OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 238 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, October 24, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 24, 2023 DEBATES No. 238 No. 238 N o 238 Volume 151 238 24 10 2023 2023/10/24 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Public Accounts of Canada

Hon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table today, in both official languages, the Public Accounts of Canada 2023. The Auditor General of Canada has provided an unqualified audit opinion on the Government of Canada's financial statements.

[ Translation ] Auditor General of Canada

The Speaker :

It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 8(2) of the Auditor General Act, the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons entitled “Commentary on the 2022-2023 Financial Audits”. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaties entitled “Convention on Social Security between Canada and the Republic of Tunisia”, done at Djerba on November 18, 2022, and “Amendment to the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal”, adopted at Geneva on September 22, 1995.

Committees of the House Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Foreign Interference and the Threats to the Integrity of Democratic Institutions, Intellectual Property and the Canadian State”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. While I have the floor, I want to state how important this study is and what the committee heard.

I want to mention the courage of the witnesses who came before our committee, in particular Pascale Fournier, who spoke truth to power, and members of our Chinese diaspora who deal with threats, intimidation and fear on a daily basis. They came before our committee to tell their stories. I hope that this report reflects those concerns accurately. More importantly, the report states what needs to be done in the recommendations to the government to deal with these threats of foreign interference, particularly by the Chinese Communist regime in Beijing.

While I am standing, I also want to thank the Clerk, the analysts, the technicians, all the witnesses and all members of the committee for putting their hearts and souls into the issue of threats as a result of foreign interference. This is a very important issue for our country. I present this report on behalf of the committee.

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for presenting the report. Having been a member of that committee and that study prior to taking the Chair, I am glad the hon. member thanked the many people who were involved in it. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Motion Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent that the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics presented to the House on Tuesday, October 24, be amended by appending an amended dissenting opinion of the official opposition.

[ Translation ]

The Speaker :

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay. (Motion agreed to)

(1010) [ English ]

Mr. Michael Barrett :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present the supplementary opinion from the official opposition for this important report from the standing committee. The comments of the chair are with respect to thanking our analysts, the clerk and the witnesses. Everyone who participated is incredibly important. This is a very important report about a very important subject. Of course, there were some recommendations that the Conservatives did not concur with, which is why we have added a supplemental to the report.

There is important context included in this, and the official opposition wants it to be noted that an audit of the Trudeau Foundation is an important component that should be considered by the government and undertaken. The official opposition rejects the 16th recommendation included in the report.

Petitions Aquaculture

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition of great concern to residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. People throughout this region have a deep concern for the fate of our wild Pacific salmon. The subject of the petition is the report of Mr. Justice Cohen on the fate of the salmon. The report came out during the time it was commissioned, when Stephen Harper was prime minister; it has been in front of us now for close to a decade, which is extraordinary to people in the region. Briefly, the petition deals with the ongoing crisis of wild Pacific salmon. The petitioners note that the report of Mr.

Justice Cohen has been in front of the government now for many years. There is a commitment to get the toxic salmon factories, known as salmon aquaculture operations, along the areas of Vancouver Island, particularly near the Discovery Islands' channels, out of the water. This would be done to remove the wild salmon stocks that are contaminated with diseases and viruses from the so-called farms. The petitioners ask that the government move rapidly to enact all recommendations of the report of Mr. Justice Cohen and do so without further delay.

Public Safety

Mr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will grant me some grace, given the gravity of the petition I am presenting today. The petition arises from events that happened on September 16, 2021, with the horrific and preventable murders of Mchale Erica Busch, age 24, and her baby son, Noah Lee McConnell, age 16 months. The murders occurred in the victims' apartment building in Hinton, Alberta, perpetrated by a known registered sex offender. The family had no idea that this individual was living there, and the offences happened a short 10 days after they moved in.

This petition has been signed by almost 22,000 Canadians, who are asking for the Government of Canada to do the following: require mandatory reporting by convicted sexual offenders to the nearest police station upon any change of residence; clarify that failure to report as required is an offence for which an arrest warrant shall be issued; and create a specifically designated offender classification for persons convicted of sexual assault offences against children where a sentence of more than two years is imposed, for offenders convicted of two or more violent sexual offences, or for offences involving the abduction of women and/or children.

We have a responsibility to this family and all victims of sexual violence in this country. I look forward to the government responding to this petition.

(1015) Climate Change

Mr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit a petition, in both official languages, on behalf of the residents of Nickel Belt and greater Sudbury region. I am tabling a petition calling on the federal government to move forward immediately with bold emission caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving an interim and science-based target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. [ Translation ] The petition states that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned us repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades, if left unabated, will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather.

[ English ] Public Safety

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 17th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition. The people of Swan River have had enough of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies that allow criminals to run rampant in the community without fear of jail. Members of this small community do not recognize their once-safe town. Businesses are now forced to use a community group chat to alert each other to armed robberies, so the next business down the street can be prepared. The petitioners are calling for action before it is too late.

The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

Justice

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by Canadians, calling on the government to use all tools at its disposal, including invoking the notwithstanding clause, to override the Supreme Court's unjust Bissonnette decision. This struck down a law passed by the previous Conservative government that gave judges the discretion to apply consecutive parole ineligibility periods to persons convicted of multiple murders, to take each victim into account. The consequence of the Supreme Court decision has been to significantly reduce the sentences of some of Canada's worst killers.

It has been more than a year, and the Liberal government has sat on its hands and done nothing. The petitioners are calling on the government to take action.

Climate Change

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I actually have three petitions to present. The first one is similar to one that my colleague just introduced, and it has to do with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent warning. The petitioners are specifically calling on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in terms of achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.

Remote-Controlled Model Airplanes

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, my second petition has to do with the subject of transportation. This primarily comes from the Model Aeronautics Association of Canada. I know a number of petitions like this have been presented in the past. This one calls on the Government of Canada and, specifically, the Minister of Transport to review the decision of Transport Canada to cancel the MAAC members' exemption of

part IX of the Canadian Aviation Act. It calls on the government to reinstate the exemption to MAAC members or remove fixed-wing RC models from the category of remote-piloted aircraft systems, as listed in the CAA.

Child Support

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with 210 signatures from Canadians who are calling for the government's attention to a request about the way child support is determined in Canada. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to consider using household income instead of personal income in all cases, not only in undue hardship instances, as the standard for calculation of receiving child support in cases of joint and/or shared custody. This would allow for a common standard throughout departments.

(1020) Aquaculture

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition on behalf of residents from Hornby Island, Denman Island and Deep Bay on Vancouver Island. The petitioners are calling on the government to postpone licensing further shellfish aquaculture facilities located near herring spawning and rearing habitat in Baynes Sound until a full ecosystem-based assessment is completed on the impacts of this industry's activities on the herring stock, and that they also establish a record of effectively managing their gear and equipment and pay for the cleanup of tonnes of plastic debris.

Further, they ask for the development of a co-management plan for Baynes Sound and Lambert Channel with first nations; this should be area-based and ecosystem-based, recognizing the first nations' unceded traditional territories.

Natural Health Products

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present four more petitions on behalf of the residents of North Okanagan—Shuswap and Canada who are concerned about the current NDP-Liberal government's overreach into their lives. The petitioners call on the Minister of Health to work with the natural health products industry to adjust Health Canada's cost-recovery rates, to accurately reflect the size and scope of the industry and to implement changes only once the self-care framework is adjusted.

We heard about this many times from residents over the summer, and I am very happy to present four more in a series of petitions that have been coming to me from residents who are concerned about the overreach of the current government.

Justice

Mr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians who wish to draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada concerns in regard to the Bissonnette decision by the Supreme Court. As a result of that decision, some of Canada's most heinous mass murderers who had their parole eligibility period reduced will now, in some circumstances, be able to apply for parole after only 25 years. It is an unjust decision putting the interests of some of the worst criminals ahead of the rights of their victims.

The petitioners wish to urge the Attorney General and Minister of Justice to invoke the notwithstanding clause with respect to the Bissonnette decision.

Health Care Workers

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it a pleasure to table today a petition signed by many residents of Manitoba. They are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the provincial jurisdictions in dealing with, in particular in this case, health care professionals, specifically nurses in the province of Manitoba, and the important role that Ottawa plays in working with the provinces to address credentials being recognized, the shortage of health care workers and so forth. It is a pleasure for me to table the petition.

Justice

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I too, along with many of my Conservative colleagues, rise today to present a petition related to the legal system in this country. Specifically, the petitioners draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Bissonnette that struck down

section 745.51 of the Criminal Code, which allowed parole ineligibility periods to be applied consecutively for mass murderers. As a result of this decision, many of Canada's most heinous killers are being let out of prison long before they should be. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners from across Canada urge the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to invoke the notwithstanding clause and override this decision to ensure that justice is actually served within our justice system.

Pornography

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who signed this petition are concerned about the ease of access to online sexually explicit material, including violent and degrading material. They are concerned that this is a public health crisis and a public safety concern. Petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessible sexual material has no age-verification software in place. Petitioners note that many serious harms associated with access to this type of material include favourable attitudes toward sexual violence and the harassment of women. As such, the petitioners are calling for the quick passage of Bill S-210 , the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

(1025) Children and Families

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have today comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the Liberal government's decision to put themselves in place of parents and provinces. The petitioners support the Leader of the Opposition 's comments when he said that the Prime Minister should butt out of these kinds of decisions. The petitioners want to support Premier Blaine Higgs and his policy 713. The petitioners note that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than does any state-run institution.

The role of the government is to support families and respect parents, and not to dictate how they should make decisions for their children. Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let Canadians raise their own children.

Charitable Organizations

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the Liberals' interference in charitable status. They note that in the Liberal platform, there was a values test on charitable status and that this could jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other organizations. They also note that the Liberals previously used a test to discriminate against groups that were applying for the Canada summer jobs grant.

The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test. They also ask for affirmation of their freedom of expression as Canadians.

Women's Shelters

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is signed by Canadians from across the country who are concerned that women's shelters are seeing increased demand and that the high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder for women and children fleeing violence to find a place to live. At this time, they note that the Liberal government has dramatically increased spending on bureaucracy and consultations but is cutting $145 million of funding for women's shelters. The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to restore the funding for these women's shelters.

Criminal Code

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I have to present is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the increased risk of violence that happens to women who are pregnant. Currently, the injury or death of preborn children as victims of crime are not considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to recognize this and to legislate that the abuse of a pregnant woman and the infliction of harm on a preborn child be considered aggravating circumstances for sentencing in the Criminal Code.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

The Deputy Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Points of Order Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356 Points of Order

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to what the Speaker said on Thursday, October 19, when he raised two items for Private Members' Business that appeared to infringe on the Crown's financial imperative and asked members to bring forward interventions on these matters. Without commenting on the subject matter of the two bills in question, I submit that Bill C-353 , sponsored by the member for Thornhill, and Bill C-356 , sponsored by the member for Carleton , both infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative and that both bills require a royal recommendation. Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-353 relating to the programs to encourage co-operation provides that:

The Minister may, in cooperation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, establish and implement programs designed to encourage individuals to co-operate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada.

Subclause 21(2) of Bill C-353 further provides that “the Minister may pay a monetary reward to the individual who provides that information in an amount and manner determined by the Minister.” I submit, respectfully, that there is no authority in statute or in an appropriation to establish such a program set out in subclause 21(1), nor the authority to make payments subject to the provisions set out in subclause 21(2). Therefore, subclause 21(1), in toto , seeks to impose a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund in a manner that is not currently authorized.

Turning to Bill C-356 , I submit that the repurposing of $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and the provision to give effect to a 100% GST rebate on the new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate both seek to infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative. First, the housing accelerator fund was established as a program administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is funded by a voted appropriation by Parliament through the estimates process.

The member is seeking to change the terms and conditions and the purposes of the housing accelerator fund in a manner that is inconsistent with the program parameters as established and that therefore deviates from the authority granted by Parliament. The tabling of the main estimates and supplementary estimates is preceded by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General for voted appropriations. That royal recommendation sets the maximum amount, the purpose and the terms and conditions of the voted appropriations contained in the estimates documents and voted upon by Parliament.

Second, the 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property would be a rebate paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for which a builder, landlord or buyer could claim the said rebate. I would point out that Bill C-56 , which also proposes a 100% GST rebate for purpose-built rental housing, while different in design, was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Since, when brought into force, it would create a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund, it stands to reason that the program for which the terms, purposes and conditions of the GST rebate envisioned in Bill C-356 cannot rely on the royal recommendation provided with Bill C-56. Bill C-356 must, similarly, require a new royal recommendation to authorize a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund.

(1030) The Deputy Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for his input. I am, of course, looking at that closely.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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. Bill C-57. Second reading

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

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.

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

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—

Hon. Ed Fast: There were 47.

Mr. Damien Kurek : 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.

(1035) Mr. Dan Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC) :

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.

Mr. Damien Kurek :

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 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.

Mr. Wilson Miao (Richmond Centre, Lib.) :

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.

(1040) 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 .

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

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?

(1045) Mr. Wilson Miao :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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?

[ English ]

Mr. Wilson Miao :

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.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

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.

Mr. Wilson Miao :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ) :

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 prescriptive 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.

(1050) 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.

(1055) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

(1100) [ Translation ]

Mr. Yves Perron :

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.

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP) :

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?

Mr. Yves Perron :

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.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ) :

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.

Mr. Yves Perron :

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.

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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.

(1105) 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.

(1110) 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.

(1115) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

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.

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ) :

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.

Mrs. Julie Vignola :

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.

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP) :

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.

(1120) Mrs. Julie Vignola :

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.

[ English ]

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.) :

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.

(1125) 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.

(1130) 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.

(1135) 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.

(1140) The Deputy Speaker :

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.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

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.

Mr. Gord Johns: 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?

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

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.

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

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.

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

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.

(1145) [ English ]

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

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.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

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?

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

(1150) Ms. Julie Dzerowicz :

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.

Mr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon .

Mr. Brad Vis: It's Canada's number one riding.

Mr. Gerald Soroka: 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.

(1155) 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.

(1200) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

Mr. Gerald Soroka :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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?

[ English ]

Mr. Gerald Soroka :

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.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

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?

(1205) Mr. Gerald Soroka :

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.

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC) :

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.

(1210) 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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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.

(1215) Mr. Brad Vis :

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 (Mrs. 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.

Mr. Brad Vis :

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 (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I do have to allow for other questions. I know the time goes by really fast. The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou .

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ) :

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.

Mr. Brad Vis :

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.

[ English ]

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC) :

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?

Mr. Brad Vis :

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.

(1220) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

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.

(1225) 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 commitme