OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 237 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, October 23, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 23, 2023 DEBATES No. 237 No. 237 N o 237 Volume 151 237 23 10 2023 2023/10/23 11:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayer

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business

(1105) [ English ] Amendments to the Standing Orders Motion

The House resumed from May 12 consideration of the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House. Whenever we talk about the Standing Orders and procedures, I have a keen interest in the issue. I know there are some members, I would suggest probably more than most, who follow the procedures of the House and take a very keen interest when it comes time to change the rules. Every year after an election, we have set in our rules the opportunity to review our Standing Orders. As I have in the past, I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona , who is proposing the motion we have before us, has had the opportunity to address the Standing Orders.

The Standing Orders are of great importance to all of us. They are one of the things that add to the fundamental principles of our democratic process in the debates and proceedings that take place right here inside this beautiful chamber. In representing our constituents back home from all regions of the country, we are able to do a lot of wonderful things through this chamber. Those wonders are often achieved through the rules in our proceedings, the Standing Orders. What the member is proposing is a substantial change to our Standing Orders. Let there be no doubt about that.

I can appreciate that the member is trying to get some certainty or is trying, from his perspective, to simplify the whole issue of confidence and what determines a confidence vote. Over the years, I have had the opportunity, both in opposition and now in government, and hopefully in government for a few more years, to understand and appreciate the importance of a confidence vote. When the Prime Minister became leader of the party, we talked a lot about how members vote. It is one of the reasons why, when we have private members' bills, we will often see members of the Liberal caucus voting in different ways.

It is because the vote is not made to be compulsory, as if we have to vote as a caucus, generally speaking, on private members' bills. There are some circumstances where the votes are whipped such that it is, in fact, compulsory for members to vote as a team, if I can put it that way. That has been long-held parliamentary tradition, whether it is here in Ottawa or in provincial jurisdictions.

There are some areas where there is very little wiggle room and other areas where, as I pointed out with the private members' bills, there is a lot more grace given to members in what they feel personally about a particular issue. Let me give members the ultimate example regarding a confidence vote. We all know the Government of Canada has to present a budget. That budget will have a series of days for debate, and after that debate comes to a conclusion, it will then come to a vote.

I am not aware of any political party here in Ottawa, whether it is that of the current Prime Minister or the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, or aware of any premier in my years of experience at the Manitoba legislature, whether from NDP governments or Progressive Conservative governments, allowing any latitude to be given whatsoever on a budget vote. I realize the consequence and significance of mandatory voting with one's team. In fact, when I was first elected back in 1988, there was an election because of a confidence vote.

There was a razor-thin majority at the time, and one government member voted against the government, which precipitated an election call. That enabled me to get elected back in 1988.

(1110) That was my very first experience with regard to the importance of confidence votes. A confidence vote, if it goes negative, will bring down the government. In 1986 the government had a majority, and in that situation back in 1988, because of one individual, that majority was lost. Today, in a minority situation, parties have to come together. There is an agreement of sorts between the governing Liberals and the NDP. I believe there is a fairly decent understanding between the two entities in recognizing that Canadians do not want an election now.

They want to see more co-operation take place on the floor of the House of Commons on different initiatives. We are seeing that. We are seeing co-operation in areas such as the dental plan. We are seeing co-operation in many of the different discussions between departments on policies, legislation and so forth. I see that as a positive thing. That is what Canadians want.

At the end of the day, when we want to change a rule, especially a rule of this nature, I recommend to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona , who is very genuine and sincere in what he is proposing, that there needs to be more discussion before it even comes to the floor because of the impact it would have on other aspects of the Standing Orders. I can see this in legislation we passed as a government. I am thinking of our child care legislation. Even though many would argue it was not a confidence vote, there was no doubt that the government, with absolute certainty, wanted to see that legislation pass.

We made it very clear that the expectation of the government was to see that legislation pass. However, even if the legislation had not passed, it would not necessarily have triggered an election, because of the traditions of the House. When does an election get triggered? We have a budget introduced every year, we have throne speeches and we have budget implementation legislation. Those are all well-established, traditional votes that have taken place in parliaments here in Canada, federally and provincially, whereby if the vote is lost, it causes the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor to take action.

In a minority situation, some might argue that the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor General has the option to look to the official opposition or the next party with the largest number of seats to see if, in fact, parties can be put together to form a government. A lot depends on where we are in the mandate. There are a lot of issues out there that are unknown. Today, there is a lot of stability, as we know what those confidence votes are. We know those confidence votes take place every year at different parts of the year. I think that provides a high sense of accountability. This is a very lengthy motion.

I appreciate the effort the member put into it, but I have not been convinced that it is strong enough to change the status quo, prorogation and so forth. I believe the system has worked well for us in the past. It gets parties to come together to negotiate, to talk and to work on agreements. We have had agreements with all different political parties, depending on the type of legislation we are debating. It is not just with one opposition party.

(1115) The current system allows for the type of stability Canadians want to see and expect of the government. It obligates us to have a higher sense of co-operation. I can tell members that it can be frustrating. I have stood up on many occasions to talk about the frustrations of being in a minority situation. However, I accept it in the hope that common sense will prevail on the floor of the House with respect to trying to get legislative and budgetary measures through so that all Canadians can be better served.

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House to speak to Motion No. 79, as introduced by the member for Elmwood—Transcona in an effort to amend the Standing Orders of this place. It certainly is an intriguing motion. I will be quite honest: I enjoyed reading it and have enjoyed following the debate that has thus far taken place in this House. While I give credit to the member for introducing the motion and precipitating this debate, I find myself in a position to speak against it. That is not to say that it is not a worthwhile conversation, because it is.

Rather, it is the fact that this is not the way the Standing Orders of this House ought to be amended. As I have said in this place and elsewhere, such as at the procedure and House affairs committee, changes to the Standing Orders should only be done after a broad consensus has been found among the recognized political parties. In this case, that consensus has not been found. I would point to my own opposition to this during the March to May 2017 standing order standoff at the procedure and House affairs committee.

At the time, my friend from Waterloo was the government House leader and tried to unilaterally force massive changes to the Standing Orders of this House, to the opposition of Conservative, Bloc and NDP members of Parliament. In fact, we had a full consensus among the opposition parties: We were in opposition to that. Members will know that this is not the first time actions have been precipitated unilaterally to amend our Standing Orders.

Members of the Liberal backbench tried to do so with Motion No. 231 in a previous parliament when they were upset and frustrated by years of Liberal leadership preventing them from speaking their minds. We also all know that the current government unilaterally, with the support of its coalition partners in the NDP, made changes to the Standing Orders this past June, not only without consensus but with the direct opposition of both the Conservative and Bloc members. This motion deals with a number of issues. Among them is prorogation.

I need not remind this House, but I will anyway, that the 2015 Liberal platform stated, “we will not use prorogation to avoid difficult political circumstances.” What happened? In 2020, the WE Charity scandal happened, and as the former finance minister was forced to resign, the Prime Minister himself was implicated in that scandal and prorogued Parliament to avoid responsibility for his actions, which was another promise broken.

In the very short time that I have, less than 10 minutes, I certainly cannot go through the entire history of the confidence convention, though I know colleagues would be interested in hearing that, but there is a certain amount of nuance and ambiguity that surrounds it, and I do not believe this motion will effectively clarify that much-needed nuance. At its essence, the confidence convention requires that the prime minister of the day hold the confidence of the House of Commons, meaning a majority of members in this place. It has of course been contentious over time, having a number of challenges.

I cannot go into the history over the last 45 parliaments, but one important precedent that must be noted is that of the King-Byng affair. We must also look at provincial examples and the 1968 vote in this House, where there was a subsequent vote noting that a previous vote was not in fact a confidence motion. I am a strong believer in what has traditionally been seen as the three categories that make up a confidence motion. The first category is that the budget or financial bills of a budgetary nature are clear expressions of the confidence or lack of confidence of the House of Commons.

The second category is what would be expressed through an opposition day motion or what we also know as a supply day motion. The third category is the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of each session of Parliament, which clearly lays out the government's agenda and proposals for that session. As the House will know, one of the great experts in this country on parliamentary procedure and the confidence convention is the late Hon. Eugene Forsey, who was a Liberal senator and a CCF activist prior to his appointment to the other place. In his report, which he co-authored with G.C.

Eglington, entitled “The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government”, he wrote:

(1120) Once in the Standing Orders a convention would suffer from the worst of all defects. It would be inflexible and cast in one form of words. But it would not be enforceable by the Courts. We also beg to doubt whether it would be constitutionally lawful under

Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 to state many of the conventions in the Standing Orders of one House of the Parliament.

I encourage all members to reflect on these words from the late Senator Forsey as we debate this motion. The confidence convention is indeed constitutional. I would draw the attention of the House to the Constitution Act, 1867 with these short 12 words, “with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom.” With those 12 words, much of the structure of our Constitution, of our Parliament is developed. The Standing Orders, however, are a matter of procedure, not necessarily constitutionality. In this place, we rely on a number of authorities to guide the procedure of the House. I would draw the House's attention to Bosc and Gagnon, page 49, where it is written:

The Speaker does not decide what constitutes a matter of confidence. Successive Speakers have stated that it is not for the Chair to interfere to prevent debate, or a vote, on a question relating to the issue of confidence, unless the motion being put forward is clearly out of order on procedural grounds.

We would be asking, through this motion, for the Speaker to enforce a standing order relating to confidence, while at the same time not deciding what would constitute a question of confidence. Similarly, we all have our favourite authorities in this place. My personal favourite is Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, and I would draw the House's attention to paragraph 168, where it is written:

The determination of the issue of confidence in the government is not a question of procedure or order, and does not involve the interpretive responsibilities of the Speaker. Following the recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure as well as those of the Special Committee on the Reform of the Bouse of Commons..., the House removed references in the Standing Orders which described votable motions on allotted days as questions of confidence. The committees concluded that matters of confidence should at ail times be clearly subject to political determination. Motions of no-confidence should not be prescribed in the rules.

I would draw the House's attention to that very specific report of the McGrath committee. It says, “We repeat that a question of confidence should be expressed in precise terms in the motion, and not be prescribed as such by the Standing Orders.” I agree with the work of the McGrath committee, and I agree with the determination that this is inherently a political decision, a political matter and not one that ought to be left to the determination of the inflexible Standing Orders.

I would note as well, when we talk about prorogation, that the rules that already exist related to prorogation are not being followed anyway. As colleagues will know, following the last prorogation, the procedure and House affairs committee undertook a study of that prorogation. At every single turn, the Liberal government prevented us from having a meaningful report on that matter. In fact, the Liberal government filibustered that committee for 100 days to prevent us hearing from the Prime Minister , who was the one and only person who knew in his own mind why prorogation happened and who was unwilling to do so.

I respect the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona in bringing forward this motion, because it is indeed a debate that must happen. I would enjoy a conversation with the member in another venue, perhaps over a hot coffee or a cold beverage, to discuss this matter further. However, I would repeat the words of the late Senator Forsey, “Questions of confidence, and their definition, are best kept out of the Standing Orders al together.”

(1125) [ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we are debating the infamous Motion No. 79, which was moved by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona . Let us just say that I was immediately wary when the NDP moved this motion that seeks to make procedural changes. It is important to remember that, not so long ago, the NDP supported the government in the House when the government wanted to make the hybrid Parliament permanent. The NDP agreed that members should be able to stay home all year round without ever coming to Parliament.

The NDP even agreed that ministers should be able to participate in parliamentary work virtually without having to show up in the House, without having to answer questions from journalists or members of the House. That is odd. The NPD has had an agreement with the government for months. From what we have been told, under this agreement, the NDP has promised to support the government on confidence votes so that it can stay in office until the end of its mandate. In return, the NDP can expect the government to implement certain measures and programs of the NDP's choosing.

As a result, the NDP now supports the government every time it curtails debate in the House by imposing gag order after gag order on bills that, under normal circumstances, would be studied before taking effect. As I said, I was very hesitant when I saw NDP Motion No. 79, which deals with procedure. I was wondering what the NDP had come up with this time. I must admit I was pleasantly surprised. I am guessing that the NDP members are tired of being the Liberals' lackeys and cannot take it anymore. They are trying to grow a backbone by putting forward a motion that might switch up the dynamic somewhat.

Before this well-known agreement was forged between the government and the NDP, almost every vote had us questioning whether it would be a vote of confidence. It became the question of the day. Members would wake up in the morning having to vote on a government motion, yet we did not even know whether it was a vote of confidence. Reporters would ask that question of Liberal MPs right outside the House, and every time they would say they did not know. We did not know whether voting for or against the motion would bring down the current government. That is crazy.

It goes to show how the current government abused its power. That is not as common now, because the NDP cannot be bothered and always votes with the government. I was quite surprised to see the NDP moving something that would change procedure and lead to a little less abuse on the part of the government. One of the objectives of motion Motion No. 79 is to keep the government from unilaterally proroguing Parliament without consequence, something that has happened all too often recently. Some prorogations felt like the government was sending MPs home because it no longer wanted them in Parliament.

No examples come to mind, but there could be very good reasons for proroguing Parliament. However, it is not something to be done on a whim. No one can just wake up one morning and shut down Parliament because they do not wish to hear from the opposition. That is not how it works. Voters elect MPs precisely to send them to Parliament. Generally speaking, the party with the most seats forms government, and MPs in the other parties ensure that the government does not do too bad a job by keeping an eye on it and asking questions. That is why people vote.

To prorogue Parliament this way virtually amounts to the government saying that what people voted for does not count. That pretty much sums it up. If the government does not want to be held accountable, it can simply shut down Parliament. We have seen this happen over and over again in our history. While the government might very well prorogue Parliament for legitimate reasons, the examples that come to my mind suggest that it usually happens for the wrong reasons. Let me start with an example from 1873. Canada was founded in 1867, so it happened not long after that, when the infamous Pacific scandal broke.

Who was at the centre of this scandal? It was none other than Sir John A. Macdonald, founder of Canada's Confederation, the same person described by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as someone whose life history was so wonderful it deserved exploring.

(1130) She was so proud of his legacy. I never heard her mention Mr. Macdonald after that. I urge her to learn a little more about his legacy, because the Pacific scandal is one aspect of it that was pretty nasty. He even had to resign over the matter when Parliament resumed sitting. In 2002, the House was also prorogued, this time under a Liberal government. Why was the House prorogued? There was a parliamentary committee that wanted to look into what happened with the sponsorship scandal. That was a good reason to shut down Parliament.

The Liberals wanted to make sure that no one would find out what happened with the sponsorship scandal. That was what the Liberals wanted, but it might not have been what ordinary citizens, opposition members and the justice system wanted. In 2003, again under the Liberals, there was another prorogation, once again because of the sponsorship scandal. This time, the government wanted to prevent the Auditor General from tabling her report in the House. The Liberals did not want to know what the Auditor General had to say about the sponsorship scandal. I have mentioned three prorogations so far.

Then we get to 2008, a bit closer to where we are now. Why did the House prorogue? A coalition of opposition members formed to bring down the government because they had lost confidence in the government. The Bloc Québécois made a commitment to support that coalition without necessarily being part of it. The government decided to prorogue the House to prevent its own defeat. In 2010, there was another prorogation under a Conservative prime minister. Why was Parliament prorogued? Officially, this was done to allow people to enjoy the winter Olympics.

If that is true, then perhaps Parliament could also shut down for a hockey game. If we want people to watch the playoffs, then we cannot keep Parliament open. It makes no sense. It is as silly as that. It was decided that Parliament would shut down for the Olympics. I am not making this up. It is ridiculous. The real reason is that, at the time, people were wondering what happened in Afghanistan. They wanted to know whether prisoners had been mistreated. We were seeing pictures of what had happened in Guantanamo in the United States, and people were concerned.

They wanted to know whether things were being done the same way in Canada and whether things had been allowed to happen like that. Unfortunately, rather than answer those questions and let things run their course, the government decided to shut down Parliament. The last time Parliament was prorogued, the most recent time, was in 2020. This happened under the same government we have now, the Liberals. They shut Parliament down because of the pandemic. What I find odd is that they also called an election because of the pandemic.

They were saying that the government could not operate in 2020 because we were in the midst of a pandemic but that an election could be called in 2021. That is a bit odd. We all know that the real reason was the WE Charity scandal. People wanted to know why the Prime Minister 's friends and family had benefited from public funds. It was a valid question. How is it that the government wanted to give $1 billion to a foundation that was very closely associated with the Trudeau government? In the end, it turned out that the Prime Minister's family and friends were very closely associated with that foundation.

Recent history shows that, generally speaking, prorogation may not be done for the public's benefit, so it would be useful to have a better framework for prorogation, as the member opposite is proposing. It is a shame I only have a minute left, because I would have liked to talk more about confidence votes. To be honest, it is ridiculous getting up in the morning and not knowing whether we will have a confidence vote that day. It is sad that the concept is not defined. We do not know what a confidence vote is. It is simply a tradition.

It is a tradition to have a confidence vote at budget time and after the Speech from the Throne. It would be good to define the concept a little better so it cannot be abused like the Liberals have abused it. Then perhaps the NDP would not have to carry water for the Liberals as much and could finally show some backbone. If it helps the NDP show some backbone, of course we will vote in favour of the motion. If it makes future governments be less likely to abuse procedure and provides more transparency for the public, we are going to vote in favour of it for sure.

(1135) [ English ]

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the motion from my hon. colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the NDP critic for democratic reform. The most crucial piece of this motion is directly related to Canada's democracy, which Canadians truly value and is marked across the world for how important and stable it has been. However, the power of prorogation and the power to deem motions a matter of confidence, which is wholly, willfully and solely used by a prime minister, is a direct concern for the New Democratic Party.

We have heard very clearly from both the Liberals and the Conservatives that they would rather keep the status quo and continue a tradition that we believe is truly anti-democratic. On prorogation, for example, back in 2008, Harper used the power of prorogation to avoid a confidence vote. In 2009, Harper again abused the power of prorogation to end parliamentary debate on the government's complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees and avoid complying with the parliamentary motion to hand over all documents on the relevant charges.

These are serious situations, and no single individual should be allowed to use this power to avoid the kind of democratic justice that the House can provide. Fast-forward to today's government and, in 2020, we saw the Prime Minister use prorogation to end parliamentary investigations into the WE Charity scandal after it resulted in the resignation of his own finance minister. We cannot continue to abuse the powers of this chamber for reasons of political expediency; it is not in the interest of Canadians.

These standing orders are important for Canadians, but they may not know, in many cases, that these powers are vested in such small circles, like the Prime Minister's Office. What we have seen, and continue to see, is this continued tradition by both Liberals and Conservatives to preserve these exclusive powers of a prime minister and continue to centralize authority and power away from Parliament.

It is the position of the NDP that it should be this place, the democratically elected members of Canada in this chamber, who should decide some of these things rather than be decided, for political expediency, by whoever sits in the Prime Minister's Office. However, it is clear, with the Liberals' use of prorogation for political expediency, that it has been a long tradition in Canada, as evidenced by Harper's use of it as well. We have the Conservatives supporting the Prime Minister right now with his perseverance in the protection of his personal power.

Why would Conservatives say, every single day in the House, that the Prime Minister is an evil guy and make personal attacks, but then not actually address the systems that uphold these devastating authorities and powers that weigh over Parliament and Canadians? There is a saying that New Democrats in the House are often reminded of, which is “Liberal, Tory, same old story”. I am sure both of these parties have heard this many times before, and it does not take a New Democrat to remind them why we say it. We say it continuously, because it happens right in front of us.

We are seeing the protection of the government and the Prime Minister to hold power that we believe is undemocratic. We are seeing unwavering support from the Conservatives who wish to preserve that power, but why? Well, it is probably because they believe that maybe one day they will be in office again and can then lord that power over Canadians. They could prorogue Parliament again, like Harper did, and they could avoid the accountability and justice that Canadians deserve. The crux of this issue is ensuring that our democratic institutions actually function for the good of Canada.

The exclusive use of prorogation and the exclusive use of declaring motions a matter of confidence is beside that point. Members of Parliament are duly elected by our constituents and citizens. We should not be afraid of those facts.

(1140) If anything, we should empower our democracy, our members of Parliament and our House to continue our parliamentary work, even if it is inconvenient to the government; even if there is a scandal. If anything, it should be said even louder that these powers should not exist because of the direct connection between the scandal and the use of prorogation declaring motions of confidence. New Democrats stand in favour of our democratic institutions and seek to empower them for everyday people. The Liberals and Conservatives continue the status quo argument that has favoured them for generations.

It is time to put an end to this. It is time to ensure that all members vote in favour of this motion.

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I rise in the chamber with you at the helm, I want to say congratulations for all the work you have done in Parliament as a parliamentary secretary and also for your tenure as Speaker in this chamber. I am glad to speak on this motion, Motion No. 79, from the member for Elmwood—Transcona . I have affectionately referred to this bill as “ending Ottawa's entitlement to my entitlements” motion, because that is really what this is about.

This is about the traditional gatekeepers in this facility who have kept the doors closed against many Canadians, at the same time protecting their self-interests. I will get into that a little bit later. When prorogation was used by the Prime Minister , it could have been characterized as the “running to your mommy or daddy to protect you from the people around you” bill. They go running to the monarchy to beg for forgiveness. It was the Queen before and now it is the King. It is because “I can't handle it anymore. Please save me”. It is ridiculous.

In a modern democracy we should not have to turn to our mommies and daddies as adults in this place. That is really what it is about. That is what has taken place with prorogation. It has been used to protect someone's own interests. I think one of the biggest things that we want to see with this motion is greater accountability to the public so they understand the rules. At the end of the day, prorogation is about, “Well, I just simply don't have to do it anymore so the rules don't apply to me. I'll see you later.” I am sure a lot of Canadians can relate to that.

They wish they could prorogue their laundry, their dishes or their awkward conversations with people who they do not want to be around, but they cannot. They have to deal with them. It is sad because that is really what we are dealing with. I have seen this happen in the worst of circumstances with then prime minister Harper who did not want to deal with the House of Commons at that time and I have seen it with the current Prime Minister when he did not want to deal with the WE scandal, for example. It is a very serious issue, as it is a way of keeping privileges and entitlements.

I was thinking about gatekeeping this morning and about protecting entitlements. There is the protection of the entitlements one gets as a prime minister with all the perks. For my Conservative friends, there are the perks of keeping Stornoway and all the privileges there. By the way, Stornoway does have a gate, because it protects the gardener, the butler, the person who is making the meals, and the $70,000-a-year budget. It has a history of being part of the entitlements that we need to get rid of. I think that it is really important that people know that prorogation is unique and special at the workplace.

People do not get to call a time out in a democracy, which is really what this is: I cannot get my act together. I cannot get my caucus together. I cannot do whatever and I get to call a time out. The problem with that is there are serious issues. One prorogation was over the documents of women and men and issues over Afghanistan. We have that legacy to this day. The devastation to individuals and what took place subsequently would have been shining spotlights on those things.

The consequences are still felt now, because we have many Afghanistan men and women who served under our country's banner who are still in harm's way. Some still cannot even come to this country because we do not have our act together on that. The legacy of prorogation goes beyond the moment of the day because all the stuff in the House of Commons ceases. Everything grinds to a halt, which costs money. To the parties who often champion their role of being the custodians of the public purse, the last unnecessary election sent another $630 million down the drain.

A time when Harper did it resulted in a freeze of all of the House of Commons' operations, along with all of its work, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in that year alone between the studies that would have been done, the people who were flown in for hearings, getting witnesses to come forward and producing reports. All the work that was done in the chamber and all the hours that go into moving bills were basically liquidated at that point in time. Dozens and dozens of important bills were killed by the Conservatives and the Liberals; some bills had to go on to the next Parliament.

That is where the real damage is done. The rest of the world does not get a time out or time off. People do not go running to mommy or daddy to try to figure things out. The world still goes on. The grinding of Parliament starts and the grinding of Senate follows. What that means is that we have to start over.

(1145) I cannot say how many of those bills dealt with social justice, women's rights, housing, the environment and the auto industry. They dealt with a number of things that we are trying to compete with in the world. If the Prime Minister , right now, chose to prorogue this Parliament, we would lose the GST rebate, a modest housing initiative and work on the Competition Bureau. They would all be gone. In the committee I sit on, there are 96 witnesses and about 140 who want to work on Bill C-27 , Canada's first bill on artificial intelligence.

As the entire world is moving beyond us right now, that would be the real consequence. If an election is called because we have to bend a knee to the monarchy again in the system that we have because the Governor General can decide, we would be into another costly election. none of these bills could be brought back unless there was unanimous consent. On top of that, there would be months and months, if not more, perhaps almost a full year, to get back into order the work that would be gone. That is critical if we are trying to compete with the rest of the world and world events are taking place, as they are now.

My heart goes out to those who are suffering due to what is taking place. So many people are suffering. It is not just the wars, it is famine. Canadians are dealing with an opioid crisis. There is a whole series of issues on housing affordability and people cannot afford groceries. The Prime Minister of the day could basically say he is calling a time out, everyone can deal with it on their own and he will keep all of his privileges intact. What is funny is when that happens, the Prime Minister 's salary, the perks of the residence and everything else are not prorogued. They continue.

What does not continue is the hard work that is necessary to improve lives. That is why the member for Elmwood—Transcona is onto something here. It is critical that he get some type of recognition because this issue has not gone away. The member's father, the former member for Elmwood—Transcona, Bill Blaikie, would be proud of him today.

I stood in this chamber with Bill Blaikie many times and listened to his statesman approach, which is missing in many respects, and his maturity in trying to work toward trying to better this place and establish some rules, which is the legacy that current member for Elmwood—Transcona is carrying on. That is what Bill often did in this place: He brought sense and logic to it. At the end of the day, this motion is about creating a balance of rules. It does not end all the rules but improves upon them in taking a credible step forward. That is critical, because we just cannot have what we have today.

Imagine if Parliament shut down tomorrow. What is at stake is our lost voices. I want it to be clear that this is a reasonable, modest, sensible and practical approach to changing the rules. Conservatives and Liberals should think about this. I know they do not often end some of the privileges in this chamber because they think they can constantly switch back and forth. There will be a new day when they are not there and they will be wishing for this legislation, because all their constituents will need it, instead of the ego of the member who occupies the Prime Minister's seat. With that, I move: Amendment

That the motion be amended by replacing the words, “(iii) in Standing Order 45(6)(a)”, by adding, after the words “An exception to this rule is”, the following: “the division on a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(9) and”, with the words, “(iii) in Standing Order 45(4)(b)”, by adding after paragraph (v), the following: “(vi) a confidence motion pursuant to Standing Order 53.2(9).”

These are housekeeping amendments to improve this bill and make it even stronger.

(1150) The Speaker :

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent. Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona if he consents to this amendment being moved.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie :

I do so consent, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker :

The amendment is in order. Resuming debate, the hon. parliament secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member was proposing and what a couple of other members of Parliament have put forward. When one minimizes something that has taken place not only in Canada but also around the world, there are justifications for an amendment—

The Speaker :

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

Mr. Alistair MacGregor :

Mr. Speaker, I do believe I heard the member for Winnipeg North debate this motion just 20 or 30 minutes ago. I am just wondering whether the Table could check on that, and I am wondering how this is proceeding at this point.

[ Translation ]

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for raising that point. However, because we are resuming debate on an amendment, the hon. member for Winnipeg North may rise in the House to take

part in this debate. [ English ] On a point of order, the hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

Mr. John Nater :

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your clarity on the matter. At the same time, I do believe that when one resumes debate, it typically is with the first person who rises in their place, and I did see the member for Elmwood—Transcona rise prior to the member for Winnipeg North . Typically, it would be the first one to rise with respect to a matter, when there is not a set list on a new thing. I did see the member rise before the member for Winnipeg North, so perhaps the member for Elmwood—Transcona should have the first chance to speak to the amendment.

(1155) The Speaker :

Regrettably, the Chair saw the parliamentary secretary before seeing the member for Elmwood—Transcona . I regret this is the case. It happens from time to time. I do make an honest attempt to make sure I recognize the first person on her or his feet. In this case, I saw the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, do not feel too regretful, as the member for Elmwood—Transcona gets a five-minute right of reply and did get the opportunity to address the chamber for 20 minutes about the issue. I want to highlight something I did not during my first 10 minutes of debate about the issue. Members talk about and mock, quite frankly, the use of proroguing a session. In fact, it is something that can be justified on occasion. We saw that the last time it was invoked with the current Prime Minister . We need to realize that the pandemic was not something unique to Canada; it was happening around the world.

It was important that the House of Commons refocus, from what was taking place in the House to was happening around the world and the impact it was having on Canadians. That is why there was a need to do it. Members will recall there was a throne speech that followed, which set the agenda and provided the assurances Canadians were looking for, given the very nature of what was happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. As members will recall, the Government of Canada made it very clear it wanted to have the backs of Canadians.

We wanted to focus our attention on a team Canada approach in dealing with the worldwide pandemic.

The Speaker :

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a point of order.

Ms. Leah Gazan :

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows exactly what he is doing, which is being rude and cutting into the member for Elmwood—Transcona 's time. I would like to—

The Speaker :

I would like to reassure all members that the member for Elmwood Transcona will have his full five minutes for his right of reply. The House started its session at 11:04 today; Private Members' Business will continue until 12:04. The parliamentary secretary, the member for Winnipeg North.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the member does not lose any time whatsoever. This is private members' hour and we will use the full hour, as we have often done. The emphasis I was trying to make is the fact that the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus made it very clear that we wanted to focus the attention on the pandemic that was hitting Canada from coast to coast to coast. That was the need and it was justified. At the end of the day, I am somewhat sympathetic to what the member for Elmwood—Transcona is saying, but I do not necessarily believe there is a need to change the rules.

The Speaker :

I would like to recognize the member for Elmwood—Transcona for his right of reply.

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate on this motion, not just today but in the previous hour of debate as well. I do think that it has been an important occasion to reflect on one of the most important tenets of our parliamentary system, including some of the ways it does not serve Canadians well. We have heard, among the arguments on this particular motion, that it is a significant change. I would agree and say that a change of little significance is usually no change at all. I make no apologies for the fact that I am trying to fix something that I think is broken.

The member for Perth—Wellington in particular talked about what it means to unilaterally change the Standing Orders. I want to offer him some reassurance that, in fact, in a minority Parliament, there is no possibility of unilateral changes to the Standing Orders because one cannot pass a change to the Standing Orders without having at least two parties agree. Maybe he meant that changes to the Standing Orders have to be unanimous, but, of course, there is precedent for not having unanimous changes to the Standing Orders. I think that it is important that they not be unilateral. In this case, they would not be.

With the Bloc supportive of this motion, all it would take would be for the Conservatives to vote for it. We would have three recognized parties in the House together forming a majority, making what I think is an important change to the Standing Orders. If we take Conservatives at their word, what they are saying is that they do not want to put any constraints on the prime minister's power without the prime minister's first agreeing, and I think that puts the cart before the horse.

As the opposition, we hold the government to account all the time and seek to limit the possibility of abuse of power by the government. We do not ask the government's permission. I find it strange that the Conservative leader is now suddenly saying that he needs the prime minister's permission and agreement before he can do anything to limit his power over this place. This is the leader of the Conservative Party who just last week challenged the Speaker's authority to make a statement because question period might start late, and who made an appeal to the sanctity of this place.

However, he is happy to have the Prime Minister and any future prime minister shut this place down without so much as a wink of parliamentary accountability. Spare me the platitudes about the importance of Parliament, because actions speak louder than words. When we have a vote on this particular measure, it will be an opportunity for Canadians to evaluate the seriousness of the Conservative leader, both when he talks about holding the Prime Minister to account and when he talks about how seriously he takes Parliament and the House of Commons.

Of note is that when the Conservative leader decides to stand up for Parliament, he usually likes to talk not about anything that has happened in recent decades but about the Magna Carta, a document that is about a thousand years old. It is also, incidentally, a document that, when it was signed, democracy was not for the working people whom the Conservative leader pretends to stand up for. It was a bunch of aristocrats getting together to protect their own right to keep the taxes they levied on the backs of working people, on land that belonged to them.

I do not think it is a coincidence that when the Conservative leader stands up for democracy, he stands up for an aristocratic version that serves his own interests very well. He does this even as he protects the gatekeeping power of the prime minister, to keep the seat warm until he thinks he will get an opportunity to take it so he can abuse those powers in a similar fashion, just as his Conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, did when that guy sat at the cabinet table.

Give us a break on the sanctimony of Parliament as we watch this particular Conservative leader stamp on it when it does not suit his interests and then pretend to care a lot about it suddenly when it does serve his interests. That, fundamentally, is what this is about. We heard also that it is a political decision, not a decision for the Speaker, on confidence. This does not make it a decision of the Speaker. What it does is make it a decision of the House, whether the House has confidence in the government, instead of leaving it to the prime minister to decide whether the House has confidence in him or not.

That is not his decision. It is a decision for this place and it is why, if this motion passes, prime ministers would not be able to prorogue Parliament without having to face a confidence vote either before or after. That is the point. The point is that it is a political decision. It should be a political decision of the House of Commons, as it has always been in the past, not a political decision of the prime minister. Let us change it.

Let us have the Conservatives get behind actually doing something to stop gatekeeping power instead of just ranting against it and hoping it will still be there for them when they get the chance.

(1200) The Deputy Speaker :

The question is on the amendment. If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Mr. John Nater :

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

The Deputy Speaker :

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. Division on amendment deferred

Government Orders Government Orders

(1205) [ English ] Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

Hon. Mary Ng (Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.)

moved that Bill C-57,

An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-57. Second reading She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today in support of Bill C-57 ,

an act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine. This is not the first time I have stood in this House to introduce a new trade agreement, but this trade agreement is special. I rise today to enter into the record the story behind this agreement, because all members in the House, all Canadians and, especially, the 1.3 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, should know how it came about. The story of this agreement begins with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's first visit to Canada back in 2019.

During that visit, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister announced a mutual intention to modernize the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. Following that announcement, public servants in both countries went about doing their respective homework to prepare for renewed negotiations. That homework often takes many months. It is just part of the routine for our respective civil servants and trade negotiators. However, there was nothing routine about the way these negotiations unfolded. First came the pandemic, which stalled progress for over a year.

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

A short time before that announcement, I asked my Ukrainian counterpart if she and her government were still willing and able to move forward with negotiations. Her answer was candid and unequivocal: She told me that her government was determined to move ahead, and she told me how much it mattered that Canada was showing confidence in Ukraine at a time when many were beginning to question its resolve. Ukraine knew then which path it wanted to take for its future. Ukraine had chosen the values of democracy, openness and transparency, as well as a rules-based international order.

A sovereign Ukraine was seeking to modernize its infrastructure, its economy and its laws. A comprehensive and progressive free trade agreement would be an important step toward modernization for Ukraine, and Canada would be its gateway. One month after that announcement, on February 24, 2022, Russia moved in with its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and it invaded for all the reasons I just listed: Ukrainian territorial and economic sovereignty, values of openness and democracy, and a rules-based international order.

Vladimir Putin despises all these things, and he could not stand to see Ukraine embrace them, uphold them and blossom into a great modern nation. That is why he invaded Ukraine. On that day, I knew, the Prime Minister knew and the government knew what we had to do. As long as the government of Ukraine stood, we would stand with it. Since the war began, Canada has committed $9 billion in military, humanitarian, financial and development assistance to Ukraine. We also understood that standing with Ukraine meant that we would see these trade negotiations through to the end.

(1210) At the outset, it was not easy. The war made travel dangerous and even routine calls impossible for our Ukrainian counterparts. Negotiations had barely begun; suddenly, they came to a standstill. They stayed at a standstill for four months, until I travelled for meetings at the OECD in Paris. That is where I met Ukraine's chief negotiator, Taras Kachka. It is important to understand that we did not plan a formal meeting that day. He and I, along with Canada's chief negotiator, simply sat in the cafeteria of the OECD building and talked. Mr.

Kachka recounted the first 120 days of the war and the challenges he had to overcome just to make that one trip to the OECD. I again asked if Ukraine was able and willing to begin negotiations. Mr. Kachka said yes and I said yes, and negotiations began in earnest. A few weeks later, at the G7 summit in Germany, I finally met Deputy Prime Minister Svyrydenko face to face. We revisited our earlier conversations and talked of how our earlier hope of avoiding the conflict had been so savagely dispelled. We reiterated our mutual intention to reach an agreement, and then we hugged.

The private conversations I had with my Ukrainian counterparts moved me in ways that are hard to describe. If they had told me that they were not yet ready to begin trade talks, of course we would have waited. Canada would have given Ukraine as much time as it needed. Ukraine's quiet resolve to move forward was unmistakable and unbreakable. These negotiations were driven by the very values of openness and self-determination that Ukrainian soldiers were and are fighting and dying for.

I can tell the House today that, even in the midst of an all-consuming war effort, Ukraine's commitment to those values never wavered and neither did Canada's. [ Translation ] I am proud to say that this agreement was achieved in record time, a mere 12 months from start to finish. That shows the resolve that Canada and Ukraine share on this crucial matter. This process reached its conclusion just a few weeks ago, when our Prime Minister and President Zelenskyy signed this agreement as part of President Zelenskyy's second visit to Canada. It is my true honour to speak to it in this House.

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

In terms of its contents, it is on par with best practice agreements such as CUSMA, the CPTPP and CETA. With this agreement, Canada becomes the first country to sign a comprehensive trade agreement with Ukraine. Ukraine has told us that this trade deal would serve as a model for further agreements with other prospective partners. That is one of the reasons I said this agreement is special. Above all, this agreement is special because Canadians support Ukraine's fight against Putin's barbaric invasion. They demonstrate their support through their government with military, humanitarian and financial aid.

However, support for Ukraine is not limited to government alone. Here in Canada, many individuals and organizations are helping by welcoming Ukrainian families fleeing the war. Many more Canadian organizations and businesses want to join that effort, both here at home and in the Ukrainian heartland. This agreement opens up new avenues for Canadians to support Ukraine. It establishes the rules by which Canadian companies could invest in Ukraine's reconstruction, modernize its infrastructure and create jobs in Ukraine, as well as here in Canada.

There are Canadian companies already active in Ukraine, and more are joining as we speak. The Canadian construction firm of Aecon is now forming partnerships in Ukraine under a memorandum of collaboration for the construction of a hydro power plant in Ukraine. The presence of Canadian companies will help Ukraine persevere amid the strife of war. Thanks to this agreement, more can and will join them. Through all these activities, Canada and a victorious Ukraine will strengthen our shared values in our pursuit of peace, mutual success and prosperity.

At the end of the day, trade is not just about business; it is about shared values. Ukrainians and Canadians both want a free, modern and democratic Ukraine. This trade agreement is a manifestation of those shared values. I am truly proud to have been a part of it. Today, I urge the House to reaffirm its commitment to those values and its support for Ukraine by ensuring the swiftest possible passage of this bill. Slava Ukraini .

(1215) [ English ]

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker,

article 13.10 of the trade agreement, subsection 8(

d) says, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources.” We know that the Russian war machine has been powered by energy exports. This certainly seems to contemplate the transition from coal to other less-polluting fuels. To me, this is a massive opportunity for Canada to work on exporting LNG from Canada, which many European countries have asked us to do. This would not only to starve the Russian war machine of funds but also be good for the environment. Does the minister now admit that this is something Canada should do?

Hon. Mary Ng :

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

[ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech and for these negotiations, which are very important. I would like to ask her a two-part question. First, supply management was included when the order to import products from Ukraine duty-free was adopted. The groups that were impacted and the opposition parties fought hard to have this removed when the order was renewed, and it was in fact removed. Can the minister assure me that supply-managed products are not covered by this agreement? That is the first part of my question. Second, I would like to make a comment. The

section on investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms puts multinationals and governments on the same footing. This means that, technically, it would be possible for a multinational company to sue a government that is hindering trade. I find that unacceptable. Does the minister not feel that this would have been a good opportunity to make this clarification?

[ English ]

Hon. Mary Ng :

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

I believe that this is a very important and progressive agreement and a good agreement. It has provisions for investment protections. There is a

chapter that deals with binding dispute settlements. Therefore, this is very much the modern agreement that we have negotiated with Ukraine, and it would facilitate what Canadians want to do, which is to participate in that reconstruction in due course.

(1220) Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's speech on this important free trade agreement. The NDP supported the previous agreement, and we are looking into what this new agreement looks like. One thing we do like about the old agreement is that it did not have the investor state dispute mechanism in there. That is something that we have held as essential for any new trade agreements going forward. CETA and CPTPP both have that in them, and we do not like that. The NDP supports free trade, but we do not like foreign corporations telling governments what to do.

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

Hon. Mary Ng :

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

What is also remarkable about this agreement, which members heard me say in my opening remarks, is the speed at which we were able to reach an agreement with Ukraine and how much the Ukrainians participated in this, despite the fact that they have been and continue to be in a war effort. I am encouraged by the work that we always do in ensuring good debate on something like this, which we all agree with, and is continuing to support Ukraine.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

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

Hon. Mary Ng :

Mr. Speaker, the CPTPP is an excellent agreement and many Canadian firms and exporters have benefited. It is not just a good agreement because of its commercial success, but it also has some of those very high-quality provisions for the environment, for inclusiveness. As my hon. colleague will know, CPTPP colleagues around the table, who party to that agreement, make those decisions about accession together. We are very pleased that the first accession candidate is the United Kingdom, another of Canada's trading partners. We have just finished that very important work. No doubt we will continue to work, along with our partners, with all the other applicants for accession.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to a question asked by my hon. colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé that the minister did not have time to answer. My colleague asked her two questions. She answered the question about supply management. However, concerning the fact that the government and multinationals are on an equal footing and that multinationals are therefore able to take legal action against states, would this not have been a good opportunity to reassert government jurisdiction over multinational corporations? I think it would have been a good opportunity. What does she think?

(1225) [ English ]

Hon. Mary Ng :

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

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

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

Hon. Mary Ng :

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

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

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have a very long, storied and proud tradition of supporting free trade. We only have to look back to the negotiations of the original Canada-United States free trade agreement, which was, of course, something Conservatives were in favour of and that Liberals campaigned very hard against. I was a young lad back then, but I remember a commercial from the Liberal Party on this, talking about free trade. It said that there was only one more line that we had to remove, and then it erased the border between Canada and the United States.

That was a long time ago, but I just want to talk briefly about how strongly Conservatives support free trade. We believe in free trade between free nations as an integral part of improving the prosperity of all people. We were also the people who started the negotiations on CETA. The CETA deal is a Conservative deal that was started by Prime Minister Harper as part of our aggressive trade expansion. The same thing with the CPTPP, which was a Conservative initiative. Conservatives are very supportive of free trade.

This original free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine was originated by a Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper. The member for Abbotsford , from the Conservative Party, was the lead negotiator on that. He will speak to this, and we will have some wonderful insights on this agreement. When we talk about the importance of the Canada-Ukraine relationship, we have to talk about the 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin who live here in Canada. Many of them were integral in the development of western Canada.

They are an incredible and important part of the social fabric of Canada, and their contributions to Canada cannot go unnoticed. As a result of that, in part, we have very strong people-to-people ties between Canada and Ukraine. Of course, we are strong supporters of Ukraine during the illegal invasion being prosecuted by Russia. With respect to this agreement in particular, this modernization would build on the 2017 agreement, which updated or added 11 new chapters to the free trade agreement.

The updated chapters included rules of origin and procedures, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, electronic commerce, digital trade, labour, the environment, transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct. There is also a significant number of new chapters, 11 new chapters, in this trade agreement, and I will talk a little more about that later in my remarks.

However, these are on investment; cross-border trade and services; temporary entry for business people; development and administration of measures; financial services; services and investment, non-conforming measures; telecommunications; trade and gender; trade and small and medium-sized enterprises; trade and indigenous peoples; and good regulatory practices. This is a substantial change from the original agreement that was signed in 2017. On that, I would echo some of the comments made by the NDP, which is that this agreement is actually substantial. It is a very large trade agreement.

Of course, we have to take our time to make sure we study free trade agreements in detail and thoroughly. However, it does seem as though the government is trying to rush this forward, and I am not sure that is necessarily the way Parliament should look at things. We should do our jobs as parliamentarians.

(1230) I would like to talk about the original trade agreement. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. The way the original agreement was designed, as it was negotiated by the Conservative government, was that this would be, in a sense, a bit of an asymmetrical agreement. It was set up such that Ukraine would have a little more advantage in the early stages of the agreement, with the anticipation that there would be a final agreement in which more things would be added. Originally, this was primarily a merchandise agreement.

We can see now that a lot of chapters have been added on the services side. I suspect that as a result of that, we will see the trade balance perhaps narrow between Canada and Ukraine, but in general increase the trade between the two countries. After the ratification of the original agreement, exports to Ukraine, other than coal, grew about 28% between 2016 and 2019, which reinforces the view that trade, especially free trade, is good for both countries.

We saw a significant increase in the two-way trade between two countries as a result of the free trade agreements, which goes back to why Conservatives absolutely and unequivocally support free trade agreements. Interestingly enough, the top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. The top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats, oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. Canadian businesses certainly have an opportunity to expand their trade with Ukraine. I have undertaken to consult with industry with respect to this.

I have spoken with agricultural companies, agricultural industries, etc. The challenge of course is the very condensed time frame, and I should explain this. What we have before Parliament is the enabling legislation to implement the free trade agreement, but that is probably not what we are debating today. We are not actually going to look at and debate whether “subsection 42.1(1.1) of the act is amended by adding the following paragraph after (a).” I suspect that is not what we will debate here today.

The implementation legislation is how we implement the changes to relevant statutes and other things to implement the actual free trade agreement. This implementation bill's enabling legislation does not seem to have much in it that any of us will spend a lot of time debating in this chamber, although I could be wrong, as some members do enjoy debating those kinds of things. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan might enjoy going through and deciding whether “paragraphs (

b) and (

c) of the definition Ukraine in subsection 2(1) of the act are replaced by the following” is a good or significant change, but that is not what I will talk about today. What we can talk about are the general principles of supporting free trade and the free trade agreement itself. In that is some of the difficulty that was expressed by the NDP member. He said he had not had the time to discuss this legislation with his caucus and colleagues, which takes me back to discussions with stakeholders.

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

(1235) Those consultations are ongoing right now. I have reached out to the industries that would be affected by that to find out where they stand on it. When I attended law school, we had professors very clearly say that the devil was often in the details. I am not 100% sure that Parliament should just pass things without any scrutiny whatsoever. We have learned that when other trade agreements were put forward by the Liberal government and passed rapidly, we ended up with some challenges.

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

However, for both things, there are very complicated dispute resolution procedures in place to try to resolve issues of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures are important. They are put in place to ensure the health of people consuming the products. They are also protections put in place to protect biodiversity, to ensure things are not contained within certain products that could harm biodiversity. These measures are important, but sometimes these sanitary and phytosanitary measures are used as non-tariff barriers, or NTBs.

NTBs have become sort of the new way to frustrate free trade. As we look around the world, we see that NTBs are growing in number and there are challenges in resolving those free trade agreements. I took the time to look at the

section in this free trade agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. I am pleased to see that this

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

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

It has built a number of LNG export facilities over the last number of years to take advantage of the demand for LNG, including that demand in Europe. Unfortunately, Canada has not taken advantage of that and, in fact, has lost all kinds of opportunities. However, when talk about transition, we do not transition from coal to a solar panel. Those kinds of transitions generally do not work. We do not transition from coal to a wind turbine and solar. Those things do not work. Both of these things provide intermittent power.

Intermittent power makes maintenance of the electric grid more expensive and it is unreliable when there are surges in demand. We need a strong baseload of electricity generation.

(1240) I hope that when I have the time to go through this agreement in full, I will see this addresses a great area of potential opportunity for Canada and Ukraine with respect to electricity generation. We have amazing expertise in the production of nuclear reactors, as does Ukraine. Canada has all kinds of uranium that it can export. I really hope there will be some things in the agreement that talk about furthering this kind of development and partnership. It would be both good for Ukraine and good for Canada. However, transitioning from coal would be beneficial to the world.

When we look at energy transitions, we know they do not happen rapidly. In fact, they take a long time. All we have to do is think about how coal was discovered 200 to 250 years ago. We have had gas, natural gas and nuclear for a much shorter period of time, but they have not completely displaced coal even though the power density for both gas and nuclear is far more dense than for coal. Therefore, it makes sense to transition to these things. This is the challenge in suggesting we transition from coal to solar or wind, because the actual energy density is so much smaller.

An electricity plant that would use LNG or nuclear would take up 20 acres, but to get a similar amount of energy from wind or solar, we would be looking at 10 to 100 times that amount of land. The suggestion that we can make those transitions quickly from coal to wind and solar is not feasible and it does not make sense. We should be exploring the opportunities that Canada has with LNG and nuclear. The Conservative Party is 100% behind supporting Ukraine, supporting trade and free trade. Free trade between free nations is something we support 100%.

I look forward to going through this agreement and to the debate on this agreement in the House.

(1245) Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I like how my colleague touched on the fact that when this type of legislation and these types of agreements come before the House, it is necessary for us, as parliamentarians, to do wide consultation with stakeholders. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for five and a half years now. One of the concerns brought up to our committee by Chicken Farmers of Canada was the Ukraine remission order that allowed Ukrainian poultry to come into Canada.

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

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

Mr. Kyle Seeback :

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. In the particular circumstances of that remission order, I agree. I was certainly consulted on that. Chicken farmers were not against supporting Ukraine, but it looked like that was rushed and not all details were looked at. I did talk about that in my speech. I still remember my contracts professor in my first year of law school saying that the devil was always in the details. We do not look at things in broad strokes if we want to be a good lawyer. We have to get down into the nitty-gritty.

When we look at this agreement, which is somewhere in the range of 600 pages, and we are asked to rush this through, that is how mistakes happen. That is how we end up with agreements with unintended consequences by not scrutinizing them. It is the job of parliamentarians to scrutinize this and reach out to stakeholder groups that will also be looking at this. They will ensure they look at those details. We should ensure that work gets done.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such enthusiasm for this bill today. We know that there is no shortage of emergencies, including the housing crisis and the climate crisis, but these topics are not on the government's agenda. My colleague mentioned several interesting things in his speech. We know that we are not reinventing the wheel today; we are modernizing the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which has been in effect since 2017. The fact is that trade with our trade partner Ukraine has grown significantly. I have a question for my colleague.

There was a whole saga in the House about the standing ovation for a former SS soldier, in yet another blunder committed on the world stage by the federal government, or rather the Liberal government. That all happened in conjunction with the presidential visit, when he was here to sign the agreement on September 22. It seems to me, or rather I am quite convinced, that the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy to come to the House before implementing the new agreement.

We are hearing that it is really urgent for us to study this bill today as a priority, and that it must take precedence over the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he think the government could have done this sooner? Does he think the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy's visit to try to restore its image after all the blunders we have seen, such as Chinese interference and the conflict between Canada and India?

[ English ]

Mr. Kyle Seeback :

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the motives are. I do know that this agreement was signed much earlier. If it had been tabled in Parliament earlier, we would certainly have had more debate and more time to scrutinize this particular piece of legislation. The members of the Liberal Party were chirping when I was speaking about taking the time to study something. There is an old adage saying that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. A government that thinks it can do no wrong and has birthed the perfect agreement is also a fool because mistakes are made. We know that.

We know that with respect to beef and pork access to the EU. The Liberals thought they had a deal with a side letter that was going to resolve all kinds of things, but in fact it did not. There is no access, effectively, for beef and pork. Parliament should do its work. I wish this bill had been brought to Parliament sooner so that there would not be the rush the government is making to get it through Parliament.

(1250) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about the aggressive approach this government has had, virtually since 2015, in recognizing the importance of international trade and how it supports Canada's middle class. In fact, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government. That is a fact. The member opposite, at the beginning of his speech, said they did this, they did that and they had this in the making.

It was this government that ultimately signed and brought to a conclusion a number of deals that have been critically important for fostering more trade between Canada and countries around the world, whether it is the United States, Mexico or those in Europe and Asia. Would the member not recognize that this is yet another agreement modifying an agreement signed off by the current Deputy Prime Minister a number of years ago and is a positive step forward that both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from?

Mr. Kyle Seeback :

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 people know one can make up statistics about anything. That is effectively what this member is doing in saying they have done the most. Anyone can make up statements about anything. It is great that they came to the trade party, but they came to the trade party late. I still recall their vehement opposition to free trade with the United States. I led in my speech with what they said about the one final line they would like to change, and they erased the border between Canada and the United States.

The member is saying not to go back in time, yet every time we talk about things, they talk about former prime minister Harper, from 2006. It is typically Liberal: They want it their way one way but everybody else has to have it a different way. I am glad this free trade agreement has been modernized. I look forward to looking at it, examining it and doing the due diligence that it seems like parliamentarians want to do, whether they are in the NDP or the Bloc.

The only members who do not seem to want to study this agreement are the Liberals, because as usual, in their arrogance, they believe they have birthed the perfect child and nothing could be wrong with it. We want to verify if that is true.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did an excellent job of highlighting the Liberal failure to support Ukraine in the area of energy security. European countries vitally need the natural resources that Canada is ready to produce and sell. Last summer, we had emergency hearings at the foreign affairs committee because, instead of supporting the sale of Canadian energy to Europe, the Liberal government gave a sanctions exemption to allow a turbine to be sent to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Germany.

We were more interested in facilitating the sale of Russian gas to Germany than in helping to relieve European dependence on Russian natural resources by providing Canadian resources as an alternative. Could the member share more about the Conservative vision for Canada to be a leader in supporting global energy security by enabling our European allies to no longer be dependent on imports from Russia?

Mr. Kyle Seeback :

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question, the best one so far. The issue the member raised with respect to the export of those turbines was a shameful affront to Ukraine. The Liberal government and Liberal members should be ashamed of that. If we look at LNG exports to the European market, the United States is at 26%, Qatar is at 24% and Russia is at 20%. Canada could absolutely fill that need if we had a government that recognized that LNG exports are good for lowering emissions, are good for the Canadian economy and would be very good at disrupting the Russian war machine.

(1255) [ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to speak to Bill C‑57 , which seeks to modernize the 2017 Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, or CUFTA. I rise as the Bloc Québécois international trade critic, and I am pleased to speak on behalf of my political party today. I just want to remind the House that our party is continuing a tradition, because Quebec's independence movement has been advocating for free trade since the 1980s with a view to exiting the Canadian economic framework, which is too narrow. It has been a quite a deal for our SMEs, whose expertise is as valuable as it is diverse.

I should note, however, that our position is not categorical: A trade agreement may be bad, and it is what it contains that determines whether or not we support it. If an agreement is going to be harmful to our key sectors, commodify our public services to an unreasonable degree, give multinationals the upper hand or hurt the environment or workers' rights, we would not support it merely because we believe in the virtues of international trade. In the present case, I will say right now that we will be voting in favour of the principle of the modernized 2023 agreement, since we are still at the principle stage.

However, we have a major concern about something that I will talk about a bit later, something that we will be urging the government to commit to changing. Let us first look at the context. We are talking about modernizing an agreement that dates back to 2017, but we could basically call it a new agreement. The 2017 CUFTA, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine, a symbolic stance, since trade with Ukraine was rather marginal at the time.

The negotiations ended in the summer of 2015, just before the election, but the agreement was signed by the current government during the Ukrainian Prime Minister's visit to Ottawa in 2016 and it took effect in 2017. The Bloc Québécois supported that agreement. Given that we wanted to move forward quickly since Ukraine was looking for international support, the 2017 CUFTA was pretty bare-bones. More work could have been done, particularly with regard to the implementation mechanisms that were meant to ensure compliance with the agreement. They were rather weak.

What we have before us today is a real trade agreement. Bill C‑57 is 15 pages long and merely amends Canadian legislation to align it with the agreement's requirements so that the government can go ahead and ratify it. Bill C‑57's clauses are largely technical, as most of them change references to the 2017 CUFTA or other agreements, replacing them with references to the modernized 2023 agreement for consistency.

It also authorizes the establishment, recognizes the authority and allows for the funding of the various institutional mechanisms provided for in the agreement, including the secretariat responsible for overseeing the agreement and the various dispute settlement bodies. The modernized 2023 agreement is a comprehensive agreement. We are talking about 1,000 pages. It contains 30 chapters covering trade in goods and services—including special provisions in a number of areas—as well as investment, government procurement, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, labour law and environmental law.

It also includes provisions to favour SMEs or businesses owned and operated by women and indigenous people. It casts the net wide. For starters, we were pleased to see that the content of the June 2022 order was not included in this agreement. Countries in difficulty or at war are often exempted from Canadian tariffs, but this was the first time supply management was included. Ukraine became totally, or almost totally, exempt from supply management in relation to Canada and its borders. Chicken farmers were very concerned, and for a year, they suffered the ill effects of that access. It was unacceptable.

There was no reason for this to happen, especially given the rather ridiculous reasoning behind it. For example, it was alleged, on the basis of studies from several years ago, that there is no bird flu in Ukraine. However, we know that viruses can mutate and that one of the main sources of bird flu in Europe is Poland, which is right next door. Until proven otherwise, birds, such as chickens, do not respect borders. They are not screened at the border. If there were a major outbreak in Poland, it would be surprising if there were no cases, contrary to what was being said in Ukraine.

(1300) In short, this agreement covers the components of trade and various related sectors likely to impact trade. Among its 30 chapters, 11 are new since the 2017 CUFTA. The “Cross-Border Trade in Services”

chapter sets out the rules applicable to services. The

chapter entitled “Development and Administration of Measures” ensures that administrative practices are predictable and consistent. The “Investment”

chapter protects investments and replaces the 1994 bilateral agreement for the protection of investments. The annexes on services and investment non-conforming measures complement the

chapter on cross-border trade in services. They clarify its application in specific areas and list the exceptions that both countries wish to retain. The “Temporary Entry for Business Persons”

chapter is a necessary provision for business to occur between the two countries. It did not appear in the 2017 CUFTA. Although the “Telecommunications”

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

chapter on cross-border trade in services, sets out the rules applicable to financial services without completely opening up the market. The Canadian banking market remains essentially protected. This

chapter sets out the rules that facilitate the use of financial services in the other country and the simple flow of capital. Three chapters are being added to the 2017 CUFTA concerning the participation of certain groups in trade, specifically SMEs, women and indigenous people. This allows preferential measures to be put in place. There is also the

chapter entitled “Good Regulatory Practices”, which codifies the manner in which regulations are adopted to ensure transparency and predictability. Eight of the chapters in the 2017 CUFTA are being amended. The

chapter entitled “Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures” relaxes the rules of origin for products containing materials that come from a country with which a free trade agreement has been concluded. The

chapter entitled “Digital Trade” clarifies the rules that apply to electronically transmitted data to ensure more efficient flow. The

chapter entitled “Competition Policy” clarifies the competition rules that could hinder trade, particularly in the case of Ukraine, where mass privatization occurred after the fall of the U.S.S.R. State monopolies were replaced by private quasi-monopolies that were difficult to break into. The agreement will help address that. The

chapter entitled “Designated Monopolies and State-Owned Enterprises” includes the provisions of the 2017 CUFTA, but in a separate

chapter to facilitate its implementation. The

chapter entitled “Government Procurement” was in the 2017 CUFTA, but in the form of a statement of intent only. The new agreement includes provisions from the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, which takes it away from the WTO's dispute settlement bodies, which have been paralyzed for years, and gives it instead to the panels under the Canada-Ukraine agreement. This

chapter is very important, considering the huge contracts that will be awarded for rebuilding Ukraine, presumably in the near future, as soon as the war is over, which we hope is not too long from now. The chapters on the environment and labour, which were also statements of intent in the 2017 CUFTA, will now be binding. Now let us talk about the

chapter entitled “Transparency, Anti-Corruption, and Responsible Business Conduct”. The 2017 CUFTA contained anti-corruption measures. The 2023 agreement adds provisions on responsible business conduct. We know that the government is boasting about this chapter. This

section encourages businesses to adopt internationally recognized guidelines and principles of responsible business conduct and corporate social responsibility, but these codes are purely voluntary. It is merely a fine principle. It is completely empty. There is nothing in it but encouragement to follow lofty principles. There is no body to oversee or verify compliance with this chapter.

(1305) In other words, we should disregard the siren songs of the Liberals, who are bragging that this

chapter will do even more to help in the fight against corruption in Ukraine. That concludes the overview of the new and amended chapters. Now, there are some potentially predictable effects that would encourage us to support the principle of this agreement. Even though trade between Canada and Ukraine is up by one-third since the 2017 agreement was signed, Ukraine remains a small trading partner for Canada. In 2022, the value of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine was $150.2 million, or 0.02% of the $760 billion in goods Canada exported last year, even in the context of a country at war.

The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Again in 2022, imports from Ukraine were valued at $271.2 million, or 0.04% of the $780 billion in Canadian imports. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. The trade impact of this new agreement will therefore be marginal, especially given that most of the goods and services are already subject to free trade, because, until proven otherwise, like Ukraine, we are still part of the World Trade Organization.

However, this agreement will bring greater predictability than the previous 2017 agreement, which should make things easier. I will point out that the 2023 agreement provides one extra year of guaranteed access to the Ukrainian market for 20,000 metric tonnes of Canadian pork, a major production sector for Quebec. These provisions should please pork producers. The

chapter on government procurement could also become very important during Ukraine's post-war reconstruction, especially for Quebec engineering firms, some of which are very successful internationally. They could be enlisted to help rebuild the country's infrastructure. Dam building, for instance, is an area where our expertise is internationally recognized. I will now address the concerns we have. As usual, the main one is transparency. Parliament's ability to amend Bill C-57 , the subject of today's debate, is fairly limited. Amendments must relate only to the bill and cannot affect the agreement itself.

This limitation of parliamentary powers is not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement; indeed, the people's elected representatives in this House, the issue of a monarchical culture, have very little involvement in international treaties. Their power is limited to saying yes or no to whatever the government has signed. We have this agreement before us and there is very little we can do. We cannot say that one item or another needs to be improved or that we are opposed to certain aspects. It is just not possible. We cannot influence the contents of these agreements in any way.

By the same token, while provinces are responsible for implementing the parts of the treaty that pertain to their jurisdictions, they are not involved in the negotiations, as opposed to what is done in Europe, for instance, where member states play an integral part. Even if the treaty is with the European Union, negotiations happen with the parliaments of member states. Again, these democratic shortcomings are not exclusive to the Canada-Ukraine agreement. The entire Canadian approach to signing treaties has to be reviewed.

Regardless of the issue or political stripe, governments do not really appreciate it when their opponents look too closely at what they do. When it comes to trade agreements, secrecy is in order. Canada, with its deep-seated monarchical traditions, keeps the treaties it signs in the dark, afraid that they might turn to ashes like vampires if they see the light of day. As a member of Parliament, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to experience that first-hand.

In November and December 2020, at the Standing Committee on International Trade, we were forced to examine the Canada-United Kingdom free trade agreement without seeing the text of the agreement. During that sad bit of absurd theatre, we had witnesses, experts and groups telling us about an agreement about which they knew as much as we did as elected representatives, which is nothing at all. When Canada's foreign affairs department was created in 1909, the minister was supposed to table before Parliament an annual report on the department's operations.

This report would logically include an overview of Canada's international discussions and commitments.

(1310) In 1995, when globalization was in full swing, the legislation governing the department was amended to give the minister a freer hand by granting him jurisdiction over international trade to the detriment of the institution of Parliament. The requirement to submit an annual report was abolished. A Parliament worthy of its name should have procedures to increase democratic control over agreements. The Bloc Québécois tabled seven bills on this between 1999 and 2004. The other irritants in this agreement are the investor-state dispute settlement provisions. They are in there.

This mechanism allows foreign multinationals, foreign investors to sue a state if a policy hampers their ability to turn a profit. This is extremely serious. These types of dispute settlement mechanisms found their way into each and every agreement when signing such agreements was all the rage during the aggressive, triumphant neoliberal years, but it is very serious that Canada is continuing to persistently accept, negotiate and encourage these kinds of agreements. There are a few things we need to remember about this.

These are clauses that have enabled multinationals to sue governments over increases in minimum wage, environmental measures, taxes on soft drinks to counter obesity epidemics in certain countries and moratoriums on drilling. These are protection clauses, a legal tool available to foreign investors to undermine the government's ability to act by leaving the perpetual threat of legal recourse from foreign companies dangling overhead. It is a threat to national sovereignty.

It makes it increasingly difficult for governments to legislate on issues such as social justice, the environment, working conditions and public health if a transnational company believes its right to profit has been infringed. This is censorship of the democratic will. According to a 2013 UN report, states won these suits 42% of the time and corporations, 31% of the time. The remaining disputes were settled out of court. This means that plaintiffs were able to override the political will of states in 58% of cases either in part, through agreements, or in whole, by winning their case.

This quantitative figure, however, overlooks one important factor, namely, the pressure put on states by investor protection clauses. States give up on certain policies early in the discussion and decision-making process to avoid being sued. They self-censor for fear of ending up in court. In 2014, a report by the European Union's Directorate-General for External Policies stated that these investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms were indeed a public policy roadblock. I remind members that this is the Bloc Québécois's fight.

In 2021, I presented a motion that led my committee to undertake a study on the impact of these mechanisms. At our last convention, opposing these mechanisms became part of our platform. After a health crisis, there is no reason for Canada to stubbornly continue to support such provisions, especially since they were removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA. They were included in NAFTA, but removed from CUSMA. Why continue to defend the sovereignty of multinationals and the right to profit, rather than democratic rights and the sovereignty of states?

In the specific case of Ukraine, let me first point out that it will be a rather fragile post-war state. Even though there are opportunities for Quebec and Canadian companies, do we want to colonize that country with a mechanism that could be embarrassing for Ukraine and could incite it to adopt certain measures, because it would be afraid of the backlash from Canadian and Quebec companies looking to make a profit? At the same time, allowing a company to sue a foreign country directly without obtaining the consent of its home country could have consequences for us.

In the case of Ukraine, we know that it has sanctioned several of its own citizens for collaborating with Russia. These sanctions could go as far as seizing their assets. If these Ukrainian citizens who collaborated with Russia also have investments here, and Ottawa decides to mimic the Ukrainian government and seize their assets here, the federal government could be sued for discriminatory expropriation under the agreement.

(1315) I will close by urging the government to move forward with an exchange of letters if this agreement is adopted in order to remove this dangerous and unique provision.

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, this is much like the legislation a few years back that was signed off on. It seemed to have received virtually unanimous support of the House, very close to it, and there was a high sense of co-operation in trying to get that legislation through. The legislation now before us would be a modernization of that legislation. The member talked about how the province of Quebec could really benefit by this, and jurisdictions all over Canada would, in fact, benefit. The member made reference, for example, to the pork industry.

Manitoba is very much into the pork industry and also would benefit, not only in that sector but also in other areas. In Canada, there are 1.3 million-plus estimated people of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the hundreds of thousands, perhaps into the millions, of other Canadians who are following what is taking place in Ukraine today. My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that this legislation would be in good part a win-win for both nations? Now is a great time to try to see this legislation pass, before the end of the year. Would he not agree that this would be a good thing to see happen?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I can say that there is indeed some good. We support the principle and we have no interest in dragging out or disrupting the natural process. Indeed, sooner would be better. However, I want to reiterate what I was saying at the end: I do not want our reservations to be diminished. I am calling on the government to commit to us, whether through an exchange of letters or through other means, that it will remove the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, as worded in the agreement.

[ English ]

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation with the government where international relations are a mess. Our relationship with India is a mess. We just had the Quint, five members of the G7, write a letter condemning Hamas, without even asking Canada. Canada was not even an afterthought in the writing of that letter. I want to ask the member, given the government's track record with respect to its relationships with other countries and its bungled negotiation of the free trade agreement with the United States, how we can trust the government to implement an agreement, in terms of free trade, with Ukraine.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, our level of confidence in this government is as low as the official opposition's. We sometimes wonder whether the government truly deserves our trust. In this case, one of the irritants is transparency and, frankly, the Conservatives are no better in that regard when they are in power. There are models out there in the world. It is not necessary to present an agreement like this and tell us that it is urgent, that we have to adopt it, take it or leave it, and that we cannot change it. Conservatives are no better when they are in power.

It is part of Canada's monarchic culture, but it does not have to be that way. In other countries, for example, in the United States, they have a habit of consulting their elected representatives. The European Union is also in the habit of holding debates. We are the elected representatives of the people. Before sending a negotiator out into the world, we should be given an opportunity to share our views, to be asked what we do not want to see included, what we would like to see as part of the negotiations, what our fundamental values and interests are within this negotiation process.

It is the Canadian culture of transparency in trade agreements that needs a thorough overhaul, and this one is highly problematic.

(1320) Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers have worked really hard to protect supply management. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in particular has taken up that fight. The minister seemed to be saying this morning that supply-managed sectors would be excluded and therefore protected. There is definitely a lack of transparency. There are still many aspects of this bill that are worrisome. Can my colleague reiterate the importance of making the risk of prosecution the same for multinationals as for countries? What does he think should be done next to ensure that we get our fair share and that we can monitor the government's lack of transparency?

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, we can rest easy about the supply management aspect, because the text excludes those sectors. There is nothing that resembles the order the government made on the sly, somewhat surreptitiously, in 2022. We can rest assured on that front. As for the power of multinationals, we will assess how much flexibility we have because, as I said, there is very little we can change. However, that would be part of it, based on our understanding of the bill at this stage, and we will be able to delve into this further in committee.

If it is in the bill, there is nothing to stop us from rejecting this provision during the clause-by-clause study in committee, while supporting the agreement overall. I will vote against this provision, but that does not stop me from reiterating my request to the government for a commitment to remove this provision.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the fact that Canada is very fortunate. We have a team of negotiators who have a great deal of experience, years and years of it. I would suggest that Canada is probably second to no other nation in the world in terms of its ability to negotiate. We have always taken the position that it has to be in Canada's best interest first and foremost. The member seems to be very concerned about the government's going it alone. I would provide some assurances that through the agreements in the past, a few dozen agreements, we have witnessed a team that has achieved a good deal for Canada.

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

[ Translation ]

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to unpack everything I just heard. First, yes, in its agreements, Canada has some experience in undermining supply management three times, failing to protect aluminum in CUSMA, not pushing for our interests and fundamental values multiple times, and hiding several things from us. To the question from my colleague who says that we should allow the negotiators to do their job, I say, of course. I never suggested that elected members be sent to negotiate in the negotiators' place, that goes without saying. That idea never even crossed my mind.

I do not think that the United States or the European Union are bad negotiators, yet they consult those who have been elected by the people. When the member says that nothing can be changed once the agreement is signed, what option do we have other than to fight the agreement? We cannot say that we are 75% in favour and 25% against the agreement and then choose what we will take and what we will leave. In other words, we have to take all or nothing. We cannot cherry-pick here. I call this a miscarriage of democracy.

[ English ]

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-57 , the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This bill would update the agreement made in 2017. Much has happened in the past six years, as we all know. First, I would like to speak a bit about the original agreement, as it forms the core of the present one, then cover some of the changes outlined in Bill C-57 . I will wrap up with some comments about how free trade agreements are presented to Parliament for the debate that they deserve. The NDP is very much in favour of free trade agreements.

We hear catcalls from both sides every time we debate free trade agreements here, saying that the NDP is always against them. We are not. We have voted for free trade agreements in the past and we voted for the Ukraine free trade agreement when it was presented. Our main caveat for these agreements is that they be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs, protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment, and promote the well-being of our citizens. The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian companies.

It must also include measures of good labour agreements, both here and in the countries we are making deals with, and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well. These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved. I have to say that this new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us that would implement that agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act.

Today, there are more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of that heritage and their cultural traditions. Canada has consistently supported Ukraine's development and reform efforts, providing over $460 million in international assistance between 2014 and 2021. Of course, Canada and Canadians have been strong supporters of Ukraine since the illegal invasion by Russia in February 2022. Since then, Canada has committed over $8.9 billion in assistance, including financial, development, humanitarian, military security, stabilization and immigration aid.

With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply managed products, such as poultry, to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but I think it is fair to say that Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during these horrific times in their struggles. I would like to step back a bit in time and spend some time talking about the original agreement.

I would like to thank Tracey Ramsey, who is the former member for Essex, the NDP international trade critic when the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was debated and came into effect. Tracey was and remains a passionate defender of Canadian workers, and she took her role very seriously. She recommended that the NDP support the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement because it upheld those basic principles I mentioned previously. The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports.

Following the signature of the original trade agreement, Canada's non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. Total merchandise trade reached an all-time high of $447 million in 2021, although that of course declined in 2022 because of the illegal invasion. The original free trade agreement eliminated most of the tariffs on Canadian imports to Ukraine and Ukrainian imports to Canada. Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal. Canadian products that benefit from the free trade agreement include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood.

(1325) While the original free trade agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it did not include the investor-state dispute settle