that could be embarrassing for Ukraine and could incite it to adopt certain measures, because it would be afraid of the backlash from Canadian and Quebec companies looking to make a profit?

At the same time, allowing a company to sue a foreign country directly without obtaining the consent of its home country could have consequences for us. In the case of Ukraine, we know that it has sanctioned several of its own citizens for collaborating with Russia. These sanctions could go as far as seizing their assets. If these Ukrainian citizens who collaborated with Russia also have investments here, and Ottawa decides to mimic the Ukrainian government and seize their assets here, the federal government could be sued for discriminatory expropriation under the agreement.

I will close by urging the government to move forward with an exchange of letters if this agreement is adopted in order to remove this dangerous and unique provision.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is much like the legislation a few years back that was signed off on. It seemed to have received virtually unanimous support of the House, very close to it, and there was a high sense of co-operation in trying to get that legislation through. The legislation now before us would be a modernization of that legislation.

The member talked about how the province of Quebec could really benefit by this, and jurisdictions all over Canada would, in fact, benefit. The member made reference, for example, to the pork industry. Manitoba is very much into the pork industry and also would benefit, not only in that sector but also in other areas. In Canada, there are 1.3 million-plus estimated people of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the hundreds of thousands, perhaps into the millions, of other Canadians who are following what is taking place in Ukraine today.

My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that this legislation would be in good part a win-win for both nations? Now is a great time to try to see this legislation pass, before the end of the year. Would he not agree that this would be a good thing to see happen?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I can say that there is indeed some good. We support the principle and we have no interest in dragging out or disrupting the natural process. Indeed, sooner would be better.

However, I want to reiterate what I was saying at the end: I do not want our reservations to be diminished. I am calling on the government to commit to us, whether through an exchange of letters or through other means, that it will remove the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, as worded in the agreement.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation with the government where international relations are a mess. Our relationship with India is a mess. We just had the Quint, five members of the G7, write a letter condemning Hamas, without even asking Canada. Canada was not even an afterthought in the writing of that letter.

I want to ask the member, given the government's track record with respect to its relationships with other countries and its bungled negotiation of the free trade agreement with the United States, how we can trust the government to implement an agreement, in terms of free trade, with Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, our level of confidence in this government is as low as the official opposition's. We sometimes wonder whether the government truly deserves our trust.

In this case, one of the irritants is transparency and, frankly, the Conservatives are no better in that regard when they are in power. There are models out there in the world. It is not necessary to present an agreement like this and tell us that it is urgent, that we have to adopt it, take it or leave it, and that we cannot change it. Conservatives are no better when they are in power. It is part of Canada's monarchic culture, but it does not have to be that way.

In other countries, for example, in the United States, they have a habit of consulting their elected representatives. The European Union is also in the habit of holding debates. We are the elected representatives of the people. Before sending a negotiator out into the world, we should be given an opportunity to share our views, to be asked what we do not want to see included, what we would like to see as part of the negotiations, what our fundamental values and interests are within this negotiation process. It is the Canadian culture of transparency in trade agreements that needs a thorough overhaul, and this one is highly problematic.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers have worked really hard to protect supply management. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in particular has taken up that fight. The minister seemed to be saying this morning that supply-managed sectors would be excluded and therefore protected. There is definitely a lack of transparency. There are still many aspects of this bill that are worrisome.

Can my colleague reiterate the importance of making the risk of prosecution the same for multinationals as for countries? What does he think should be done next to ensure that we get our fair share and that we can monitor the government's lack of transparency?

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

Mr. Speaker, we can rest easy about the supply management aspect, because the text excludes those sectors. There is nothing that resembles the order the government made on the sly, somewhat surreptitiously, in 2022. We can rest assured on that front.

As for the power of multinationals, we will assess how much flexibility we have because, as I said, there is very little we can change. However, that would be part of it, based on our understanding of the bill at this stage, and we will be able to delve into this further in committee. If it is in the bill, there is nothing to stop us from rejecting this provision during the clause-by-clause study in committee, while supporting the agreement overall. I will vote against this provision, but that does not stop me from reiterating my request to the government for a commitment to remove this provision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the fact that Canada is very fortunate. We have a team of negotiators who have a great deal of experience, years and years of it. I would suggest that Canada is probably second to no other nation in the world in terms of its ability to negotiate. We have always taken the position that it has to be in Canada's best interest first and foremost.

The member seems to be very concerned about the government's going it alone. I would provide some assurances that through the agreements in the past, a few dozen agreements, we have witnessed a team that has achieved a good deal for Canada. Canada has been consulted by the many different stakeholders.

Would the member not agree that at some point in time, we have to allow the negotiators to do their job and get the agreement, and that we cannot change the agreement after it has been signed off on?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to unpack everything I just heard.

First, yes, in its agreements, Canada has some experience in undermining supply management three times, failing to protect aluminum in CUSMA, not pushing for our interests and fundamental values multiple times, and hiding several things from us.

To the question from my colleague who says that we should allow the negotiators to do their job, I say, of course. I never suggested that elected members be sent to negotiate in the negotiators' place, that goes without saying. That idea never even crossed my mind. I do not think that the United States or the European Union are bad negotiators, yet they consult those who have been elected by the people. When the member says that nothing can be changed once the agreement is signed, what option do we have other than to fight the agreement? We cannot say that we are 75% in favour and 25% against the agreement and then choose what we will take and what we will leave. In other words, we have to take all or nothing. We cannot cherry-pick here. I call this a miscarriage of democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This bill would update the agreement made in 2017. Much has happened in the past six years, as we all know.

First, I would like to speak a bit about the original agreement, as it forms the core of the present one, then cover some of the changes outlined in Bill C-57. I will wrap up with some comments about how free trade agreements are presented to Parliament for the debate that they deserve.

The NDP is very much in favour of free trade agreements. We hear catcalls from both sides every time we debate free trade agreements here, saying that the NDP is always against them. We are not. We have voted for free trade agreements in the past and we voted for the Ukraine free trade agreement when it was presented. Our main caveat for these agreements is that they be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs, protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment, and promote the well-being of our citizens. The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian companies. It must also 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. I have to say that this new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us that would implement that agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Today, there are more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of that heritage and their cultural traditions.

Canada has consistently supported Ukraine's development and reform efforts, providing over $460 million in international assistance between 2014 and 2021. Of course, Canada and Canadians have been strong supporters of Ukraine since the illegal invasion by Russia in February 2022. Since then, Canada has committed over $8.9 billion in assistance, including financial, development, humanitarian, military security, stabilization and immigration aid.

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 I think it is fair to say that Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during these horrific times in their struggles.

I would like to step back a bit in time and spend some time talking about the original agreement. I would like to thank Tracey Ramsey, who is the former member for Essex, the NDP international trade critic when the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was debated and came into effect. Tracey was and remains a passionate defender of Canadian workers, and she took her role very seriously. She recommended that the NDP support the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement because it upheld those basic principles I mentioned previously.

The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports. Following the signature of the original trade agreement, Canada's non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. Total merchandise trade reached an all-time high of $447 million in 2021, although that of course declined in 2022 because of the illegal invasion.

The original free trade agreement eliminated most of the tariffs on Canadian imports to Ukraine and Ukrainian imports to Canada. Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal. Canadian products that benefit from the free trade agreement include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood.

While the original free trade agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it did not include the investor-state dispute settlement system, ISDS provisions. It is important to note that these provisions actually existed before the free trade agreement came into place because in 1995, Canada and Ukraine signed a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which included these investor-state provisions.

The NDP, in general, does not like ISDS provisions because they allow foreign corporations to literally tell Canadian governments at all levels how they should be protecting their environment or protecting their people. We believe that is an infringement on our sovereignty and we think that ISDS provisions do not have a place in any foreign free trade agreement. We are happy to see that the new Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement did not include them. They were in both the Canada-Europe trade agreement and the CPTPP. We believe that foreign investors should be obligated to go through domestic courts before being granted access to a special court where they can sue our governments, and that should be done at the state-to-state level.

New Democrats analyze trade deals as a whole. As I say, we have supported trade deals in the past, including the Ukraine agreement and the South Korea deal.

The original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement entered into force in 2017. It has a review clause that it be reviewed within two years of entry into force with a regard to expanding it and that was done. In 2019, Canada and Ukraine agreed to modernize the free trade agreement with expanded sections. There were public consultations held in the winter of 2020, but those consultations did not seem to include the Parliament of Canada. I will talk more about that later.

Canadian and Ukrainian officials conducted negotiations from May 2022 to April 2023. The new agreement includes more chapters on a broader array of services and business. It covers professional services like engineering, legal, computer services and telecommunications. It covers investment. It covers temporary entry for business persons. There are other sections that promote more broad interactions around trade and commerce. These are chapters that are included in other free trade agreements that Canada has with other countries and we welcome them here.

The agreement also has an updated environment chapter, which is subject to dispute settlement, aiming to ensure parties do not lower the levels of environmental protection to attract trade or investment. Again, that is obviously an important part of trade agreements. Trade agreements should raise the level of the standard of living of people in both countries in commercial and financial terms, but also in terms of their environment, human rights and labour dealings.

This bill has an updated labour chapter, which is again subject to dispute settlement provisions. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in both countries.

As I say, the NDP in general supports this kind of free trade agreement. Whether we support this bill or not, I would like to say here that, unfortunately, this bill was tabled only last Tuesday and I have not had time to bring it before the NDP caucus for discussion, which happens on Wednesdays, as we all know. This is a big, complex agreement and the NDP caucus likes to discuss all legislation before we decide whether we will support it.

We think it is important to allow Parliament to have input into trade negotiations before they begin. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. When the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was tabled, the government followed that policy. It tabled the enabling legislation along with an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment more than 21 sitting days after tabling the treaty. However, the government did not follow any of these standard procedures when introducing CETA, the Canada-Europe trade agreement. We were happy when it followed those procedures in the previous first version of the Canada-Ukraine agreement, but it seems that the government has forgotten those policies with this new agreement.

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 deal was already finalized, and the government said that 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 the priorities of their country will be 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-U.S.-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:

To require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the [committee on international trade].

To require objectives for negotiations towards a new free trade agreement to 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 about the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but as far as I can tell, and we have done some research on this, the matter was never referred to the international trade committee or tabled in the House.

The government also seems to have broken standard policies on introducing implementation legislation for free trade agreements and other treaties. There should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and tabling of legislation, and that did not happen with this agreement. On top of that, as I mentioned, the minister tabled this legislation last Tuesday and here we are debating it on Monday. This is a big, complicated bill. There was no opportunity for opposition parties to discuss this in caucus last Wednesday.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine and we will be discussing this new legislation in caucus on Wednesday. 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; these are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the NDP voted in favour of trade agreements in the past and will be reviewing this one on Wednesday, but does he believe that this agreement in Bill C-57 will make life better for workers both in Canada and in Ukraine and vote in favour?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we were in favour of the previous agreement, and this agreement seems to be an improvement and an expansion on that.

There are many details, the devil is always in the details in free trade agreements, and we will be taking a closer look at that agreement over the next couple of days. However, as I said, there is supposed to be 21 sitting days between so that we can have that time to really look at things closely. I think there might have been 10 sitting days between the time the treaty was signed and the enabling legislation tabled and only a couple of sitting days since the actual implementation legislation was tabled. That is where I think the government should have done better.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay gave a fulsome review on such short notice. I really appreciate the amount of research he has done already on it.

I want to ask a specific question on article 13.10 of the free trade agreement, which focuses on climate. That section commits both parties to “work together to pursue domestic and global efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”. That is the globally recognized amount to prevent climate breakdown. It is a really important number.

What is also true is we are in a country right now that is continuing to build new fossil fuel infrastructure, including owning and expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline, in which we have invested $30 billion. The UN Secretary General has called this “moral and economic madness.” We continue to invest around $20 billion a year to subsidize the very industry most responsible for the crisis we are in. I would love to hear a comment from the member on how he reconciles what he is seeing from the federal government right now when it comes to continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry and yet committing to a treaty that would purport to ensure we do our part on the climate crisis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for taking part in a press conference I held with the member for Timmins—James Bay on that subject last week, where we called both the government and fossil fuel companies to account for the fact the International Energy Agency has said we cannot move forward with any new fossil fuel projects and here we are, as he mentioned, $30 billion into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I could go on and on about other projects.

This is something the government and the fossil fuel industry need to face. The fossil fuel industry has known since the 1980s where we are headed. It warned in the 1980s that it could not go down that path, and then it decided that would be too expensive and there was too much money to be made. We need to call both the government and the industry to account on this and make some very important changes very quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard that two years ago the Deputy Prime Minister had informed our finance critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, that on all future free trade agreements, the government would give 90 days' notice to this House, that 30 days before the start of negotiations the government would notify the House of the objectives of the free trade agreement and that at the same time as the implementing legislation was tabled in the House, the government would also table an economic impact assessment.

Can my colleague share with us why this is so important for us to be able to do our job in this House and for the input from outside the House from different stakeholders who would be impacted?

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard the member for Winnipeg North say that we have had good negotiators and that, once they finish the negotiations, that will be it as we will not have any opportunity or reason to intercede. We have real reason to intercede beforehand, when we can talk and discuss in this place what our priorities should be in free trade agreements or any treaty regarding this country.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona brought this to the minister before we were negotiating the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement because the United States was already holding debates within their congress about what priorities they should have in these negotiations. We did not have that opportunity. There was a commitment made in policy that this would be the way things move forward, yet for this agreement, which is really the first agreement we have entered into since CUSMA, this has not been followed. I asked the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Windsor West, who was our international trade critic, if it had happened. We queried the clerk of the committee on international trade on if this happened. Nobody could find any evidence of it happening.

This is what we have been pushing for. We want to help the government really form good policy to negotiate good treaties. We should have some discussions before our good negotiators take their jobs and negotiate the treaties. We should give them some direction that comes from all of us here.

We come from different parts of the country and from different backgrounds. We have to have that input in these negotiations to make sure that they will benefit all Canadians. That is what the NDP really stands for, that these agreements should help not just corporations but all Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are in favour of free and fair agreements, although we still have not had a chance to really review this one.

One of the principles of a free trade agreement is that it help the economies of both countries. I was wondering if my NDP colleague could comment on this. Right now in Ukraine there is a noose and a stranglehold because of Russia, especially with the energy side. Looking at lower emissions, does it not really make sense that Canada would really focus on exporting clean, liquid natural gas to Ukraine and to Europe in general to help, not only from a geopolitical standpoint, but also from a practical standpoint? If we want to improve its economy, does it not make sense to give Canadian, clean, liquid natural gas to Ukraine instead of having Russia have a stranglehold over that entire country?

Could he comment on the common sense of that approach?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will avoid a long debate about how clean liquid natural gas is and the whole idea of liquid natural gas actually being a good way to move forward with climate action, but I will say that there are liquid natural gas projects that are well on the way to completion in British Columbia. They take time. They cannot be built overnight. They are being built very quickly.

I would hope that this illegal action, this war in Ukraine, would not be going on by the time they are eventually shipping liquid natural gas. There are countries around the world that are much better placed, because of their situations, to supply that liquid natural gas to Ukraine, but Canada is moving in that direction. I just hope that the war is over by the time we are able to help in that regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to follow up on the last question and answer it because I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. The overriding thing has got to be the issue of trade agreements in principle and how it is that Canada has been a major benefactor through world trade.

We are very much a trading nation. For us to be able to hit the potential that Canada has in the future, we are very much dependant on international trade. All one needs to do is to take a look at any province, territory or community and the impact that international trade has had on every one of us in Canada. It affects us all. When we talk about good-quality, middle-class jobs, these are the ways in which we are going to be able to get many of those middle-class jobs.

This government has been focused on that virtually from day one, the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That has been a priority of this government. How can one make it a priority and not deal with the issue of trade? That is the reason, and I put this forward in the form of a question earlier, there is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and the government.

Contrary to how the member tried to respond in his question, one cannot change history. That is the reality. The reason why we have recognized the value of international trade and how that helps all of us is that we have seen the results of it, the growth in the economy. Prepandemic, we had already exceeded over a million additional jobs. That was prepandemic, based on the type of economic polices that were being developed and implemented here in Canada. It was having a positive impact.

The original Ukraine agreement was one of the first ones that was signed off on. I believe it was the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who went to Ukraine and signed off on it. A few years later, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister met and had a discussion about how important it was that we modernize that particular agreement. There were a number of things they felt could be done to improve the agreement.

There were sound negotiations, which I made reference to earlier. We are very fortunate because of the number of trade agreements and memoranda of understanding we have been able to put into place. We have an incredible team of negotiators who negotiate on Canada's behalf. I would ultimately argue that they are second to no other team in the world. They have been at it, and we have accomplished so many agreements.

Members ask about this or that region, what is taking place in this or that region or how we feel as the House of Commons. I suspect that, whether or not it is in debates after previous agreements, the experiences and the discussions that take place with the many different stakeholders, whether municipalities, provinces, indigenous people or many other stakeholders, leading into the negotiations, give a very good sense of what would work well for us as a nation.

Ultimately, one could say that the proof is in the pudding. Look at the number of agreements that Canada now has with other countries. No other country has the same sort of access as Canada does around the world, even the United States, with those formal agreements. We have been aggressive in recognizing the importance of achieving these agreements because all of us benefit through them.

I define the benefits as raising the standard of living for Canadians and creating thousands of good-quality middle-class jobs, which provide the type of revenue that supports the government in bringing forward good government programs. This is where the focus of the government has been.

We look at the agreement being debated today, and I am sensitive to what is being said with respect to the input before signing. Why are we now being asked to either agree or not agree with it by way of a question?

I think it is important to recognize the process by which the negotiations take place. The Prime Minister cannot take a document, sit down with the President of Ukraine and say that this is the agreement per our negotiators and the feedback we have received from literally hundreds if not thousands of stakeholders, who are now signing off on it, much like we would not expect the Ukrainian Parliament to try to change the agreement itself. That is how it has worked for a while now, and it has been very successful.

Members have made reference to wanting to see a bit of a change. Let us put that in a different perspective. I could be wrong on this, but if memory serves me correctly, this could be the first time in modern history where a trade agreement is being achieved when one of the countries is at war. Ukraine has a lot of things on its plate right now, yet as a country, it recognizes just how important it is to look at securing the modernization of a trade agreement.

It says a lot when a country at war is looking to Canada, which has been a dear friend to Ukraine, saying how important it is that we have a modern trade agreement. That was a president to a prime minister. It was signed off last month, in September. Given all the other issues we are facing, how often do I stand in the chamber to talk about the impacts of inflation, how it is hurting Canadians, the issue of interest rates and so many other issues? As a government, we recognize how important it is that we continue to push on the file between Canada and Ukraine in a tangible way. If we put it in the perspective of Ukraine being at war, given our previous negotiations and achievements through trade agreements, in particular the Ukraine trade agreement, I think there is a valid argument to be made that there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing this legislation to, at the very least, go to committee.

I realize this is day one of the debate, but what concerns me is that the Conservatives' critic, in particular, has indicated that they want to have a more thorough debate, but there was no indication as to how long they would like to debate it. I am hoping that they, in particular, will not use House and procedural tactics to filibuster this legislation.

The stakeholders, whether in Ukraine or Canada, see the benefit of having this type of legislation pass. Personally, I would like to see it go to the Senate before Christmas because it still has to pass at the Senate, which is very much doable.

I want to emphasize this: We all talk about what is happening in Ukraine today, with the illegal invasion of Russia into its sovereign territory. Here we have an opportunity to make a very powerful statement by believing in our negotiators. Members have a copy of the agreement.

Even New Democrats voted in favour of the original Ukraine trade agreement. Collectively, as a House, we can send a very strong message to Europe and to Ukraine by saying that Canada is going to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. This trade agreement would empower more economic commerce between the two nations. It would enable a wider spectrum of services and goods. It would put into place dispute mechanisms.

Ukraine will prevail over Russia. When that happens, it is going to need and want to see its allied countries come to the table. Canada will be there. This is one of the ways we can be there in a real way. That is why I would suggest that we should deal with this legislation in the same format as we did for the first piece and allow it to pass relatively quickly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, we were talking about the importance of trade agreements to the nation. At the beginning of my comments, I highlighted how Canada was very much a trading nation. When I look at this modernization of the Ukraine trade agreement, I note that the original one was signed not that long ago, but a lot of things have changed since that. With respect to modernizing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I cannot help but think about what is taking place in Europe today and everything Ukraine is going through.

Allied forces and others have said, both in the House and beyond Canadian borders, that they are in solidarity with Ukraine. There is support for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. Trade relations with Ukraine go back to 2014 when Ukraine made the decision to try to build stronger, healthier economic links with the European Union. That was one of the reasons why we saw what took place, the attack on Ukraine independence and the Maidan Square. When I was in opposition, I had the opportunity to go and witness some of the aftermath. The people of Ukraine wanted to have enhanced trade relations with the European Union.

The president of Ukraine, who was elected after 2014, came to Canada and spoke on the floor of the House of Commons, albeit in Centre Block. He said to former prime minister Stephen Harper and the government that Ukraine and Canada had a very special relationship, that their legislatures and members of Parliament should look at ways to enhance that. He cited the importance of trade and the potential of a trade agreement.

I remember discussing it years ago with the minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister. We had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine, to be in Kyiv. We talked about the important relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the constitutional changes, the institutions and economic trade.

I was very pleased with one of the very first agreements that begun prior to 2016, when the first agreement was signed. I was very proud of the fact that it responded to original speech in 2014, that there was some movement. However, I was especially proud of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Deputy Prime Minister today were in a position to sign that formal agreement shortly after taking office. That in itself speaks to the special relationship between Canada and Ukraine.

Let us fast forward to Russia making an illegal attack on Ukraine sovereignty. The reaction throughout the world was very profound and positive in favour of Ukraine, recognizing the importance of sovereignty. It has been at a substantial cost. Ukraine today is fighting for, and demonstrating the importance of this throughout the world, democracy, rule of law and sovereignty. The Ukrainians have really stepped up to the plate. With all the things that are taking place in Ukraine today, the Ukrainians have recognized the importance of trade agreements.

The Prime Minister and the president met a couple of years ago. September 2022 is when the agreement was signed, but it was back in July 2019 that President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister agreed that we needed to do some sort of modernization to make some changes. These changes would ultimately broaden the goods and services, ensure a dispute mechanism and ensure better labour and working standards. We can look at how it would deal with environmental issues, and that is all within this particular trade agreement.

The Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine came together, recognized the importance of it and, just last month, signed an agreement. Now that agreement is before us, and we have an opportunity, through this legislation, to make a very strong, powerful commitment to our dear friends in Ukraine. We talk about that special relationship. Canada has a very special relationship, which goes back to 1991, in declaring our support for Ukraine as an independent country.

We often hear that 1.3 million-plus people who call Canada home are of Ukrainian heritage. There are tens of thousands of people who have been displaced from Ukraine because of the war who are now living in Canada, many in my home city of Winnipeg.

This particular agreement makes a very powerful statement. Ukraine does matter. This agreement does matter. Both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from it. Trade agreements are one of the ways to ensure that we continue to provide and grow middle-class jobs, both here in Canada and in Ukraine. This is legislation that has been negotiated, as I indicated earlier, by some of the world's best negotiators when it comes to trade. I am confident that the deal would be advantageous, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine.

The Conservative Party's initial comments on their desire to have a lot of people speak to this legislation concern me. Hopefully we can get this legislation passed, through the Senate and all, before Christmas.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what we can do with our Ukrainian allies.

My concern is the $54 billion in damaged housing in Ukraine, destroyed or damaged, which is almost 9% of the housing stock. There is massive damage to the energy grid and to the infrastructure, which makes it almost impossible to run an economy. There is massive environmental damage.

I want to know, beyond signing an agreement, what steps the government would take to work with Ukraine on that. The government here is having a very hard time addressing our own housing crisis, our own need to build an energy grid and infrastructure, and the climate disasters that has hit us.

How can we honestly say to Ukraine that we will be there to deal with the horrific impacts of the war Putin has caused, there for Ukraine to rebuild, while also saying to Canadians that we will be here to make sure we get the necessary housing, build the electricity grid and address the horrific costs of the climate fires?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that we took a holistic approach to dealing with the relationship between Canada and Ukraine. At this time, with the war taking place in Europe, it is important to recognize that the trade agreement is one aspect of the type of support we can provide.

There is the issue of infrastructure. As the member points out, there has been incredible damage to infrastructure. There are discussions taking place between Canada and Ukraine dealing with infrastructure. Even this trade agreement would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine. Ukraine will prevail, and this trade agreement we are talking about today would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine.

Just the other day I met with a young man by the name of Max. He is a Ukrainian intern I had a couple of years ago here in Canada, and he was talking about the importance of infrastructure. He understood that one of our standing committees will be looking at the issue of infrastructure, possibly dealing specifically with Ukraine. Over the lunch discussion I had with him, he was hoping to come back to add to that particular debate.

Canada is supporting Ukraine in many different ways, but today we can send a very strong and powerful message, an economic message, talking about the trade relations and how both Canada and Ukraine would benefit by them.

[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?

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

Mr. Speaker, our party supports having clear, rule-based dispute resolution mechanisms that allow for certainty for businesses and that contribute to felicitous relationships among allies.

The member mentioned a number of sectors that are very important. Of course, there is Ukraine's agriculture sector. Canada has an important agriculture sector as well. One of the things now being explored at the foreign affairs committee, I know, is a study that Conservatives have put forward on looking at the food and fuel security implications of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian farmers play a critical role. We know that the World Food Programme has sourced significantly from Ukraine in the past, and the disruption to the flow of food from Ukraine has significant implications for people in parts of Africa that rely on imports from Ukraine. There are opportunities for more collaboration on cybersecurity between different parts of our agricultural sectors; on energy, as I spoke about; and in many other areas.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's hon. colleague, the member for Abbotsford, spoke very eloquently just a few minutes ago about the Conservative Party's mantra for free trade, CPTPP, CETA and some other agreements that were signed. However, during the Brexit debate, there were many members across the aisle who were pro-Brexit, who were for tearing up trade agreements and for the U.K.'s leaving. We have seen the results of that.

Here we are debating, and we virtually have unanimity for, an expanded or improved Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Would the hon. member not agree that anyone who really thought about Brexit was really mistaken about the results, because we have seen the results in the British economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, respectfully to my hon. colleague, that is pretty far afield. I have to say that I have many thoughts on the Spanish-Dutch trading relationship in the 16th century as well. I do think some mistakes were made at that time.

I will just say, with a little bit more seriousness, that there are trade agreements and there are also political partnerships that nations pursue. Those questions about the kind of political relationships that nations wish to have with each other, I think, are proper, legitimate debates for the people in those countries to have among themselves and to come to their own conclusions.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the cost of inaction and the importance of supporting Ukraine through its current situation. I agree. Given the rising cost of living, some of my constituents, who also want what is best for people in other parts of the world, wonder why the taxes they pay are often sent to support other communities in other countries. While I think that doing so is entirely commendable, I can understand why they are wondering this. At a time when we are finding it hard to manage some of our own issues, why are we not investing more here, at home?

I know that my colleague is very interested in international relations. He knows how important it is to support other communities in need around the world. How would he answer a question like that from a constituent?

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer would be that investments in international peace and security, if we make the comparison to domestic life, are like the investments that individuals make in an alarm system. When someone invests in peace and security in protecting themselves, it gives them greater peace of mind and is a way of protecting them from possible threats that may come. The threats may never manifest themselves, but those are still often wise investments to make.

In the case of supporting Ukraine, we are talking about a threat that will potentially come to us and to our other partners in NATO, but Ukraine is on the front lines of that threat. Ukraine stands between us and those kinds of threats. Therefore, investments in international peace and security are not charity; they are, in fact, very much in our own interest. There are several conversations we could have about things that are more in the category of pure charity, but this is clearly a case of our investing in our own collective security with like-minded countries, with Ukraine being on the front line of that battle.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for the leadership he has shown on this file, going back to 2014-15 when he was minister of trade. I had the pleasure of accompanying him on a trade mission to Ukraine when we started this whole process.

As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan mentioned, he has been a very strong advocate for Ukraine and its ability to defend itself against the Russian invasion and the atrocities that Putin and his proxies are committing in Ukraine. In the trade agreement, the Liberals would be sneaking in one of their ideological platform ideas on carbon taxing and carbon pricing.

Does the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan believe that it is important to put carbon pricing on energy? Every time I have talked to Ukrainians whenever I have been in Ukraine, they want more of our energy and more of our technologies so they can produce more energy there to replace the Russian oil and gas they have to use, which fund Putin's war machine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this critical issue, going back long before I was even in this place.

When I talk to politicians in Europe about energy, they recognize the urgency of the situation. They are looking for all of the above. They want more Canadian energy. They want more energy from other sources. They are in an urgent crunch and they need energy from all sources. The Liberal government continues to put its ideological head in the sand and ignore that situation of urgency.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise in the House on this lovely Monday afternoon. It is a nice day outside. I wish to say that I will be splitting my time with my friend and hon. colleague, the member for Sherbrooke, which is a beautiful part of the country in Quebec.

We are speaking about Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. We all know that we have Ukraine's back and the backs of the Ukrainian people who are fighting for their freedom, security and democracy. We know their fight is our fight. We know they are lauding their homeland, and they have to win. There is no choice in this matter.

I have heard some members speak quite eloquently on what faces us. Ukraine must win this battle versus tyranny and the authoritarian dictatorship that not only has unjustifiably and illegally invaded Ukraine and its territorial sovereignty, but also did so in 2014 in another part of Ukraine, Crimea and the surrounding areas. We know that Russia is involved in the Middle East in destabilizing countries. It is fighting against democracy while we are fighting for democracy and human rights. We on all sides of the aisle, along with all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, need to stand and continue to stand with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people for their sovereignty and for the freedom of all Ukrainian people. We know of the atrocities that have been committed by the Russian forces against Ukrainian women, soldiers and the Ukrainian people, and those folks need to be held accountable. We know that Ukraine will have to be rebuilt in many areas.

We know that the trade and investment ties that exist between Canada and Ukraine must continue to strengthen. Bill C-57 would be another step in this process. We know that Canada is a trading nation, whether with CUSMA, the renegotiated free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico, or CETA with the European Union. I hope one day, when we are speaking about CETA and the EU, that Ukraine will be a full-fledged member of the European Union. I know that on June 23, 2022, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for candidate status for Ukraine regarding its EU membership in that process. Therefore, let us look forward to brighter days, as the brave Ukrainian soldiers continue their fight against tyranny.

We know that Canada benefits from free trade agreements and that its trading partners benefit, whether from the Canada-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, the Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement or the Canada-Taiwan investment accord. We know that with Europe, for example, we attained in 2021 a record high growth of $100 billion in trade. This will be critical as we move forward with Ukraine. The revision of the trade deal with Ukraine, which, to my understanding, is supported by all sides, would help not only the Canadian economy but also the Ukrainian economy.

Canada will be there not only today but also tomorrow to help rebuild Ukraine with our partners who believe in democracy, human rights and the freedoms of individuals, unlike many other countries in the world. It is a sad state of affairs when there are so many countries run by authoritarian governments that are fighting against that and rolling back rights, whether it be the Islamic regime in Iran against its citizens, the Hamas terrorist organization and proxy for Iran in the world doing what it did on October 7 with the slaughter of over 1,400 Israeli and foreign nationals, or other countries as well.

In response to the criticism of international trade that has led to rising protectionism and a retreat from the international rules-based order, Canada is committed to creating more opportunities for people to engage in and benefit from trade. As such, as part of the Government of Canada's trade diversification strategy, we are pursuing an inclusive approach to trade that seeks to ensure that more Canadians have access to the benefits and opportunities that flow from international trade and investment. This includes Canadians who have traditionally been under-represented in international trade and investment, including women, SMEs and indigenous peoples. This means seeking trade policies that are sustainable, transparent and inclusive.

Today, I am proud to announce that the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, or CUFTA, reaches these high standards with respect to inclusive trade with specific chapters on trade and gender, trade and SMEs and trade and indigenous peoples.

We know there are well over a million Ukrainian Canadians who have helped build this beautiful country. Their contributions are so richly valued. We know there are almost 200,000 Ukrainians who have come over in the last two or three years because of the war.

We know they are working hard to build this blessed country we call home, Canada. Hopefully some of them will return to Ukraine to help rebuild that country, in the parts of the country that have been impacted, and others will stay. God bless them all. Their contributions are noted from coast to coast to coast.

Allow me to give an overview of the new chapters of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The chapter on trade and gender aims to promote gender equality and remove barriers to trade for women in all their diversity and facilitate their improved access to the benefits and opportunities of CUFTA.

For Canada, advancing women's equality could add up to $150 billion to our GDP by 2026. To ensure that the benefits of free trade can be maximized and widely shared, it is important, therefore, for Canada to consider gender-related issues when developing trade policy and negotiating FTAs. As such, this chapter aims to empower more women to participate in trade and benefit from the modernized free trade deal upon its entry into force.

To achieve these goals, the trade and gender chapter includes an article committing parties to enforce, and not weaken, their domestic laws and protections afforded to women in order to attract trade and investment. It also includes a commitment to undertake co-operation activities, as well as the establishment of a committee to facilitate the chapter's implementation.

Additionally, and responding to stakeholder demands to see the enforceability of the trade and gender chapter, Canada and Ukraine delivered by replicating the dispute settlement arrangement found in the Canada-Israel FTA trade and gender chapter. This sends an important signal to Canadian stakeholders that Canada is committed to advancing gender equality and women's economic empowerment at home and abroad.

Another new chapter concluded under the CUFTA modernization is the chapter on trade and SMEs that seeks to enhance their ability to participate in and benefit from the opportunities created by the agreement.

Over the 2015-19 period, SMEs contribution to Canada's GDP was, on average, 53.2% in the goods-producing sector and 51.8% in the services-producing sector. Additionally, in 2021, small- and medium-sized businesses composed, respectively, nearly 98% and 1.9% of the 1.21 million employer businesses in Canada. Based on this recognition of the importance of SMEs to the economy, both Canada and Ukraine are committed to working together to remove barriers so that SMEs may be better placed to participate in and benefit from international trade and investment.

It is very important to note that it is not just trade and investment that is really important in this deal. It is also the expertise that Canadian business have here at home that would be utilized by Ukrainian businesses in rebuilding certain areas of Ukraine that have been impacted by war, in strengthening their standard of living and in allowing Ukrainian SMEs to proactively grow their trade.

As economists say, international trade tends to lift all boats. We have seen it throughout the world in the last decades, how trade has literally lifted hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people out of poverty, improving standards of living, not only here at home but abroad.

I wish to end with the belief that we will have unanimous support in implementing this bill. There are over a million Ukrainians working hard today in Canada, making sure that their kids have brighter futures. They are looking to Parliament to pass good legislation, like all Canadians are.

Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, is a good piece of legislation. Much as other members have stated, Canada is an open economy. We are a trading people. We are competitive folks who compete in a global economy. Our workers are the best in the world. They are skilled, they are hungry, but they are also folks who would like to trade with other like-minded countries in the world. Ukraine is a like-minded partner.

Ukraine must win this war against Russia. There is no question about that. We must always be there for them. I believe we have dedicated almost $10 billion of resources to Ukraine in their fight against Russia. As a government, we must continue to stand together with Ukraine against Russia, no ifs, ands or buts, to ensure that victory, to ensure that democracy always wins over the evil that Ukraine has faced for the last two years in the unjustified, illegal, atrocious Russian aggression that Ukrainian soldiers are fighting against today.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on the need to provide more support to Ukraine.

The member talked about the military aid we provide for Ukraine. I can tell members that when I was in Ukraine earlier this summer, they were very grateful for the support that Canada has given them. However, as Conservatives, we have been advocating for quite some time that the Government of Canada actually provide more military aid to Ukraine, including more weapons.

One of the things that we are about to be decommissioning here in Canada, and some have already been sent off to the scrap heap, is a number of our older armoured vehicles. Armatec, in London, Ontario, has offered to take those old vehicles, refurbish them and send them off to Ukraine to help them win this war. We know that the M113 track LAVs that Canada has would be very welcome along with our old Bisons and Coyotes that are in the process of being retired.

The old M113s that were sent from the United States and Australia have actually helped liberate Kharkiv, and we know that in this fight today, the more Ukrainians are being put in armed vehicles, the more they can push back and the more they can win.

I would ask the member if he would support having Armatec refurbish old, outdated LAVs that the Government of Canada is retiring from the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that whatever we can send in resources to the brave Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines fighting the Russian regime's illegal invasion, we need to assist in. I am not an expert on military equipment or supplies, but if the Canadian defence forces and the Minister of National Defence deem that the equipment identified would be useful and available for the Ukrainian forces, then I am a believer that we need to do everything we can to support the Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines fighting for democracy, human rights and everything we believe in as a country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my concern is that while we support Ukraine and we want to make sure that we can deal with the horrific war that has gone on, until we deal with the massive destruction of homes, the massive destruction of the environment, there is not going to be much of a trade going on, and we are now coming into the second winter of a brutal war.

I want to follow up on what my Conservative colleague asked about on the light armoured vehicles. We know that General Dynamics in London can produce them, which is an advantage that Canada has. We cannot compete militarily with some of our allies, but light armoured vehicles from General Dynamics could do the job. Is this government willing to augment the supply force that it has already sent to Ukraine in order to hold the Russians back in what is going to be a very hard winter coming?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, last week, I was at the Council of Europe meetings. We did have a bilateral meeting with Ukraine.

Yes, winter is coming, the leaves are falling off the trees and the Ukrainian soldiers are going to be more exposed to the air superiority that the Russians do enjoy right now. As I said to the hon. colleague in the prior question, we as Canadians should be doing everything we can to support the brave men and women fighting for Ukraine against Russia. They are fighting for the values we deeply believe in. If it is deemed that there is equipment that can help them, then I am a hawk on this, and we should assist them in all possible manners.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Safety; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Democratic Institutions; and the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Housing.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today in support of the legislation to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and present to the House important new additions that were negotiated in the area of services.

Nine specific new chapters and nine updated chapters of the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement are the result of extensive negotiations as part of our efforts to bring the agreement up to date and make it ambitious, exhaustive and inclusive.

Among these chapters, five of them concern the general area of services, with new or expanded chapters on cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, financial services, telecommunications and digital trade, formerly e-commerce.

These new commitments will allow Canadian service companies, which accounted for 78.8% of employers in 2021, mostly SMEs, to operate overseas without any additional barriers and with easier and more predictable access to the Ukrainian market.

Now, if I may, I will provide a more detailed overview of these chapters, which would make this agreement a positive addition for Canadian firms and a model agreement for Ukraine to demonstrate its ability to reach a modern, ambitious and high standard agreement with partners all around the world.

Canada and Ukraine have negotiated a modern and comprehensive chapter on cross-border trade in services, including substantive obligations consistent with Canada's existing trade agreements. This FTA chapter would provide market access, non-discriminatory treatment, transparency and predictability for both Canadian and Ukrainian service suppliers.

Additionally, this chapter includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications seeking to facilitate trade in professional services, which is strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

The chapter on temporary entry for business persons is another new chapter, which supports economic opportunities for Canadians, including permanent residents, by making it easier for business persons to move between the two countries as well as encouraging highly skilled workers to benefit from jobs in both markets.

The temporary entry provisions remove barriers such as economic need assessments and digital quotas and establish new reciprocal commitments in terms of market access for Canadian and Ukrainian business persons who meet certain conditions.

This includes new access for Canadian investors to enter and stay in Ukraine to establish, develop or administer an investment, with a duration of stay of up to one year, thereby facilitating business opportunities and the growth of partnerships. The chapter also includes commitments that would ensure accompanying spouses of Canadian investors, intra-corporate transferees or highly skilled professionals would also be able to enter Ukraine and work.

For Canada, this chapter offers options and benefits to Canadian employers, who will have greater access to highly skilled Ukrainian talent on a temporary basis in a wide range of professions, such as engineering, programming, development and architecture.

As part of the CUFTA modernization, Canada also negotiated a comprehensive and progressive stand-alone financial services chapter with Ukraine that would provide a level playing field through a framework of rules tailored to the unique nature of the financial sector. This includes ambitious commitments for financial services through legally binding rights and obligations while maintaining flexibility for regulators to preserve the integrity and stability of the financial system.

The chapter on telecommunications offers more legal certainty to telecommunications service providers operating or investing in the Ukrainian and Canadian markets.

This chapter also facilitates trade, including e-commerce, in a broader sense by making sure that companies in fields other than telecommunications can access and use telecom networks and services.

Lastly, the digital trade chapter includes updated language previously contained within the CUFTA e-commerce chapter, ensuring that customs duties would not be applied to digital products transmitted electronically. This modernized chapter also contains ambitious commitments to facilitate the use of digital trade. This includes protections against unnecessary requirements to store data locally or provide access to proprietary software source code, as well as commitments to facilitate public access and use of open government information to support economic development, competitiveness and innovation.

Additionally, commitments regarding the protection of individuals online have been included, which would ensure frameworks are in place to protect personal information and address online fraudulent and deceptive commercial practices in order to build trust and confidence to engage in digital trade.

I am also proud to announce that this chapter contains a provision that forbids government authorities from using personal data collected from private organizations in a manner that constitutes targeted discrimination on prohibited grounds. This is the first Canadian free trade agreement to contain such a provision.

With increasing concerns about how governments are using personal data, this commitment is intended to improve user confidence in the digital economy.

The new and updated chapters present a great opportunity to build a strong foundation that is in line with the new realities of modern trade that Canada and Ukraine can build on to strengthen their trading relationship. I hope that all members of this House will support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-57 that will bring into force the new Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for 607 days now we have witnessed Ukraine valiantly fight back against the Russian invasion. For 607 days, we have watched Russia carry out mass atrocities, and we know that Vladimir Putin wants to commit a genocide against the people of Ukraine.

One of the things that Ukraine is begging for is Canadian energy to make sure that Ukrainians are able to survive another cold winter since this war has started and not be dependent upon natural gas and oil from Russia. Will the member commit today to making sure we can send Canadian ethical energy, our liquefied natural gas and oil, to Ukraine so that it can have a comfortable winter and not be putting money into the fuel tank of Putin's war machine?

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, Canada has been there to provide assistance, whether military, humanitarian or financial. My colleague's question about the need for heating fuel in winter is obviously a very important one. I would even go so far as to say that it is a human rights issue. Staying warm in winter is a basic necessity.

I am certain that Canada will continue to be there, as we have been since the beginning, and that we will do everything in our power to support our Ukrainian friends.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, free trade agreements are one way that Canada can not only improve the economic conditions for our businesses here but also do so on a mutual basis. In many ways, they extend preferential conditions to the recipient host country.

Like a lot of post-Soviet republics, Ukraine has struggled with establishing a strong rule-of-law system in that country and, like a lot of post-Soviet republics, has also struggled with corruption. I wonder if my hon. colleague could point to any provisions in this agreement that may assist the parties in strengthening those institutions, which are very important to establishing credible and legitimate economic relations.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, international trade agreements are one way to help countries. This agreement creates a lot of opportunities, both for Canada and for Ukraine, notably by creating good jobs for the middle class. Specific chapters have been added, such as those my colleague was discussing earlier, on trade and gender, as well as on trade and the environment. This demonstrates that provisions have been included to modernize this agreement, update it and address the new trade realities between Ukraine and Canada.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to see agreements Canada reaches with other international partners. The special context of this agreement with Ukraine, which will modernize the 2017 agreements, is the war that Russia is waging against Ukraine, our partner in the agreement.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague how this agreement will improve the economy and quality of life for Canadians, but also for Ukrainians.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question.

As we said earlier during our initial answers, we have been there to help Ukrainians from the start. This agreement will allow Canadian businesses to participate in the economic rebuilding of Ukraine and its recovery after Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion. With the addition of new chapters, we will be able to help women become more independent, and people will be able to come to Canada and Canadians to go to Ukraine on a temporary basis. These are two practical examples of how this agreement will help people here, in Canada, and people in Ukraine.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The trade agreement with Ukraine was done in 2015 and was originally negotiated under the Conservative government. It removed tariffs on 86% of all exports. That agreement really showed support to Ukraine when it needed it. It was there to give it a hand up. It laid the groundwork for creating perfect and good partnerships with Canada and Ukraine and for building on our relationship, which has been going on for years and years.

My riding of Prince Albert has a strong Ukrainian community. Ukrainians are very active in the community. In fact, there is a big festival coming up in a couple of weekends, at which they will be celebrating their heritage again. There are also a lot of Ukrainian refugees in the riding who contribute to our economy. They have basically fit right in and are pulling their weight. I am sure they would rather be back in Ukraine with their families, but we are glad to have them in Saskatchewan, in the riding of Prince Albert. We are making them feel at home, and we are there for them.

This new agreement lays out what I expect in a trade agreement. I am not going to lie. I was actually surprised we made an agreement while the war was ongoing, but looking at Ukraine, I thought we should think about it in a practical sense. Ukraine is going to win this war. I think everybody here believes that Ukraine will win this war. It is going to have to rebuild after the damage that Putin has caused in Ukraine. There is no question about that.

Who is in the best position to help it do that? That would be Canada. That is why we make an agreement like this. We position ourselves to be there not only during the war but also after the war to partner with the Ukrainian people to rebuild their country, to make it the modern country it can be and make it a progressive part of the EU, which I think it will ascend to one day.

We say that is what we expect out of a trade agreement. I expect a trade agreement, first of all, to take advantage of the Canadian skill sets we have. Let us look at the agriculture sector. I used to be the marketing manager in eastern and western Europe for Flexi-Coil, which was owned by Case IH at the time, and for a brief stint, Ukraine was my marketplace. It was one of the areas that I covered.

I went to Ukraine once, and its potential to grow crops was phenomenal, but it did not have the technology. We shipped it air seeders and tractors and got it new genetics. I know other companies go there with cattle genetics and dairy genetics. Canada had all these resources that we shared with Ukraine to build it up, and what did it do? It helped feed the world. Now, with this war, people in northern Africa and places like that may die of hunger because Ukraine is not there to help feed them.

In a scenario like that, with the war and the amount of damage being done, Canada can step in again on the agriculture side to be there for Ukraine, to help rebuild its agriculture sector, its food production and food manufacture. If we look at our manufacturing sector, we have some of the most efficient manufacturers in the world. They have to be. With the carbon taxes and everything they have here, they have to be efficient to compete on the global stage. They are that much better than anywhere else in the world. Canada would be a natural ally to go into Ukraine to help it rebuild its manufacturing sector and their facilities and plants.

We can look at uranium power generation and nuclear technology. Saskatchewan is where uranium is mined, and it is processed in Ontario. When we look at the facilities we have in Canada and what we offer for sale around the world, there is a great partnership to offer to the world. Canada and Ukraine working together could provide green power moving forward. That makes so much sense. I expect a free trade agreement to start to facilitate those types of partnerships and that type of growth.

When I was in western Europe this spring with the foreign affairs committee, one of the discussions was about how to rebuild Ukraine and make sure it has the skill sets, the plumbers, the electricians, the people who would go back to that country after the war to rebuild it. We have talked about how we could use the education system in Canada with the women who are here right now. How can we give them the skill sets so that when they go home, they can contribute to rebuilding their country?

That is something the province of Saskatchewan is looking at very seriously. It is saying that, through its education system, it can do that, making sure people have the proper skill sets, the technology and the know-how to do that, but they also need the resources to do it. They are going to need the lumber, the cement and all the things to finish those projects.

What of those things can come from Canada? Which items can actually be imported from Canada, or maybe from somewhere else, but where the technology and knowledge are transferred into Ukraine? I think there is a tremendous amount of potential there.

As we look at the Canadian Ukrainian community working together, just think about how that partnership can be in the world. When one sees a business that has Ukrainian strengths and Canadian strengths put together, if we think about it, it will compete anywhere in the world.

Ukrainians have one little hurdle, which is Mr. Putin. They have the war to overcome; I am amazed and maybe speechless about just how well they have done and how they have been there, pushing back the Russian forces and fighting for their country and for their people.

One thing I have to say is this: We had a staff member in my office who was from Ukraine, and when the war broke out, she left my office to go back. There is no question of the commitment from people in Ukraine to their country.

Not only Ukrainians from Ukraine but also Ukrainians from around the world are saying the exact same thing: They want to free Ukraine. They want to see their country grow and prosper. Can we give them a hand up and do that?

Can this free trade agreement actually do that? Can it give them a hand up? Can it provide the tools for a prosperous Ukraine after the war?

We need to be there. We cannot neglect things. We cannot say that there are other issues in the world, so we have to water down our support for Ukraine. No, we have to be steadfast, with our chin out, with Ukraine. We have to do what we can to get it through this crisis, this war, and get it back on its feet afterward.

I will tell everyone this: If Canada can do that, we are going to have a good ally and friend for years to come. I just see us building on those strengths. The trade agreement is a great way to do that.

In a trade agreement like this, I expect the markets to be open, with goods coming out of Ukraine. I expect goods to come out of Canada and go to Ukraine. I expect the exchange of technology, labour, knowledge and education systems.

As I said, I expect the uranium sector, the nuclear sector, to be focused on, as well as the commitment to bring that sector together, to actually grow it and to offer that technology throughout the world. We can take our strengths, bring them together and put them on the marketplace.

An FTA can do that. If it is written right, it can do all those things. One thing about an FTA, even now, for the people of Ukraine, is this: They can look at that and say, hey, if it is written right, it is a good agreement.

It is just another reason why we need to fight, to steel our resolve and actually push the Russians and Putin back and get back to some normalcy. I think this FTA could do that. I am looking forward to seeing that as a possibility.

If I look back to the riding and people of Prince Albert, they are free traders. Saskatchewan is a trading province. We export. We produce so much that we have to export. Therefore, we are always in favour of trade and good trade agreements.

With Ukraine, we have technologies that are so common and that have so many advantages we can work together on, and we can work for each other's benefit. It could be a really good relationship moving forward.

I look forward to seeing what is in this agreement. I like the idea of a trade agreement with Ukraine; I always have. I have always liked the idea of giving Ukraine a hand up and being there for them, not only during the war but also after the war. I think there is a possibility of a win-win, if it is done properly.

I think the Ukrainian people will look at us and thank us for being there, both during and after the war. I think they will thank us for being there all the time and consistently.

We have been there since the early 2000s. When the wall came down in Berlin and the Communists left, Canada was one of the first countries to actually start throwing resources into Ukraine. After the war, we will be there to help it again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate many of the comments that the member made. I think it is fairly profound, when one thinks about what we are debating today and the impact that goes even far beyond trade. It sends a very powerful message even to Putin, in Russia.

It says a great deal for morale in Ukraine, and it says so much about Canada's general attitude toward Ukraine and wanting to see Ukraine succeed. However, Canada itself will also benefit through this particular agreement. It is an all around wonderful thing to see.

One thinks about second reading, committee stage, third reading, report stages and the Senate. Would it not be a powerful statement if we could somehow get this thing through the Senate before Christmas?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in theory, I would say yes. We still have to see what is really in the agreement to make sure it will actually meet the requirements of Ukraine and Canada. It has to be a partnership. Any trade agreement, at the end of the day, will not work if it is not a partnership between the two countries.

I like the idea. I like the notion of Canada standing behind Ukraine and fast-tracking it, but we still have to do our due diligence as a government and as an opposition party.

I think we would have to look at this very closely. However, I think we should try to get it to committee as quickly as possible so that the committee can do its job and then go from there. If it comes out of the committee, the committee is happy with it and all parties say that is the way we should go, then we should explore those options just to show that support.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to actually get my colleague's response on cybersecurity. I enjoyed it when we co-lobbied in Washington, D.C. a number of different times. I think the possibility we have with Ukraine about cybersecurity is that it could give us very much an advantage over even our current allies, including the United States. Cybersecurity is also good for the economy in many respects, in terms of protecting businesses and public institutions, as well as a lot of different things.

What a lot of people do not know is that we punch above our weight in the video game industry, for example, in electronics and other types of new technologies. The same is the case with cybersecurity at the moment. I see this as an opportunity for us to flesh out more opportunities for young people in cybersecurity out of trade with Ukraine.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West brought up another really good example. There are so many examples showing where Canada and the Ukraine can work together and use the knowledge from Ukraine and Canada. If we package that together, it will be a great partnership.

I am no cybersecurity specialist. However, when looking at cybersecurity, I would assume that Ukraine, with what it has been going through in this war and the cyber-attacks from Russia, is probably getting up there. It probably understands and knows a lot more about the actual implications of cybersecurity in its fashion. That is knowledge we could probably use back here in Canada. I would encourage those types of exchanges to happen. If an FTA can actually facilitate that to make it even easier, that is just another reason why we should do it.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that I can top the member from Prince Albert on, but one of them is the fact that I have been to Ukraine three times. I think he referenced in his speech that he has been there once. Twenty-five per cent of the world's topsoil is in Ukraine, so I agree with all the comments that he made.

When he talks about partnership with Ukraine, could he elaborate on where those synergies especially lie? My own perspective, which I will share more about tomorrow, would be exactly in our agricultural backgrounds.

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

I am just glad it was not about who was the better farmer.

The hon. member for Prince Albert.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask him that question, because I do not want to put him on the spot. He is speaking after me, so he gets the last word.

Looking at the agriculture sector in grains and oilseeds, the soil is phenomenal. The member talked about that beautiful soil. As a farm kid and somebody who grew up on a farm and farmed myself, when I was over there, I was just drooling. It has such a basket to grow crops in and a variety of crops, from beans to wheat, canola and tomatoes. I think there is probably some good technology transfer between Canada and Ukraine on tomato production. I am sure the member will talk a bit about that tomorrow when he is speaking.

On the grains and oilseeds side, as well as carbon capturing on the no-till side of things, there is some great technology there that we can share with our Ukrainian friends. If we were to look at the University of Saskatchewan or University of Guelph, the University of Saskatchewan's agronomics is phenomenal; the University of Guelph is great at genetics, especially dairy genetics.

Again, I can see all sorts of ways we can work together to not only take care of each other, business-wise, but also to feed the world.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of constituents in the democracy-loving riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

I stand proudly alongside my Conservative colleagues in our unified support for both Ukraine and Israel's right to defend their democracies from attack. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Canadians about the importance of Canada's unwavering support for a free and democratic Ukraine.

First, I want to speak to Canadians who are skeptical about the dominant narrative surrounding Ukraine, Putin and NATO. I became involved in politics under Preston Manning's Reform Party because it was standing up for people, and it was doing it against two old parties dominated by the interests of the elite. I was first elected as a member of the Canadian Alliance in a seat that had been held by Liberals for 80 years. The previous MP had put the interests of his party above his constituents. That is why I have always put the interests of my constituents first. It is why I have always stood up against the globalists.

My constituents do not support enlarging unaccountable, international bureaucracy at the expense of national and individual sovereignty. I was speaking out against agenda 2030, while con artists like Maxime Bernier were sipping champagne in Davos. I voted against the Paris Agreement while Max was hiding behind these curtains. I opposed the dangerous amendments to the international health regulations, which seek to strip out language protecting individual freedom and human rights.

For over 20 years, I have stood up for common Canadians against the systemic elitism practised by groups such as the World Economic Forum. I know what it means to oppose the dominant narrative being pushed by the elites. The CBC ombudsman recently reported on how CBC had accused me of being part of a vast right-wing international conspiracy to destroy democracy using cricket memes. When I told a group of young Conservatives that Liberals supported making dangerous drugs legal, the Liberal member for Pickering—Uxbridge accused me of spreading an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

If people question the dominant narrative, the Liberals accuse them of being a conspiracy theorist. The Liberals will call them racist. The Liberals will refuse to listen to anything they say, simply screaming “misinformation” over and over again. I have been subjected to this progressive propaganda for 20 years, but I am still here. I am speaking up for what I believe to be the truth.

If people begin questioning the dominant narrative about COVID, climate or anything else on the Liberal agenda, I want them to know that I hear them. However, let me be clear. NATO is not the United Nations. NATO is not the World Economic Forum. NATO is not a threat to Russia. NATO is the greatest defence alliance in history. As the longest-serving member of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, and a former chair, I have seen first-hand how Putin treats his neighbours.

I have heard directly from elected officials in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. I have heard their hopes and their dreams for their countries, dreams which could only be fulfilled through peace and security, yet their security is under constant threat from Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs who control Russia. They are under constant threats for the same reason Taiwan is under threat from the Communists who control China, for the same reason Israel is under threat from the ayatollahs who control Iran and the Hamas terrorists who occupy Gaza.

Every free and democratic country is a shining beacon of hope, exposing the corruption and the cruelty that is autocracy. Democracy is an existential threat to tyranny. Individual liberty is an existential threat to authoritarian socialism. It does not matter if it is the national, ethnic socialism of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, or the religious socialism of Hamas and Hezbollah.

As long as free and democratic countries exist, we undermine the power of tyrants. Canadians, Ukrainians, Taiwanese and Israelis, along with most people, in most of the world, just want to live a simple life. The same is true for the common people of Russia, China, Iran and Gaza.

As long as those people can look abroad and see what it is like to live freely, what it is like to vote out tired and corrupt leaders, then the survival of the tyrants is threatened. That is why they censor foreign news, culture and entertainment. That is why they lash out and attack their neighbours.

Since the people of Ukraine threw off the Communist tyrants, they have struggled to build a free and democratic country. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, former KGB goon Vladimir Putin has meddled, interfered and invaded Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Is it any wonder they seek to join NATO?

The people of Russia have nothing to fear from an expanded NATO. NATO is a defence alliance. The reason NATO exists is not to provoke war or threaten the people of Russia. NATO is not an aggressor. It exists to deter aggression.

Unfortunately, since Pierre Trudeau began to demilitarize Canada, the Liberal Party has forgotten the logic of deterrence. The reason we should be spending at least 2% of GDP on defence is so that we do not have to spend 20% on defence. Right now, 21% of Ukraine’s entire gross national product is being spent to defend its free and democratic country. Either we spend enough to deter the tyrants from attacking, or else we will spend 10 times as much fending off attacks.

While Canada must support and defend all our free and democratic allies, when it comes to Ukraine Canada has a special interest. It should be among the highest goals of any Canadian foreign policy to prevent a powerful, nuclear-armed country from dominating its smaller neighbours. We must be steadfast in shoring up international support for Ukraine.

Canada's sense of security is buttressed by three oceans and a reliable ally to the south, but just across those oceans are powerful states hungry for the resources we have in abundance. That is why it has always been our policy to fight our enemies on their ground instead of ours.

Ukraine is at the front line of the 21st century’s battle for freedom and democracy. It is our highest national interest to prevent the powerful from dominating the weak. It is our highest moral interest to prevent a fledging democracy from failing and falling to tyranny.

I ask those who may remain skeptical of Canada’s support for Ukraine to listen carefully to how Putin lies. Putin says he is fighting far right Nazis in Ukraine, Hamas says it is fighting far right Nazis in Israel, and the Prime Minister funds left-wing groups that labelled a podcast fan club as far right Nazis.

Putin accused the Jewish President of Ukraine of standing with Nazis, and the Prime Minister accused the member for Thornhill of standing with Nazis. I am not suggesting the Prime Minister is the same as Vladimir Putin. I just want Canadians who have been unfairly labelled by the Prime Minister as racist or sexist to ask themselves if it is possible Putin is doing the same thing to Ukrainians.

My colleagues across the aisle need to ask themselves if calling everyone they disagree with a far right conspiracy theorist is the most effective way to counter Russian propaganda. The most effective propaganda takes a true fact and wraps it in deceptions, which is why calling everything the government disagrees with misinformation and disinformation is so corrosive.

Free and democratic countries do not resort to censorship. We should never seek to silence dissent or freeze the bank accounts of people we disagree with. The best defence against foreign propaganda is openness and transparency, and Canada must strive to be an example to fledgling democracies such as Ukraine.

Keeping ministers in cabinet who give contracts to their friends is not the kind of example Canada should be setting. Obstructing RCMP investigations is not the kind of example Canada should be setting. Regulating foreign cultural content on the Internet is not the kind of example Canada should be setting.

It is time for Canada to return to the values of individual liberty and democracy that guided Canada through two world wars. It is time for Canada to be an example to our NATO allies and to those aspiring to join. It is time we exceeded our commitments and increased defence spending. It is time to equip Ukraine with the best resources we can build or buy.

The enemies of democracy see our very existence as a threat to their power, and they can only defeat us with weapons, but we can destroy them with words. Free trade and free markets give us the wealth we need to defend against any threat, while corruption and socialism under tyranny weakens them.

Today, the front lines in the war to preserve democracy are in Ukraine and Israel. Tomorrow it could be Taiwan. Canada must stand ready. We must fight tyranny overseas so we can bring home peace and security.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member used the word “trade”. One thing I recognize, and I think there is some merit to it, is that the importance of this whole debate goes far beyond the issue of trade; it is also in regard to Ukraine.

The previous speaker talked about the powers of this particular agreement and the benefit not only to Canada but to Ukraine, which is going through a very difficult time because of the war. Every one of us has opposed this illegal occupation and the terror that Russia is putting on Ukraine. This is a silver star that we can all look to as something of great benefit. I am pleased the member made reference to that aspect.

I am sure the member would be aware, because she was part of the Stephen Harper government, that defence military spending went just below 1% then. We have never come close to that. Does she believe Stephen Harper was wrong to let it go below 1%?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did mention trade in the last minute of my speech. In fact, I think I mentioned it twice.

During the time of Stephen Harper, our military was the best equipped it had been since the conflict in World War II. We got Globemasters. We got Chinooks. We got LAVs. We got other planes. We finally got our TAPVs. All those were initiated then. We also got the national shipbuilding strategy. We would not have any functioning vehicles or equipment for the military were it not for the days of Stephen Harper and our past defence ministers Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay.

I thank the member opposite for reminding us what a great military we had and how strong it was under the leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by my hon. colleague. How does the member feel a free trade agreement with Ukraine, particularly as it defends itself in the ongoing war with Russia, will affect the relationship between it and the conflict?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ukraine is under an existential threat. If Ukraine does not defend itself and then does not exist, we will not have the basis for a free trade agreement because there would be no Ukraine. We have to do first things first and make sure it has what it needs to defend itself. We have to send good equipment and good ammunition, not junk to empty out our old garages. It is a good thing people are being strong here and getting that mission started.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, can the member provide her thoughts on the less than 1% spending on defence by Stephen Harper? Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during the leadership of Prime Minister Harper, more money was spent on defence than there had been since the decade of darkness. The country is stronger and envied by many because of what we have in our professional military and the women and men who make Canada look good on the world stage.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we continue to see duplications of events around the world. We have seen what is happening with Israel and Gaza right now.

As it pertains to foreign conflicts and the information out there, can the member talk about how this deal may help the redevelopment of Ukraine going forward?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if given the chance, trade with Ukraine will strengthen itself and perhaps prevent another invasion by Russia or another entity.

The real problem here is the Communists who run China. This Ukraine-Russia conflict is a wonderful and welcomed distraction for China. Our overarching concern is making sure that Canada is well defended and the world is well defended against greater aggressors yet to come.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean.

I have the honour of rising today to support the bill to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. As we have already mentioned, modernizing this agreement not only enabled us to add new chapters, but it also gave us an opportunity to update the existing chapters so as to make them consistent with the highest standards and best practices in regard to agreements.

I would like to begin by talking about the very important, innovative, modern and comprehensive updates that were made to two chapters: the labour chapter, which I will talk about a little later, and the environment chapter. The modernized provisions of the agreement between Canada and Ukraine seek to meet the highest labour rights and environmental standards.

These updates would make the agreement a full and comprehensive modern trade agreement that levels the playing field and ensures that there is sufficient flexibility so that both countries can implement their policy objectives in these areas.

Allow me to quickly give an overview of the nine modernized chapters of the agreement.

With regard to rules of origin and procedures, Canada and Ukraine have agreed to activate and operationalize the principle of cumulation of origin, a principle that allows materials originating in any other country with which Canada and Ukraine have a free trade agreement to have originating status for goods exported under preferential tariffs. The result is that our producers will be entitled to greater flexibility in deciding whether to source raw materials from countries with which Canada and Ukraine have free trade agreements.

I would like to talk briefly about the chapter on digital trade, which is very important and updates the old chapter, which was called e-commerce at the time. Things have evolved quite a bit. This is a good update and provides regulatory certainty for companies looking to engage in the digital economy in both markets.

The chapter now contains ambitious commitments to facilitate the use of digital trade as a means of trade between Canada and Ukraine. The chapter includes commitments relating to cross-border data flows, which are very important, and also data localization, source code disclosure, open government data, and personal data protection.

The modernized agreement includes a chapter on competition policy with new, updated obligations intended to promote a competitive marketplace. This chapter helps achieve objectives for Canada and Ukraine that relate to an equitable, transparent, predictable and competitive trade environment. What does this mean in practical terms? In practical terms, it means obligations that are reinforced by competition authorities with respect to procedural fairness and transparency, and new obligations respecting the identification and protection of confidential information. These new obligations ensure that basic principles like the rights of defendants are upheld during investigations and proceedings.

By the way, I would like to draw special attention to the chapter on monopolies held by state-owned enterprises. This chapter was also enhanced to include important definitions concerning state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, with updated commitments on transparency and technical co-operation.

In the modernized government procurement chapter, Canada and Ukraine have clarified that they are allowed to take into account environmental, socio-economic or labour-related considerations in their procurements. This means that it is now clear that the agreement does not prevent parties from adopting domestic policies and programs to support initiatives such as green and social procurements.

A big important chapter is the upgraded labour chapter. This chapter is now robust, comprehensive and fully subjected to the dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement. This chapter is important because it aims at improved labour standards and working conditions in the two countries by building on international labour principles and rights.

I want to highlight two very important articles. The first is an import prohibition on goods made in whole or in part with forced labour. The second is a stand-alone article on violence against workers.

This chapter confirms that Canada and Ukraine are fully committed to the highest labour rights standards and agree to co-operate further in the field.

Another very important chapter that I feel strongly about is the one on the environment. It is the most comprehensive and ambitious of all Canadian free trade agreements. For the first time, this chapter includes provisions that recognize the importance of trade and climate policies. Both policies complement one another.

It also includes market-based approaches and climate measures linked to green growth targets. This updated chapter also introduces new sections that deal with worldwide environmental issues that are key to our green transition. It also includes sections on plastic pollution, waste, the promotion of trade in environmental goods and services and the circular economy.

Finally, I will briefly talk about the chapter on transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct. This chapter sets a framework for the promotion of transparency and integrity among public servants and the private sector while increasing the enforceability of anti-corruption laws.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for listening and for allowing me to list the important improvements made to this key agreement. This improved agreement will now be one of our most modern, comprehensive and innovative.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to greet my colleague from Pontiac, with whom I am pleased and honoured to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. The hon. member rightly said that this free trade agreement deals with a number of issues, in particular the environment.

We are all aware of the effects of climate change that must be addressed, and since humans helped create climate change, humans must take steps to reduce pollution.

Based on what my colleague knows about what is happening in Ukraine, what should be the main focus of Canada's action to help Ukraine rebuild, from an environmental perspective?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, at this stage in the global economy, we are well aware that climate change is intrinsically linked to developing a greener, more resilient and more innovative economy.

This agreement, which is central to this environmental chapter, includes a number of obligations and considerations. I feel it is really going to foster technology sharing to develop this 21st-century economy, so that it is beneficial not only for the environment, but for trade as well.

I think this is one example of free trade agreements. All agreements that are modernized in this way are increasingly innovative in this area, where the economy is linked to climate resilience.

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

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier in an exchange with another member, we think Bill C‑57 is a good bill and we plan to support it.

My colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and I have asked a few questions, but we have yet to get any clear answers. Although we agree with the bill, the process by which it is being passed raises some questions, as is the case with many other bills ratifying agreements that have been reached.

In the United States, Congress mandates the executive branch to negotiate agreements. In the European Union, member states play a central role in the negotiations, because they have to ratify them later. It is much the same in most industrialized countries. It is often parliaments that adopt treaties. Here in Canada, it is customary for the government to negotiate treaties and for Parliament to intervene only at the point of ratification, when the provisions are to be included in a bill.

My question is about whether—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has taken a lot of time. Other members want to ask questions.

The hon. member for Pontiac.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I think I understood it. If I understand correctly, he is wondering why international agreements are negotiated at the government level and parliamentarians only learn about the results of these negotiations.

I think it is important to pay attention to all the consultations that take place ahead of negotiations with a country. There are a lot of consultations and opportunities to provide information to the government when it is negotiating agreements. That is the time for providing information that is pertinent for the negotiations.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, for the first time in our history, we have seen a free trade agreement that takes into account reconciliation, particularly the rights of indigenous peoples, and reaffirms the parties' commitment to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Would the member support, in the future, our country supporting similar provisions within future free trade agreements, namely with the United States?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that it is always a good idea to take the best parts of an agreement and include them in new agreements.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have stood with Ukraine since the start of Russia's illegal invasion and will stand strong when Ukraine is once again free. The introduction of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, is an important milestone in the implementation of the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. As the first trade agreement Ukraine has signed since the onset of Russia's illegal war, this modernization would result in a comprehensive and progressive agreement ensuring that everyone feels the benefit of trade. Canada is a trading nation and trade accounts for about 65% of the GDP.

Canada is currently the only G7 country to have free trade agreements in force with all other G7 countries. Canada currently has 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries and covers 61% of the world's GDP. Together, these agreements cover 1.5 billion consumers worldwide.

I have to give a shout-out to our farmers. Though small in number, our farmers in the agri-food sector are the most aggressive in leveraging every free trade agreement we have signed so far. Canada is the fifth-largest exporter of agri-food and seafood in the world and exports to nearly 200 countries. In 2022, Canada exported nearly $92.8 billion in agriculture and food products, including raw materials, agricultural materials, fish and seafood, and processed foods. I wish other sectors in Canada where we have resource advantage would follow our agriculture sector in exporting all across the world. For example, the steel and aluminum sector could look beyond the North American market and export to Europe and to the Indo-Pacific region.

Despite challenges, Canadian trade reached record highs again in 2022. Canada's goods and and services exports increased by 31.2% to reach $940.4 billion in 2022 and the imports advanced 20.5% to reach $936.2 billion.

Even with Russia's illegal and unjustified invasion of Ukraine last year, which caused a horrific humanitarian crisis and sent shock waves around the world, global trade has remained resilient. Global economic growth advanced by 3.5% in 2022, following the 6.3% rebound witnessed in 2021. Canada continues to uphold and promote rules-based trade, providing confidence and predictability for our businesses.

Free trade agreements represent about 80% of Canada's imports and 90% of Canada's exports in 2018. Free trade agreements are essential for several reasons. They promote economic growth by expanding markets and increasing access to a wider consumer base. These agreements reduce tariffs and trade barriers, encouraging the flow of goods and services across borders. This fosters competition and innovation, driving down costs for consumers and enhancing product quality. Moreover, free trade agreements create a framework for resolving trade disputes, ensuring stability and predictability in international trade relations. They also strengthen diplomatic ties between nations, promoting co-operation and peace. In a globalized world, free trade agreements are crucial for spurring economic development, job creation and overall prosperity. Free trade agreements are effective at lowering trade barriers and overall cost of trade.

The original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement entered into force in August 2017. Upon entry into force, Canada eliminated duties on 99.9% of the imports from Ukraine. Similarly, Ukraine immediately eliminated tariffs on approximately 86% of imports from Canada with the balance of tariff concessions to be implemented over seven years. This will align with the proposed date for the modernized CUFTA's entry into force.

While comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, the 2017 CUFTA did not include services, investment and many other areas. It instead included a clause committing the parties to review and explore expanding the agreement within two years of its entry into force.

On September 22, 2023, we signed the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This would support long-term security, stability and economic development in Ukraine while also ensuring high-quality market access for Canadian businesses participating in Ukraine’s economic recovery. This would create good, middle-class jobs in both of our countries.

The modernized CUFTA would maintain the preferential market access gained in the original FTA for all current Canadian merchandise exports to Ukraine. It would mark a new era in Canada and Ukraine’s economic relationship and be fundamental to the participation of Canadian businesses in Ukraine’s economic reconstruction and recovery from Russia’s illegal and unjustified invasion. The modernized agreement also includes dedicated new chapters on trade in services, investment, temporary entry, telecommunication, financial services, and inclusive trade, and updated chapters on labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption, among other areas.

The agreement would facilitate enhanced co-operation, improve the ability of parties to resolve trade irritants, promote openness and inclusivity, increase transparency in regulatory matters and help reduce transaction costs for businesses. CUFTA would commit Canada and Ukraine to respecting and promoting internationally recognized labour rights and principles and to effectively enforcing their labour and environment laws.

For the first time in either country's history, the FTA also includes a new dedicated chapter on trade and indigenous peoples, in addition to new chapters on trade and small and medium-sized enterprises and trade and gender. These elements are designed to increase opportunities for traditionally marginalized groups in trade to participate in and benefit from the agreement. When in force, the modernized CUFTA would not only continue to provide preferential market access for merchandise trade but would also establish ambitious new market access terms for services, trade and investment.

Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine and the economic devastation it is enduring, a free trade agreement is of paramount importance. Such an agreement can provide a lifeline to Ukraine's economy by opening up new markets, reducing trade barriers and fostering economic growth. It would enable Ukrainian businesses to diversify and expand their exports, reducing reliance on domestic markets that may be severely impacted by the war. Moreover, the free trade agreement would bring in financial aid and investments that are crucial for rebuilding infrastructure and industries. In these challenging times, agreements like this can play a pivotal role in Ukraine's recovery and long-term stability.

I want to emphasize the significance for Canada and other western democracies of nurturing and strengthening relations with Ukraine. Ukraine, with its rich history and resilience, has been a pivotal player in recent geopolitical events. It is crucial for us to maintain economic relations and strategically prepare for post-war co-operation and the economic rebuilding of Ukraine. Our relationship with Ukraine holds immense importance due to shared democratic values and principles. Ukraine has made remarkable progress in its democratic journey since gaining independence in 1991.

By fostering economic ties, Canada can provide critical support for Ukraine's democratic institutions, helping them to thrive and promote stability in the region. Economic relations are the backbone of any thriving nation, and in this context, free trade agreements are indispensable. These agreements can pave the way for increased economic opportunity and prosperity for both Ukraine and its trading partners. They stimulate job growth, foster innovation and boost the economic well-being of both parties involved.

Post-war co-operation is equally vital. Ukraine has endured considerable challenges, particularly in the aftermath of the conflict in the eastern regions. We must plan ahead for the reconstruction and revitalization—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have been trying to signal to the member. I am sure he will be able to add during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague was cut off early, so I would like to give him a couple more minutes in questions and comments to finish up.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, we must plan ahead for the reconstruction and revitalization of the Ukrainian economy. This includes rebuilding infrastructure, fostering entrepreneurship and strengthening the country's agricultural and industrial sectors. By formalizing our commitment to the process, we can ensure a smoother and more efficient implementation.

In order to unfold the economic rebuilding of Ukraine, we must prioritize investment in key sectors, such as energy, technology and agriculture. Collaborative efforts to develop green technologies and renewable sources will contribute to a sustainable and environmentally responsible future.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I think is going to be interesting about this potential is the work we can do together with Ukraine on cybersecurity. I would like to ask the member a question with respect to that.

We have a number of cybersecurity advantages. I look at Coding for Veterans, for example, which is a Canadian company. Through Jeff Musson, who has been working on a Canadian system for cybersecurity using veterans, it is now employing them across the spectrum, in banks and other institutions. Mr. Musson has been able to help some veterans with new employment and make sure that we are improving our cybersecurity.

Does the member think that these types of ventures would be good partnerships for Canada? I know that Coding for Veterans is now opening a new chapter in the United States. In fact, it is going to have a float in the Rose Parade for that, which is quite significant.

I would like my colleague's thoughts on how we can use those types of programs, services and benefits to employ Canadians, employ Ukrainians and make our mark in the world very solidly.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague on the potential for co-operation on cybersecurity. Cybersecurity, as we all know, is becoming as big a threat as the physical security of borders. Canada has some expertise in cybersecurity and Ukraine also has good expertise in cyber-related knowledge. In fact, we have heard reports of Ukrainians domestically developing technologies and using them to develop drones to counter attacks from Russia. I am sure that expertise that is available in both these countries can join hands to develop new levels of cybersecurity protocols.

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

Madam Speaker, as this is my first chance to comment on Bill C-57, I would put this question to my friend from Nepean.

It is heartening to see some reference to climate in trade agreements, but we know that for over more than a decade, since the creation of the World Trade Organization, the WTO has wrongly put itself above international climate agreements with respect to its authorities. I think this is a welcome opportunity, as President Zelenskyy is a champion of the call for climate action.

Would the hon. member for Nepean support a call to the hon. Minister of Trade to review the relationship between the WTO and international climate agreements in order to get the WTO to back off on interfering in climate action?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the collaborative efforts to develop green technologies and renewable sources will contribute to a sustainable and environmentally responsible future. That is what we have said with this agreement. I am sure the trade minister in future negotiations with the WTO will certainly bring up the climate-related issues that can also be part of future WTO agreements.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-57. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

With more than a million Canadians who have Ukrainian heritage, I think it is important not only that we have shown our support for Ukraine in the past, but also, certainly, with what is going on with Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, that we show it now and into the future. Ukrainian immigrants, more than 100 years ago, literally broke ground and planted the roots for Canada's thriving and vibrant agriculture industry in western Canada, so the connections are deep.

However, when it comes to this agreement in particular, I want to emphasize the importance of due diligence and details. The Liberals have tabled a 600-page trade document that is now being rushed through the House of Commons with little opportunity for stakeholders or parliamentarians to review its intricacies. What chapters have been added? What new implements have been suggested? What are the consequences of those new chapters and new policies? When it comes to the Liberal government and its history with trade agreements, the devil is in the details.

To back up a bit, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement began under the Harper Conservative government. It came into force in August 2017. It eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canadian products and exports to Ukraine. However, the modernization of this agreement is important, and I want to emphasize the fact that we want to see the details and take time to review the wording of the new update. The reason I want to be so adamant about that is just simply that, as I said, unfortunately the Liberal government has a history of failures when it comes negotiating or renegotiating trade agreements. We can go back to the very early days of the Liberal government when we renegotiated NAFTA or the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Trade Agreement, CUSMA. It was clear that the Liberals' goal was to simply get a deal done, tick a box and have a photo-op.

The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister sacrificed a number of critical Canadian industries with trade discrepancies that Canadian industries are still dealing with. Perhaps nowhere were those implications more profound than within Canadian agriculture. The CUSMA agreement impacted a number of agriculture industries, including dairy, where Canada relinquished its ability to export a number of important dairy products, like protein concentrate and skim milk powder. We also added additional access for American products into Canada.

The most glaring error, though perhaps it was not an error but was done on purpose, is the fact that the Liberal government relinquished Canada's trade sovereignty in signing the new CUSMA agreement. That is right. If Canada wants to sign a new trade agreement with any non-market country, we have to get permission or approval from the United States. No G7 country had relinquished that kind of authority to a trading partner. That had never happened, but it is exactly what happened with the Liberals' agreement with CUSMA. Our manufacturers and industry are still dealing with the implications of this agreement, with higher tariffs on aluminum and softwood lumber, which still have not been resolved years later.

There are clearly some important reasons Canadian manufacturers and Canadian industry do not trust the Liberal government when it comes to trade agreements and that it will base those agreements and negotiations on sound economics and the importance of fair trade. It seems, historically, that the Liberals have been basing their trade negotiations on Liberal ideology and virtue signalling. That is not the way trade negotiations should be going.

As recently as last year, the Liberals implemented a Ukraine goods remission order so Ukrainian products, like chicken for example, would be getting quota-free and tariff-free access into Canada. They signed this remission agreement with zero consultation with the stakeholders that would be impacted: Chicken Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada and Canadian Poultry and Egg Processors Council. None of them knew this remission order was being signed. The Liberals signed this at a time when avian flu outbreaks around the world, and certainly here in Canada, were devastating the industry. We had these groups at the agriculture committee letting Finance Canada and Global Affairs know about the impacts of the agreement and saying to please not renew the remission order when it came due last spring.

The Liberal government ignored all that stakeholder consultation at committee and renewed that remission order anyway last spring. This has put our biosecurity and our food security at risk as, again, outbreaks of avian influenza were happening around the world and certainly around Ukraine as well.

Last year, we looked at the Liberal-NDP government's decision to impose a 35% tariff on fertilizer coming from Russia and Belarus. Again, there was zero consultation with Canadian producers, especially those farmers in Ontario and eastern Canada who rely almost totally on that fertilizer.

Now, I understand what the government was trying to do: It was trying to punish Putin for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, but Putin was not paying those tariffs. Canadian farmers paid more than $34 million in tariffs just to get the fertilizer into Canada to plant their crops this spring. No other G7 country put such a tariff on fertilizer. None of our allies, including the United States, did this. They understood the importance of their farmers being competitive and the impact the tariff would have on commodity prices, not only here at home but also around the world.

Again, despite every stakeholder telling the government to lift that tariff to ensure that we are competitive and that we have access to affordable fertilizer, the Liberals have ignored them. In fact, when we asked the government on many occasions why it implemented this tariff when none of our G7 allies did, the answer was, “I didn't even know we bought fertilizer from Russia and Belarus”. This just shows why there is such frustration from our stakeholders and our industry. When it comes to the Liberals negotiating trade agreements, they are not consulting. They are plowing ahead with these agreements without doing their due diligence. As much as we support a free trade agreement with Ukraine, we want to make sure that we have the time to review the details within this agreement.

Most recently, the Liberal-NDP government has fast-tracked the United Kingdom to join the trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP, again without consulting with Canadian ranchers and pork producers. They desperately wanted some major gaps within the trade agreement with CETA and Canada to be addressed for the U.K. to have accession to the CPTPP.

The numbers are stark. Last year, the United Kingdom imported about 4,000 tonnes of beef, worth $33 million, into Canada. Do members know how much beef Canada exported into the United Kingdom? It was zero; it was not so much as a burger or a steak. Canada's pork industry is facing a very similar trajectory, as the United Kingdom has put in non-tariff trade barriers to block Canadian imports. Not once has the Liberal government stood up to defend Canadian producers.

Free trade must be fair trade, and we are asking the Liberal government to do a side letter, a bilateral, with the U.K. to address this trade discrepancy. It has yet to do that. This is a massive gap, and Canadian producers are the ones paying the price for the Liberal government getting photo ops and ticking a box when it comes to its agenda, without thinking about the consequences for Canadian industries, manufacturers and producers. One thing is very clear after eight years under the Prime Minister: He is failing Canadian agriculture and our industries on the global stage, and our valuable industries are paying the price.

The Conservative Party supports free trade, and we are very proud of the 40 free trade agreements we signed under Prime Minister Harper. However, those agreements benefited Canadian industry and Canadian workers; they did not come at the expense of our hard-working producers.

We want to clearly and carefully review this trade deal and consult Canadian stakeholders to ensure that we reach a free trade agreement with Ukraine. It should be a free and fair trade agreement, not just ticking a box, that will preserve and enhance Canadian industries, including Canadian agriculture, and not follow the same failed policies and failed direction that the Prime Minister has become very famous for.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely disagree with a good part of the member's speech.

Let us talk about facts. He just finished saying “the 43 agreements” under Stephen Harper that they signed off on. That is just not true. Because the member stands up inside the chamber and proclaims something, that does not change history. The history is that it was not Stephen Harper who signed the 40-plus agreements. The member is trying to take credit for those agreements, yet he is being critical of the agreements we signed off on.

The bottom line is that no government in the history of Canada has signed off on as many trade agreements. That directly has an impact on the number of middle-class jobs that have been created, somewhere around a million-plus, prepandemic, and the trade agreements did contribute to that.

I wonder if he could—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's speech but just because he gets up and says it does not mean it is true.

In fact, by giving the United Kingdom accession to the CPTPP, an agreement that was negotiated by the Harper government, signed off, barely, almost failed, as a result of the Liberal Prime Minister, they are going to deteriorate this agreement by bringing in non-science, non-tariff trade barrier implements into the CPTPP from CETA because of this, by putting the United Kingdom into this agreement without addressing these issues first.

The CPTPP works because it is science-based. Yes, the Liberals also signed CETA, which has been probably the worst trade agreement we have had as a result of their playing with the end result, same with CUSMA.

Under Harper, we signed trade agreements that worked for Canada. Under this government, they are failing Canada.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to pay my respects to my hon. colleague from Foothills.

He demonstrates, without a shadow of the doubt, with real clarity, how important it is for our farmers to have the free facility to address some issues, compared to what they have in our counterpart, in America, or somewhere else, with fertilizer, just to give one example.

How could Canada have helped Ukraine and the world if this government had not shut down 15 projects of LNG that we had eight years ago? None of them have been accomplished under the watch of this Liberal government.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is probably the biggest impact we could have had on Ukraine, barring anything else with agriculture or free trade. When two of our important allies, two of the most important economies in the world, come to Canada asking for Canadian LNG so that they can stop funding Putin's war machine, our Prime Minister turns his back and says that he is sorry, that there is no business case for that.

What has happened? They are still funding Putin's war machine and then they have gone to sign LNG agreements with Qatar, which certainly does not have the environmental standards, the humans rights standards or the labour standards that Canadian energy would have.

We could have shown that we have a critical role to play on the global stage, and we failed because of this Prime Minister.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been asking a number of questions related to this on cybersecurity. I have mentioned Coding for Veterans, where we have veterans from Canada who are getting training to do coding for cybersecurity.

I would like the member to maybe talk a little bit about the potential for that, because Ukraine has been under a lot of cybersecurity threats. Perhaps this is also an opportunity to do security and economic development. I think those things are really underestimated in terms of potential but could be really good opportunities for us in Ukraine.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do believe there are great opportunities with a free trade agreement with Ukraine, whether that is with agriculture, manufacturing or cybersecurity. Certainly, we could learn some valuable lessons from our NATO allies and what is going on in Ukraine.

However, forgive me if I just have some hesitancy to trust the Liberals on what new chapters and what new details are going to be in this trade agreement, unless we have the time to review it.

That is my only caution to the Liberal government. Do not rush this through. Give parliamentarians and our stakeholders an opportunity to thoroughly review this agreement, to make sure it benefits both parties. The devil is in the details.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57. As I think everyone in this place knows, I have been unequivocal in my support for Ukraine, and that will never cease, not only because I am proud of my Ukrainian heritage, but also because Ukraine is in a battle for its life and its very existence.

For 607 days, we have watched on TV, in real time, Russia's illegal invasion. For 607 days, we have watched the barbaric acts of the Russian military. For 607 days, we have watched how Russian soldiers have used sexual violence as a weapon as they raped women and children. For 607 days, we have watched Putin trying to Russify Ukraine and commit another genocide on the soil of Ukraine against the ethnic Ukrainian people. He is trying to emulate exactly what we saw from Joseph Stalin in 1932 and 1933 in the Holodomor, except Putin is being more upfront and aggressive in his mannerisms. For 607 days, we have witnessed Putin and his kleptocrats in the Kremlin refuse to recognize Ukraine as a nation and the people of Ukraine as a people.

However, during those 607 days, we have witnessed, against all odds, the people of Ukraine standing up and fighting back. We have witnessed the valour, courage and bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers as they have fought to hold the line. We have witnessed, for 607 days, the resiliency of the people of Ukraine not only in fighting back, but also in continuing their lives and continuing to rebuild. After every missile strike, they rebuild. For 607 days, I do not think Putin anticipated that he would unite NATO and our allies to support Ukraine unequivocally in its fight for its freedom against Putin and his Kremlin kleptocrats.

It is incumbent upon all of us in the House and upon our allies to hold Vladimir Putin and his proxies to account for their war crimes in Ukraine. They have to be brought before the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. We know for a fact that Russia has been using sexual violence as a weapon. We know for a fact that it has kidnapped children and families from areas they currently occupy, taken those children, put them up for adoption and are now reprogramming them, or brainwashing them, to be Russian.

This is part of Raphäel Lemkin's definition within the United Nations declaration on genocide. A genocide is when someone is targeting a people based upon their race, ethnicity or religion or when they are going over there, taking people away, replacing them with their own people, taking the children and brainwashing them to become someone they are not.

As Conservatives, we have been very strong in our support for the people of Ukraine. It goes right back to when we were government under Stephen Harper, when the first occupation of Crimea started in 2015 and before that when the revolution of dignity started first on the streets in November 2014. In February 2015, we saw the actions of the illegal occupation and invasion of Crimea, and then war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk in the Donbas region of Ukraine, and Canada was one of the very first ones in, making sure we were providing military support. We started Operation UNIFIER and started pushing for Ukraine to be included as a member of NATO. That was all done under Stephen Harper and our Conservative government. It is something that I am incredibly proud of.

Since 2018, in opposition, we have been calling on the government to do more to help Ukraine. We asked the government to start sending over weapons, which we were originally going to send to help the Kurdish Peshmerga, the rifles, snipers rifles and ammunition, to Ukraine, so that it would be prepared in case a hot conflict broke out, as we witnessed in February 2022.

We asked the government to start providing RADARSAT images, which did begin under Stephen Harper, but then, of course, that was cancelled under Stéphane Dion when he was foreign affairs minister under the current Liberal government. Only recently, after the hot war broke out in 2022, the Liberals again reinstated providing those RADARSAT images so Ukrainians could see what was happening on their ground by Russian invaders.

We have been calling, since early last year, to donate our surplus armoured vehicles: our Coyote and Bison LAVs, our light-armoured vehicles; our track LAVs; and our M113s that are all destined to go to the trash heap. The Liberals under this Prime Minister want to send them to the scrap pile. Ukraine can use them to save lives as well as to liberate parts of Ukraine that are currently occupied by the Russian invaders.

We know for a fact that we saw the United States and Australia donate their M113s, and that helped liberate Kharkiv. We should be doing the same thing here because these vehicles are otherwise just going to be decommissioned and torn up and sent off to be melted down. We have a company in London, Ontario by the name of Armatec, which is prepared to take those vehicles, refurbish them and send them to Ukraine to make a serious difference in this war. We have GDLS in London that is already building armoured vehicles for Ukraine but at much slower rates than we would see if we were donating our older vehicles that are being decommissioned.

With respect to the free trade agreement, I will just reiterate what my colleague from Foothills just said, which is that we support free trade. We are a party of free trade and we are going to take our time to read through this very large document. However, I was in Ukraine just in August and I can say that the Ukrainians want to do trade with us. They want us to invest. I met with the Minister for Strategic Industries and he was talking about how they need Canada to go in and invest in industries that will not only support our economy but also could possibly support our war efforts as well, so those opportunities exist.

As someone with an agriculture background, I understand how important it is for us to be able to help Ukraine in its agriculture industries and the infrastructure Ukrainians need to get their commodities to market, especially with Russia bombing out their port facilities in the Black Sea region. Therefore, we need to help them with logistics, with infrastructure and as well with what we can pass on in agriculture production technology.

We know that through trade of things like LNG and ethical oil that we produce here in Canada, it would displace the Russian oil that right now Ukraine and our European allies are dependent upon. We are going into another winter in Ukraine and, again, Ukrainians have to continue to use the very natural gas, to heat their homes and their buildings, from the dictator Putin and his tyrants that he associates with, and make use of his energy, which actually puts cash in his pocket to fuel his war machine against Ukraine. We cannot have that happen.

Something that we need to do here in support of Ukraine is actually start building some things Ukraine is calling for. Now that war in Israel has broken out with the terrorist attack by Hamas, and the U.S. is now supporting Israel in the exchanges that are taking place, there is going to be even more need for Canada to provide munitions to Ukraine. Our production of 155 shells for the M777 Howitzers is abysmal. We are producing only around 2,000 rounds a month. We need to replenish our own stocks; plus, we need to make sure that we are providing munitions to Ukraine so that it can continue on with its attacks. Ukraine goes through 2,000 shells in a day and we are producing only that in one month, so we have to step up our production to help Ukraine.

We already donated eight Leopard tanks to Ukraine. We should donate more Leopard tanks. However, at the same time, what about buying some new Leopard tanks for our Canadian Armed Forces? Whatever we are going to be giving to Ukraine, we have to make sure that we replace those, like the M777 Howitzers, in our own Canadian Armed Forces so that we are prepared. Of course, morale continues to suffer under the current Liberals. The troops are leaving in record numbers. We are 16,000 members short. We have a recruiting and retention crisis because of the policies of the current Liberal government.

In conclusion, I will just say this: We all continue to pray for peace in Ukraine, but we know that the only way that is possible is that Ukraine must win. It must be victorious. Canada must continue to support it. Slava Ukraini.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to reflect on the power of trade and trade agreements.

Back in 2013, as the member across the way would recall, the EU trade agreement and the desire of Ukrainian people's to have more trade with the EU, ultimately led and could be tracked to what is happening today in Ukraine and Russia. This is from my perspective and, I suspect, from many people's perspectives. Russia continues to want to dominate the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

Today we have a trade agreement that I suspect everyone would support. At least I would hope that everyone would be supporting it. My question for the member is this: Would he not agree that the power of being able to see this legislation pass, ultimately, even before Christmas, goes far beyond just the economic benefits to both countries?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, once again, I just want to thank the member for Abbotsford, who actually started the free trade talks with Ukraine when he was minister of trade. I was proud to accompany him on one of those trips before we lost government in 2015. He laid the groundwork. This bill, of course, has additional chapters.

One thing is, if it is going beyond trade, then I would recommend it. If we are talking about agriculture, for example, why do we not see a section in here on getting rid of the land mines? We have heard about some horrific accidents happening right now in the south of Ukraine, in the Kherson region. Farmers are out there trying to plant their winter wheat in land that has been taken back from the Russians by the Ukrainian military. The mine density in the fields is ridiculous. It is very dangerous out there.

We need to be putting more effort into helping Ukraine demine those areas. However, before they can even demine them, they actually have to push the Russian invaders back so they could have control of those lands without being fearful of being bombed while they are out there trying to remove those mines.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague's speech, it detailed a very important issue. We heard that the Liberal government is going to cut $1 billion from our military. My question for him is this: How can we continue to support these efforts without those funds?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I made an error. I should not have recognized the member, because she is not sitting in her seat to ask the question.

I want to remind members that they should be in their seats. We are not under the previous rules.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is an issue that we really have to be concerned about.

The Liberals have already allowed over $10 billion of the national defence budget to lapse over the last several years. This is money that should have been spent on our armed forces and has not been. Our troops are dealing with a number of crises right now within the forces, including the cost of living and housing. We hear stories about them actually going out and asking for donations to help offset those costs.

We know that the $1 billion that is coming out now is coming at the wrong time. As I mentioned in my speech, we have donated howitzers, Leopard tanks and armoured vehicles to Ukraine. However, every time we donate, we also have to replenish our own stock of munitions and equipment to make sure that our army, air force and navy are mobile and expeditionary and can do the job that we call upon them to do from time to time.

The world, as we are witnessing, is getting scarier all the time. If we do not have strong Canadian Armed Forces, they are not going to be able to guarantee our peace, security and way of life right here in Canada.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the member about the economic impact assessments of free trade agreements and how wide or narrow those assessments should be. What does the member think about the fact that an economic impact assessment is missing in this case?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, this is one of the reasons that we should not be rushing through this free trade agreement.

We need to take the time to look at it and study it. We just had it presented to us over the last few days. It needs to go to committee to allow stakeholders to comment on it. We need to make sure that such things as the economic impacts and environmental assessments are thoroughly debated to see whether they are in the interest of both Canadian exporters and Ukrainian importers, and vice versa.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise and debate the issues that are so important to my constituents and Canadians from coast to coast.

I will be splitting my time.

We are debating Bill C-57, the implementation of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is a behemoth of a bill, more than 600 pages. The reason I bring this up is because I want to provide a little context. The Liberals' track record is that they stand in this place and say they have to pass something without delay or debate and anything that even resembles us doing our jobs in this place would be considered obstructionist. Those are things that the Liberals level often against members of His Majesty's loyal opposition, yet it is our duty to make sure that we comprehensively debate and discuss the issues that come before this place.

This is, indeed, the case when it comes to a 600-or-so page bill that has far-reaching implications, not only for us and our national economy, but also for one of our allies. I would emphasize how important this is for the economic success of Ukraine right now, which is facing something that most Canadians who have grown up in Canada have not faced, and that is conflict at home. Although Canada has about 1.3 or 1.4 million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, the fact is that Ukraine right now is embroiled in a conflict where Russia illegally invaded Ukraine sovereignty, so we have to get this right.

So often over the last four years I have had the honour of sitting in this place when the Liberals are quick to point to anything that would question any part of anything they do. That is pretty broadly speaking, but it rings very true. I am sure my colleagues would agree with me that when we try to do our jobs, they claim it is simply obstruction.

I remember in this place, shortly after I was elected, having to deal with the updated NAFTA, the CUSMA. The Liberal government, instead of releasing comprehensive numbers about the impact of the new trade agreement and some of the factors that would be in place, came with great gusto to a press conference and said that we either do not pass the CUSMA and there is economic devastation or we do pass it and we are okay. It did not outline the myriad of details that were included in what is an incredibly complex thing, and that is international trade negotiations.

When it comes to trade, it is the Conservative Party that has such a tremendous track record. It is the framework and the agreement that this trade agreement is replacing or being built upon, which is a better way to put it, that was started by the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the international leadership that he showed in building free and fair trade with nations around the world. There have been numerous times, including CETA, where the Liberals almost dropped the ball. Virtually all that had to be done was for the agreement to be signed, yet the Liberals almost dropped the ball, which would have wrought economic devastation.

Then we saw more recently the Canada-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement. The Liberals claimed victory, yet it seems like they forgot to attend the briefings and certainly did not speak to many stakeholders when concerns should have been addressed in the process of trade negotiations. It is a shame, because it is during the negotiations process, when the details are being worked out and the 600 pages are being written, when there is a back and forth, a give and take, in trade negotiations.

I would just note that when I listened to my colleague from Abbotsford, he has probably forgotten more about free trade than most Liberals will ever know. I do not have the number off the top of my head, but there were negotiations with dozens and dozens of countries with which Canada has a positive, free and fair trading relationship because of his work and the work of the previous Conservative government.

[An hon. member]

There are 43.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are 43. It is so impressive that is the legacy of Canada's Conservatives.

We have before us a bill that addresses a host of things, but I would highlight a couple of concerns that have been highlighted to me.

One has to do with some of Canada's protected sectors, including chicken. I know that over the course of the conflict in Ukraine, we need to make sure the concerns of our domestic industries are being noted. It is unclear to me whether these concerns have been addressed.

Some of the other concerns could be of great benefit to both countries, like making sure that our defence infrastructures are brought into alignment and ensuring that we support Ukraine with the weapons and materials that it has to have in order to repel the illegal Russian invasion. There is also ensuring that the tools required for Ukrainian producers, and farmers specifically, are there. I often refer to the breadbasket of North America, which is part of the area that I represent, but many in this place will have learned in their high school textbooks about the breadbasket of Europe, Ukraine, and the rich legacy it has in being able to produce high-quality agricultural goods, many of which have been put at risk because of Russia's illegal invasion.

We need to ensure that when we are negotiating free trade deals, including when it is with an ally facing circumstances like Ukraine is today, we are doing everything we can to ensure we get them right. Specifically, one segment here is so important that it cannot be emphasized enough, and that is the role that energy plays. I will make something very clear: Canadian energy, with the role it plays when prioritized, when promoted and when given the opportunity to displace dictator crude and despot gas, makes the world safer.

The unfortunate legacy of the last eight years under this costly Prime Minister and his coalition partners is that Canada has been restricted from being the peacemaker we should be. When it comes to any conversation around free trade, the more we can prioritize Canadian energy to be the common-sense displacement globally of dictator and despot crude and gas, the better our world is for it. Unfortunately, we have a legacy under the Liberal Prime Minister and his coalition partners that has been truly devastating to world peace.

Now, some might say that is a bit extreme, but when we look at the facts, we have a country facing war, Ukraine, which we are talking about now in terms of free trade, and its people are forced to purchase the very gas required to heat their homes and the very fuel required to fuel their vehicles and tanks. In some ways, they are forced to purchase it from none other than their aggressor. That is a shame, and it should be a moral imperative for every single one of us in this place to stand with Ukraine. That includes standing with Canadian energy so that we can get it to market and ensure that we displace the foreign dictator crude and despot gas that have been funding Putin's war machine. The best way to ensure there is peace and security is making sure there is energy security globally. That contributes to food security, and food security contributes directly to peace and security.

It is unfortunate that it is only the Conservatives who seem to see that reality here in our country. I can tell members that when it comes to making sure that Canada has free and fair trade agreements going forward, it will be a new Conservative prime minister, the member for Carleton, who will make sure that it is prioritized globally and that Canada can succeed and prosper. By doing so, the entire world will benefit.

When it comes to Bill C-57, there are so many unanswered questions. I would challenge any member from any other political party in this place to make sure they take the time to get it right, because if we get it right, we can help Canada's role in trade, Canada's role in providing energy and Canada's role in providing our expertise. We can be part of the solution. However, if we get it wrong, we could end up making it more difficult for our own people, and we could end up seeing significant challenges.

I look forward to answering questions on this as we continue to support trade and the people of Ukraine. In any discussion that we have in the House, let us make sure to get it right, because if we do not, the consequences will be dire.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question. The other questions will be taken the next time this is before the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, if one wants to get the Conservatives upset, just tell them the reality that when it comes to trade agreements, the government has signed off on more trade agreements than Stephen Harper did. That is a clear fact of history, yet the member gets all excited about the importance of trade agreements. I agree; we should be excited about them, especially this one, because it is the first time a trade agreement would be expanded upon when one of the countries is at war. There is a great deal of appetite from a wide spectrum of stakeholders to see this legislation pass.

My question to the member is this: He says he wants lots of time to be able to debate this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but I did say I needed a brief question.

A brief answer from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not hear a question there, so I will take it as a comment. I will simply emphasize and close my remarks with this: In 2014, a year after the process started with the initial free trade agreement, Stephen Harper led the world in a show of strength when he stood face to face with a dictator and despot, telling Vladimir Putin to “get out of Ukraine.” That is the leadership the Conservatives have shown continually and the leadership we will continue to show when the member for Carleton is prime minister.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, free trade is very close and dear to my heart.

I want to ask the member about his own Ukrainian community, the diaspora that is gathered within his community and why they would feel that this agreement is really important to Canada. I would welcome his thoughts on that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note the work my colleague from Abbotsford did in making sure that, under the previous Conservative governments, there were, I believe, 43 trade agreements with different countries from around—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There were 47.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, there were 47.

That member has probably forgotten more about trade than most Liberals will ever know, but he asked an important question concerning the Ukrainian diaspora within my community. As is the case for many rural prairie MPs, there are significant Ukrainian roots. The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, which is a great place to visit for families, is located just north of my constituency. It speaks to that richness, especially when it comes to those roots in agriculture.

We need to make sure that we take seriously the fact that we established, in 2013, the first Ukrainian free trade agreement, and now we have the opportunity to build on that. I want to emphasize that we have to get it right. It is before this House. We need to make sure that it goes through the process to ensure that every section and every subsection of this bill are done right for the Ukrainian diaspora in our country, for all Canadians and for a country that is facing incredible circumstances. It has shown itself to be able to stand strong against this unjustified and illegal Russian invasion.

For both sides, we need to make sure that we get it right. That is why I hope all members of this place take seriously the responsibility that is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that that happens.

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

Mr. Speaker, liquefied natural gas is a great opportunity for Canada. There are currently 18 LNG products on the desk of the Prime Minister awaiting approval. If we look at the current situation in Ukraine, reducing reliance on Russian natural gas is something obvious we could do to help. Canada has this great opportunity.

Maybe my colleague could expand a bit on that in the context of the free trade agreement.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this being asked by an Ontario MP as it emphasizes to all Albertans that the question of energy security is not unique to the west or Alberta. It is truly is a national issue.

To directly answer my colleague from Ontario's question, it is an international issue as well. Canada has the opportunity to ensure that we displace Russian crude oil and gas, that dictator and despot's crude oil and natural gas. Specifically, when it comes to LNG, we have the ability to make sure that dollars are not going to dictators, such as the tyrant Vladimir Putin, who is engaged in this illegal invasion of the sovereign country of Ukraine. The very people he is forcing to fight against that aggression are being forced to purchase natural gas that funds that very war machine. Canada is the solution to ensure that we have energy security for our allies and friends around the world. When that happens, our world becomes a safer place.

The regrettable reality is that, after eight years of the Liberal Prime Minister, we have seen the world become less safe because of his refusal to allow Canadian energy, and the expertise that comes along with it, to make our world a safer place. Let us get that done.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to rise in the House. Today, we are talking about support for this important legislation and implementing the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

As we all know, since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine’s territory, Canada has demonstrated an unwavering support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. Today, we have another opportunity to demonstrate support to Ukraine with the implementation of a modernized CUFTA.

When I met with people from the Ukrainian community in Richmond Centre, they shared with me their support for our government’s vision of a democratically strong nation that values the importance of international collaboration, the rule of law, and global peace and security. I also want to take a moment to convey my appreciation to Ukrainian community organizations, such as the Ukrainian Community Society of Ivan Franko in Richmond Centre, for all they do in supporting the Ukrainian community here in Canada and promoting Ukrainian arts and culture.

Canada and Ukraine share these values and, most importantly, the people-to-people ties. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western nation to recognize Ukraine’s independence, and today Canada will stand with Ukraine and its people for as long as it takes. When our allies need support, the Government of Canada has the responsibility to support them. I appreciate and am thankful for the Government of Canada’s support for Ukraine since the war began. Canada has provided over $8 billion toward financial, military, humanitarian, development and immigration assistance for Ukraine.

Recently, the Government of Canada announced a new investment of $650 million over three years to supply Ukraine with 50 armoured vehicles, including armoured medical evacuation vehicles, built by Canadian workers in London, Ontario. The Russian illegal invasion affects global inflation, and it affects us. It increases food prices and affects the supply chain. Global peace and security are an essential part of our global economic prosperity.

By modernizing the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, we can provide the additional assistance that Ukraine needs with its reconstruction efforts, the cost of which the World Bank has estimated will be $411 billion U.S. These efforts will involve sectors such as infrastructure, renewable resources and financial services, which are all areas in which Canada has strengths.

Canadian firms have already indicated an interest in launching and expanding their operations in Ukraine, including with respect to reconstruction, and we would have a tool to support their involvement. I am referring to the newly added investment chapter, previously missing from the 2017 CUFTA. As you may be aware, Canada and Ukraine have an existing foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, which was signed in 1994. However, this new modernized investment chapter would not only bring this new agreement in line with Canada's model comprehensive FTAs, but would also update our investment protections to address modern investment issues and concerns.

Please allow me to briefly present this new investment chapter, which resulted from our efforts in negotiating the modernized CUFTA and which will support Canadian firms' participation in Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts. The CUFTA investment chapter modernizes the framework of protections for investors and their investments with a comprehensive set of obligations in line with Canada's most ambitious trade agreements. I am also proud to announce that this investment chapter is the first to be negotiated using Canada’s most recent model, which seeks to better ensure that investment obligations act as intended and that they provide the necessary policy flexibility for governments to act in the public interest.

As such, this new drafting for the investment chapter would allow Canada and Ukraine to maintain their right to regulate in key areas, such as environment, health, safety, indigenous rights, gender equality and cultural diversity. Additionally, this new chapter includes a modern dispute settlement mechanism, which would offer strengthened alternatives to avoid arbitration, as well as enhanced transparency of proceedings commitments. In all, these outcomes represent a significant improvement over the 1994 FIPA with Ukraine, which this chapter would replace, and would strengthen the environment within which Canadian investors can invest with more confidence in Ukraine’s reconstruction.

I am thankful for this opportunity to describe what we can achieve on investment through the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I hope I have made clear why this modern and comprehensive free trade agreement would be instrumental in not only in building our long-term commercial relations with Ukraine but also supporting its forthcoming reconstruction efforts.

To this end, I urge all honourable members to support Bill C-57 and allow us to collectively move forward to implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement on a timely basis.

Once again, Canada will stand with Ukraine and its people as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the major challenges facing Ukraine is energy security. Ukraine formerly depended on Russia for its natural gas supplies, and of course that opportunity has quickly evaporated.

Canada stands in a perfect position to sell natural gas to Ukraine. Unfortunately, our current government has been very reluctant to promote the sale of liquefied natural gas to the rest of the world, claiming that there is no business case to be made for it. However, now we have an opportunity within the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement to perhaps find a way of getting our natural gas to Ukraine and providing them with energy security. What component of this agreement, if any, would expedite and assist Canadian companies to export liquefied natural gas to Ukraine?

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. Prior to this free trade agreement, we never expected for Ukraine to be illegally invaded by Russia.

The importance of energy is something we all should be concerned about, especially when we have these resources available here in Canada. It is important for us to continue to support Ukraine, especially with its reconstruction. Hopefully, we will see the war end soon. As people are suffering on the ground, it is important for us, as a government, to look into potential resources to assist the efforts of fuelling the energy needs of Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is quite simple. When it comes to international agreements, Quebec and the Canadian provinces are rarely consulted, if at all. I would like to know if my colleague knows whether this agreement has any impact on the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces.

If so, were Quebec and the provinces consulted on these provisions?

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we move forward with the second reading, and as this bill is discussed at the Standing Committee on International Trade, I encourage the member to suggest any witnesses who should testify during the standing committee's meetings. It is important for us to understand that this free trade agreement is not specific to any province or territory, but to our nation as a whole.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was tabled in the House last week on October 17. I am hoping the member can enlighten me, because the government's own policy requires that before the tabling of legislation, 21 sitting days have to expire so that members of Parliament can take a look at the agreement before any enabling legislation is brought in. We did not have that presented to members of Parliament. We also do not have an economic statement.

The government has attached a lot of importance to Bill C-56, so I am just wondering why the government did not take the time to do those two key priorities. We have plenty of time to consider this legislation. Instead, maybe we should devote the House's time to Bill C-56, which the government often likes to complain is not moving ahead.

[Wilson Miao, Liberal, Richmond Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe this agreement was signed in September. Of course, this is the time that we take the opportunity to hear from all sides to see the potential of this free trade agreement and if there is any room to improve it. It would be great if we can bring it forward to the standing committee and discuss it there.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C‑57. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who did me a favour by allowing me to go first.

Let me say from the outset that, generally speaking, we are all in favour of free trade and we are in favour of this agreement with Ukraine. We know that we are in a partnership with the Ukrainians, whom we have been supporting intensively since the beginning of the conflict. This bill is a logical continuation. The new agreement will replace the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was vaguer, less restrictive and less clear. We think this is a positive change, especially when it comes to the implementation mechanisms, which have been amended to be more stringent.

This agreement sends a very clear message to the whole world, and especially to Ukrainians, that we are bound to their nation by ties of friendship and that we support them under the current circumstances. One positive element of this agreement is that it recognizes the Donbass and Crimea as being part of Ukrainian territory. This may seem symbolic, but it is important to make this kind of statement to send a clear message to the international community. I will be at the Asia Pacific Forum a few weeks from now, and I will convey the same message on behalf of everyone here.

The agreement, which was signed with the President of Ukraine during his latest visit, clarifies some technical details.

The problem we have with this kind of bill is that, once passed by Parliament, it allows for the creation of institutions or mechanisms to govern free trade agreements. However, we never get to have our say on what is actually in those agreements. We can only accept or reject them wholesale. It would be reasonable for parliamentarians to put forward proposals and analyze various texts to produce a better, more refined agreement whose every nuance has been studied in detail. The Canadian government's current system allows the executive to make all the decisions. The powers of Parliament itself are extremely limited because members cannot participate.

I will never forget what happened right after I was first elected in 2019. I had to vote in favour of ratifying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which forced supply-managed producers to accept yet more concessions. Although it pained us greatly, we were forced to vote in favour of the agreement knowing it would hurt people.

We do not want that to happen again. I can see that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very honoured and very pleased that he is hearing my message. I invite all the parties to sit down together and figure out how we can change the process for adopting international agreements like this one. It is important.

Some people here agreed with Bill C‑282, which limits concessions involving supply management in future trade agreements. It was the way these agreements are currently developed that forced us to be inventive and resort to a bill to protect supply management. This issue has now been resolved. However, in other trade agreements, there will be other delicate issues, where some groups are more impacted than others, and where balance will need to be restored. That is why we need to review the current system.

Another major flaw is that, once the agreement is signed, the provinces and Quebec will be called upon to apply and implement the provisions under their jurisdiction.

However, they were not asked for their opinion beforehand. There are still some people here who wonder why we want Quebec to be independent. This is another example that shows why. We want to control what is included in our international agreements. That is one justification for independence.

Yesterday, when I asked the Minister of International Trade a question, I was pleased to receive a very clear answer. The new agreement with Ukraine is good; it will replace the one from 2017. However, the government issued a unilateral remission order last year to allow all Ukrainian products to enter Canada tariff-free. That was fine because it was a measure to help the Ukrainian economy during the conflict. No one disputed that.

However, in its haste and panic, the government threw supply-managed commodities into the mix, which is unacceptable. Yes, it is important to help, and we have always been there. The Bloc Québécois has always been in favour of measures to help Ukrainians in this terrible ongoing conflict. However, we need to be able to help others without hurting ourselves.

Why put supply management in this order? It was difficult because it was becoming politically sensitive to complain about something that favoured Ukraine. It took a long time. Supply management groups lobbied the government. The opposition worked very hard. When the order was renewed, supply-managed commodities were taken out of it. That was a good thing.

That is why I put the question to the minister yesterday. Until Bill C‑282 is passed into law, there will always be a tiny possibility of further concessions.

Now the rest of the bill is mechanical. It has to do with putting structures in place. I have another complaint about the bill. In the section on investor-state mechanisms, multinational corporations are still given an equal footing with states. That is beyond reprehensible. This is very serious because states must have the right to legislate in order to regulate and ensure the collective well-being of their citizens. As things currently stand, a multinational could sue a state for damages for interfering with its business. We must find a way to stop this, because it makes no sense. A lot of things make no sense.

One of the bill's last shortcomings concerns best practices, ethical practices and environmental protection practices. The bill seems like a series of good intentions that urge people and businesses to be careful and to follow best practices, but in no way obliges them to do so.

Since I do not have much time left, I will close by saying that this agreement is important. We are partners with Ukraine, and we will remain partners. It will also be important to contribute to rebuilding Ukraine, which I hope will happen soon, as soon as this horrible war is over. I think Quebec's expertise and businesses can play a part in the reconstruction.

During my speech, I talked a lot about helping others without hurting ourselves. Every now and then, I also want to make sure that people in this country get help. I must digress for a moment. Last week, we voted on a bill to increase old age pensions starting at age 65. Some representatives from FADOQ are visiting Parliament Hill today. I invite all parliamentarians to show some respect for these important people who are working to end social isolation. More importantly, I urge them to show some respect for people aged 65 to 74 who were shut out when the government created an unjustified form of discrimination based on age. This is very serious and has been going on for months. I do not understand why this has not been resolved. Let us fix this as soon as possible.

I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc is supporting the bill. This trade agreement, from an economic point of view, is an agreement that would benefit both Canada and Ukraine, but that is not the aspect I want to pick up on.

The member spoke a great deal about the special and wonderful relationship between Canada and Ukraine. We have an opportunity here with the passage of this legislation to make a very powerful statement that would go far beyond just the economics. It could deal with everything from the illegal invasion of the Putin war to morale boosting on the front lines of Ukrainian freedom fighters.

The question I have for the member is this: Would he not agree with me that it would be a wonderful thing to ultimately see this bill pass through all stages, including the Senate, before the end of this year?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this does not happen very often, but I have to say that I again agree with the member for Winnipeg North. I am always happy when that happens.

I am a regular guy who is in touch with the people. Since becoming a member of Parliament four years ago, I have found that things move so slowly that any time we are asked to move quickly, I answer “yes”. Let us move forward carefully and intelligently. Let us take the time to analyze the text, but let us do it.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a region that has been very negatively affected by a free trade agreement. As a result, my riding has lost good jobs, particularly in the natural resources sector.

The member was very enthusiastic about saying that he supports free trade agreements. Knowing that Quebeckers were also affected, is it not important to do a good job to ensure that jobs and key sectors here in Canada are protected and that we do not lose good jobs and the industries we have in Quebec and Canada?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we must work diligently and intelligently. That is what I was saying earlier.

That is why, during my statement, I mentioned Bill C‑282, which is currently before the Senate. The purpose of that bill is to protect a very important sector. We can be in favour of free trade and adopt agreements that are smart, that do not sacrifice certain groups to the benefit of others.

I think we are capable of negotiating intelligently, and that is why we will do so together.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague noted the more general aspect of relations between multinational corporations and the state and how they are put on an equal footing. We know that the Liberals and Conservatives are obsessed with exporting oil, the dirtiest oil in the world. When we put multinationals on an equal footing with governments, it is a bit like telling Ukraine and our other trade partners that we want to export to their country as much of the dirtiest oil in the world as we can, implying that if, some day, these countries impose environmental regulations that are good for the planet, they will be seen as enemies of free trade.

I would like to know whether my colleague has any thoughts to share on the right of countries to respect the environment, even in the context of free trade.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Mirabel for his intelligent question.

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why I addressed the issue in my speech. It requires urgent action. It reflects a trend we are seeing not only in Canada and Quebec, but also around the world. Governments are increasingly off-loading their responsibilities onto private states. The gene editing regulations that I recently spoke about in the House are one example that comes to mind.

After realizing that the private sector provided the studies and wrote most of the documentation, or almost certainly suggested the wording, at the very least, we should be hearing alarm bells. I think that the state has to assume its responsibilities and, above all, limit the power of private corporations. We must never lose sight of the fact that the government represents the people.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always difficult to speak after my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, since he is so brilliant and knowledgeable on this subject.

To begin with, I want to recall the historical context of the agreement, which Bill C-57 will implement without actually modifying. It was first negotiated under the Harper government and finally signed in 2017 by the current government. In 2023, various aspects of the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement were improved. That is what I am going to cover in my speech.

Essentially, the 2023 agreement codifies in a treaty the idea that the territory of Ukraine also includes the Donbass and Crimea, two regions that have been invaded by Russia over almost the entire past decade. The 2023 agreement is more comprehensive than the one signed in 2017. The latest agreement was signed by President Zelenskyy on September 22, during his visit to Canada.

Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, is about 15 pages long. It is an implementation bill, not the agreement itself. It essentially contains provisions that change the names of certain references, from 2017 to 2023, for consistency. The bill authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority, and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement signed on September 22, For example, it creates a secretariat responsible for the smooth running of this trade agreement.

How can anyone be against apple pie? How can any Quebecker be against poutine? Generally speaking, trade agreements are good. However, the agreement we are talking about is 1,000 pages and 30 chapters long. It is more than apple pie. It is more complicated than making a really good poutine.

This agreement covers goods and services, investments, government contracts, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and labour and environmental law. There are even provisions that favour small businesses, women and indigenous entrepreneurs. There really is a lot of complexity to this agreement, and it calls for a close look. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, Bill C‑57 should take a much deeper dive into the substance of the agreement than it does.

Not only are there questions about supply management, but we have already seen in the past that Quebec aluminum was not protected under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, while Ontario steel was. Is that still the case? That is why we have to take the time to carefully study agreements before signing them. That is just one of many examples.

The 2023 agreement contains 11 new chapters, relative to the 2017 agreement. It addresses cross-border trade in services by specifying the rules applicable to services. Measures are being developed and administered to ensure predictability and consistency in administrative practices. That is important. Entrepreneurs often talk to us about the predictability of future events. This agreement clarifies that. The 1994 agreement on investment protection is being improved, particularly with respect to the definition of direct or indirect expropriation. The definition has been tightened up to ensure that there is no unjustified expropriation.

Then again, the current agreement opens the door to a rather serious problem by allowing investors to sue a foreign state. This is a problem, because an international agreement is an agreement between nations, and now corporations are being put on the same footing as states. This is not a good precedent to set. We can certainly discuss ways of protecting our states in committee. We are negotiating nation to nation, not investor to nation. Is there a solution? As I said, we can discuss this in committee, but the simplest solution is to bring multinationals back under the state umbrella, rather than putting them on an equal footing.

With regard to trade, this agreement completes the chapter on cross-border trade in services. I have already talked about this. It clarifies how it is to be applied in various areas, as well as the exceptions that Canada and Ukraine want to preserve. There is also a chapter on including business people and one on telecommunications. The agreement guarantees access to infrastructure, but does not affect broadcasting and cultural policies, which is great. While we may share certain similarities with various aspects of Ukrainian culture, their culture is quite different from ours. Even within Canada, we have cultures that are very different from one another and that we want to protect, particularly francophone culture and indigenous cultures.

The current agreement defines the rules applicable to financial services by immediately establishing rules that facilitate the use of financial services and the simple flow of capital in both countries. There are three chapters on the participation of SMEs, women and indigenous peoples that make it possible to implement preferential measures. Finally, the agreement codifies the regulations adopted to ensure that they are transparent and predictable. Those are two important things for both the public and business people.

The new 2023 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement amends eight chapters of the 2017 CUFTA, including “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures”, “Digital Trade”, “Competition Policy”, “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” and “Government Procurement”. The “Environment” and “Labour” chapters, which used to be statements of intent, will now be binding, so these chapters represent progress. Finally, the chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct” is amended and improved.

In short, Bill C-57 implements an agreement that is more comprehensive than both the 2017 and 1994 agreements. However, as with every other free trade agreement, we had practically nothing to do with the content of this 1,000-page agreement, even though it will impact ordinary people, since they are the ones producing the goods and services. We, who represent the people, have almost no say in the matter, except to indicate whether the agreement should be implemented or not. Basically, that is what Bill C-57 does. We did not have much say in regard to the content of the 1,000-page agreement. This is problematic, but it does not have to be this way. The government could hold consultations with the provinces, businesses and parliamentarians.

What is more, we are rather limited in the amendments we could propose for Bill C‑57. We can amend the bill, but not the agreement. That is why we are limited in what we can amend. As I was saying, the provinces are not really involved in the process, which means the agreement can affect the constitutional jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces, given that they were not consulted. Quebec and the Canadian provinces will essentially suffer the consequences, when it is their jurisdictions that are involved and it would be up to the provinces to manage them. That is something that needs improvement.

We will vote in favour of this bill because this free trade agreement is good not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine, essentially because it will contribute to the economic and physical rebuilding of Ukraine.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the member's concerns with the consultations.

I am sure she can appreciate the fact that we have a negotiating team representing Canada. This is a team of individuals who have great experience. They have an understanding and, no doubt, have had considerable dialogue with respect to all the different issues, including what has happened in some of the debates that have occurred in here in the past with respect to trade agreements and the concerns about them.

A good example of that would be the issue of supply management. These individuals know full well how political entities and others feel about supply management. The general feelings of Canadians are reflected at the beginning of the negotiations and throughout the negotiations to ensure that Canadians are best served.

Would the member not agree that at some point we have to allow the Canadian negotiators to actually get the agreement, so that the heads of both governments are able to sign off and we are afforded the opportunity to have further ongoing discussions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have faith in the negotiating skills of our professionals, in that they speak for Canada. That being said, sometimes there are some blind spots. I would point to what happened with aluminum during CUSMA. We had to fight for it in the House. We were told that it was protected just as much as steel was, only to realize later that it was not. A letter had to be added in a schedule. I would also mention supply management, which is essentially our farmers' income pool, and that gets dipped into a bit more time after time.

The negotiators are indeed skilled, but there are blind spots. That is what I am talking about. Those blind spots include the jurisdictions of Quebec and the Canadian provinces because “federal” seems to be the default mindset, and the details are not necessarily considered.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague for an excellent speech.

This is a good agreement, but the federal government negotiated it without consulting the provinces. Parliament is somewhat superfluous in this matter. As everyone knows, these agreements are temporarily in effect while we vote on implementing them.

We are obviously sovereignists, and there are a lot of sovereignists in Quebec. These people are told that if Quebec became a country, it would have to negotiate everything. It would have to negotiate free trade agreements. However, today we have proof that agreements can be negotiated, modified and renegotiated.

Does my colleague think that an independent Quebec could have negotiated a free trade agreement with Ukraine on its own?

I would also like to know if she thinks that Ukraine would have turned its back on us or if it would have wanted to trade with Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. In an independent Quebec, Quebec would negotiate for itself.

Some might say that Quebec is far too small to negotiate for itself, that it is not big enough or important enough. Quebec is never “enough”. It is always too small for someone.

Geographically speaking, Quebec is bigger than Ukraine. Demographically, it has roughly the same population. If Ukraine is capable of negotiating on its own, like a big country does, an independent Quebec would be very capable of doing so too.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague gave us some good examples of sectors and workers that were forgotten during our free trade negotiations.

I would like to ask her once again how important it is to take our time and make sure we are protecting important economic sectors here at home along with good jobs in our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we enter into free trade agreements, the ultimate goal should be not only to come out ahead as a country but also to help another country come out ahead. We cannot come out ahead if we do not protect our own economy and if we allow another country, any other country, to get the upper hand. A free trade agreement has to be equitable and egalitarian. It has to protect the jobs and economic resources of both countries. Elements of the trade relationship have to be complementary.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak on behalf of the wonderful residents of my riding of Davenport.

Today I will be speaking to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but before I begin my formal written remarks, I want to take a few minutes to make a few comments.

First, I am happy the bill has been introduced in the House. I am also grateful to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development for her leadership and work. In a time of war, it is really important for us to be thinking about the Ukrainian economy, both today and tomorrow. Therefore, a huge thanks to her for this.

I am very grateful to my colleagues on the Canada-Ukraine Friendship Group for their focus and attention on this, particularly my colleague, the member for Etobicoke Centre.

I also want to express how grateful I am to a number of key stakeholders who have helped to shape this agreement, including the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Association of Toronto, the Ukrainian Canadian Social Services of Canada and the Ukrainian Canadian Bar Association. I thank all of them.

I also want to acknowledge the context in which we are living today, one in which we are introducing this modernized trade agreement.

As we all know, something that troubles us every day are the major wars under way in the world today. In February of 2022, Russia started the unprovoked and illegal brutal war in Ukraine, which continues today. More recently, on October 7, Hamas initiated a brutal and violent war against Israel, which, unfortunately, also continues today. Both are clear illustrations of an attack on our democracies using war and terrorism.

I put out statements to my constituents constantly to update them on what is happening. In my latest update on Friday, I said the following, “We are in a struggle to defend our values, our humanity, and to stand up against these attacks on democracy. There is no simple solution to the conflict, but the work to find a humanitarian path to end the violence should be driven by one basic principle, and that is the most basic value of all, to protect and cherish human life.”

Some will ask me why I am mentioning this during a speech on the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It is because in a time of war, when we are fighting for our values, for democracy, for the right to continue to choose the way we live, real, everyday life continues. It is important to not only support the current economy in Ukraine but also the one it is trying to build after the war it is fighting eventually ends. I am really glad Canada is there.

I have one other aside. It is my privilege to currently serve as the chair of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. At the international meetings where NATO parliamentarians assemble, we talk about rebuilding Ukraine after the war. We know that the work begins now. I am very proud that Canada is stepping up and very much playing its part.

It is a true honour for me to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, otherwise known as CUFTA.

As we all know, Canada and Ukraine have enjoyed very close bilateral relations since 1991, when Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukrainian independence, an issue that we are sadly still fighting for to this day. These bilateral relations are strengthened by shared values and warm people-to-people ties rooted in the Ukrainian Canadian community of nearly 1.3 million people. My family is very much part of this community.

Recently, the Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship has been marked by Canada's steadfast support to Ukraine independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of protracted Russian aggression. Whether it was in 2014 when Russia illegally occupied Crimea or, today, following Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, Canada has stood steadfast beside our Ukrainian allies to support them as they fight for their independence, democracy and freedom.

As such, since the beginning of the conflict in February 2022, Canada has committed almost $9 billion in multi-faceted support to Ukraine, which includes $5 billion in financial assistance, including $4 billion in loans through the International Monetary Fund's administered account for Ukraine, as well as $500 million through a Canada-Ukraine sovereignty bond; over $2 billion in military assistance and defence, of which I know that our Minister of Defence has recently made an additional announcement; $352 million in humanitarian assistance, a lot of which goes to the Ukrainian Women's Fund, which is for much-necessary work in the country; $147 million in development assistance; $102 million in security and stabilization assistance; and $4.8 million in cultural protection.

Additionally, Canada has established new immigration measures for Ukrainians fleeing Russia's invasion, for which we have committed $1.2 billion.

Today we have yet another opportunity to demonstrate our continued support to Ukraine through other means, means that will not only offer assistance in the short term but will extend well beyond the current unfortunate situation and will form the basis on which Canada can support the reconstruction of Ukraine for years to come. I am, of course, referring to the modernized CUFTA, which is the reason I am addressing members today.

The original CUFTA entered into force in August 2017 and immediately eliminated tariffs on 99% of imports from Ukraine. Similarly, the 2017 CUFTA immediately eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canadian exports to Ukraine, with the balance of tariff concessions to be implemented over a seven-year period, or by January 1, 2024.

While reductions in coal supplies from Canada caused a slight drop in total trade following the 2017 CUFTA's entry into force, non-coal exports grew at a rapid pace and, in 2021, total bilateral trade reached its highest point ever at $447 million before dipping to $421 million in 2022 due to Russia's invasion.

In 2022, top Canadian exports to Ukraine included armoured vehicles, fish, medicine, motor vehicles and parts, and pet food. Top imports from Ukraine included fats and oils, iron and steel, electrical machinery, and processed foods. Canadian investment in Ukraine in 2022 amounted to $112 million.

While comprehensive from a trade-in-goods perspective, the 2017 CUFTA did not include chapters on trade in services or investment. These areas were left out of the agreement due to divergent approaches at the time. Rather, the CUFTA contained a clause committing Canada and Ukraine to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force, with a view to expanding it. The review clause specifically identified services and investment as potential additions, but did not restrict the parties from exploring other areas.

Pursuant to this review clause, in a visit to Ottawa in July 2019, our Prime Minister and the Ukrainian president, President Zelenskyy, announced their intention to modernize the CUFTA. Our federal government then held formal public consultations on the modernization of the CUFTA in the winter of 2020. Submissions supported the initiative as a means of strengthening the bilateral relationship, building on Canada's commercial engagement with Ukraine, and further promoting an open, inclusive and rules-based trading environment for our businesses and investors.

The Government of Canada also received positive feedback from the provinces and territories, several of which were particularly supportive of the potential inclusion of new or modernized chapters on cross-border trade in services, financial services, investment, digital trade and additional commitments to support small and medium-sized enterprises. All of these areas have been successfully included in the modernized CUFTA, as well as new chapters or provisions on trade and gender, trade and indigenous peoples, digital trade, transparency, labour and environment, among many other areas.

Following these internal consultations, and delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we know there was an announcement to launch the negotiations for a modernized CUFTA in January 2022.

Unfortunately, only weeks later, on February 24, 2022, Russia began its full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. This caused another delay in progress, with Canadian trade officials relaying to their Ukrainian counterparts that they stood ready to proceed with CUFTA modernization discussions in accordance with Ukraine's capacity and willingness to do so.

Negotiations started in June 2022 and, despite compressed timelines and difficult circumstances for our negotiating partner, they were highly constructive. Both sides demonstrated an eagerness to reach an ambitious and high-standard agreement that would be on par with Canada's most comprehensive trade agreements. This was done with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two nations long into the future.

During a visit from the Prime Minister of Ukraine on April 11, 2023, he and our Prime Minister announced the conclusion of negotiations for the modernized CUFTA. Each committed to undertaking their respective domestic processes to facilitate its signature and entry into force as soon as possible.

During his most recent visit to Ottawa on September 22, 2023, President Zelenskyy and our Prime Minister signed the final modernized CUFTA text. This was a historic milestone in the Canadian-Ukrainian bilateral relationship, and it served as another clear demonstration of Canada's unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. With the final agreement officially signed, both sides are now taking the next steps to bring the agreement into force as early as January 1, 2024. That is why we are here today.

If I may, I will say a few words about the modernized agreement and some of the benefits and opportunities it presents for Canadians and Ukrainians alike.

Substantive negotiations have resulted in a modernized CUFTA, which includes nine dedicated new chapters and upgrades to nine existing chapters from the 2017 CUFTA. I will begin with an overview of the new chapters that have been added.

First, the agreement includes a dedicated new chapter on cross-border trade in services, which puts both Ukrainian and Canadian service suppliers on a comparable footing vis-à-vis our main services trading partners. Additionally, this chapter includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications that would facilitate trade and professional services, which are strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

The parties have also added a new chapter on investment that would replace the Canada-Ukraine FIPA. It features modern drafting to ensure investment obligations operate as intended and provide necessary flexibility in key policy areas. The new chapter includes a modern dispute settlement mechanism that would help Canadian investors participate with more confidence during Ukraine's reconstruction and beyond.

The modernized CUFTA has a financial services chapter, which includes core obligations related to market access, national treatment and most-favoured nation treatment. It would also maintain flexibility for regulators to preserve the stability of their financial systems. The financial services chapter would support a predictable, stable and transparent investment environment for investors, and it would allow Ukraine a 10-year period to transition from its existing World Trade Organization commitments to those included in this agreement.

There is also a new chapter in telecommunications, which would promote competition and provide enhanced certainty for telecommunications service suppliers when operating in Canadian and Ukrainian markets. The chapter also includes commitments to ensure that regulators of the telecommunications sector would be independent, impartial and transparent.

The parties have also added a chapter on temporary entry for business persons, which would provide new access for Canadians and Canadian companies to do business, invest and work in highly skilled occupations on a temporary basis in Ukraine while providing Canadian employers with easier access to highly skilled Ukrainian workers.

New chapters on inclusive trade, including trade and gender, trade and small and medium-sized enterprises, and trade and indigenous peoples, seek to empower and create opportunities for these under-represented groups, increasing their participation in and expanding their benefits from the modernized CUFTA. Notably, the trade and indigenous peoples chapter is the first of its kind included by either party in a free trade agreement.

Lastly, there is a chapter on good regulatory practices. It demonstrates to current and future trading partners that Ukraine is able to take on commitments that support a regulatory environment conducive to trade.

In addition to the new chapters I have outlined, we have also agreed with Ukraine to update nine chapters from the existing agreement. This includes rules of origin and origin procedures, where Canada and Ukraine have agreed to activate an article from the 2017 CUFTA on cumulation of origin.

This would allow materials of any non-party with which both Canada and Ukraine have an existing free trade agreement, such as the European Union, to be taken into consideration by the exporter when determining whether a product qualifies as originating under CUFTA, which would make it easier for Canadian and Ukrainian businesses to participate in regional value chains. It reflects a shared desire to support trade among like-minded partners.

The new digital trade chapter aims to improve regulatory certainty for businesses seeking to engage in the digital economy in both markets, as well as those specifically looking to engage in cross-border digital trade between Canada and Ukraine. The modernized CUFTA also includes a stand-alone competition policy chapter, which would enhance both parties' objective for a fair, transparent, predictable and competitive business environment through enhanced obligations for procedural fairness, and the identification and protection of confidential information by authorities.

The monopolies and state enterprises chapter has been upgraded to include important definitions for state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, and updated commitments on transparency and technical co-operation. In the modernized government procurement chapter, Canada and Ukraine have agreed to provisions clarifying that the parties are not prevented from undertaking policies and programs to support domestic initiatives, such as green and social procurement.

The modernized CUFTA also includes perhaps the most comprehensive and ambitious environment chapter ever achieved in a Canadian free trade agreement. The updated chapter seeks to promote robust, ambitious and transparent environmental governance, and for the first time, includes a dedicated article reaffirming the parties' commitment to addressing climate change.

There is also an updated labour chapter, which shows that Canada and Ukraine are committed to the highest labour rights standards. Fully subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the agreement, the chapter commits Canada and Ukraine to implement, in their labour laws, the content of the core conventions of the International Labour Organization.

The transparency, anti-corruption and reasonable business conduct chapter promotes transparency and integrity among public officials, private sector and society, and it advances enforceability of anti-corruption laws. It includes a new section to encourage responsible business conduct.

These negotiated outcomes would not only position Canadian firms to better participate in the economic reconstruction of Ukraine, but also support Ukraine's trade policy interests globally. Our Ukrainian colleagues have already expressed to us the value of the modernized CUFTA as the model of a modern, comprehensive and high-standard agreement with prospective trading partners around the globe. Domestically, the modernized agreement would reinforce the regulatory framework of a more inclusive, predictable and transparent trading and investment environment, which would benefit Canadian workers, businesses and entrepreneurs.

While the war continues to hinder trade both globally and bilaterally between Canada and Ukraine, the benefits and opportunities our countries have secured through this FTA are varied and long term, and would support growth in our commercial relationship now and for years to come.

During President Zelenskyy's recent visit, he and Prime Minister Trudeau had the opportunity to participate in a business round table in Toronto. At this event, we heard from business leaders from across Canada about the scope of commercial trade and investment interests in Ukraine, the risks associated with doing business in Ukraine and how to overcome these risks to ensure the private sector in Canada is well-positioned to invest and support Ukrainian reconstruction. Indeed, Canadian reconstruction companies, such as Aecon, are already moving forward to form partnerships with Ukrainian companies and to aid reconstruction.

This agreement is not just about economic gains. It also represents a landmark in the Canada-Ukraine relationship and serves as another clear demonstration of Canada's unwavering support to Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. We stand with Ukraine, and this agreement is another bond between us.

To that end, I urge all hon. members to support the legislative amendments contained in Bill C-57 and support this legislation.

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

I would just like to give a quick reminder that, when referring to members of the House of Commons, members are to use their title or riding name.

We will move on to questions and comments with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that we have seen in previous trade deals, and I am thinking of the free trade agreement with China that the Harper government signed back in 2014. While I am being heckled by Conservatives, I will just remind them that they signed a trade agreement with China for 31 years. That trade agreement—

[An hon. member]

It's not a free trade agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member wants to get up on a point of order, he can clarify. While he is heckling me, I will remind him that they signed a trade agreement with secret tribunals, and even Canadians do not know about what is in those secret tribunals when there is an appeal from the Chinese government that wants to override, say, Canadian rights.

There was a woman in my riding, Brenda Sayers, a lawyer, an esteemed lawyer from the Hupacasath First Nation, who took the Harper government to court and appealed that this was violating indigenous rights. One thing I like in this agreement is the chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. It reaffirms the parties' commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Does my colleague agree that focussed chapters should be included in all free trade agreements moving forward so that we do not end up in the same position we are in because of the Conservatives and their trade agreement with China and the other trade agreements they signed?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on my side of the House I heard some of my colleagues say that that was a good question, which is really great.

As I mentioned in my speech, there is a chapter that includes trade and indigenous people, which seeks to empower trade opportunities for this under-represented group. I think it is the first of its kind that either Ukraine or Canada has ever included in a free trade agreement. I think we included that because we think it is important. I do think it is something we should be considering for all other future trade agreements moving forward.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just following up on the previous question from my NDP colleague, who has suggested time and time again that Canada has a free trade agreement with China. That is patently false, and I think he knows that. What he is actually referring to is a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement, or FIPA.

I would ask the member, who just gave a very good speech on Ukraine, if it is her understanding that Canada has gone so far as to sign a trade agreement with China and why it is that Ukraine is the priority right now when it comes to negotiating free trade.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my comments to the current trade agreement.

We have stood with Ukraine forever. The Ukrainian diaspora is one of the largest diasporas here in Canada. We stand with them, as Ukraine fights this brutal and illegal war against Russia in their fight for democracy, because it is a fight they are also fighting on our behalf.

For us, this is our way of helping to support their current economy and to create a foundation for their economy from which to build once the war is over. We stand with Ukraine today. We stood with them yesterday, and we will stand with them for as long as it takes after this war. We will be there as they are growing their economy after this war, moving forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech and my other colleagues on their questions.

Today, we are debating Bill C‑57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think this is a subject on which everyone in the House agrees. It does not seem as though many members will oppose the bill when we vote on it. However, this is still an opportunity to talk about Ukraine and the importance of free trade agreements, as well as to reflect on those agreements. Obviously, we hope that Ukraine will recover as quickly as possible. I think that having a free trade agreement that normalizes our trade with Ukraine will only help with that.

I am wondering why these free trade agreements are negotiated behind closed doors without any real mandate. The executive branch, or government, is the one responsible for those negotiations, and Parliament can only say “yes” or “no” to the final agreement. Does my colleague think it is right that we have almost no say as to the content of the agreement, whether it is good or not?

I think that everyone agrees that we want a free trade agreement with Ukraine. However, it would be worthwhile for parliamentarians to have more of a say as to the agreement's content. That is why we were elected, to represent the people and defend their interests, but the government is preventing us from doing that to some extent.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member. I think there are a number of opportunities for members to provide their input.

If the bill manages to get a vote in this House to move it to committee, there will be an enormous opportunity for comments from members of all sides of the House at that point in time. I will also say that none of these negotiations are ever conducted in secret. I think there are many opportunities, such as through the various different stakeholder groups I had mentioned at the onset of my speech, for there to be input.

The minister is always open to feedback from anyone in this House. For us, it is important to have the best agreement possible, and we will take the best ideas. It does not matter where they come from.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to get in on this round, because there has been a very interesting discussion between the member for Courtenay—Alberni, the member for Abbotsford and the hon. member for Danforth about investor protection agreements.

They are not trade agreements, so the member for Courtenay—Alberni is correct that the previous government under Stephen Harper executed a secret agreement. It never came before Parliament for a vote but was done as an order in council, committing Canada not to a trade agreement with the People's Republic of China, but to an investor protection agreement, as the member for Abbotsford referred to, a FIPA, that binds Canada for more than 31 years and in which challenges against Canadian law by corporations of the People's Republic of China do not require any public notice to Canadians and can proceed in secret.

I want to ask the hon. member for Danforth this. The current Canada-Ukraine agreement includes an investor protection agreement. When Canada renegotiated NAFTA with the U.S., it removed chapter 11, the investor protection agreement. Was any thought given, when renegotiating the agreement with Ukraine, to remove this quite anti-democratic provision? It is almost ubiquitous across the globe in trade agreements these days to include an investor protection agreement. Was any thought given to removing it from the Canada-Ukraine agreement?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. I am the member of Parliament for Davenport, which I am very proud of. I do not mind being confused with my wonderful colleague, the member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth, as our ridings are often confused, but I wanted to correct the record on that.

Canada and Ukraine I believe already had a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement. The new investment chapter in the modernized agreement features modern drafting to ensure that parties remain flexible from a policy perspective and to ensure their right to regulate in key areas. It also includes a new chapter with a modern dispute settlement mechanism, which will, among other important updates, strengthen alternatives to avoid arbitration and enhance the transparency of proceedings and commitments.

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

Mr. Speaker, can I get the member's comments on how trade agreements are to the economic advantage of both Canada and Ukraine? Obviously, the war is on all of our minds. What are the impacts of having a trade agreement, whether for morale or just to make a very strong political statement at the same time?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this legislation is an important milestone in the implementation of a modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is the first trade agreement Ukraine has signed since the onset of Russia's illegal war. I know it wants to use this as a model for signing other trade agreements, as it is trying to support its economy while undergoing an illegal, brutal war. It wants to set itself up for a good economy once the war is over. Canada will be with Ukraine and will support it with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis]

It's Canada's number one riding.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I think it is number two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to questions.

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to questions.

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will say to the hon. parliamentary secretary—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to allow for other questions.

The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are the member's thoughts on that?

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will allow the member to respond.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does he have to say about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a worthy goal to have on the government benches, obviously. The House leaders, I am sure, are negotiating some type of agreement. If they are amenable to it, I am sure the Conservative House leader will obviously listen, but at the end of the day, I think we can both agree that this chamber, this House, has been clear in our support for Ukraine, the people of Ukraine and the Government of Ukraine as it continues to fight its defensive war against the Russian Federation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to something that I think is very important to all of us here in the chamber, the legislation for the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is my honour to rise in the House today in support of legislation to implement, as quickly as possible, the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, or CUFTA, as it is often referred to.

Recently, the Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship has been marked by Canada's steadfast support for Ukrainian independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of protracted Russian aggression. Canada has stood beside our Ukrainian allies to support them as they fight for their independence, democracy and freedom. I know they are waiting for this free trade agreement to be done, with much expectation that Canada will finalize it as soon as possible so that we can open the door for further trade with Ukraine to help it in the terrible war it is dealing with. Since the beginning of this illegal full-scale invasion by Russia in February 2022, Canada has committed close to $9 billion in multi-faceted support for Ukrainians, because we know how desperately they need it, and they are eager to see this free trade agreement as well.

Today, we have yet another opportunity to demonstrate our continued support for Ukraine through other means. Bill C-57 would not only offer benefits in the near term but would extend well beyond the strengthening of the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses can work together in the economic reconstruction of Ukraine, underpinning the long-term economic relationship between our two countries.

This is not a new deal. This is an expansion of the free trade agreement. We have been dealing with free trade with Ukraine for a very long time, so this is not new, something that has just popped up that we have not seen. We knew it was coming, and it has been worked on explicitly to make sure it is the very best that it can be.

I am referring to the modernized CUFTA, of course. The modernized CUFTA is a comprehensive high-standard agreement that, once implemented, will not only support Canadian and Ukrainian businesses but will also deepen commercial linkages, enhance co-operation, provide for increased transparency in regulatory matters, support inclusive trade and help reduce costs for businesses. That is very much what this free trade agreement is about, and it is very important that we understand it all.

One of the key outcomes of the original 2017 agreement was the market access that it gained for Canadian and Ukrainian produced and manufactured goods. If ever a Ukrainian needed help with a free trade agreement, it certainly is today.

As of January 2024, all tariff elimination schedules will be complete and over 99% of Canada's exports to Ukraine will be eligible to enter Ukraine duty-free. That is a very important aspect of this free trade agreement. This will make Canadian goods more competitive in the Ukrainian market, and vice versa, which we very much want. It will be especially valuable as we move toward reconstruction, economic renewal and longer-term prosperity for Ukraine.

Thanks to the CUFTA, Ukrainians will be able to enjoy more high-quality Canadian goods, such as frozen meats and fish, fruits and vegetables, other consumer goods, and essential services. Meanwhile, Canadians will be able to enjoy the Ukrainian goods and services that we all enjoy, to help with the cravings and needs of the many Ukrainians living in Canada.

There are a multitude of brands from Ukraine that have proved themselves to be good additions to the Canadian market over the last many years. The CUFTA helps us broaden our horizons and support the Ukrainian economy, especially in these challenging times. I know they are very excited and looking forward to this bill's passing.

Throughout negotiations, both sides demonstrated an eagerness to reach an ambitious and high-standard agreement with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two nations, not just to meet the more immediate needs of reconstruction, which are great opportunities for Canadian companies to go to Ukraine and help in the rebuilding process, but long into the future. This eagerness is reflected in how comprehensive the modernized CUFTA is with respect not only to trade in goods but also to investment services and inclusive trade. The CUFTA helps make the reconstruction process transparent and sustainable. Also, this agreement is the first FTA addressing anti-corruption provisions.

Canada has always been there for Ukraine since its independence in 1991, and this new agreement is yet another opportunity for Canada to make itself visible in Ukraine and to lead by example. As a result, the modernized CUFTA would not only maintain the preferential market access gained in the original FTA for merchandise exports and imports, but would also support new opportunities for expanded commercial ties between Canada and Ukraine in the context of reconstruction efforts and well beyond. These benefits have led to strong support for this agreement by key stakeholders, including the Canada-Ukraine Chamber of Commerce, representatives of which were recently on the Hill and expressed their desire to see this FTA continue.

Sectors of strategic importance to Ukraine's recovery include infrastructure, renewable energy, financial services and oil and gas, which are all areas where Canada has strengths. Furthermore, Canadian companies have indicated an interest in pursuing opportunities in Ukraine in the areas of defence and security, energy, ICT and agriculture, and are positioned to engage when and where the circumstances permit.

According to the latest estimate by the Ukrainian side, since February 2022, more than 37% of the total damage in Ukraine falls on residential buildings, another 24% on infrastructure and 8% on assets of enterprises and industry. According to Ukrainian and international analysts, Ukraine will turn into the largest construction site in the world after this war ends. The modernized CUFTA would support Canadian businesses as they position themselves to respond to these interests, taking into account the scope of the market that Ukraine has. It is time to use that window of opportunities.

Prior to the negotiations, the government conducted public consultations with Canadian stakeholders on what they would like to see in a modernized FTA with Ukraine. The initiative received strong support from stakeholders, indicating that modernization of the CUFTA would enhance the competitiveness of Canadian firms in the Ukrainian market, among other benefits.

Stakeholders specifically identified pursuing stronger trade rules, increased transparency obligations, expansion of the agreement to cover services and investment, and inclusive trade as priorities. I am pleased to confirm that the modernized agreement before us reflects these aims and more.

If I may, I will now say a few words about the modernized agreement, highlighting some of the benefits and opportunities it presents for Canadians and Ukrainians with an overview of the new chapters that have been added.

First, the agreement includes a dedicated new chapter on cross-border trade in services. This includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications that will facilitate trade in professional services, which is strategically important for both parties in a knowledge-based and digital economy.

Ukraine is a land of world-class talents who are ready to contribute their knowledge and expertise to the common good. The new CUFTA would allow these professionals to focus on their work and what they can do best, not on the bureaucratic ping-pong that can drain the needed energy and enthusiasm from all parties involved.

The agreement also includes a new chapter on investment that would replace the Canada-Ukraine Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement. Featuring updated provisions on investment protection, the new chapter also ensures that investment obligations operate as required.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that some government members are defending Bill C‑57. When one has negotiated something, it is important to stand behind it.

This brings me to my question. In Quebec yesterday, the Parti Québécois unveiled its year one budget, projecting that Quebec has the financial capacity to be an independent country. I wonder how my colleague, as a member of the governing party, would feel about negotiating a free trade agreement with Quebec once it becomes independent, so that our two nations can engage in mutually beneficial economic exchanges.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe we will continue to negotiate on behalf of Canada. My Canada includes Quebec, now and forever.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a supporter of all trade agreements and of increasing Canada's trade.

However, one of the things that has happened with previous trade agreements is that we have not harmonized the specifications that Canada has. For example, with CETA, they can ship to us, but a lot of times we cannot ship to them. The same thing happened with the CPTPP.

Could the member comment on how we are going to make sure that the same thing does not happen with this particular agreement?

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

Madam Speaker, we all want these agreements to be successful. We want to make sure that everything has been put in place.

There have been extensive discussions and negotiations for a long time on this agreement, as with other agreements. I am quite confident, given the importance of this agreement, that the right steps will be in the legislation and that it will move forward as quickly as it possibly can.

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

Madam Speaker, any time we talk about Ukraine, I want to send my thoughts and love to the people of Ukraine.

I want to thank the Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural Society in my riding that is doing a lot of advocacy for Ukrainians who are here in Canada and helping those who are in war-torn Ukraine now.

All treaties limit a nation's freedom to legislate. This free trade agreement includes provisions to ensure Canadians can still pass laws to protect the environment, promote gender equality and protect labour and indigenous rights.

Could my colleague speak about how important these provisions are in all free trade agreements? We saw the Conservatives sign free trade agreements that did not allow those provisions and actually overrode indigenous rights and constitutionally protected rights here in Canada.

Could my colleague speak about how important those provisions are to ensure that Canadians are protected?

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

Madam Speaker, every agreement that goes forward must have all of those requirements. I would like to see that entrenched as much as possible in every piece of legislation that we do. Any work that we do with other countries around the world should be concerned with what the human rights impacts are and how we protect the environment, as well as the indigenous communities.

We have an opportunity to put that in legislation, and I think it should be in all the documentation that we do.

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

Madam Speaker, I asked this question of a member who spoke earlier. I would like to ask this member specifically, given the Liberal government's track record on trade when it comes to setting up panels and committees for technical working groups. As we have seen on CETA, the Canada-European free trade agreement, many of those industry panels have not even met. That means Canadians have not been able to trade with reciprocity, the way we would with other countries.

Does the member agree that the Liberal government has a poor track record? Given the fact that we are dealing with a smaller country, can the member tell us whether or not that will actually take place?

I am concerned, because I want to see Ukraine have access to Canadian markets and be able to make the most of our trade relations.

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

Madam Speaker, every time a free trade agreement is set up, there are always challenges to move things along.

Certainly with the war in Ukraine and the terrible things that have been going on there, it is crucially important that we get this right. A number of discussions have been ongoing in order to make sure that Bill C-57 is accurate. It will go to committee, where there will be further discussions.

I look forward to it being very successful for Canadians, as well as for Ukrainians.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again rise in this place to speak to the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

When we talk about the importance of the Canada-Ukraine relationship, we have to talk about the 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin who live here in Canada. Many of them were integral to the development of western Canada. They are an incredible and important part of the social fabric of Canada, and their contributions to Canada cannot go unnoticed. As a result of that, we have very strong people-to-people ties between Canada and Ukraine. Of course, we are strong supporters of Ukraine during the illegal invasion being prosecuted by Russia.

In addition, with respect to this agreement in particular, this modernization of the agreement would build on the 2017 agreement which updated or added 11 new chapters to the free trade agreement. The updated chapters include rules of origin and procedures, government procurement, competition policy, monopoly and state enterprises, electronic commerce, digital trade, labour, the environment, transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct.

There is also a significant number of new chapters. There are 11 new chapters, to be frank. These are on investment; cross-border trade in services; temporary entry for business people; development and administration of measures; financial services; services and investment, non-conforming measures; telecommunications; trade and gender; trade and small and medium-sized enterprises; trade and indigenous peoples; and good regulatory practices. This is a substantial change from the original agreement which was signed in 2017.

In 2021 alone, Canada processed some $220 million in exports and $227 million in imports with Ukraine. Given Ukraine's GDP has dropped some 30% since Russia's invasion, trade with Canada is welcomed now more than ever. For some context, some of the larger exports from Canada to Ukraine include vehicles and parts, fish, and pharmaceuticals. When it comes to imports to Canada, it is largely cereals, iron and steel to name a few.

I want to spend the majority of my speech talking about the people and largely the people in Edmonton.

When the Ukrainian president was here in Ottawa, he reminded Canada and the world about Edmonton's close connection to his country. Soon after taking the podium right up there, he brought up my city in talking about our links to the destiny of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Canadian community. He mentioned a statue that has stood outside Edmonton City Hall since 1983. It was a proud moment for many Edmontonians, especially with his call for another monument there on victory day when Ukraine conquers and wins this Russian war against Ukraine. This was stated no more clearly than by the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress Alberta Provincial Council, when she stated, “This is amazing. He's paying attention. He knows who we are.”

The Ukrainian Canadian Congress Alberta Provincial Council has done incredible work during this war. It is a non-profit organization that provides leadership, advocacy, coordination and connections. It officially represents the needs of Ukrainian Canadians in Alberta before the people and the Government of Alberta. It aims to promote knowledge, respect for Ukraine's history and sovereignty, and acknowledgement of the great contributions of Ukrainians within Canada. Since the war began, over 12,000 Ukrainians have already come to Edmonton.

Some of the work that Ukrainian Canadian Congress Alberta Provincial Council is doing is phenomenal, to say the least. It is providing $200,000 to support Ukrainian organizations with programming and membership for newcomers. It spent $32,000 in grocery gift cards for newcomers. It put up a website with resources and tools for newcomers. Together with the Firefighter Aid Ukraine organization, it filled the first plane to Ukraine with medical and emergency supplies.

Other of its activities include assisting with crisis needs, including emergency housing, financing the purchase of medical equipment, organizing a furniture donation warehouse, distributing furniture to thousands of newcomers, organizing free English language classes, organizing job fairs, hosting information and welcome events for newcomers, weekly rallies protesting against Russian aggression, fundraisers to support settlement, government advocacy, distributing SIM cards, distributing pallets of clothing throughout Alberta, providing laptops and computers to Ukrainians in need, coordinating mental health support and resources and, of course, welcoming Ukrainian nationals at the airport. As someone who flies a lot, being able to see those Ukrainians come to the Edmonton airport and connect with someone as they get off the plane is nothing short of heartwarming.

I want to talk about a few of the people and initiatives, particularly three Edmonton firefighters. Three Edmonton firefighters went to Ukraine to teach first responders a modified version of the NATO standard tactical combat casualty care course. They were all volunteer firefighters through the Firefighter Aid Ukraine organization. They taught 70 firefighters and police officers, who then trained other firefighters and police officers across Ukraine.

The medical course they taught focused on life-saving interventions for injuries associated with military attacks on civilian populations. They focused on critical and acute injuries, and even mental health. The president of the association stated:

Individuals who have not performed in an emergency responder role previously, have now taken on that role in Ukraine. As such, they do not have this kind of training and it is imperative for them to have it, given the situations they are dealing with in their roles.

In addition to the training, the firefighter group also brought over supplies of PPE, and specialty equipment for treating patients and saving lives. This is not new to this organization. In May 2017, it filled a shipping container with medical supplies, tools and emergency response equipment, which was then sent to Ukraine. Just last September, a group of seven firefighters and one dispatcher also went overseas to Ukraine.

Another example is of Edmonton artists who are donating their works to Ukrainian aid. A number of local artists donated to a fund created by the owners of the West End Gallery in Edmonton. The campaign raised almost $29,000. It did not have an auction. This was a call to answer by its customers. It is adamant that the full amount of the sales went directly to those who needed it the most.

The group contacted the former Alberta premier, a dear friend of mine, Ed Stelmach, whose grandparents came to the province as Ukrainian immigrants. Stelmach and his wife, Marie Stelmach, founded and have administered The Ed Stelmach Community Foundation since 2007. The foundation fosters a culture of charity and equality for all Albertans, and is overseen by a volunteer board.

The support did not stop there. Suddenly, we saw tens of thousands of Ukrainians fleeing their war-torn country, and an Edmonton mother and daughter decided to team up to help the new arrivals, who had arrived with very few belongings. The two projects they co-founded were a free store and a food kitchen. The duo launched the Free Store for Ukrainian Newcomers at a temporary site and then moved downtown to an Edmonton building provided rent-free by MacEwan University. The facility provides clothing, diapers, pillows, toys and household essentials at no charge to newcomers displaced by war.

The second project, the Ukraine Kitchen by Free Store, opened its doors in northeast Edmonton after operating temporarily out of the Cook County Saloon. Pre-ordered Ukrainian food is sold, providing wages for a team of about 14 kitchen workers, who proudly dole out plates of cabbage rolls, perogies, borscht and desserts.

Lastly, there is a furniture store. For nearly 10 months, Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Alberta Provincial Council, has been operating a furniture depot in a northwest Edmonton warehouse to supply newcomers with essentials to set up their homes. Approximately 35 families utilize the free warehouse weekly, and most need mattresses and other supplies. The whole operation is housed in the Boilermakers Lodge 146 building near the High Park industrial area.

This is not new to Edmonton. The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village Society was founded in 1971, and I am sure my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan will not mind me mentioning it. It has a number of exhibit galleries that provide a closer understanding of Ukrainian settlement in east central Alberta, which has been critical to the education of so many Albertans and Canadians.

These are just some of the reasons Canadians are watching this debate so closely. The Conservative Party is one hundred per cent behind supporting Ukraine, trade and free trade. Free trade between free nations is something we support one hundred per cent. As a member of the international trade committee, I look forward to going through this agreement and hearing debate on this agreement in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard a great number of members talk about how important the trade agreement is from the perspective of what is taking place today in Europe, which is the war and the illegal occupation of Russia in Ukraine. We have seen a united front on that. On September 22, the President of Ukraine was here, and President Zelenskyy signed this trade agreement. Today we are debating the trade agreement.

My question to the member is something I posed to other members of his caucus. Given the very nature of this particular trade agreement, which has many economic benefits for both Canada and Ukraine, would he provide his thoughts on the powerful message this would send if it were to pass before Christmas? It would be the first trade agreement for Ukraine since the war has begun.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, the trade agreement that he speaks of is 700 pages long. It likely will come before the international trade committee soon. I look forward to going through it line by line.

If the member wants to talk about the future agenda of the House, he is in a position, as the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, to have those conversations. I encourage him to have those conversations with our House leader and other House leaders as we go on.

I do want to refer to when the president, was here, as the member mentioned. He chose one city alone to speak about here in Canada, and that city was my city of Edmonton. That is why I would like to highlight a lot of the work Edmontonians have done to support Ukrainian newcomers.

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

Madam Speaker, contrary to what has been said over and over again in the House since this morning, we are not debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement or its content. We are debating Bill C‑57, which simply implements that agreement.

Basically, it is a 1,000-page, 30-chapter agreement, which parliamentarians have not voted, and will not be voting, on. We will be voting on whether to implement it.

This opens the door to another problem. Is there any chance that future agreements could also be reviewed by a parliamentary committee? What does my colleague think about that?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, my good friend from the Bloc Québécois highlighted a really important point about what we are going through right now. Again, the bill is 700 pages, in addition to what happened in 2017 when the initial agreement was signed. Depending on what happens here in the House, this will hopefully come before the international trade committee, which I sit on. I am looking forward to going through it line by line because, ultimately, this is important for Canadians and for the country of Ukraine.

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

Madam Speaker, we are talking about trade agreements today. We have been talking about other trade agreements outside of this one as well. Right now, Canada is negotiating the UK-Canada free trade agreement and my colleague and I have been working together because we know that recipients of British pensions who live here in Canada have had their cost of living indexed and frozen, unlike Canadians who are living in the U.K., who are getting the cost of living increase.

Does my colleague agree that, when these negotiations are taking place, when it comes to trade, that these irritants are impacting Canadians, especially vulnerable seniors? We know that a third of single women in Canada are living in poverty. Does he agree that these need to be a part of the conversation when we are discussing trade with countries like the U.K.?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni could not have brought up an issue closer to my heart as the unfortunate issue facing British pensioners. As the UK-Canada free trade agreement goes forward further, it is certainly something that we have been pushing for to make sure that the U.K. government understands the severe impact it is having on U.K. pensioners living right here in Canada.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to be in the House when the minister introduced this legislation. I was very proud to sit beside her as she introduced it then, and I am very proud to stand here today to speak in support of this important legislation.

This is, to me, good legislation for Canada and good legislation for Ukraine. It is great for our economy. It is not only good for Canadian workers, Canadian investors and business people, but also for Ukrainian workers and Ukrainian business people. Tremendous economic benefits will come to citizens of both Canada and Ukraine if we pass this legislation.

This is also an important step in supporting Ukraine's victory and our collective victory. I heard a number of members here today speak to how supportive they are of Ukraine and how we want Ukraine to win. One of the ways we can do that is to make sure this legislation passes, and passes as quickly as possible.

I want to recall what it was like when President Zelenskyy was in the House just a few weeks ago. He gave a historic speech to our Parliament and then visited the Fort York Armoury in Toronto, where he met with Canadians. To my mind, one of the things that stood out to me in his speech was that he not only came to thank Canada for our global leadership and support of the Ukrainian people as they fight for their freedom, but he also came to ask us to continue to support the Ukrainian people in that fight because it is the right thing to do and Ukrainians are fighting for us as well. It is in our collective interest that Ukraine wins this war.

I think back to the first time President Zelenskyy came to Canada, which was in 2019. I had the pleasure of being at a lunch where he gave an address. A number of my colleagues here in the House were also there. President Zelenskyy was not wearing his military attire, as we are accustomed to seeing him in. He was wearing a suit, and his speech was not about war, but about economy and trade. Most of his speech was dedicated to talking about how he was modernizing Ukraine's economy and making reforms, and he encouraged Canadians to invest and do business with Ukraine for our mutual benefit.

At that time, Canada had a free trade agreement in place with Ukraine, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, but it covered only merchandise trade, the trade of goods. As a result of that free trade agreement, which came into force in 2017, the trade between our two countries grew, but the original free trade agreement did not cover services. Around the time of his visit in 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau and President Zelenskyy announced that they were going to begin again—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member is not allowed to mention the Prime Minister by his name. He can use his title, but he knows full well that he is not to mention members by their names.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, thank you for that reminder. It was inadvertent on my part.

Around that time, the Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy announced plans to modernize CUFTA. Then came COVID-19, and those negotiations had to be delayed, understandably.

In early 2021 and the fall of 2021, Russia started to amass soldiers around Ukraine's borders. Understandably, the discussions in Ukraine, around the world and here in Parliament were about how we were going to support Ukraine: what we were going to do, what Russia was going to do and how we were going to respond.

I remember that in January 2022, so about a month before Russia's full-scale invasion, the minister approached me and said that she wanted to join me in a Zoom meeting because the government was going to relaunch the negotiations for the modernization of the free trade agreement. This showed, despite everything that was going on, how high a priority this was for Ukraine and for Canada. After the further invasion by Russia continued, those negotiations continued. Again, that showed what a high priority this was for Canada and for Ukraine. When President Zelenskyy was here a few weeks ago, yes he spoke in Parliament and yes he was at the Fort York Armoury to meet with Canadians, but he also signed the free trade agreement with our Prime Minister. This again shows how important this is to both Canada and Ukraine.

What is so great about the new modernized free trade agreement? It would maintain the preferential market access gained in the original free trade agreement with respect to all Canadian merchandise exports to Ukraine, which would be great for Canadian business people and workers. The agreement also includes dedicated new chapters on trade and services, investment, temporary entry, telecommunications, financial services and inclusive trade, and updated chapters on labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption, among a number of other things.

It would facilitate and enhance co-operation, improve the ability to resolve trade disagreements, promote openness and inclusivity, increase transparency in regulatory matters and help reduce transaction costs for businesses, which is good for business and workers and increases trade. It would commit Canada and Ukraine to respecting and promoting internationally recognized labour rights and principles and the effective enforcement of labour and environmental laws. There would also be significant measures in place to help prevent and respond to corruption.

All in all, this is an agreement that is structured in such a way as to not only benefit Canadian businesses, Canadian employers and workers, but also make sure that the investments that Canadians are making in Ukraine, and vice versa, are protected. Therefore, it is a great economic opportunity for Canada and for Ukraine.

However, there is something else about the agreement that is really important. It is an important step in supporting Ukraine's victory and our collective victory. Let me tell members what I mean by that. As we speak, the Ukrainian people are fighting to defend themselves against Russia's genocidal war. Notwithstanding the courage and the resolve of the Ukrainian people, the situation is dire. Russia is committing genocide every day. Millions of people have become refugees inside and outside Ukraine. Hundreds of millions of people in the global south are facing food shortages and famine because of Russia's invasion and the blockades of Ukrainian food exports, and the war is a primary cause of food and energy inflation around the world. Most importantly, the war poses an existential threat to global security and Canada's security.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before question period, Ukrainians are not only fighting for their freedom but also fighting for all of us, and we need to be fighting for them. Canada has been fighting for them under the government. We have been a global leader in supporting Ukraine. Canada has committed over $9 billion in assistance in financial, military and humanitarian development, along with other assistance. This includes $5 billion in financial aid, which is the largest amount of financial aid, per capita, of any country in the world, along with almost $2 billion in military support, about $350 million in humanitarian support and so much more.

These steps are significant. They are important, and they are having an impact, but it will not be enough until Ukraine wins this war. If we want to stop genocide in Ukraine, global food shortages and inflation around the world, and if we want to protect our own sovereignty and security, we must ensure that Ukraine achieves a decisive victory. That means ensuring not only that Ukraine wins the war by regaining all of its territory including Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk, but also that Ukraine wins the peace, which means that it is secure as a member of NATO, that we secure reparations from Russia, that there is justice for Russian war crimes and that we help Ukraine rebuild.

This modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which we are debating today here in the House, is an important component in helping Ukraine do just that, in helping Ukraine rebuild. It would help strengthen Ukraine's economy. It would facilitate investment and send a message to countries around the world that Canada has confidence in Ukraine, that Canadian business people have confidence in Ukraine, that they want to invest in Ukraine. Those other countries and people around the world who are looking for strong, reliable places to invest can do that too.

This is an excellent piece of legislation. This is an excellent free trade agreement, as I said at the outset of my remarks. This is good for Canada and Ukraine, economically good for Canadian workers and businesses, and good for Ukrainian workers and businesses. It is also an important step in supporting Ukraine's victory, in supporting our collective victory.

I was talking earlier about President Zelenskyy's visits to Canada in 2019 and his most recent visit a few weeks ago. I hope that President Zelenskyy returns to Canada soon after Ukraine wins this war. I hope that he is not focused on speaking about the war anymore, but on rebuilding Ukraine after that victory. I hope that he is once again focused on what he was focused on in 2019, which was how we can continue to expand the relationship between Canada and the Ukraine, not only in building a more secure world but also in expanding trade and our respective economies, something for which this Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would be the foundation. When that day comes, as I know it will, then we will truly be able to say that it is a great day for Canada and a great day for Ukraine.

It is a great day for Canada and a great day for Ukraine.

Slava Kanadi. Slava Ukraini.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like begin by reiterating to my colleague that free trade is, indeed, important. Free trade agreements can help create jobs, but the gains from free trade must be properly distributed among the citizens of the countries involved. There are always winners and losers.

Of course, the parliamentary secretary is aware that Ukraine is a minor trading partner for Canada. It is a very small trading partner in terms of volume. As I said, it is a country at war, and we must express our solidarity. If the parliamentary secretary is trying to get me to say—as the Conservatives and his own government are saying—that we need to hurry up and produce dirty hydrogen and extract more gas to export to Ukraine, I think I will leave it to the Conservatives and Liberals to share that message. They are very good at it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned off the top that the Bloc was supporting the bill, and it seems to be a fait accompli, that everything was done behind closed doors and we are just implementing it. However, there is a section in the bill he was concerned about on investor-state dispute mechanisms, which is the foreign investment protection agreement of 1995 rolled into this new version. I am wondering if the Bloc will support this and then ask for amendments in committee. What are they going to do about this?

These are things that both the NDP and Bloc seem to be concerned about, where we would have foreign corporations that could sue Canadian governments at all levels for legislation that we want to bring in to protect our environment and protect our citizens. I am wondering what the Bloc's attitude toward that is.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the issue of multinationals suing states still features in free trade agreements. They are more likely to be found in bilateral free trade agreements such as these. We could say that this is a Canadian mistake because the government had the opportunity to have this removed from the agreement.

To answer my colleague's very good question, when this bill is studied in committee, we certainly will not be supporting this part of the agreement implementation bill. We will not be in favour of these clauses. This reminds us that we must think more broadly about the impact of these clauses. In the 1990s, there was the whole issue of environmental policies. However, as my colleague, the international trade critic, said, the reality is that today a Russian oligarch with one foot in Ukraine could make an investment in Canada. By imposing a sanctions regime, we could be liable to be sued by a Russian oligarch because we have allowed these multinationals to sue the state.

I think this is one of those types of clauses that go well beyond what was originally intended. We will have to think about removing them sooner or later.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's trenchant condemnation of the lack of transparency in most of these negotiations. What a shame the Liberals did not listen during his speech. Had they listened, they might understand when we ask them questions about investor-state dispute settlement. Maybe they would not get that mixed up with state-to-state dispute settlement, and then maybe they could avoid giving us an answer that has nothing to do with the question. I think it would have done them good to pay a little attention.

As a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade and as a member of the same party as my colleague, I would ask him whether he agrees with my voting against this specific provision despite supporting the cause.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are still people here, including my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, who believe in the work of parliamentarians, who believe in the work of MPs and who believe in the legislative process. That is why it bothers my colleague when members of the party in power joke around and talk and play on their computers and do not listen to opposition members.

When they read the blues, because they were not listening in the House, they will see that I agree with my colleague 100%. In committee, we will have absolutely no qualms about voting against these provisions, which deserve much more in-depth consideration because Canada is party to a lot of bilateral agreements.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to such an important piece of legislation, not just for Canada and for the people of Canada but, indeed, for Ukraine.

In my comments and remarks on this today, I will indicate why I think it is so incredibly important for us to do this, particularly right now, while Ukraine is still engaged in this conflict, which was entirely provoked by Vladimir Putin and has affected their livelihoods to such a high degree.

What we know, for starters, is that Bill C-57 is a modernization of an existing agreement that is already in place with Ukraine for free trade. This is an opportunity for us to modernize what is in place, to bring in new, very important language to the agreement, which reflects the changes in trade we are seeing throughout the world right now, in Canada and everywhere else.

I think it is also extremely important to talk about the fact that Ukraine's economy decreased by roughly 50% just within the last year. Members can imagine the impact of that if it were to happen to Canada. We can visualize how devastating that would be.

As it is a key ally of ours, I think it is extremely important that we prepare for what is next for Ukraine. When they ultimately do win this conflict, this war with Russia, we will have made sure that all of the tools are in place so that Ukraine can come bouncing back as quickly and effectively as possible to, most importantly, rebuild their country and their economy, as it relates to the outputs they had.

This is where Canada has an advantage. I should note that Canada is the first country to modernize its free trade agreement with Ukraine since the war broke out a year and a half ago. Why I see this as being so important is that, to make sure that Ukraine can hit the ground running when the time comes, we need to make sure that these agreements are in place.

I am sure that many members of the House are aware that the Canadian company Aecon has already lined up contracts to help Ukraine rebuild. This is going to be some of the economic advantages for Canada. On the other side of things, we are going to see advantages for Ukraine, as they have access to parts of the Canadian market.

My understanding is that the existing trade agreement already provides the elimination of 99.9% of import duties from Ukraine. This means that the goods and services that Ukraine will be trying to sell outside of their borders, after and during the time it is rebuilding, would have an open market to Canada. This is incredibly important because, when a country is going through that process of rebuilding, as Ukraine ultimately will be, they are going to be looking for open doors in the world.

For Canada to be at the forefront of that and to say that we are here to support Ukraine through trade, commerce and opportunities, new opportunities, in a mutual way that benefits both countries is extremely important.

We know that trade, generally speaking, increases the quality of life in both the respective countries that are trading. Indeed, that is why we see trade happening throughout the world, and that is why the Liberal Party and the Liberal government is so supportive of free trade. It is one of the reasons why we have introduced and signed more free trade agreements than any other government in Canadian history. it is because we strongly believe and see the value in trade as it exists with other countries.

There is a net benefit, at the end of the day, for both countries, if those trade relationships are set up in a way that is designed to be prosperous for both, so that both can prosper and neither is at a particular disadvantage. I, like others, really hope we can see this bill get over the finish line before the end of this year, by Christmas. That would really put Ukraine in the position that it needs to be in.

When I say that I hope the bill gets past the finish line, I mean I hope this bill finishes the process in this chamber, gets to the Senate, finishes its process in the Senate, and then it can be signed by the Governor General as an act of Parliament by that point.

I genuinely hope we can put aside partisanship. I certainly am not one to shy away from being partisan at the right opportunities. I certainly am, but on this particular issue, I think it is much greater than just Canada. It is much greater than just one political party or another political party. This is an issue, quite frankly, about supporting Ukraine with everything we have been doing. I think it is absolutely critical that this be one of those things.

For all we have done in terms of support, such as training troops, being there for Ukraine and providing whatever we can while it fights the war, this is probably one of the most important things we could do to set Ukraine up for success when it wins the war. Really, what this ultimately comes down to is making sure that it is successful.

When I think of Canada being the first to modernize this agreement, I am reminded of when I was on the national defence committee from 2015 to 2019. I had the opportunity to travel while we were studying Operation Unifier, and another operation, the name of which escapes me right now. We travelled to Ukraine, and of course, this is when the conflict in Crimea was ongoing, and we would hear from the various leaders in Ukraine.

I can vividly recall one conversation our representatives from the defence committee had while sitting at a table with the chair of the Ukraine defence committee. He made a point of telling us that the importance of Canada's role in being there was so much greater than anything it could provide them militarily.

The importance of Canada being there means that other countries are following suit. We could even see that in the brigade Canada was leading. There were a number of countries lining up behind it that wanted to be part of what Canada was committed to. It really struck me when I heard those words what we can signal to the rest of the world when we are involved in something. Canada has a reputation throughout the world of being a country that can really lead the way and that can show good judgment.

When I think of that, and when I think of this agreement, it is another way we can show the world that, yes, Ukraine is going through a conflict right now. We will be there to support it, but we also want to make sure we are there to help it rebuild when this is over and when it ultimately wins the war.

What we are seeing with this agreement is, in my opinion, another opportunity for Canada to show the way, to show leadership, so we can encourage other countries throughout the world to do the same thing. We can encourage others to sit down with Ukraine and talk about how they can also participate in open and free access to Ukraine's economy, and have it reciprocated.

I see this not as just another free trade agreement. I see it as Canada's opportunity to, once again, show leadership in this world. That is why being the first country to modernize its agreement with Ukraine, I think, is so incredibly important.

As the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said previously, I really hope we can get this past the finish line here, in the Senate, and with the Governor General by Christmas, so we can show that leadership not only to Ukraine but also throughout the world.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, I appreciate the impassioned speech. We know that Canada has given significant support to Ukraine. Thus far, it is almost $10 billion, I think, by the addition.

One of the concerns I have is the way that Canada appears, in my mind, in spite of the incredible “woke” legislation that is woven into this free trade agreement.

Another concern is this. Why would we negotiate a free trade agreement now when we have given Ukraine significant amounts of money? Why do we need a free trade agreement with a country that is at war? To me, that puts it in a significant and difficult bargaining position.

I believe that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine with a free trade agreement at this time. I really wonder if the Liberal government has given any thought to that.

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

I would make the comment that we were non-partisan a second ago.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We certainly were, Mr. Speaker. I have to admit that I did not see that question coming.

At the very outset of the question, by referring to “woke” words in this agreement, the member is wanting to politicize this. Let us remember, and I hope the member who made those comments reflects on this, that this is wording that was agreed to by both Canada and Ukraine. To be critical of this legislation and the words in it, you are also being critical of Ukraine and its position on this.

I know other members are kind of heckling, but I hope it is only that individual member's perspective on it, and it is not that of the member for Abbotsford's, whom I hear talking back there. I really hope this is a one-off in the Conservative Party. If this is the way Conservatives are going in terms of how they are going to ultimately vote on this, I am absolutely floored.

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

I am just the chair occupant. Members are using the word “you” in the debate we are having today.

The hon. member for Beauport—Côte‑de‑Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the comments of my colleague opposite.

Given the situation that Ukraine will be in if this war ends, and we do want it to end, I would like to know whether my colleague would support simply consolidating the agreements signed since 2017 to facilitate Ukraine's reconstruction.

Should we not simplify these free trade agreements so that Ukraine can get back on its feet quickly and go back to what it was before, a prosperous country with which we enjoyed an extremely pleasant and harmonious trade relationship?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is one thing I found to be so remarkable about the question that came from my Conservative colleague just moments ago. He basically said that we have already given Ukraine all this money, and then he asked why we need to have a free trade agreement with it and if we think it really cares about free trade right now. I think I am being generous in my paraphrasing of that, but the reality is that I am convinced Ukraine wants this in place. Ukraine wants to make sure that when it does win the war, it has the resources to hit the ground running. That is why we put these agreements in place now. To the member's question whether we should consolidate and do other things to make that even more effective and happen faster, absolutely, we should.

I am still in awe of the question the member for Cumberland—Colchester asked me. I am perplexed by where Conservatives are going with this, and it is not what I was expecting. Yes, we need to be there for Ukraine. We need to make it as easy as possible for our trade agreements with it to work as effectively and efficiently as possible so that when it does win the war, it can rebuild that country very quickly.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about how important this agreement is, and there is a lot in it that I will be speaking about later this evening, but this trade agreement, I understood, was negotiated and completed in April. Therefore, if this is such important legislation, and I believe it is, why did it take the government so long to bring it forward and then to bring it forward to the House, which has not even allowed us an opportunity to speak to our caucuses about this particular legislation?

If it wants the support and wants everybody to be on board, why did it take so long to bring this forward in such an irresponsible manner?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that, yes, the agreement was negotiated in April, but it was not signed until September. It was just signed, and here we are in October with the legislation.

Should we always look for opportunities to be faster at things? Absolutely, but I would not, by any means, say this has been a slow process.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑57, which seeks to ratify the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I would like to share some thoughts on this agreement and why it deserves our attention and our careful review.

First, it is important to remind the House that Canada has traditionally been a defender of democratic values, human rights and the rule of law internationally. Since its independence in 1991, Ukraine has made significant progress in these areas. Canada has always maintained an amicable relationship with Ukraine. Canada was the first western country to recognize its sovereignty. In reviewing this agreement, we can see that we have an opportunity to strengthen our commitment to these fundamental values and provide meaningful support to Ukraine. That being said, we reaffirm our solidarity with Ukraine in its quest for stability, prosperity and liberty.

Under the circumstances, the best way for Canada to help Ukraine in its battle against the Russian invasion is to enable it to end its dependence on Russian energy. One way to do that is to maintain and improve trade with Ukraine, and energy should be a big part of that. We are in favour of reducing obstacles to free trade, especially in the context of trade relations with a country that shares our values.

The Conservatives initiated free trade negotiations with Ukraine. The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement finally came into effect in 2017. That agreement was a win-win for both Canada and Ukraine. When two democracies help each other, the whole world wins. Exporting our natural resources is a golden opportunity for Canada to raise its profile internationally. Now more than ever, producing and exporting our liquefied natural gas, or LNG, would enable Canadians to create wealth while also greatly assisting Ukraine's efforts to liberate itself from Russia's influence.

Canada is privileged to possess resources that are prized around the world. One of those resources is LNG. This energy source is a transition fuel that offers excellent energy efficiency and has less environmental impact than the other energy sources the world is trying to distance itself from. Common sense dictates that we should use this resource to our advantage and allow our allies, such as Ukraine, to benefit from its abundance.

Unfortunately, for ideological reasons, the government refuses to take advantage of this strategic resource that would help our citizens, our allies, and the health of our planet. In my own riding, a major LNG project never saw the light of day because of the Liberal government's anti-energy attitude. The absence of strong signals in favour of LNG development in Quebec and Canada is preventing Canadians from accessing much-needed funds and is forcing our allies to rely on dictatorships for their energy supply.

The most effective way for Canada to support our Ukrainian allies in their fight against the Russian invasion is by offering them a way out of their dependence on Russian gas and oil. Ratifying Bill C‑57 is paramount to continuing our support for democracy, freedom and the rule of law internationally.

Not only is this trade relationship important for preserving our values in the world, but this relationship also benefits our Canadian businesses. For example, our auto sector can expand its market by exporting its products to another country without facing too many obstacles.

Our trade relationship is important for ensuring that we have access to agricultural products. Our imports of agricultural products allow for a safe supply of quality products. What is more, to help our local farmers, eliminating obstacles for farm machinery and equipment helps our farmers get access to more efficient tools at a lower cost.

This agreement is part of our long and enduring commitment to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian communities in Canada play a very important role in our society. We have the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora in the world. Some 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin live here and enrich our culture and our economy.

This agreement is part of the Canadian strategy of advocating free trade. We adopted this strategy to promote the economic development of our businesses and to make them more competitive. Unfortunately, when the government and its Bloc allies decide to become anti‑energy and stand in the way of our Canadian producers, it makes it impossible for our country to unlock the full potential of our abundant natural resources. We have to be realistic. It is true that our diverse exports and imports with Ukraine are important. However, the thing that would set us apart and truly help Ukraine in its war effort is our liquefied natural gas.

Anti-energy measures hurt our economy and prevent us from being the energy allies we should be, but the carbon tax is also a barrier for businesses here at home. The additional burden of a tax that directly and indirectly affects all goods circulating in Canada gives imported goods a considerable advantage over our local products, which are overtaxed compared to goods entering our country.

We need to be aware of the important role Canada has to play on the international stage. Although the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition may not see it, what sets us apart is our natural resources. This free trade agreement is an excellent opportunity for Canada to set itself apart on the world stage. We should be proud of our environmental standards in energy production. My colleagues need to understand that we have an excellent opportunity to take action for Canada, Ukraine and the environment.

We are proud to support Ukraine in its efforts to repel the Russian invasion. It is our duty to stand up against any forces that threaten democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We are pleased to welcome Ukrainian refugees who have had to flee their homeland because of the war in their country. By taking a favourable approach to Ukraine and supporting their economy, while promoting our own, we continue to support an ally that is important to us and to the free world, especially since by improving our relations with the Ukrainian state, we are demonstrating our commitment to Ukrainian communities here in Canada.

As parliamentarians, it is our duty to examine this bill and ensure that it is drafted in the best possible way to maximize the benefits of such an agreement. When a democracy is under threat, we must all rally behind it to defend the values and principles that unite us. Supporting the Ukrainian economy is part of our collective war effort to promote democracy around the world. This free trade agreement with Ukraine is part of Canada's multi-faceted support for Ukraine.

In principle, Bill C‑57 appears to be in line with Canadian values and principles. We will have to work hard as parliamentarians to ensure that a free trade agreement between Ukraine and Canada has the greatest possible positive impact on both our countries. Conservatives will always work to improve the interests of Canadians.

We are also committed to helping our Ukrainian allies, especially given the difficult situation they are facing in their conflict with Russia. This assistance takes many forms, and if, after study, this free trade agreement is beneficial to both Canada and Ukraine, we should support it.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot more in the hon. member's speech about what Canada could sell to Ukraine than about what it means to Ukraine to have access to the Canadian market and have the benefit of more customers to help it develop its economy through the sale of goods, like steel and tools. It has done great work on rolling stock for railways.

Can the hon. member talk about the opportunity we are giving Ukraine to sell into our market to help it develop its market?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is going to require some meaningful discussion, because we need to come up with one of the best agreements, one that benefits both Canada and Ukraine.

I noticed something. I know that our liquefied natural gas would fill a need for Europeans and Ukrainians. However, the government is preventing it from being exported. Seeing the unfortunate situation the Ukrainians are in, I think Canada is well placed to help them on that front.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the principle of this agreement. The Bloc Québécois is also an ally on the Ukraine issue. We agree on that. However, I would like to hear my colleague's views on a missed opportunity in this agreement, namely, bringing multinational corporations back under government authority rather than putting them on the same footing as governments.

My colleague talked about oil companies and large energy corporations. There is a risk of lawsuits with these large multinationals. In short, putting them on the same footing and not restoring this inequality means that a state could become their puppet. The risk of a lawsuit is not trivial. I would like to know what my colleague thinks.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the missed opportunity was not to have supported liquefied natural gas projects, which would now be better for the environment. We are in a transition and I think that, on the other side of the Atlantic, in Europe, countries like Ukraine are still wondering why Canada will not allow natural gas exports.

We can do it. We are a nation of natural resources, and we are the best at harnessing and developing them. The technology is improving day by day.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and to the question from the Bloc Québécois.

The Bloc Québécois supports the free trade agreement with Ukraine, but opposes the export of liquefied natural gas to Europe. Does my colleague think that the Bloc Québécois is trying to have it both ways?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois should be a little more realistic and realize what is going on in Canada and Quebec, especially with the carbon tax. I think that people in my riding are pretty unhappy about inflation, and the carbon tax is part of it.

I think that party has some serious soul-searching to do. I am not sure it is the party of the regions anymore.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about a really important piece of legislation, but if you will permit me, I just want to take 30 seconds to mention a constituent I made a promise to. She is actually one of your constituents, but we may have some crossover in the days ahead with redistribution.

Mary Fraser is a resident of south Berwick, and I had the privilege of going to her 100th birthday at the Waterville fire hall. I promised not only that I would wish her a happy birthday, and I know you have done the same, Mr. Speaker, but that I would make sure it gets into Hansard so it will forever be on the record here. A big round of applause for her. We love Mary, and I hope she is able to watch this at home when her family takes a clip of it.

We are here to debate Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Behind me are my colleagues from Etobicoke Centre and Outremont, who are champions for Ukraine. I want to take a few moments to recognize their work here in Parliament on behalf of all Canadians, especially those of Ukrainian descent. I thank my colleagues for their outstanding work.

Bill C-57 is very simple. Its objective is to implement the free trade measures established between Canada and Ukraine. The first free trade agreement with Ukraine was signed in 2017 and included goods but not services. Now, services are also included as part of Bill C-57 along with the measures established between the two countries.

We have talked a lot in the House about the challenges that Ukraine is facing as a result of Russia's illegal invasion and about the need to support Ukraine and its people in defending their country.

We have talked a lot about the war and Canada's contribution. I was a bit disappointed by the comments from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who referenced this legislation as being “woke”. That was disappointing to hear. This piece of legislation is simply establishing a trade agreement and furthering the ties we have between our two countries. Is he suggesting that the Government of Ukraine is woke? I do not think so. That government has been on the front lines of defending democracy. The member needs to clarify his comment at some point in this House. Hopefully he will have the opportunity.

This bill would extend measures that matter in the economic ties between Canada and Ukraine. It is what our two governments have been working on to advance. I know that members of this House who have large Ukrainian diasporas in their ridings are certainly proud to stand here and support this legislation. In fact, it would be great if all members of this House could agree on a way to fast-track this legislation. This should not be very controversial.

I hear some members of the NDP are calling for that. They believe in that principle. It is not within my purview, but perhaps the House leaders will have a conversation and we will not have to spend a lot of days on this bill and can advance it to committee for further study. Ultimately, when it comes from committee, we can get it to the Senate as soon as possible. Even better, and I have seen it before, is if the House leaders agree to send it right to the Senate. That would be even better, especially if we believe in this piece of legislation.

I am proud to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food here in Parliament and, as such, I think I need to take a moment to emphasize the importance of Canada's agricultural ties with Ukraine.

The former hon. member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, called me a couple of weeks ago from Ukraine. He is there on a mission, working with potato farmers. This is being funded by a number of initiatives in Canada and the United States. He is there with other members. Of course, Wayne has a great history in agriculture. That is but one of the many examples where we share really deep ties between our two countries.

This agreement covers services, but we should also use it as an opportunity to highlight the deep agricultural ties between our two countries. The agriculture committee had the opportunity back in the spring, either this spring or in 2022, to have the Ukrainian minister of agriculture join us to talk about the challenges of the Russian infantry, which was laying land mines in the farmers' fields in Ukraine. I am proud to say on the record that Wayne and others are over there helping to build those ties.

There have been many other opportunities to build ties between Canada and Ukraine, particularly in terms of research on various methods related to seeds and different types of agricultural products. This is a good opportunity for Canada and Ukraine to continue their hard work.

Something I would encourage the government and all members of Parliament to reflect on is how they can contribute in that conversation as well.

We have talked a lot about the war effort and the support Canada can provide on the front lines with military assistance, but the Ukrainian economy needs the money and the opportunity so Ukraine itself can continue to fund its war effort. Of course, I stand here as a member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues before us do. We want to continue to see the government be a very willing partner and to draw international support to continue Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty, its place and its homeland. At the same time, this agreement is yet another opportunity that would be in the vested interests of both of our countries.

Ukraine would have opportunities to send products here. We would have the opportunity to send expertise and support to Ukraine. It would strengthen both of our economies at a time when Ukraine's economy is in challenging times, given the circumstances that are happening. I will note that Canada is the first country to sign, or in this case, to modernize and continue to advance our integrated economic ties. We are the only country so far that has been able to do that. I think that speaks to the importance of how President Zelenskyy and his government view Canada as a stable partner, a friend and an ally with which to move forward.

I will use my remaining time to say that this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that would build upon the existing economic ties we have. It is supported by both governments, here and in Ukraine. It is supported by the diaspora and by Canadians of Ukrainian heritage across the country, who will be calling on all members of Parliament to support really straightforward legislation to advance this as soon as possible to drive economic opportunities for themselves here in Canada and for their homeland, where they have family and friends.

We have had certain pieces of legislation before the House over the last couple of weeks that I really thought would be “slam dunks”. I thought there would be an opportunity for real partisan consensus in the ability to move legislation forward. I have been proven wrong on that, and things I thought would be able to be advanced quickly were not. I call on all members of the House. I know that on this side of the House, we will have that consensus, and it sounds as though the NDP will have that consensus. I presume the Bloc will. I do not know about the Conservatives, based on the conversations I have heard in the chamber over the last couple of hours. I am happy to take questions, but I hope the Conservatives can clarify that they are in support of this very straightforward bill that matters for Ukraine and for our economic security as well, because it is just straightforward common sense.

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

I wish happy birthday to Mary as well. It is tough to be in two places at the same time, so it is good to know that the hon. member did make it to the birthday in Waterville that day.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Taxation; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Foreign Affairs.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we have heard from the Conservatives, on the important piece of legislation, a free trade agreement with Ukraine, a very troubling pattern of information. They are a very well-scripted group. They often speak directly from what they have been told to say, but every once in a while they speak their mind, and what we heard earlier today was truly troubling, when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that this agreement is too “woke” if it includes indigenous people and our declaration of support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It also speaks about our support for women. If these two principles are too woke for the Conservatives, then what exactly is it going to take for them to support this piece of legislation and to support all Canadians?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss for words because that is a tremendous question. I cannot answer for the Conservatives, my hon. colleague knows that, but I am glad that he put it on the record. I sat in the House today listening to the speech from the member for Kingston and the Islands, and when I heard the question that was asked by the member for Cumberland—Colchester as to whether or not he would support this woke legislation, I turned to the member for Etobicoke Centre and asked whether he had actually used the word “woke”. We did not believe it was true, but the record does show that is the case.

This is legislation that is referencing the ability to advance economic ties. As the member for Edmonton Griesbach mentioned, if there is some mention about UNDRIP, which is a Canadian law passed here; if there is some mention about the importance of indigenous Canadians, which is a constitutional responsibility we all have as Canadians; and if there is some mention about women's participation in the economy, all of that sounds fine and dandy to me, and we want to be able to move forward with this piece of legislation.

It is important that the Conservatives clarify whether or not the member for Cumberland—Colchester and his remarks stand for their party.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Parliament and elected representatives have a very limited ability to modify the agreement. All we can do is vote for the bill or propose amendments, but we cannot change the agreement itself. In most industrialized countries, however, elected representatives can participate in and directly influence free trade agreements and treaties. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We could assess our process here in the House of Commons and review the method used to study bills related to free trade agreements, like the one with the European Union or other countries. That might be a good idea.

However, the process does not yet exist, so for now this remains the prerogative of the executive, of the government. However, I thank the member for his suggestion.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member chairs, and participates heavily on, the agriculture committee. We have had a lot of conversations within the chamber, especially when it comes to equity-seeking communities and so forth. I think what we are seeing with the questions coming from the official opposition is that it is important that we recognize the economic abilities of all sectors and all people within society. Sometimes what Canadians do not pay attention to are those nuances and the importance of different communities' having their voices heard, whether that is through the lens of our farmers who work so hard to feed us, of the women who bring life into this world and contribute so heavily in so many different ways or of the first peoples of our country, to whom we owe an important nation-to-nation relationship. I would like to hear the member's comments on the importance of this legislation and how he sees us moving forward in a more meaningful and better way.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the comments again, because the member referenced the Conservatives in her question.

There were a couple of things that were said by the member for Cumberland—Colchester. It was not only that the legislation was woke, but also that somehow Canada was taking advantage of Ukraine. I think it is very condescending to suggest that the sovereign Government of Ukraine does not know what is in its own best interest; that is how that is perceived from where I sit. We are trying to deepen economic partnerships. The member for Etobicoke Centre has been on record talking about how President Zelenskyy really valued the opportunity to be here in Canada to focus on the economic relationship.

To pivot away from my concern and distain for the comment that was made, it was notable that no Conservative colleague stepped up to ask a question on my remarks here today. Perhaps the Conservatives are a bit embarrassed by what was just said.

To address the hon. member's question, I think there is a tremendous opportunity, as was mentioned, in the agriculture sector. Services and digital, which are being included as part of this legislation, are also huge opportunities between our two countries, so we should be trying to explore all opportunities. Canada is a trading nation. We benefit from having these relationships around the world.

I look forward to this legislation's being advanced.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am of course very proud to be the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, we are talking about the free trade agreement with Ukraine. As every member of the House knows, we are an immense ally of Ukraine. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991, and, of course, Canada is home to the third-largest population of Ukrainians in the world, third only to Ukraine and Russia. As members would know, many people of the Ukrainian diaspora reside in my riding, in my province and certainly across the Prairies. Therefore, I am glad to see that we are debating this bill after the agreement was delayed by Putin's illegal war, the illegal invasion that Putin and the Russian Federation have made against the Ukrainian people.

Trade agreements are very important. They are an important part of our relationship with Ukraine. They are an important part of our relationship with our allies. It is vital that we have strong trade relationships with Ukraine, now more than ever as Ukraine fights for its freedom and builds more, better and stronger relationships with the west.

Russia's illegal invasion and genocidal war against Ukraine has had a profound impact on Canada. It has had a profound impact on the Ukraine-Canada trade relationship. We have seen exports to Ukraine fall by nearly a third since the war started, and it is important to have a trade agreement that would restore those exports once Ukraine is victorious in the war against Russia.

However, trade negotiations must be transparent, and Canadians and parliamentarians have the right to know both the costs and the benefits of proposed trade agreements before they are signed. The current Liberal government has failed in this regard. We were given this legislation very late last week. We are debating it in the House on Monday and Tuesday. We have had no time to discuss this with our colleagues at caucus, despite the fact that this agreement was negotiated in April and signed in September. There was ample opportunity for the government to give us more time to discuss this trade agreement with our colleagues and our caucuses. I hope the Liberal government reflects on that. Certainly from my perspective, that could and should been done better and would have shown more respect for parliamentarians and for the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement.

The importance of transparency in trade deals is very apparent as well. We have seen this. In 2014, under Stephen Harper, we learned about a secret trade deal that the Conservatives had negotiated with China, which had been signed two years earlier in Russia. That trade agreement with China was ratified without the participation of Parliament, and the consequences and the lack of transparency will be with us for decades. Chinese interests now control significant parts of our natural resources industries. Cheap Chinese steel produced from coal from Alberta is undermining our coal sector. Canadian grocery stores are full of Chinese food products with few or no environmental or human rights standards associated with them.

We have spoken in the House a bit today about some of the comments we have heard from the Conservative Party about this legislation's being woke, which is absolutely absurd. There should never be a trade relationship that Canada has that does not involve our looking at human rights, at environmental protections and at Canadian jobs and the impacts on Canadian workers. The success of the trade deals that we negotiate as a country can never be measured purely by trade and purely by corporate profit. They have to be measured by a number of different things.

I sit beside the good member for Edmonton Griesbach, who is an absolute champion for indigenous people in this country, for Métis people in this country and for Inuit people in this country. For him to have to sit here and listen to folks say that adhering to UNDRIP, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, is woke is absolutely shameful.

We sat in the international human rights subcommittee meeting today. We met with a Honduran, Elvin Hernandez, who is a human rights investigator. He spoke about the Canada free trade agreement with Honduras and about how it did not help the people of Honduras.

He said that no one looked at human rights when they negotiated it. There was no conversation at that time to look at human rights. He talked about the impact it has had on women, children, indigenous people, folks in the community who have stood up for environmental rights and people in the community who have stood up for human rights. Because of the free trade agreement we negotiated, those rights were not protected. It is something to keep in mind.

We also heard from Robert McCorquodale, who is the vice-chair of the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights. He said that if we do not look at human rights when we do this important work, we put people at risk. It is something we really need to do and something that, from my perspective, is the furthest thing from being superfluous, or whatever the Conservatives are trying to say with their insensitive woke comments.

We need a trade deal that is good for Ukraine and that is good for Canada. This renegotiated deal with Ukraine includes chapters that would ensure both Canada and Ukraine maintain their right to regulate in key areas such as environment, health, safety, indigenous rights, gender equality and cultural diversity. This is very important.

I welcome the provisions for temporary entry for those conducting business in either country. I like the idea of removing barriers from entry for business people, professionals and their spouses. That will lead to stronger economic and social ties with Ukraine and stronger economic benefits for Canadians. I also welcome the labour standards provisions in this agreement. It is vital we protect labour rights.

When we look at trade agreements, we always have to consider labour rights and the workers who depend on those rights. This agreement does this with a few different things we are pleased to see, such as the sections that respect labour laws, the import prohibition on goods made in whole or in part with forced labour, a commitment to the content of all core international labour organization conventions and a stand-alone article on violence against workers. These are important things to have as part of our agreement.

I am disappointed in how the government brought this agreement forward. I am disappointed I have not had the opportunity to sit with my colleagues and discuss this agreement, as would be the norm and as would be expected. While I am disappointed in the lack of transparency we have seen in the development of this agreement, I do support a trade agreement with Ukraine. I do think it needs to happen.

I am going to need to take some time to look at this one and see whether I can provide support for it, because this is important work, and I do not take this work lightly. I am also looking very forward to seeing more Ukrainian products on the shelves in the stores in Edmonton. We have a large Ukrainian population, and my name is not very Ukrainian, but I can eat Ukrainian food with the best of them. I know my way around a cabbage roll, as everyone in Edmonton does.

I am extraordinarily excited to see Ukrainian products in food stores like K&K Foodliner, a local food specialty store right in my own riding of Edmonton Strathcona. I hope this agreement will mean greater economic ties between our countries and more made-in-Ukraine products in our local stores.

Let us support Ukraine. Let us help Ukrainians rebuild their country. Let us work together as friends for the benefit of both countries.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's feedback. We can always endeavour to make processes better and to ensure there are more voices heard, because what we do not want to do is make it so members do not have the opportunity to be part of those conversations. I hear that feedback wholeheartedly, and I will do whatever I can to encourage government to always do these things better.

I also appreciated her comments in regard to her community and the opportunities there. I think about so many communities across our country that continue to endeavour to grow, to be able to prosper and to be included. Something that was heard today in a question by the official opposition was very disturbing. When some people in this place talk about Canadians, it appears there are many of us not being included.

I think about what is happening in the world today. I think about what Ukraine is taking on to fight for democracy when it comes to international law. I also think about how it will have to rebuild and what this agreement could do to help it rebuild faster and to ensure those factions of its society who sometimes would be left behind could actually be included.

I would like to hear the member's thoughts as to how she believes an agreement like this could better help more members of not only the Ukrainian society but also Canadians, and how we actually do better to see more Canadians and more Ukrainians are able to grow and prosper.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, I actually travelled to Ukraine. I wanted to meet with government officials. I wanted to see what was happening on the ground in Kyiv and Irpin. When I met with government representatives and when I met with parliamentarians from Ukraine, one of the things they wanted was support from Canada to help rebuild their country. They wanted us to be working with them to rebuild.

I spent some time talking to folks working in different areas and different sectors, and I can tell members that, ultimately, the people who suffer the most in any war are women, are children, are marginalized people. The war in Ukraine is no different.

We need to help Ukraine rebuild. We need to be there for our ally. We also need to recognize that after this war is won, the people who are most vulnerable and the people who will need the most support are women, girls and indigenous people.

That needs to be the priority of our trade agreements as well.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech.

She was critical of the FIPA, the investment treaty, that Canada signed with China, but the 1994 FIPA, or investment treaty, with Ukraine and this new modernized free trade agreement with Ukraine both contain similar provisions.

I am wondering if she is going to be encouraging her colleagues in the NDP to strip the Ukraine trade agreement of these provisions or if she is supportive of including those kinds of investment protections in this new free trade agreement with Ukraine.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 1994 was significantly before my time, so I will focus a little bit more on the more recent 2014 free trade agreement that Harper and the Conservatives signed with China.

I do not think many Canadians know that it was signed and that we gave up so much of our rights and that we, in fact, made it so much harder for workers in our country because of that. There are still clauses within that fair trade agreement that are making it very difficult for us to even have legislation put in place for forced labour. It already handicaps what we can do to protect workers in Canada and to protect workers in China.

I do not know about 1994. I am not going to answer that one because, like I said, I think I was in elementary school at the time.

Certainly, the one in 2014 that I have looked at quite a lot is one that I am disappointed in, and I certainly hope that the Conservatives do not get another opportunity to negotiate another free trade agreement with China.

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

In 1994, I was engaged to be married.

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on two points.

First, as with other free trade agreements, it is the executive branch that acts alone. Elected representatives and opposition members do not have direct access to the chapters or any direct influence on the content of the agreement. What does my colleague think? Would she agree with the idea of coming up with another mechanism?

Second, the chapter on investments still allows for an investor, a multinational, to sue a state directly. Since these are international agreements, they are supposed to be agreements between nations. However, it is as though multinationals are being put on the same footing as nations. Does my colleague not think that this should be changed?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a little more broad than perhaps what he was looking for with his question, but I would say that, in fact, Canada's foreign policy has tilted very heavily toward trade, to the detriment of diplomacy, peacekeeping, security, development, all of these other pieces. I think the problem is that our foreign policy has to be built as a table. We need all of those legs for it to be effective and for it to work. When we prioritize trade over human rights, over security, over peace building, I think that is a real problem.

I do see some flaws with this legislation. Like I said earlier, I have not had time to really go through it, but I certainly see some flaws with this legislation. Our caucus will have to take a look and see if we will be supporting it or not.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on legislation concerning the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, for a variety of reasons. I love my country, I love Ukraine and I am a strong supporter of free trade. This agreement was created under a Conservative government. Later we will have the opportunity to come back to that. As a good Conservative, I support entering into free trade agreements with as many countries as possible, provided they are good countries, of course.

When we talk about Ukraine, we cannot disregard the fact that this country has proven to humanity as a whole that resilience is the defining trait of these people and this nation, or that their strength of character only grew clearer when the Russian ogre outrageously invited itself into that country. Putin's illegal attack on Ukraine made people realize that, unfortunately, in the 21st century, we can still experience the same atrocities as in the First and Second World Wars, what we would call traditional wars. Nevertheless, the strong, proud people of Ukraine have been able to withstand the crass and heinous attacks from Putin's Russia, and they are heading for victory. We are all hoping for that outcome, and above all, we are hoping for an end to the hostilities, because there are no winners in war. There are only losers who lose friends, loved ones, family, and people who suffer under the illegal bombing. When we think of Ukraine, our thoughts are with the people who are currently experiencing the horrors of the war.

As a resident of Quebec City, I was very touched by the young pee-wee hockey players who came to Quebec City despite the war, to play in the cadet league hockey tournament. In front of a very emotional and united crowd of Quebec City residents, they demonstrated that kids can still be kids and still have fun, even if their country is at war. That also reminds me that I invited two young players from the pee-wee tournament, two Ukrainians, to be here in the House when President Zelenskyy addressed Canadians. They also had the privilege of shaking hands with their president, and I was very proud of that moment, which was tremendously emotional for these young people.

Ukraine and Canada have a lot in common. We obviously have the same climate. We also have a very strong agricultural tradition. It is not for nothing that the Ukrainian flag represents the sky and the land, using the same colours we find in Saskatchewan. It is no fluke. There is wheat, of course, but beyond that, there are historical connections that unite us through immigration. Several speakers today reiterated that Canada has the third-largest Ukrainian population after Ukraine and Russia, with 1.3 million Ukrainian Canadians. Some are descendants of the huge community that came to settle here in Canada at the turn of the 20th century and in the 1920s and 1930s. They have enriched Canada with their presence, their culture and especially their extraordinary work effort. It has to be said that we also share a passion for hockey. We are not Nordic countries for nothing. We are not countries that love the snow for nothing. We have this fine tradition, as I was saying earlier, that was beautifully highlighted at the International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament.

I cannot help but think that Canada could be doing even more for Ukraine. If we had made the necessary decisions seven or eight years ago, we could have helped Ukraine tremendously with the economic aspect of its war against Russia, and we could have helped our allies, especially European countries, support Ukraine instead of helping Russia by buying its natural resources. In that regard, I have to point out how painful it is to recall that, eight years ago, there were nearly 15 liquefied natural gas projects and ports to export it. Unfortunately, for eight years, for dogmatic and ideological reasons, the current government has done everything in its power to ensure that these 15 projects would not succeed. Imagine if, instead, we had been led for eight years by a government with a vision for the future, one that wanted the whole world to benefit from the bounty we have here when it comes to natural resources. We know how to develop them in an intelligent and environmentally friendly way, with the ethics that have always characterized Canadians. No, instead of having access to our natural resources, countries now have to knock on Russia's door to get liquefied natural gas.

That is crazy. We could be a source of pride on the international stage, but this government did nothing to properly develop Canada's liquefied natural gas potential for eight years because of ideological reasons. We may be speaking with emotion about Ukraine today, but we cannot turn a blind eye to that reality. The great country of Germany is caught between a rock and a hard place and has no choice but to ask Russia for energy, when we have energy but prefer to keep it under the ground. That is unfortunate. It is not just Canada and Canadians who are losing out, but also the people of Ukraine and Germany, who would have been happy to have access to our natural resources.

Since we are talking about free trade, I would remind the House that free trade is a defining feature of the party that I represent, the Conservative Party. Let us remember that the key steps toward free trade began with the free trade agreement with the United States. In 1988 and 1989, we had a prime minister who had vision and who put everything in place for an agreement with the United States. The free trade agreement was approved by the public in the 1988 election. We are grateful to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney for his vision. He was likely the greatest prime minister of the 20th century.

Later on, there were the colossal efforts made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to sign free trade agreements with other countries. I want to commend the outstanding contribution of the member for Abbotsford. During the final five years of the Conservative Party's time in government, he was the architect of our country's exceptional development in the area of free trade. He was the one who succeeded in negotiating agreements with Europe, America and the Pacific.

Under the direction of the former minister of international trade, the current member for Abbotsford, we made our mark on nearly five continents. The sun almost never set on this empire of positive economic free trade and wealth creation. We believe in free trade because our country is a large, wonderful place, brimming with natural resources. Above all, we are proud of how smart and hard-working Canada's 40 million citizens are.

Let us keep one thing in mind, though. When a local market has 40 million people in it and a nearby neighbour has almost 350 million, maybe it takes a bit more. That is why our country is, in a sense, condemned to always having free trade agreements so we can open up our market and export Canada's know-how, our natural resources, our energy and our products, which are produced so efficiently thanks to Canadian workers and Canadian ingenuity. That means we need free trade agreements.

Our party, the Conservative Party, was the architect of free trade in the 20th and early 21st centuries. It is the party of free trade. As everyone knows, we are always open to the idea of win-win agreements. That is key to a good free trade agreement. As one of my old bosses used to tell me all the time, a good agreement is an honest agreement. The idea is not to make sneaky attempts to put one over on the other party. The whole point is for it to be win-win. That is how outstanding free trade agreements, like the ones the member for Abbotsford negotiated when he was international trade minister, are made.

I see that time has run out. How very sad that I have to stop there.

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

The next time this matter is before the House, the member will have five minutes for questions and comments.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, a decade ago, this very month, I walked through the Euromaidan. On the cobblestone streets of Kyiv spanned crowds of thousands. They were jubilant, humorous and optimistic. They sang and cheered in peaceful protest. On stage, speeches extolling the promise of a future independent of Kremlin domination, enabled by oligarchs and their corruption, gave voice to generations of Ukrainians fed up with the old order.

Ukrainians had survived Stalin's famine 90 years ago through Holomodor, Ukrainians whose perilous march to freedom had been perpetually subjected to subversion.

As far as the eye could see, ribbons of yellow and blue adorned a people with the powerful idea that they might soon be free of the yoke of the neo-colonial, revanchist ambitions, free of a neighbour they longed for good relations with, yet a neighbour determined to deny the self-determination of an entire people.

I accompanied my friend and former boss, Canada’s foreign minister John Baird. I watched him take in what we had been witnessing together, make a wide grin, and then take to the stage to stand with a people whose moment of independence had arrived. Months later, we returned to charred buildings and cobblestone ripped from the ground by protesters fighting a government that turned its guns on them and flowers laid before portraits of the fallen.

In the subsequent vacuum of transition, on March 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea. It was the opening chapter of what now constitutes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

By April, Russian special operations, Spetsnaz GRU units, paratroopers of the 45th Guards Spetsnaz Brigade of the VDV and Wagner contractors seized territory in Donbass.

Too often we start the story at the middle and not at the beginning. To some, the story of Ukrainian independence commenced in the mid-2000s, amid political turmoil, economic challenges and external pressure.

The Orange Revolution in 2004 set the stage for a democratic transition but the road ahead was far from smooth.

At communism’s end, Ukraine held the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They divested that power to guarantee their territory. In 1994, they received those guarantees from the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom at Budapest. Had the allied world deepened this commitment to Ukrainian territorial integrity, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper strenuously recommended at NATO in 2008, today’s brutal, illegal, costly war in Europe would never have happened.

The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement that Prime Minister Harper first negotiated in 2015 was one part of a much more robust approach. It led the world. It supported the people’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and their territorial integrity, even as war was being waged against them.

Conservatives, with Harper, recognized the importance of supporting ascendent Ukrainian civil society and its democracy. We strengthened Ukrainian democratic institutions, enhanced the rule of law and combatted corruption.

Conservatives, with Harper, were at the forefront of imposing sanctions on Russia at every stage. Serious costs were imposed on the Kremlin. Along with free trade, Conservatives, with Harper, stabilized the Ukrainian economy, preventing financial collapse and bolstering Ukrainian resilience.

As Russia's aggression escalated, Conservatives, with Harper, launched Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission that founded the modern Ukrainian Armed Forces.

That, as President Petro Poroshenko said, was instrumental in how Ukraine repelled Putin’s opening advance toward Kyiv in February last year. The strength of the Conservative approach to securing Ukraine, stabilizing the world, was indeed the envy of the world.

It culminated in 2014, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper confronted Vladimir Putin’s repugnant deceptions at the G8, looked him squarely in the eye and said, “Get out of Ukraine.” The G8 became the G7, rightly so, because of a strong and principled Conservative leadership that ensured the integrity of our alliances.

Compare that to NDP-Liberals who arrived in office to an inheritance in which Canadian influence was undeniable. What did they do with it? They pursued entreaties of appeasement instead.

NDP-Liberals dispatched senior diplomats to capitals around the world with a message of “Canada is back”, back to the Kremlin, back to Tehran, back to Beijing, appeasement that even as Russia intensified its invasion of the Ukrainian east, then-foreign minister Stéphane Dion dispatched his officials to seek to restore good relations with Vladimir Putin.

It was appeasement by sending emissaries to the clerical regime in Iran, even as it showcased its domestic brutality. Exported terror armies were now attacking Israel from across the Middle East and pursuing nuclear weapons. They did not learn. In 2020, there was appeasement after Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 was shot out of the sky by a regime sheltering itself under the human shield of civilian flights, killing 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents.

There was appeasement that shocked the families of victims, watching their prime minister warmly hold the murderous regime’s foreign minister’s hand, beam a warm smile and bow his head. There was appeasement by pursuing free trade, extradition and cybersecurity treaties with Beijing, while turning their back on the trade deal Conservatives negotiated across Asia.

We will now watch as the Liberals pretend Bill C-57 is the singular triumph of a foreign policy that is clearly broken. Conservatives will consult, we will be clear-eyed about the interests of Canadians, and we will take the right decisions for our country and our alliances. Conservatives will pursue policies of peace through strength, instead of entreaties of appeasement.

How about a real trade deal that could end the war in Europe? Canada is the sole NATO ally with the potential to backfill European energy demand with $3-trillion worth of natural resources, the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, NATO’s third-largest reserves of natural gas and the capacity to scale agricultural products and technologies for the world.

Today, Putin mimics Stalin nearly a century ago: He is bent on creating famine by weaponizing the food supply, and burning and blockading Ukrainian grain so it cannot reach fragile markets. Vladimir Putin spent years choreographing Germany’s dependency on Russian oil, having exploited that to shake down Europe. He intervened in Syria and Libya to subvert pipelines that would supply Europe and amplified misinformation against Canadian energy.

It ensured a steady stream of revenue for Russia’s war machine, nearly $1 billion a day, including more than $250 million a day from Germany alone to fund his war. When Germany finally realized the costs of this, Chancellor Scholz came knocking on our door for Canadian energy and we turned him away.

Russia and Iran scale production today, evade sanctions and provide discounted prices to Beijing to wage their wars in Europe and the Middle East. Qatar, host to Hamas, inked a 3.5-million-tonne gas deal with France just this week. If NDP-Liberals truly care about trading relationships that support Ukraine, then they can do the one game-changing thing the world has been demanding: end Russia’s weaponization of energy, and let Canadian resources be what fuels, feeds and secures the world and Canadians.

Across the world, we must confront the illiberal project posed by our medieval rivals upon the modern age of democracies. Our town squares are burning. Mobs are threatening individual dignity and freedom. The time has come for the return of leaders with conviction, leaders who do not bow before the illiberal age upon us, but who instead unlock the economic and military strength required in this generation’s greatest test.

I think of Ukraine a decade ago and all that has transpired since, from the jubilation of the Revolution of Dignity, to all the carnage, the rubble, the costs of chaos and disorder that appeasement has resulted in. Hope seems like an idea so far away. One year ago, in a report from the bombardment of Kharkiv, an elderly woman stood in the rubble of her apartment. She interrupted her neighbour in the middle of an interview, surveying the damage inflicted by Russia’s indiscriminate attacks. She shared three words: Hope dies last.

If we are to live up to our potential as a country, then we will heed her wisdom that without hope we have nothing. It is time to replace a government unwilling to do what Canada must. It is time to replace it with one that delivers upon the strengths of our nation to a world eagerly awaiting them; one that restores the promise of Canada to alliances broken so badly by the NDP-Liberals.

Let us make the trade deal we should be making, the one that delivers hope and the one that delivers the energy that would end the war, bring strength to the alliances we depend upon, and secure the future for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member take the attitude that he has toward Ukraine and talk to members of his own caucus as they continue to filibuster this piece of legislation.

He is factually incorrect. It was this government that signed off on the first Ukraine deal. It is the Conservative Party across the way that continues to filibuster Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. The Conservatives can say all the wonderful words they want and glorify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want, but the bottom line is the Conservative Party is reckless and risky.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of seeing this legislation pass. It is economically the right thing to do. If we take a look at what is taking place in Europe, we can send a very strong message in favour of Ukraine that would be very powerful.

Will the member stand in this place and make a commitment that he will do whatever he can to ensure this legislation will pass throughout the House of Commons, including the Senate, before—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. House leader, especially because I think his perspective on what is going to make a difference in this war, in this world and for Canadians is quite skewed.

If the Liberals want to deal with the issues the world and Europe are dealing with, their dependency on the energy they have come to rely on the Russian Federation for, and for Putin's domination of the energy order of Europe to now come to an end and make a singular decision to end the war, then the energy and effort that Canadians need to be making is to get our energy and resources to market to displace Russian dependency with Canadian long-term supply.

We are a country that has the highest standards for the rule of law and the highest ethical standards. Our production reduces emissions internationally. It is one of the most important projects we could be undertaking in this venture.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and thank him for his speech.

Obviously, we applaud this new agreement with Ukraine. I fully recognize that the previous agreement was negotiated by Stephen Harper. It was about to come into force when an election was called. This agreement goes further. Given that Ukraine is part of of the World Trade Organization, there will be little to be gained from tariffs. The main purpose of this bill is to send another very strong message of diplomacy and show that Ukraine is our friend.

Obviously, we need to look at the financial markets. One thing about this agreement is that it entrenches in a treaty that Ukraine's territory includes Donbass and Crimea. We think that is an excellent message to send.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada has always stood for Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will never accept Crimea's illegal annexation. It will never accept the idea that Russia's claims over the Donbass are somehow credible. They are not. They have never been credible. They are a giant pantomime hosted by Vladimir Putin in his own mind about a neo-Russian idea of the country.

When we think about how to deal with the issues the hon. member has raised, the most important thing to do is to assess what kind of trade deal we want to make. The trade deal around getting our energy to Europe is one of the most important deals we could make.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that when my hon. colleague talks about illegal occupations and indiscriminate attacks he condemns Russia for it, but of course his party praises Israel when Israel does it.

I was in this House when the Harper government was in power. It was totally disrespected on the world stage because of that kind of inconsistent, imbalanced, outdated and Cold War oversimplification.

From 2015 to 2021, we had a Liberal majority government and a Liberal minority government, yet in the member's speech he incorrectly and repeatedly asserted that these were Liberal-NDP decisions in that time period. An accurate history is the basis of sound foreign policy. With that kind of disregard for Canadian history, how can Canadians have any trust that Conservatives would have sound foreign policy in the future when they cannot even get Canadian history correct?

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply offended with how the hon. member has described the situation in the Middle East. As we know, there are many anxious communities affected here in Canada today. He and his party are determined to try and paint the State of Israel and the IDF that way, when they have every right to defend the hostages who have been taken from their land and their state and believe that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. This hon. member is clearly on the path of anti-Zionist thinking. It is a condemnation of a democratic state that should never be tolerated in this chamber.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important agreement.

I want to focus my comments on a few things. First, I noticed in debate that there has been some insinuation that reviewing this bill and its contents is somehow inappropriate for Parliament. I want to refer colleagues who are making that assertion to comments that were made earlier in debate, I think it was last week, by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay. He talked about how, in previous trade agreements that have come before the House, the government has not afforded Parliament a lot of time to review things.

He actually cited that, in February 2020, ahead of the renegotiated CUSMA agreement, the minister made the following commitment: to require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiation toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations, and to require objectives for negotiations towards new free trade agreements to be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, these objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade.

As far as I understand, and I am happy to be corrected, I do not believe that the government actually did that in this case. That is problematic. Because the government has failed to do this, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take time to scrutinize this legislation. It affects many different aspects of the economy, some in very positive ways. Our job here is to scrutinize legislation, and the assertion that somehow we should not be doing that is actually anti-democratic.

I hope that hon. colleagues refrain from making that assertion and, instead, focus on the subject at hand today. I also hope that, if the government is going to enter into future negotiations such as this, they abide by the rules that they have put forward to this place. It would make things a lot more productive, and it would be far more respectful of our time and parliamentarians' time here.

On the subject of the agreement, I would like to focus my comments on this bill for consideration in two key components. First is the concept of treatment of intangibles in free trade agreements. There was quite a bit of rightful concern about the government's lack of focus on how to treat intangibles in the previous Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I think it is incumbent on us to be looking at this particular aspect in any free trade agreement, including this one. I would just implore colleagues to do so, should this bill make it to committee.

I want to read one passage, just to put it into the record for colleagues to consider as they are deliberating this bill. It was a passage by Jim Balsillie, a Canadian industry leader, talking about intangibles in trade:

The instruments designed to govern the intangibles economy – including the new-age trade agreements such as CUSMA, CPTPP, and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – entrench and expand protection for owners of IP and data.

However, he noted that this is not new. He said:

... in 1990s trade agreements became the main tool for devising preferential marketplace frameworks that suit the owners of IP.... Nowhere was the shift from a tangibles to an intangibles economy set in sharper relief than with Canada’s largest trading partner the United States.

Later, he went on to critique how:

Canada’s woefully late recognition of the shift to intangibles and failure to understand its significance for national prosperity and security resulted in its falling behind, walking into strategic errors, and now leaving it poised to enter the post-pandemic world not just in catch up mode but relegated to competing globally on the cost of its tech talent with low-wage jurisdictions.

He talked about how:

Canada has an IP trade deficit. The Council’s recommendation would have us paying even more rents out to IP owners, who are principally foreign.

This is something that I really hope colleagues will consider in their deliberations over this bill, particularly as Canada still lags behind the rest of the world in terms of dealing with artificial intelligence regulations.

We are entering a phase where the global economy is not just entering into a digital economy; it is in a digital economy and progressing into a generative economy.

If we just have widgets and tangibles as a primary focus of trade agreements, and we promulgate other aspects, such as intellectual property protection and data ownership, without thinking about the downstream impact on our economy in 10 or 15 years, then we are setting Canada's economic prospects behind. I am not necessarily saying that is the case in this agreement, but I would just hope that parliamentarians who are tasked with looking at it, particularly in the committee stage, would focus on the precedent that is being set with regard to intangibles and the intellectual property component. Moreover, with any other trade agreement, that is something that Parliament needs to be seized with. This is just a note to colleagues who might be looking at that in the future.

The other thing I want to focus on would be article 13.10 of the trade agreement, under subsection 8(d), which says, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”.

This is a great, laudable objective. As colleagues have talked about previously in the House, the provision of clean energy and reducing Ukraine's and other European countries' reliance on Russia for energy should be an objective of the Canadian government. However, as other colleagues have pointed out, the government's own actions over the last eight years have been antithetical to that posture. Therefore, it is very difficult for the government to make such an assertion in a trade agreement after eight years of failing to acknowledge that Canada has a duty to build up facilities to provide cleaner sources of energy, such as liquefied natural gas, to other economies.

The reality is that Canada's government has taken a posture that is against the development of this resource. In fact, I would draw members' attention to an article in Reuters from October 6 of last year, over a year ago, titled “Canada's [Prime Minister] under pressure from Conservative rival to back new LNG”.

This article extensively covered what happened when the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, came to Canada. He was seeking a major role for Canada in replacing Russian supplies, such as energy. The rebuff that our allies in Europe got from the current government was wholly inappropriate. A year has gone by, and we are now taking this posture in this trade agreement without having seen any movement forward from the government on how to increase this type of export in an environmentally sustainable way. That is wholly irresponsible.

Earlier, my colleague from Calgary Heritage talked in his speech about Canada's failure to provide when we have this resource in abundant supply and some of the strictest environmental controls in the world. Canada is actually remarkably well placed to develop this resource in an environmentally responsible manner. There are colleagues from all different parties who represent ridings that are part of the development of this resource. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance between the posture that the government has taken in article 13.10 of the trade agreement and the reality of building out this infrastructure.

Therefore, I would encourage colleagues, as they consider this bill, as well as colleagues from the governing party, to look at ways to close that gap or to bring those two postures together. We cannot be putting postures like this in a trade agreement with any sort of truth to it without building out that infrastructure. It is good for the Canadian economy, and it certainly would defund the Russian war machine. This is really important. It is a broader objective, and it would provide stronger economic support for the country.

I will just close with this: Many colleagues in the House have pointed out in the debate over the Conservative motion on removing home heating tax, which will be voted on this Monday, that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy and that we should be looking to displace it. I do not understand why that cognitive dissonance exists in other areas.

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

Madam Speaker, back in September President Zelenskyy came to Ottawa and spoke in this very chamber. Part of the purpose of the trip was to sign off on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what this legislation is based on, and it was brought in shortly after the signature. Given the fact that we have the President of Ukraine coming to Canada during a time of war to sign off on a trade agreement, to see the silly games being played on this legislation by the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat disgraceful. I believe that, in the Conservative Party, there is an element that does not want to see this legislation pass.

The member's colleague from Cumberland—Colchester referred to this legislation as “woke” and suggested that, in some way, Canada should not be having an agreement with Ukraine at a time of war. I will ask the member this: Does she support his comments?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am actually surprised my colleague brought up the incident that happened during President Zelenskyy's address. It did not go so well for the government. I think the government owes a significant apology to the Ukrainian people for its complete mishandling and the debacle that ensued there. It was disgraceful, what happened, and the government should be ashamed of itself.

In terms of calling the review of legislation that is before this place “silly games”, I think that is very indicative of the government and the Liberal Party's disrespect for Parliament and parliamentary privilege.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

First, I want to remind members that, if they have other questions, they should wait for an opportunity to ask. Second, if they want to have conversations, they should take them out of the chamber while the House is in session.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her speech. I heard her make various comments about the content of the agreement.

More generally speaking, we know that MPs have almost no power to change the content of international treaties. They can only agree or disagree with the agreement. We are not able to propose amendments. The role of parliamentarians is very limited.

Members will recall that, in November 2020, during the renegotiation of the post-Brexit agreement with the United Kingdom, members of the Standing Committee on International Trade were asked to debate a text that they did not even have a copy of.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that parliamentarians have almost no power to influence the negotiation of international treaties and that such negotiations are left exclusively up to the executive branch.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. I know that the member's colleagues in her party have been making this point in debate, and it is a good one. It is a strong contrast to what the parliamentary secretary said when he characterized the scrutiny of the agreement as “silly games”. That is not appropriate. That actually denigrates Parliament and our role.

I would point out again that, in debate, our colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay pointed out that the government made a commitment to Parliament to give advance notice and to have trade negotiation go through the international trade committee. That has not happened in this case, and it is incumbent upon us to point out that Parliament has a role. We have a large, diverse regional economy, where we have many stakeholders who will want feedback. That is our job, and I fully support the member's assertion that the government did not undertake that in this instance, and now we have a duty as parliamentarians to undertake that role.

That is an excellent point that I fully agree with.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, one thing I have noticed about this draft is that there is a chapter on trade regarding indigenous peoples. I really like that there is a chapter to make sure that there are some activities regarding economic development in free trade. If I understand it correctly, this is the first time that there has been a chapter like this in a free trade agreement.

Does the member agree that, for any future free trade agreements, there should always be chapters to make sure that Canada's indigenous peoples are highlighted and have a profile, ensuring that we have better economic development activities to support them?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is vitally important that Parliament and the Canadian government consider the economic self-determination rights of indigenous persons in all activities. This should be a principle that is extended beyond these agreements to natural resource development, environmental assessment and the inclusion of indigenous and traditional knowledge in policies such as health, science, and research and technology. As such, it is encouraging to see more discussion of this and this particular principle included in debate in Parliament writ large.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe in free trade. I believe in Canada and in Canadians. I know that we are some of the most creative people in the world. I know that there is no one who surpasses us in business acumen or in the quality of the products we make. I also know that, on a level playing field, Canadians will always succeed. Our strength is our people. We are so much more than the hewers of wood and drawers of water of our colonial past. We are energetic and innovative, and we have been energized by the input of people and cultures from around the globe. Canadians are not afraid of free trade; we welcome it.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning asked me to be their representative in the House, I was a businessman. Arriving in Canada as an immigrant with little more than the clothes on my back, I took the opportunity that this country gives. I worked hard and built a business that had customers around the world. Anyone who has experience in international business will say that there seems to be no end to the possible problems and pitfalls. All too often, in too many places, the rules of business do not seem fair. A free trade agreement is designed to make rules fair and to open up opportunities for business people in the countries it covers. A free trade agreement tells the world that the countries signing it are not afraid of fair and honest competition, and that they believe in the ability of their citizens and want them to prosper. I know first-hand that Canada and Canadians can compete with whatever the world has to offer. I know that we have the people and the brain power to shine on the world stage.

The ties between Canada and Ukraine are long-standing and historic. It was under a Conservative government that, on December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. It was under a Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, that Canada undertook Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training. Ukraine has been so successful in the past two years in fighting against the invader in part because of that partnership with Canada. That partnership is more than a military alliance; it is also about trade. It was Conservatives who successfully negotiated the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

What would the bill before us do? Among other things, it is designed to:

(b) promote, through the elimination of barriers to trade in goods and services, the expansion of reciprocal trade and the strengthening of economic relations between Canada and Ukraine in order to create opportunities for economic development;

(c) promote conditions of fair competition affecting trade between Canada and Ukraine;

(d) ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment.

As a former businessman, I appreciate that the word “predictable” is very comforting. What any business person wants to know is that the rules are solid, that the ground does not shift in the middle of a deal. In a world where there seems to be an increasing number of variables, where so much is uncertain, it is important to have a predictable commercial framework if we want business to invest and spur on the economy.

I am a big fan of fair competition. As I said, I believe in Canada and in Canadians. I think we can hold our own in a fair competition. Indeed, we can do more than hold our own; we can excel. Canadian businesses are always looking for opportunities for economic development, opportunities for expansion. One of the reasons we have free trade agreements is to create those same opportunities.

The legislation before us would update the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was first proposed by the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The agreement, which came into force on August 1, 2017, eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. In 2022, Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalled $150 million, while merchandise imports from Ukraine were $271 million. As a reflection of the need brought about by Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, Canada's top export to that country in 2022 was armoured vehicles and their parts. Also on the list were fish and seafood, pharmaceuticals, machinery and private donations. Canada top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel and electricity machinery and equipment. In 2022, Canadian businesses invested $112 million directly in Ukraine.

Canada currently has a $150-million trade deficit with Ukraine. When the Harper government originally negotiated the FTA, it was designed to be an asymmetrical agreement in which Ukraine would initially gain the most benefit. The inclusion of more services trade in the updated FTA, and some of the other changes, should balance out bilateral trade. Especially in this time of conflict, Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people. That includes exporting Canadian liquid natural gas to break European dependance on natural gas from Russia.

However, the bill before us, despite being called the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, is not really about free trade. It is about hope. It is about the hope that one day, hopefully soon, Vladimir Putin will realize that his brutal invasion of Ukraine is doomed to fail, and the hope that once again there can be peace in the land. It is about the hope of millions of people displaced by fighting who are longing to return home to pick up the pieces of their lives. It is about the hope of a return to a normal where there is no longer the fear of falling bombs. It is about the hope that those areas scarred by war can be rebuilt and restored. It is about the hope that with peace can come renewed prosperity.

The agreement is about the future of Canada and the future of Ukraine, about an ongoing partnership that would benefit both countries. Canadians have been impressed with the courage shown by the Ukrainian people in the face of war. Their commitment to freedom and democracy is an inspiration. We want to do what we can to support them in their struggle. Indeed, the worldwide assumption was that in any military confrontation between Vladimir Putin's Russia and Ukraine, the outcome would be a swift and decisive Russian victory. On paper, there was no contest.

The bill is a sign that there is indeed life after war, and it will be a good life. It is important for Canada and all other democracies to show their support for Ukraine in its time of need. We have shown our support militarily. We have shown our support morally. Now, we need to ensure that postwar Ukraine has the tools it needs for rebuilding and for continued success.

Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interest of Canada and of all Canadians, but part of that is ensuring that the agreements are fair to our trading partners. We are stronger as a trading nation when we deal fairly with others. Common-sense Conservatives support Ukraine 100%. I look forward to the bill's coming before committee, which will allow us to examine what is proposed and to see how it benefits the people of Canada and also the people of Ukraine.

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

Madam Speaker, the member emphasized how the legislation is more about hope. I kind of agree with him, in the sense that it goes far beyond the economics of a trade agreement. The Conservative Party has traditionally supported trade agreements, yet today, what we heard were Conservative members condemning the legislation, in the sense of saying that it is woke legislation and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine because it is at war.

The issue is whether the member truly believes what he is saying. Can he please explain to Canadians why it is that the Conservative Party is the only party of the House that appears to want to filibuster and play games with this legislation, as opposed to allowing it to pass? It would be a powerful, hopeful message to send to Ukraine if we could have the legislation go through before Christmas. Would he not agree?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the questions coming from the government side have been so divisive on the issue that Conservatives believe is very important.

I have spoken about hope and fairness. I said in my speech, if the hon. member was listening, that we need free trade agreements to be fair for Canada and for our partners, which, in this case, is Ukraine. Hopefully, the government will be more open to the opportunity to have an agreement that is very fair for both parties.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a similar question to the one that was just asked.

There have been times when Bill C-57 was scheduled for debate and, for one reason or another, my Conservative colleagues decided that debating concurrence in a committee report was more important. If, as my colleague emphasized in his speech, the relationship between Ukraine and Canada is so important, does he see the importance of eventually getting to a vote on the bill, and are there particular sections of the legislation that he thinks the committee needs to pay more attention to? I would like to get a little more clarity on that from my Conservative colleagues. This is not a question with an agenda; I am just genuinely curious whether they eventually want to get to a vote on this and improve it at committee.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I am an international trade expert. I was involved in it as a private citizen before I got into politics. We need enough studies to make sure the bill would be to the best benefit of both parties, which are, in this case, Canada and Ukraine, the Canadian people and the Ukrainian people. That is the lens through which Conservatives would like to see this agreement go.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a question about this and the other agreements.

In Canada, agreements are negotiated by the executive, the government. We know that the provinces have the authority to implement treaty provisions in areas under their jurisdiction, but they are not really involved in the negotiations. In Europe, for instance, we see the opposite. Member states play a key role even though the treaty is signed with the European Union.

Could Canada follow Europe's example in this regard?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. As I said earlier, I have been involved in trade myself on the international stage. I know that the implementation of any agreement, with the consultation of all, especially, in Canada's case, with the provinces and so forth, is very important. The input of everyone is very critical. Parliament, especially, has to have a proper say in order to make sure that such an agreement would serve all parties, in this case, Canada and Ukraine, well and with fairness.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise today to speak to this bill on free trade between Canada and the Ukraine.

I represent the riding of Calgary Centre, but a lot of people know that I grew up in small towns around Edmonton, Alberta. When someone grows up in and around a bread basket of Canada like Edmonton, Saskatchewan, as they do in so many parts of the Prairies, they become intertwined with the Ukrainian communities. I think of so many friends and hockey teams from when I was young, Harvey Chewinski, the Boychuks and all the families we were intertwined with.

This was the result of the wave of Ukrainian immigration that came into Canada after the Holodomor, which is a horrific episode in history, a genocide of the Ukrainian people. We have built our lives together with those of the Ukrainian immigrants who came at that time, and it is a wonderful blending of cultures. We know these people, and we love these people. We will continue to support these people in any way we can going forward.

I am also a Conservative, and everybody knows that. Part of the bedrock of what I believe is the openness of free trade around the world, free and fair trade. Conservatives started free trade in Canada back in the Mulroney years. In the 1988 election, we fought for free trade with the United States. Other parties opposed that then, but it carried. The parties that opposed it are now are jumping on board and saying what a great thing free trade is. I remember pushing Canadians over the line because of the negative talk from the opposition parties, both the NDP and the Liberals, who were staking our country's future on not having free trade. I am glad they have come on board, and they have helped expand free trade into other countries, including Ukraine.

The Ukraine free trade agreement was implemented by the last Conservative government, again expanding on that free trade, which we require across the country and across the world so we can continue to advance economic progress and our values, our values of freedom and democracy. Let us think about how that took root in Ukraine. We supported Ukraine. The Conservative government recognized Ukraine as a country at the time. It was one of the first to recognize Ukraine as a country. There was that bedrock of our blending with the Ukrainian people because of our common threads that bind us. This is something that we continue to build upon today.

This is a great debate. I am glad we are actually having this debate on this free trade agreement and that we can talk about the importance to Ukraine and the importance to Canada. This is an important free trade agreement, as was the one that was just recently negotiated and came into effect in 2017. It was less than six years ago that we started having open free trade with Ukraine.

What happened since then, of course, close to two years ago, was that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. We recognized then what his goal was, and it was to submerge the Ukrainian people. He does not believe they are a separate people, a separate country or a separate entity where the people get to decide, in a democracy, how they rule themselves. We stand for them doing that. We stand for that here in Canada. We stand for that around the world. Democracy is something we need to uphold, and we will uphold it anywhere we can.

My party and, I hope, all parties in the House agree that this is a bedrock of democracy. We continue to support democracies around the world. We continue to strongly support the people of Ukraine in their struggle against an oppressor, on their border and inside their border, which is killing people on a daily basis. These people are putting their lives on the line to maintain what we have built together. We support them every step of the way, every day.

I remember when the invasion first happened. I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources a question about whether he would stop the oil trade between Canada and Russia because it was a transfer of about $5 million per day from Canada to import Russian oil. At that point in time, the minister stood up and said that we do not import any crude from Russia. The minister did not then understand the difference between crude and oil.

We did import about five million dollars' worth per day of partially refined oil from Russia to Canada to supply our needs on the eastern coast. We are a country that imports energy in the east and exports it in the west. This is a bit of a travesty because we were funding $5 million per day to Russia's war machine, so it could take away the sovereignty of a democratic country.

This was an issue we had to get ahead of very quickly. Eventually, the minister, in about a week, figured out I was right. We do have trade with Russia on oil, and we do need to do something about it. Of course, within the next month, they looked around and figured it out. It was incompetence. I accept that not everybody is going to be on top of every file.

It was brought to the attention of the government what it should do about trade with Russia while it was subsuming, or attempting to subsume, one of the best and emergent democracies in Europe. We needed to act quickly, and I deplore the government for not acting as quickly as it should have. I implore it to act more quickly in getting Ukraine its needs as soon as possible, particularly in this existential fight it has with an authoritarian regime right on its borders.

We gave support. Let us think about where Conservatives are on this. Conservatives have supported free trade everywhere in the world. Everywhere there is free and fair trade, we have negotiated great agreements all along the way. We have one here we have to look at. Of course, like with everything, the devil is in the details. We are going to go through it. We are looking forward to looking into the details of this and getting input from so many people at the international trade committee when we examine it there.

I think about the other support we have given Ukraine. Under the Harper government, we helped it build its military. We brought a bunch of expertise. Effectively, its ability to defend itself is largely dependent on the fact that Canada stepped up at a time when danger was not on the horizon. Ukraine needed our help to build the infrastructure and security, which has sustained it, and it has helped ensure it does not just become subsumed by a much larger entity, Vladimir Putin's Russia, as it has been historically. It is called the “bloodlands” for a reason. A lot of conflict has happened there over the centuries.

We talk about all the things we could be doing with Ukraine if the government were to look at what trade means to this country. We do not have liquefied natural gas going to Europe. Why not? It is because we have had our head in the sand about the number one way we can contribute to fixing global warming around the world, and that is to get so many countries off of coal.

Who has stepped up? Vladimir Putin's Russia has. It exports natural gas everywhere it can. It has pipelines into Europe. It has pipelines through Ukraine going to Europe. It actually has pipelines of natural gas supplying the people it is fighting against. We stand against this. We think there should be the availability of resources from a democracy such as Canada to supply Europe with the energy it requires now.

I want everybody to know that, when conflict happens, such as a war in Russia and Ukraine, resources are everything. If someone does not have the resources to fund their democracy, they will have to eventually capitulate. We need to continue to supply those resources and think about what we can do here, think about how we can displace the Russian oppressors here. We could actually replace its natural gas with Canadian liquefied natural gas.

We can replace its fertilizer. They are the number one and two exporters of fertilizer around the world. Canada is the swing producer, and we could get a whole bunch of fertilizer, potash, offshore to displace Belarus and Russia, which are funding a war machine that is challenging the existence of Ukraine. Those would be important trade mechanisms to take here. International commerce has to proceed.

I remember very well the CUAET program. At the beginning of the war, the government developed the CUAET program, which is the Canada-Ukraine immigration program, where we allow them to come to Canada and potentially move back. It is a temporary program for Ukrainians to come and be safe here in this country.

Many of them came through Calgary Centre. My office helped so many of those people. I am proud. I meet with those people often, and it is another great testament to how our two countries work together, hand in hand, in advancing common goals, common objectives and common culture. Let us see how this free trade agreement melds into that.

The House resumed from November 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation today.

I am from a Mennonite background, and the majority of my constituents are of Mennonite origin. Canadian Mennonites, by and large, come from Ukraine. The first group migrated to Canada in the 1870s, and another large group followed in the 1920s, fleeing socialism and communism. After the war, many fled, escaping from the socialist dictatorships in eastern Europe and fleeing to Canada via Paraguay and other South American countries. The stories these folks tell are truly mind-blowing, stories of how families walked out of Ukraine on foot with just the clothes on their backs, at times having to resort to eating grass and travelling by night trying to avoid the communists so they could come to Canada, a land of freedom and opportunity. My grandparents were among those who fled the Russians and came to Canada in the 1920s, so Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have a special place in my heart and in the hearts of my constituents.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Canada has sought to help Ukraine. In fact, it was 35 years ago this month, in November 1988, that the dissolution of the Soviet Union began. The communist experiment had failed. The Marxist socialist fantasy had collapsed under the weight of its own tyranny, moral bankruptcy and economic weakness. It was shortly thereafter, in December 1991, under Prime Minister Mulroney, that Canada proudly became the first western nation to officially recognize Ukraine. Fast-forward two decades to 2015. It was the Conservatives whose successfully negotiated the first and current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and voted unanimously to ratify it. In fact, it was my good friend and fellow Mennonite, the member for Abbotsford, who was the lead negotiator on that deal, and I commend him for his great work, which today stands the test of time. Conservatives are strong supporters of free trade, and we are supporters of Ukraine.

I say all this to dispel the ridiculous notion the government tries to propagate that somehow Conservatives do not support Ukraine. We do. To equate or try to correlate a lack of support for this government's failed policies with a lack of support for Ukraine is simply dishonest and in very poor taste. Again, for anyone not paying attention thus far, let me say it one more time: Conservatives are strong supporters of free trade and we are strong supporters of Ukraine.

No one is debating whether or not we should have free trade with Ukraine; that is not the question. The question is this: What are the changes being proposed, and, as with any trade agreement, will those changes be of long-term benefit to Canada? However, there is a second question, and I do think it is a fair question, which is whether now is really the right time to be doing this. I guess if I were to sum up my feelings on the bill before us, my response would be “No, now is not the right time.” Ukraine is in the middle of a war for its very survival. I am not a Ukrainian government official, but if the situation were reversed and Canada were in a war for its survival, and suddenly Ukraine came knocking from halfway around the world and said, “Hey, we realize you're kind of busy surviving, but we thought now would be a great time to revisit our trade relationship”, my response would be “Seriously, you're bringing this up now?” Free trade is great. Free trade is important. Conservatives are the party of free trade, but, frankly, we do have a free trade deal in place. It has not expired and will not expire, so why now?

The government has added 11 new chapters to the agreement. It is pushing to rush this legislation through the House. The questions is why. What kind of woke clauses is it trying to slip in here, a carbon tax perhaps?

The government has bragged, “For the first time in a Canadian free trade agreement, the environment chapter includes provisions recognizing the importance of...climate change policies, including through market-based approaches and trade-related climate measures to achieve green growth objectives.” That sounds like Liberal for carbon tax to me. I know that is a big concern we are hearing from business leaders. Carbon taxes hurt trade the same way they hurt families. They increase the cost of everything while doing nothing to demonstrably help the environment.

Europe has been begging us to support LNG, and where the Americans have done so, Canada has once again fallen behind. It has fallen behind because the government continues to put its ideological vendetta against our energy sector and its carbon tax scam ahead of Canadian competitiveness and affordability for families.

Failing to develop and export clean and ethically sourced Canadian energy to Europe only serves to strengthen Russia. By failing to develop our vast energy resources, we are actually helping Russia and keeping Europe reliant on Russian oil and gas. In fact, as my colleague from Calgary Heritage noted in his speech a while back, “Canada is the sole NATO ally with the potential to backfill European energy demand with $3-trillion worth of natural resources, the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, NATO’s third-largest reserves of natural gas and the capacity to scale agricultural products and technologies for the world.” That is Canada.

Canada could be an international leader, helping to strengthen developing democracies while at the same time growing our own economy and national security through reasonable and responsible resource development, rather than the international pariah we have become after eight years of the failed Prime Minister. He is not worth the cost to Canadians and he is not worth the cost to the free world.

As I wrap up my remarks this afternoon, I would like to stay on this subject for a moment: the cost of the Prime Minister to Canadians and how this relates to the current conversation and current conflict in Europe.

We are united in this House in saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was wrong. We are horrified by the violence. With one voice, we condemn the violence. We have stood with the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. Canada has provided some 10 billion dollars' worth of humanitarian, military and direct financial support. That said, the Prime Minister and the government have been consistent and unequivocal in saying, “We will...support Ukraine with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.” That concerns me a bit, and I have heard that concern from a growing number of my constituents. I think when a leader makes statements like this, Canadians deserve to know what that looks like. When the Prime Minister says, “whatever it takes, for as long as it takes”, what exactly does he mean?

Ukraine is our friend. Russia's invasion was wrong. Still, Canadians should have reasonable expectations and know what and who their government is committing them to. I fear the government's woke excitement and alarmism blinds it not only to what is really important in a trade deal, but also when it comes to the basic democratic values that we expect of our friends and international partners.

As my colleague from Yellowhead noted in his speech, “Canada stands as a beacon of democracy and human rights on the world stage. When people buy Canadian, they are not just buying a product. They are buying into a set of values, values that respect human dignity, prioritize environmental sustainability and advocate for peace.” Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press are things that matter. They are under assault in Canada under the Prime Minister and are under assault in Ukraine. Truth is the first casualty of war, and freedom quickly follows. Friends should always have each other's backs, but sometimes we also need to sit down and have tough conversations. I recognize that is part of a larger conversation than the one we are having here today.

To wrap up, Conservatives believe in supporting our Ukrainian friends, including through trade, but those costs need to be clearly defined for Canadians. We believe Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia.

Conservatives are looking very carefully at this legislation. We are talking to those in affected sectors. We will work to ensure our trade and other international agreements are always in the interests of Canada and all Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with that last speech is that none of the facts back up what the member said.

He said that Conservatives stand with Ukraine. He will have to explain to me why, when President Zelenskyy came to the House, the Leader of the Opposition never once mentioned it on social media. As a matter of fact, in an act of subtle defiance, the member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back a year ago, to the last time Zelenskyy addressed this Parliament, to quote a tweet of what he had said that time, as though that was somehow justifying the fact that he had visited this time.

More importantly, to the red herring that he just pulled up about why we need this now, it is because Ukraine came to the table, sat down with Canada and made the deal. Now the Ukrainian Canadian Congress says that it “strongly supports the strengthening of trade and economic ties between Canada and Ukraine. Canada and Ukraine have negotiated this treaty, and we call on all parties to support the swift adoption and implementation.”

Does the member know better about this issue than the Ukrainian Canadian Congress?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, of course, Canadians know that Conservatives support Ukraine. We have demonstrated that through our support of the help and the aid that we have provided to Ukraine in the last year and a half.

Our support is unequivocal for Ukraine.

Conservatives are prudent, and we like to know what the cost is before we make big commitments. Really, all we are asking of the government is to, for once in its history, provide Conservatives, the House and Canadians with the cost of what it is saying it is going to be. There needs to be transparency, and that is something that is sorely lacking from the Liberal-NDP government.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, of course, I am very much a supporter of free trade with Ukraine and anything else we can do to help a democracy stand up against an invasion of its territory.

I am a little concerned by the Conservatives saying that their support for Ukraine is unequivocal and then saying that it has limits, and that they seem concerned about the cost. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the speech, saying there is unequivocal support and then saying that we have to know how much it costs before that support is unequivocal.

I know that the government and New Democrats certainly stand with Ukraine. We do not want to offer any hope to Russia that we are somehow going to abandon Ukraine, which I am afraid the member's speech did toward the end.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a good question because it would appear as though perhaps there is an inconsistency in our position. There is not.

Conservatives support Ukraine. We negotiated the first free trade agreement. We support free trade. There is currently a free trade agreement in place. It works. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, if anything, it is in favour of Ukraine. That was negotiated intentionally to help a fledgeling company in its pursuit of democracy and freedom and the rights of humans and the furtherance of democracy.

Do we want to know what the cost is? Absolutely, we do not just blindly rush into things such as national pharmacare and free dental for everybody without wanting to know the cost.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the international trade committee, we had the Ukrainian ambassador, and we had a very good interaction with her. She emphasized Ukraine's desire to see this legislation go through. She emphasized the importance of this legislation, specifically touching upon the huge infrastructure that has been damaged, the cost of which is about $400 billion.

She also emphasized that we need to get ready now so that Canada can be a partner in the rebuilding of Ukraine. She explained that last year, at the Ukraine rebuilding conference, which was held in Canada, was overcrowded with Canadians companies and Ukrainian companies getting ready for the war to be over and to rebuild Ukraine.

I would like to have the hon. member's comments on that.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the question was in that comment. Canada and Conservatives, from a Conservative position, stand eager to help Ukraine in its rebuilding. We know that a free trade agreement is going to be part of that, so that it will enable us to supply them with what it needs to regain its position as the breadbasket of Europe.

Ukraine has tremendous agricultural assets that we can leverage here from Canada. We have got the expertise. We have got equipment manufacturing. We are going to be very willing and eager to stand with it in its rebuilding process.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to build onto the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. I want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his work in examining this bill and working to strengthen the economic bond between Canada and Ukraine.

As many of my fellow members already know, I proudly represent the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, a region that is home to many Ukrainians. The community of Dauphin, Manitoba, is proudly home to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. The Parkland region has a rich history in celebrating Ukrainian culture and heritage, and the region shares a strong bond with the people of Ukraine. Much of my constituency was built by the people who immigrated to Canada from Ukraine generations ago. It does not take much to notice the incredible contribution that Ukrainians have made to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Canada.

I, along with my Conservative colleagues, unequivocally support Ukraine, especially over the last 20 months during Russia’s illegal war, which was launched on the Ukrainian people. I will remind members that it is our responsibility as members of the House, alongside our allies, to ensure that Vladimir Putin and those aligned with him are held accountable for their war crimes in Ukraine. These individuals must face prosecution at both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

Since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Canadians have been united in supporting the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom and defending their sovereignty. I was proud to see so many communities throughout my constituency open their doors to support Ukrainians fleeing the unjustified war on their homeland. I think of the community members in Dauphin who launched the Parkland Ukrainian Family Fund to support parents and children fleeing to Canada. Since they launched this initiative, the community of Dauphin has provided homes for over 40 families. It is efforts and contributions like these that showcase how strong the relationship between Canada and Ukraine is.

As Ukraine continues to fight for its freedom, Conservatives will always stand with the people of Ukraine. We also understand the importance of trade and supply agreements with our friends in Ukraine. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the trade agreement with Ukraine, something we are very proud of. This agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada’s merchandise exports to Ukraine. The proposed modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is an important subject in the House. As one of our strong allies, Ukraine represents hundreds of millions of dollars in trade every year.

Before I dig into Bill C-57, it is important to look at the history of this legislation and Canada’s relationship with Ukraine. In December 1991, almost 32 years ago to the day, a Conservative-led government became the very first western country to recognize Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. It was the previous Conservative government that championed Operation Unifier, in which the Canadian Armed Forces led a mission to fortify Ukraine’s armed forces through military training. This operation was very successful in preparing Ukrainian forces for their fight against Russia in this war and, as I said earlier, it was a Conservative government that successfully negotiated the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.

I am proud to stand today as a Conservative to speak up once again for the long-standing friendship between Canada and Ukraine. It should go without saying that nobody in the House is arguing that Canada and Ukraine move forward without free trade. In 2022, Canada’s total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports.

Canadians may be unaware, but motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products were the top three exports to Ukraine, while Canada’s top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. It is important to note that, if Bill C-57 is implemented, the current free trade agreement from 2017 will remain in effect. This would provide time for Canada and Ukraine to get this legislation right, in ways that best serve Canadian and Ukrainian needs alike.

It is vital that, as legislators, we exercise due diligence and ensure that any trade agreement is one which serves the interests of all Canadians. This is why Conservatives are working and engaging with Canadians and stakeholders to ensure that their feedback is heard and taken into consideration before Bill C-57 is rushed through Parliament. It is no secret that the current Liberal government has a failed record of engaging with stakeholders and listening to Canadians. Listening to the concerns of Canadians is not one of the government’s strong suits. That is why Conservatives are determined to ensure that good legislation passes through Parliament.

Upon reviewing Bill C-57, it becomes quite apparent that there is room for improvement and that there are many missed opportunities to strengthen support for Ukraine. Constant attacks from Russia have damaged and destroyed much of Ukraine, but in Bill C-57, there is a lack of focus on rebuilding. One subject that is missing from the legislation is support for rebuilding energy infrastructure. In a time of energy insecurity, one would think that rebuilding energy infrastructure would be top of mind. How are the people of Ukraine supposed to rebuild their economy when their energy infrastructure is not functional?

Another area that the Liberals seem to have ignored is Canada’s inability to provide liquid natural gas to its allies. Had it not been for the Prime Minister’s anti-energy policies, Canada would have been better suited to supporting Ukraine and our allies by supplying LNG to the world. By doing so, we could help cut off Putin from supplying energy to Europe. Instead, after eight years, the government has not built a single LNG terminal. The government has no regard for the importance of exporting Canadian energy to our allies around the world. Canada stands as the only NATO ally equipped to meet the energy needs of Europe, possessing a blessing of natural resources. This includes being the world's fourth-largest holder of oil reserves, boasting NATO's third-largest reserve of natural gas, and possessing the capability to expand the production of agricultural products and technologies on a global scale. Instead, Ukraine and Europe are forced to fund their enemy in war.

Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia. As I said earlier, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interests of Canada and of all Canadians. I mentioned how Conservatives were the ones who successfully negotiated the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It is important that we debate the legislation thoroughly and continue to support the Ukrainian people, especially in this time of war. I, along with Canada’s Conservatives, will continue to stand with Ukraine.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Carbon Pricing.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member opposite: Will the member be supporting Bill C-57, yes or no?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question, and that is why we are debating it today. They will find out at the appropriate time, and I think we are going to vote on this in the next couple of days. Maybe they will find out the answer then.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a peculiar answer to a very straightforward question. In fact, if we all do support Ukraine and free trade for Ukraine, then it is a bit hard to understand why the Conservatives are putting up speaker after speaker who will not say clearly that they are going to support the free trade agreement. In fact, a recent speaker said there were limits to the Conservatives' support for Ukraine.

Either we do support Ukraine, support this agreement and get on with it, or we do not.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was more of a statement than a question. We are supposed to be debating the legislation in front of us here today. That is what I am looking forward to: some serious questions about the legislation.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, this agreement, this legislation is fundamental to the security, stability and economic development of Ukraine. It would allow Canadian businesses to be part of Ukraine's rebuilding, which will be the biggest rebuilding in Europe since World War II.

I would like to hear the hon. member's comments and reaction to the Ukraine ambassador's statement at the international trade committee, which I am going to quote. She said, “We believe that the modernized CUFTA will pave the way for Ukrainian companies and Canadian companies to work together.”

Does the member agree with this statement by the Ukrainian ambassador?

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really important to remember that we have had an existing agreement in place since 2017, I believe. It was a Conservative government that actually negotiated and put that in place. We really have to remember that going forward.

Today, we have a war going on, and nothing has been discussed about trying to create the energy infrastructure for Ukraine so they could get off Putin's gas.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, energy is fundamental to all people in all countries around the world, especially in expansive and northern countries such as ours and in the region that we are talking about.

As my colleague mentioned during his speech, after eight years of the Liberals, there were 18 proposals for LNG terminals from Canada. However, because of the Liberals' red tape, gatekeeping, anti-energy agenda and policies, not a single one has been built.

Conservatives are supportive about actual outcomes rather than words. We know it is so important for Ukrainians and citizens of allied countries to have energy security and affordable fuel.

Could the member comment on the ways in which the NDP-Liberals are holding Canada back from being able to truly support the resilient, tenacious people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as for sources of responsible oil and gas—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to give the member time to answer. This is not the time for another speech.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is basically what the member was referring to. That is the “no more pipelines” bill that was imposed here in Canada on Canadian citizens.

As we look forward and work with Ukraine in developing their energy infrastructure, we need to take a very long look at what the Liberals have done for legislation on developing energy in our own country. We should be helping them instead of hindering Ukraine in moving forward with energy development.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-57, the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The bill would modernize CUFTA and build on the original 2017 agreement with the inclusion of 11 new chapters and provisions.

I believe that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people, including the exportation of Canadian liquefied natural gas to break European dependence on natural gas supplied to those countries by Russia. I also believe that members of this House should always work to ensure that trade agreements entered into by Canada remain in the best interest of Canada and of all Canadians. This is why Bill C-57 should be closely examined and why engagement should occur with Canadians and stakeholders to get that very important feedback. We must also be aware that, through this Canada-Ukraine FTA, Canada is continuing its support for our Ukrainian allies, including through trade.

I commend the Conservatives for having successfully negotiated the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and for unanimously voting for it. I am also a strong supporter of free trade and of Ukraine. On the latter point, this is why I personally believe that Canada should indeed have a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

The current CUFTA was negotiated in 2017, and it will also remain in effect if, for some reason, the new agreement is not ratified. Regardless, Canada's commitment to a strong and independent Ukraine is a constant. Ukrainian people have suffered greatly through Russia's unwarranted aggression, and the people of Ukraine need all the assistance Canada can offer.

Canada's history with Ukraine displays a close relationship. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. Recently, Canada also undertook Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training.

As I said at the outset, the new CUFTA reflects the 2017 agreement, with 11 new chapters and provisions that focus on trade in services, including financial investment, cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, financial services, telecommunications, SMEs, digital trade and labour. Bill C-57 also includes elements of the government's new progressive trade and the first-ever sections on indigenous peoples. There is also a substantial new chapter on the environment.

The original 2017 agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. CUFTA has a built-in review clause, article 19.2, that commits to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force. The intention is to expand the agreement to new areas, such as investment in trade in services.

In July 2019, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ukraine agreed to modernize the CUFTA. Subsequently, in January of last year, Canada and Ukraine announced the launch of modernization negotiations, which were suspended as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those negotiations resumed in June 2022. On October 17, the modernized CUFTA was introduced for ratification by the government.

Let us take a step back and really look at the magnitude. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. When the original CUFTA was ratified, non-coal exports to Ukraine actually grew by 28.5%, when looking at the period between 2016 and 2019. The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, electrical machinery and equipment. For reference, Canada's 10th merchandise export market was Belgium, at $4.9 billion, and Canada's 10th merchandise importer was Brazil, at $7.5 billion. Therefore, this trade deal is very small relative to Canada's total trade, but that does not diminish its importance, particularly given the ongoing conflict.

There are two parts to adopting a trade agreement: a text of the agreement and the enabling legislation. Bill C-57 would implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as agreed to between the two parties on September 22.

Among other things, the bill sets out rules of interpretation and further “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”. Bill C-57 would approve the agreement and provide for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the agreement's institutional and administrative aspects. The bill would also provide the Governor in Council with the power to make orders in accordance with that agreement. It would amend certain acts to give effect to Canada's obligations under that agreement and would repeal the 2017 agreement.

The new CUFTA would update the following chapters: rules of origin, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, digital trade, labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption. These are all things that are very important to Canadians. However, for the first time in a Canadian FTA, the environment chapter would include provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade and climate change policies. Also, for the first time ever, a Canadian FTA would include a chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. It would also replace the 1994 FIPA in the investment chapter.

What are the financial implications for Canada of this renegotiated CUFTA? We know that Canada currently has a $150-million trade deficit with Ukraine. However, when the Harper Conservative government originally negotiated this FTA, it was designed to be an asymmetrical agreement whereby Ukraine would initially gain the most benefit. The inclusion of more services trade in the updated CUFTA and other changes should balance our bilateral trade, which would be a good thing for Canadians. The enabling legislation would include some costs in implementing the agreement and the cost of dispute panels; however, those costs are standard and do not amount to large sums.

In conclusion, I am pleased to provide my support for Bill C-57. I believe that the new agreement would preserve Canada's interests in such agreements, and I believe that the renegotiated CUFTA would continue the objective of helping Ukraine, its people, its struggle to repel Russian aggression and its efforts to defend democracy.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that the hon. member mentioned his support for the free trade agreement. He rightly pointed out that the fundamental focus of any free trade agreement with Canada are the interests of Canada, Canadians and Canadian businesses.

Rebuilding Ukraine will be the single biggest investment project in Europe since World War II. It will require around $411 billion, and that is where Canadian companies can come in with their expertise and knowledge to help Ukraine. This bill would provide both an opportunity while doing a good deed. Does the member agree with the approach that the government has taken in bringing the legislation forward so Canadian businesses would continue to benefit with their association in the rebuilding process of Ukraine when Ukraine needs it the most?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that Canada has a lot to offer the world and to offer Ukraine, and not only what we saw in terms of the training capacity and capabilities from the Canadian Armed Forces as part of Operation Unifier.

I want to use this opportunity to give a shout-out to a dear friend of mine, retired Canadian army sergeant Kevin Leach, who now leads the largest foreign training organization in Ukraine, Sabre Training and Advisory Group. It is actually training, with other NATO veterans, the equivalent of half of all NATO countries in terms of output, to ensure that Ukraine has the skills and the capabilities it needs to win the war against autocracy and Russian aggression.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether our colleague, also in recognition of his service in the Canadian Armed Forces and the comments he just made, has any reflections on how it can be, after eight years, that Canada is now being excluded from major security deals with our international allies, major security agreements among free democracies—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question's direct relevance to the speech the hon. member made is not apparent, so I would ask the hon. member to provide the relevance to Ukraine.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the relevance of course is that Ukraine also needs munitions in support of its fight against the illegal and imperialist attacks and invasions by Putin's Russia. Could the member make more extended comments on its requirements when combatting what must seem to be an unconquerable enemy that is attacking it, the training and skills required to do that, and why Canada is being excluded from multiple security deals these days.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to have served almost nine years now in His Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy. My personal opinion, as it relates to my colleague's question, is this: She brings up a very important point.

At a time when Ukraine is being illegally invaded by Russia, its neighbour, and when Canada shares a northern Arctic border with Russia, it behooves anyone with common sense to ask why the federal government believes that now is the time to cut $1 billion from the Canadian Armed Forces. These are the same Canadian Armed Forces that train Ukrainian forces to ensure they are able to not just repel but also win this war.

A concerning trend we have seen is the ostracization of our government and our Prime Minister from important security pacts at a time of increasing instability. I agree with my Conservative colleague wholeheartedly.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that it is refreshing to hear a speaker this afternoon who has actually stated his position on the bill that is before the House.

Does the member have any observations on why the Conservatives seem to want to talk about anything this afternoon other than the bill that is before the House and declaring our support for Ukraine by supporting the improved free trade agreement?

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity to discuss the bill with a number of my Conservative colleagues in a number of different arenas. One thing we agree on, beyond just the need to invest in Canada's capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies, is the fact that Canada's continued negligence with respect to our ability to export liquefied natural gas is indirectly hurting Ukraine. I think the official opposition agrees with me that it is negligent not to reduce European dependency on Russian LNG. I hope the government hoists this in and really seriously considers how it can comprehensively help our Ukrainian allies, including by removing the revenues that Russia uses to fund—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Niagara West.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always want to make sure when I get up that I thank the residents of Niagara West for sending me here.

There are some service awards tonight on the Hill for a number of my staff: Gord, who did not come up, has been in my office over 15 years; Phil, who is here in Ottawa; and Irene, who is here in Ottawa with her better half, or other half, Dan, joining us today. It would not be possible to serve the people without the great support that we all have in our offices, so I wanted to recognize them before I start.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. For the folks in Niagara West and across the country who are watching this debate today, it is important to note that the Conservative Party of Canada was the party in government when the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was successfully negotiated. This agreement represents a critical milestone in the Canada-Ukraine relationship. It generated commercial benefits for many Canadian businesses. It also supported the economic reform in the development efforts of the Government of Ukraine. Most of all, it made the Canada-Ukraine partnership for peace and prosperity even stronger.

The agreement was ratified unanimously in the House, eliminating tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. It is important to highlight that this agreement has a built-in review clause, article 19.2, committing to the review of the agreement within two years of its entry into force. The intention of this clause is to expand the agreement to new areas, such as investment and trade in services. That is where we are today: trying to improve upon that initial agreement.

In my view, Canada should continue to look for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people. One key opportunity is exporting Canadian LNG to break the European dependence on natural gas from Russia. As we know, the Russian government is using its natural gas exports as leverage over European markets. Canada can help Europe break that cycle with our world-class LNG.

I believe that all parties in this place would agree that the Conservative Party has had a long and proud tradition of supporting free trade by negotiating and signing agreements, as it has done many times in the past. It was also a Conservative government that negotiated the first Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and that negotiated the bulk of CETA with the European Union.

A ton of credit should go to the Conservative member representing the riding of Abbotsford, who is in the House right now, for doing an incredible job as the minister of international trade when we were in government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member knows that we cannot refer to who is present or absent in the House. I would ask him to limit it by referring to the member's constituency.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope he is paying attention then. The member for Abbotsford also deserves credit for negotiating the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, perhaps one of the best trade ministers this country has ever had.

In terms of Ukraine, as we know, the country is a very close partner of Canada. In fact, for folks who are not aware of our close ties, Canada was the first western nation to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union on December 2, 1991. It was a historic and proud moment for Canada, and it continues to do so today.

In 1991, after decades of Soviet socialism, oppression, mistreatment and subjugation, Ukrainians shrugged off their chains and voted to take control of their destiny. In this context, we must also recognize Ukraine's historic struggle against an aggressor who, for centuries, has attempted to deny Ukrainian nationhood and let them deal with their own culture.

Thankfully, through all of it, the Ukrainian people have remained resolute in the defence of their country. I am proud to say that since the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, all parties in this House have stood steadfast in leading the international support for the people of Ukraine. We have all stood shoulder to shoulder as we continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russia's unacceptable aggression.

I would also like to highlight the deep cultural ties we share with Ukraine. Canada is home to 1.3 million Canadians with Ukrainian roots. That is one of the largest Ukrainian diasporas in the world. Many of these folks have called Canada home for generations, but have never forgotten the beautiful country of their predecessors. That is why, now more than ever, our people-to-people and economic ties are crucial to cultivate and continue to strengthen. It is also encouraging to see that nearly 200,000 Ukrainian refugees have arrived in Canada, joining our Canadian family.

However, recently I saw concerning reports that some of these folks may want to leave Canada due to the incredibly high cost of living. We all know the cost of living crisis was created by the Liberal government's inflationary spending, lack of a housing plan and its signature failure of the carbon tax. All these factors are affecting all Canadians, but the effects seem particularly acute for newcomers.

We have seen the difficult financial circumstances of international students and the challenges they are facing, housing included. Now we are getting reports that Ukrainian folks are saying that life in Canada is too difficult. Oleksii Martynenko fled Ukraine for Canada by way of Sweden after his city was attacked by Russian forces. Now he says he is planning to return to Sweden, where life is more affordable. His exact quote is, “I’m tired all the time now. I want to go back to Europe because it’s such a difficult life in Canada.” High housing costs and underemployment are among the challenges many Ukrainian refugees face.

It is a huge wake-up call for the Liberal government that what it is doing in terms of our country's finances, the economy and housing is not working. This pattern is in line with the recent studies that show that newcomers to Canada are leaving at much higher numbers than previously thought. These folks are increasingly leaving Canada for opportunities elsewhere, according to a study published by the Institute for Canadian Citizenship and The Conference Board of Canada.

The Liberal government has mismanaged the economy so badly that immigrants are finding Canada a place to leave rather than a place to stay and create a life. It is as simple as that. The polls across this country are showing exactly that for the larger Canadian population as well. Folks are struggling. Inflation has taken a huge bite out of family budgets. In fact, Scotiabank has calculated that interest rates would be 2% lower if it were not for the inflationary overspending of the Liberal government.

It is important to repeat this because it is strong evidence of where we find ourselves under the Liberal government. Things are so out of control when it comes to the cost of living that Ukrainian refugees and other newcomers to Canada are seriously considering leaving, or are actually leaving, this country. That is a very concerning thing to hear. It is concerning, but it can be corrected if the right actions are taken. That is why our Conservative team has proposed three key areas to address tomorrow's economic update.

First, the government must cancel the carbon tax increase. This is absolutely essential for affordability. Second, it must balance the budget to combat inflation and high interest rates, which have devastated family budgets across the country. Ultimately, the out-of-control spending piled on by the Liberal government has caused inflation to rise and forced the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates high. I agree with the Conservative leader when he says that the $900 billion of mortgages set to renew at higher rates over the next three years have created an emergency on our hands to bring rates down before those mortgages renew. The third thing the government must do for affordability is to promote home building over bureaucratic expansion so that Canadians and newcomers, like our Ukrainian friends who have recently arrived, can afford a place to call home.

To get back to the trade agreement, I know that we as Conservatives believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies, including through trade. We have also supported Ukrainian defence capabilities. It was under the previous Conservative government that Canada undertook Operation Unifier. This operation was a Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training.

Since the start of Operation Unifier under the previous Conservative government, the CAF has trained over 39,000 Ukrainian military and security personnel in battlefield tactics and advanced military skills. It is an effective initiative that has produced substantial results for our Ukrainian friends.

As I wind down my speech, I want to make sure folks at home watching this debate know that the Conservative Party of Canada supports Ukraine one hundred per cent. There should be no doubt about that. I also believe there is immense potential for further growth in our bilateral trade and investment between Canada and Ukraine.

In 2022, Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalled $150 million and merchandise imports from Ukraine totalled $271 million. Canada's top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Our top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. In 2021, the stock of Canadian direct investment in Ukraine stood at $114 million.

There is a lot of room to grow those numbers in sectors, and I look forward to it materializing in the near future. I believe both sides are after the same thing, which is a closer relationship between close partners. That is always helpful and is encouraging to see. It is a shame the Liberal Party is trying to muddy the waters by saying that not all parties in the House are in support of closer ties with Ukraine. Let us be honest and transparent with Canadians. Conservatives stand with Ukraine, and we always will.

In closing, let me say that Conservatives will always work to ensure trade agreements are in the interests of Canada and of all Canadians and that we are strong supporters of Ukraine. Also, we must do our jobs as parliamentarians. We need to closely examine this bill and engage with Canadians and stakeholders to get their feedback as we move forward.

I am thankful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Niagara West on this very important topic.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, over the last few weeks we heard a number of comments about five Conservative members who went on a trip to London. What we have not heard a lot about is some of those members, at least one, had their expenses paid for by the Danube Institute.

The Danube Institute is a right-wing Hungarian think tank that recently a published a paper that said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the US 'deep state', 'wokeism', LGBT propaganda, climate protection goals and implementation of mass immigration.”

Coincidentally, right after that trip, Conservatives are now talking about this legislation as being woke. Can the member not just admit that at least some of the Conservative members in his party have gone down the MAGA rabbit hole we are seeing from U.S. Republican congressmen right now in the United States with respect to Ukraine?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe the word “woke” was ever uttered in my speech, so I do not know what he is referring to. It may be other speakers.

What I am concerned about is that we have tremendous potential in this country when it comes to energy security. The member from Alberta just mentioned the fact that we had 19 opportunities to start plants to try to get people off Russian oil. This makes a ton of sense. We are talking about a trade deal, but we should also be talking about how we get Ukraine off the dependence of Russian energy.

Quite frankly, we should be energy self-sufficient as a country. Why are we not doing that? It seems crazy to me these Liberals seem to be sabotaging what is good for our country, what is good business and what is good for the energy security of our country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, once again, we have heard another speech from the Conservatives, who spend a lot of time talking about things other than Ukraine and the assertion that they do support Ukraine, but at the same time they are delaying the implementation of this free trade agreement.

When the member says that he did not utter the word “woke”, we clearly heard the member for Cumberland—Colchester talking in opposition at committee to this trade agreement because it includes references to fighting climate change. What is the real agenda of the Conservatives in slowing down this agreement and supporting Ukraine? It is just not clear to me today in the House that their support for Ukraine is one hundred per cent.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, if this member were really concerned about climate change, he would be looking at getting China off of coal-fired plants. Why would we not be building more to get LNG to China to help take it off dirty coal? At the end of the day, LNG is a great asset we have as Canadians, and we should be doing a better job to produce it, export it and help other people get off dirtier forms of energy. We should be doing that right now, here in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax has now become one of the most hated and reviled taxes in all of Canadian history.

When we talk about exports, it is quite interesting that the government has decided to export a carbon tax into a trade agreement for the first time ever. In all of the trade agreements Canada has signed across the world, there is no carbon tax; there is no mention of carbon price or carbon leakage. For the first time ever, the government has decided to put a carbon tax into a trade agreement with a country in the middle of a war. I wonder what the member thinks about that.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of the carbon tax, one of the things the Liberal government fails to understand is that nobody else is doing this. Our trading partners certainly are not. It is a complete and total competitive disadvantage for what we are doing.

If we just look at where the carbon tax comes from, it is paid by farmers. Right now, we have a Liberal government that is stalling a bill that we passed here in the House, Bill C-234. All members of Parliament and of the Senate passed it. The Liberal government is now stalling on trying to help farmers, to help them with what they are doing for heating or cooling their barns and drying their grain. Why would the Liberal government want to continue with a carbon tax that actually puts the price of food up? Then it goes to the truckers who have to pay the tax on their fuel. It goes all the way through. When we are in a complete and total financial crisis, an affordability crisis and a housing crisis, one would think that the government would be looking at other things, such as technology, something other than a carbon tax, when, quite frankly, most of the other countries in the world that we trade with do not have the same disadvantage.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as a representative of the amazing people and spectacular region of North Okanagan—Shuswap.

Before I speak to Bill C-57, I would like to acknowledge that many of us have returned to Ottawa today after spending Remembrance Day and last week in our ridings. I would like to thank all of the volunteers who gave up their time to organize and participate in the Remembrance Day ceremonies in 16 different communities and locations across North Okanagan—Shuswap and those who participated across Canada. Without those volunteers, the many ceremonies of remembrance would not have been possible.

It is especially heartwarming to see the large turnouts paying respect to our veterans and heart-wrenching to know that, at the same time, there are still battles going on around the world with soldiers and civilians losing their lives to war every day.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Conservatives have a long history of supporting free trade with other countries. My Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, served as Canada's longest-serving minister of international trade and worked on many successful trade agreements during his tenure in the portfolio, including Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine, the agreement that this bill seeks to amend. In fact, he negotiated trade agreements with 46 countries in that time.

As we look at this bill and the agreement itself, we as legislators have a duty to ensure that the law and the agreement are in the best interest of Canadians. We are closely examining this bill, to ensure that this is the case. We as Conservatives and Canadians also believe in supporting our Ukrainian allies. Increasing trade between our nations is but one way of providing that support.

No one is debating whether we should have a free trade agreement with Ukraine. Indeed, we currently have free trade through the 2017 Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. Obviously, trade is happening between our countries. In fact, following the ratification of the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019.

Canada's relationship with Ukraine is strong, with over 1.3 million people of Ukrainian origin living in Canada. Some of those are newcomers, who have come to Canada fleeing Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, which began in February 2022.

I have had the pleasure of meeting some of those newcomers to Canada at special events in Vernon and Salmon Arm and other locations, where the outpouring of community support has made them feel welcome and eases the burden of fleeing their homeland, many with nothing more than what they could carry in their arms or on their backs. Meeting those newcomers from Ukraine and hearing their resolve to maintain their freedom and desire to return and rebuild their lives and their country has been inspirational.

This legislation aims to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which contains 11 new chapters. These include rules of origin, government procurement, monopoly, digital trade, e-commerce and more. The document is around 600 pages long. Proposed paragraph13.10(8) states, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”.

It also contains purposes, including “promote sustainable development” and “promote high levels of environmental protection”.

When I consider what this could mean, I find great differences in what the government promotes and what it actually achieves. I say this because Canada has some of the largest reserves of natural gas for producing liquefied natural gas, LNG, in the world, and yet when Canada was approached to supply LNG to Germany, a neighbour of Ukraine, to help break Europe’s dependence on gas from Putin’s Russia, Germany was told there was no business case. Not only would the export of Canadian natural gas have helped defund Russia’s war machine, but it would also have helped transition Europe away from coal-fired power generation.

So here we have a free trade agreement that is to promote a high level of environmental protection and a government that refuses to acknowledge how much Canadian energy could do toward that goal if we were able to export it to replace energy from regimes with lower standards for production and disregard of human rights.

The government has denied the opportunity for Canada to export clean-burning natural gas with its burdensome, red-tape strangled regulatory process. Rather than promoting a product that would help Ukraine build and rebuild, and transition to a cleaner energy source, the Prime Minister said there was no business case for it. This is a loss of opportunity for Canadians and a loss of opportunity for Germany, Ukraine and other European nations. Canada could help displace dirty coal-fired electricity generation with cleaner LNG. There is a reason that this should be done expediently as Ukraine suffers from the ravages of war, requires energy to rebuild and can no longer obtain LNG from Russia. Canada could be helping.

I will go back to remind the hon. members here of the number of free trade agreements that were completed or negotiated under the previous Conservative government and the work that Canada, under a Conservative government, accomplished on the world stage. It is also worth noting that Canada supported democracy in Ukraine when we sent 500 observers to Ukraine to monitor the presidential elections in 2014.

Before I close, I would like to raise the matter of another item that should be addressed through a different free trade agreement, one affecting British pensioners living in Canada. These pensioners from the United Kingdom receive retirement pensions, but those pensions have never been indexed to the cost of living increases for U.K. pensioners living in Canada. This is an issue I hear about from U.K. pensioners living in the North Okanagan—Shuswap and I hear about how it is causing them to lose thousands of dollars in their retirement. While this government is negotiating a trade agreement with the U.K., I urge the government to press for indexing of U.K. pensions in Canada, just like Canadians retiring in other countries, including the U.K., have their pensions indexed.

As we continue debate on Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I urge this government to focus on what will be good for Canada, good for Ukraine and good for the people of our two countries by ensuring that our laws and trade agreements benefit both nations and do not unduly hinder our energy sector and the progress that could be made in both countries by promoting it.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, this past weekend, I participated in the Halifax International Security Forum with members of Parliament across the way. We heard extensively about the importance of supporting Ukraine both currently but also with respect to their rebuilding. I quote from the head of the Centre of Civil Liberties Ukraine, “there is a huge difference between let's help Ukraine not to fail and let's help Ukraine to win. And we can practically measure this difference in types of weapons, in gravity of sanctions and speed of decisions.”

We heard very clearly this weekend about the importance of helping Ukraine and making decisions with respect to this bill so that they can start predicting and making sure they have a capacity to rebuild. Will the member opposite support and vote in favour of Bill C-57?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite the question back to her, but I do not think I am allowed to do that. Perhaps another time she would be able to explain why her Prime Minister, her leader, decided that there was no business case for exporting LNG from Canada to Europe when the U.S. has gone ahead and done this. Now, France has signed a 27-year agreement to import LNG from countries with far lower standards of production and far fewer human rights activities in their countries. Why would she do that?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have another Conservative speech and another sense of this so-called clean fossil gas, and it is just simply not the case.

Over one-third of Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions comes from fossil gas. In addition, most fossil gas is produced by fracking. Fracking leads to toxic waste water. There is nothing clean about toxic gas. If the Conservatives wanted to critique this free trade agreement, they could talk about how the government is not on track to meet the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement, but they are not doing that.

Why is that the case?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will talk about how the government has failed to meet any of its targets for carbon emissions. The only time it met a target was when the economy was shut down because of COVID, when nobody was moving. Nobody was doing anything because of the travel restrictions.

It has put out all kinds of ideologies and proposed all sorts of things, but it has accomplished so little in eight years. We are seeing that the government is just not worth the cost.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, experts have told us that the last 12 months were the warmest 12 months on this planet in 125,000 years.

Are the Conservatives seriously telling us today that the reason they are not moving ahead on implementing this free trade agreement is because it makes reference to climate change?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I made no such reference. We saw how hot it was when the fires took place in the North Okanagan—Shuswap, in my riding, this year.

However, the climate is a global issue. Canadian-produced LNG can be produced in a more environmentally friendly way than it can anywhere else in the world. If we can help get countries off dirty burning coal with our clean LNG, why would we not be doing that?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech; it was great. There was a question raised by a Liberal member, who said that this bill, this legislation, this trade agreement is going to help Ukraine rebuild. The rebuilding of Ukraine is going to require concrete, steel and heavy equipment. All these things are very carbon-intensive.

If the Liberals actually wanted to help Ukraine rebuild, why would they have put a carbon tax into a trade agreement for the first time ever? Does my colleague think this is actually going to help with the cost of rebuilding Ukraine after it wins the war?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, no, I do not think a carbon tax in a free trade agreement is going to help Ukraine rebuild whatsoever. It will need the lowest cost and the most environmentally friendly energy possible. It can get that from Canada, yet we have a government that is throwing up red tape, bureaucracy and regulations in the way of doing any of that.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member a bit of a redo. He said that nobody was doing much of anything during COVID. I would argue that there were some frontline workers who were doing significant things.

In addition, I would like to talk more about the fact that this FTA enhances some protections for workers. The Conservative Party has talked about how incredibly supportive it is of workers. However, this is a perfect example of how we could strengthen and enhance workers' rights around the world, such as the right to join a union and the right to strike, as an important part of this free trade agreement.

Is that too woke for this member?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up the figure of speech I used, I guess wrongly. Yes, there were a lot of health care workers and other essential service providers who were doing incredible work during the COVID restrictions. I meant there was very little travel. All activity slowed down, so that was part of it. I thank her for that, and I was—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will have to leave it at that.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:42 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.