Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to Bill C-57, the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The bill would modernize CUFTA and build on the original 2017 agreement with the inclusion of 11 new chapters and provisions.
I believe that Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people, including the exportation of Canadian liquefied natural gas to break European dependence on natural gas supplied to those countries by Russia. I also believe that members of this House should always work to ensure that trade agreements entered into by Canada remain in the best interest of Canada and of all Canadians. This is why Bill C-57 should be closely examined and why engagement should occur with Canadians and stakeholders to get that very important feedback. We must also be aware that, through this Canada-Ukraine FTA, Canada is continuing its support for our Ukrainian allies, including through trade.
I commend the Conservatives for having successfully negotiated the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and for unanimously voting for it. I am also a strong supporter of free trade and of Ukraine. On the latter point, this is why I personally believe that Canada should indeed have a free trade agreement with Ukraine.
The current CUFTA was negotiated in 2017, and it will also remain in effect if, for some reason, the new agreement is not ratified. Regardless, Canada's commitment to a strong and independent Ukraine is a constant. Ukrainian people have suffered greatly through Russia's unwarranted aggression, and the people of Ukraine need all the assistance Canada can offer.
Canada's history with Ukraine displays a close relationship. On December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. Recently, Canada also undertook Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training.
As I said at the outset, the new CUFTA reflects the 2017 agreement, with 11 new chapters and provisions that focus on trade in services, including financial investment, cross-border trade in services, temporary entry for business persons, financial services, telecommunications, SMEs, digital trade and labour. Bill C-57 also includes elements of the government's new progressive trade and the first-ever sections on indigenous peoples. There is also a substantial new chapter on the environment.
The original 2017 agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. CUFTA has a built-in review clause, article 19.2, that commits to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force. The intention is to expand the agreement to new areas, such as investment in trade in services.
In July 2019, the Government of Canada and the Government of Ukraine agreed to modernize the CUFTA. Subsequently, in January of last year, Canada and Ukraine announced the launch of modernization negotiations, which were suspended as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Those negotiations resumed in June 2022. On October 17, the modernized CUFTA was introduced for ratification by the government.
Let us take a step back and really look at the magnitude. In 2022, Canada's total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports. When the original CUFTA was ratified, non-coal exports to Ukraine actually grew by 28.5%, when looking at the period between 2016 and 2019. The top three exports to Ukraine were motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products. Canada's top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, electrical machinery and equipment. For reference, Canada's 10th merchandise export market was Belgium, at $4.9 billion, and Canada's 10th merchandise importer was Brazil, at $7.5 billion. Therefore, this trade deal is very small relative to Canada's total trade, but that does not diminish its importance, particularly given the ongoing conflict.
There are two parts to adopting a trade agreement: a text of the agreement and the enabling legislation. Bill C-57 would implement the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as agreed to between the two parties on September 22.
Among other things, the bill sets out rules of interpretation and further “specifies that no recourse is to be taken on the basis of sections 9 to 15 or any order made under those sections, or on the basis of the provisions of that Agreement, without the consent of the Attorney General of Canada”. Bill C-57 would approve the agreement and provide for the payment by Canada of its share of the expenditures associated with the operation of the agreement's institutional and administrative aspects. The bill would also provide the Governor in Council with the power to make orders in accordance with that agreement. It would amend certain acts to give effect to Canada's obligations under that agreement and would repeal the 2017 agreement.
The new CUFTA would update the following chapters: rules of origin, government procurement, competition policy, monopolies and state enterprises, digital trade, labour, environment, transparency and anti-corruption. These are all things that are very important to Canadians. However, for the first time in a Canadian FTA, the environment chapter would include provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade and climate change policies. Also, for the first time ever, a Canadian FTA would include a chapter on trade and indigenous peoples. It would also replace the 1994 FIPA in the investment chapter.
What are the financial implications for Canada of this renegotiated CUFTA? We know that Canada currently has a $150-million trade deficit with Ukraine. However, when the Harper Conservative government originally negotiated this FTA, it was designed to be an asymmetrical agreement whereby Ukraine would initially gain the most benefit. The inclusion of more services trade in the updated CUFTA and other changes should balance our bilateral trade, which would be a good thing for Canadians. The enabling legislation would include some costs in implementing the agreement and the cost of dispute panels; however, those costs are standard and do not amount to large sums.
In conclusion, I am pleased to provide my support for Bill C-57. I believe that the new agreement would preserve Canada's interests in such agreements, and I believe that the renegotiated CUFTA would continue the objective of helping Ukraine, its people, its struggle to repel Russian aggression and its efforts to defend democracy.
1097 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is basically what the member was referring to. That is the “no more pipelines” bill that was imposed here in Canada on Canadian citizens.
As we look forward and work with Ukraine in developing their energy infrastructure, we need to take a very long look at what the Liberals have done for legislation on developing energy in our own country. We should be helping them instead of hindering Ukraine in moving forward with energy development.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, energy is fundamental to all people in all countries around the world, especially in expansive and northern countries such as ours and in the region that we are talking about.
As my colleague mentioned during his speech, after eight years of the Liberals, there were 18 proposals for LNG terminals from Canada. However, because of the Liberals' red tape, gatekeeping, anti-energy agenda and policies, not a single one has been built.
Conservatives are supportive about actual outcomes rather than words. We know it is so important for Ukrainians and citizens of allied countries to have energy security and affordable fuel.
Could the member comment on the ways in which the NDP-Liberals are holding Canada back from being able to truly support the resilient, tenacious people of Ukraine, who are fighting for their territorial integrity and sovereignty, as well as for sources of responsible oil and gas—
151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is really important to remember that we have had an existing agreement in place since 2017, I believe. It was a Conservative government that actually negotiated and put that in place. We really have to remember that going forward.
Today, we have a war going on, and nothing has been discussed about trying to create the energy infrastructure for Ukraine so they could get off Putin's gas.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this agreement, this legislation is fundamental to the security, stability and economic development of Ukraine. It would allow Canadian businesses to be part of Ukraine's rebuilding, which will be the biggest rebuilding in Europe since World War II.
I would like to hear the hon. member's comments and reaction to the Ukraine ambassador's statement at the international trade committee, which I am going to quote. She said, “We believe that the modernized CUFTA will pave the way for Ukrainian companies and Canadian companies to work together.”
Does the member agree with this statement by the Ukrainian ambassador?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that was more of a statement than a question. We are supposed to be debating the legislation in front of us here today. That is what I am looking forward to: some serious questions about the legislation.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a peculiar answer to a very straightforward question. In fact, if we all do support Ukraine and free trade for Ukraine, then it is a bit hard to understand why the Conservatives are putting up speaker after speaker who will not say clearly that they are going to support the free trade agreement. In fact, a recent speaker said there were limits to the Conservatives' support for Ukraine.
Either we do support Ukraine, support this agreement and get on with it, or we do not.
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a very good question, and that is why we are debating it today. They will find out at the appropriate time, and I think we are going to vote on this in the next couple of days. Maybe they will find out the answer then.
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member opposite: Will the member be supporting Bill C-57, yes or no?
23 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to build onto the existing Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. I want to thank my colleague from Dufferin—Caledon for his work in examining this bill and working to strengthen the economic bond between Canada and Ukraine.
As many of my fellow members already know, I proudly represent the constituency of Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, a region that is home to many Ukrainians. The community of Dauphin, Manitoba, is proudly home to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival. The Parkland region has a rich history in celebrating Ukrainian culture and heritage, and the region shares a strong bond with the people of Ukraine. Much of my constituency was built by the people who immigrated to Canada from Ukraine generations ago. It does not take much to notice the incredible contribution that Ukrainians have made to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Canada.
I, along with my Conservative colleagues, unequivocally support Ukraine, especially over the last 20 months during Russia’s illegal war, which was launched on the Ukrainian people. I will remind members that it is our responsibility as members of the House, alongside our allies, to ensure that Vladimir Putin and those aligned with him are held accountable for their war crimes in Ukraine. These individuals must face prosecution at both the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
Since Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, Canadians have been united in supporting the people of Ukraine in their fight for freedom and defending their sovereignty. I was proud to see so many communities throughout my constituency open their doors to support Ukrainians fleeing the unjustified war on their homeland. I think of the community members in Dauphin who launched the Parkland Ukrainian Family Fund to support parents and children fleeing to Canada. Since they launched this initiative, the community of Dauphin has provided homes for over 40 families. It is efforts and contributions like these that showcase how strong the relationship between Canada and Ukraine is.
As Ukraine continues to fight for its freedom, Conservatives will always stand with the people of Ukraine. We also understand the importance of trade and supply agreements with our friends in Ukraine. It was the Conservatives who negotiated the trade agreement with Ukraine, something we are very proud of. This agreement eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada’s merchandise exports to Ukraine. The proposed modernization of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement is an important subject in the House. As one of our strong allies, Ukraine represents hundreds of millions of dollars in trade every year.
Before I dig into Bill C-57, it is important to look at the history of this legislation and Canada’s relationship with Ukraine. In December 1991, almost 32 years ago to the day, a Conservative-led government became the very first western country to recognize Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. It was the previous Conservative government that championed Operation Unifier, in which the Canadian Armed Forces led a mission to fortify Ukraine’s armed forces through military training. This operation was very successful in preparing Ukrainian forces for their fight against Russia in this war and, as I said earlier, it was a Conservative government that successfully negotiated the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.
I am proud to stand today as a Conservative to speak up once again for the long-standing friendship between Canada and Ukraine. It should go without saying that nobody in the House is arguing that Canada and Ukraine move forward without free trade. In 2022, Canada’s total merchandise trade with Ukraine was $420 million, with $150 million in exports and $270 million in imports.
Canadians may be unaware, but motor vehicles and parts, fish and seafood, and pharmaceutical products were the top three exports to Ukraine, while Canada’s top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel, and electrical machinery and equipment. It is important to note that, if Bill C-57 is implemented, the current free trade agreement from 2017 will remain in effect. This would provide time for Canada and Ukraine to get this legislation right, in ways that best serve Canadian and Ukrainian needs alike.
It is vital that, as legislators, we exercise due diligence and ensure that any trade agreement is one which serves the interests of all Canadians. This is why Conservatives are working and engaging with Canadians and stakeholders to ensure that their feedback is heard and taken into consideration before Bill C-57 is rushed through Parliament. It is no secret that the current Liberal government has a failed record of engaging with stakeholders and listening to Canadians. Listening to the concerns of Canadians is not one of the government’s strong suits. That is why Conservatives are determined to ensure that good legislation passes through Parliament.
Upon reviewing Bill C-57, it becomes quite apparent that there is room for improvement and that there are many missed opportunities to strengthen support for Ukraine. Constant attacks from Russia have damaged and destroyed much of Ukraine, but in Bill C-57, there is a lack of focus on rebuilding. One subject that is missing from the legislation is support for rebuilding energy infrastructure. In a time of energy insecurity, one would think that rebuilding energy infrastructure would be top of mind. How are the people of Ukraine supposed to rebuild their economy when their energy infrastructure is not functional?
Another area that the Liberals seem to have ignored is Canada’s inability to provide liquid natural gas to its allies. Had it not been for the Prime Minister’s anti-energy policies, Canada would have been better suited to supporting Ukraine and our allies by supplying LNG to the world. By doing so, we could help cut off Putin from supplying energy to Europe. Instead, after eight years, the government has not built a single LNG terminal. The government has no regard for the importance of exporting Canadian energy to our allies around the world. Canada stands as the only NATO ally equipped to meet the energy needs of Europe, possessing a blessing of natural resources. This includes being the world's fourth-largest holder of oil reserves, boasting NATO's third-largest reserve of natural gas, and possessing the capability to expand the production of agricultural products and technologies on a global scale. Instead, Ukraine and Europe are forced to fund their enemy in war.
Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia. As I said earlier, Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interests of Canada and of all Canadians. I mentioned how Conservatives were the ones who successfully negotiated the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. It is important that we debate the legislation thoroughly and continue to support the Ukrainian people, especially in this time of war. I, along with Canada’s Conservatives, will continue to stand with Ukraine.
1209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the question was in that comment. Canada and Conservatives, from a Conservative position, stand eager to help Ukraine in its rebuilding. We know that a free trade agreement is going to be part of that, so that it will enable us to supply them with what it needs to regain its position as the breadbasket of Europe.
Ukraine has tremendous agricultural assets that we can leverage here from Canada. We have got the expertise. We have got equipment manufacturing. We are going to be very willing and eager to stand with it in its rebuilding process.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, at the international trade committee, we had the Ukrainian ambassador, and we had a very good interaction with her. She emphasized Ukraine's desire to see this legislation go through. She emphasized the importance of this legislation, specifically touching upon the huge infrastructure that has been damaged, the cost of which is about $400 billion.
She also emphasized that we need to get ready now so that Canada can be a partner in the rebuilding of Ukraine. She explained that last year, at the Ukraine rebuilding conference, which was held in Canada, was overcrowded with Canadians companies and Ukrainian companies getting ready for the war to be over and to rebuild Ukraine.
I would like to have the hon. member's comments on that.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a good question because it would appear as though perhaps there is an inconsistency in our position. There is not.
Conservatives support Ukraine. We negotiated the first free trade agreement. We support free trade. There is currently a free trade agreement in place. It works. There is nothing wrong with it. In fact, if anything, it is in favour of Ukraine. That was negotiated intentionally to help a fledgeling company in its pursuit of democracy and freedom and the rights of humans and the furtherance of democracy.
Do we want to know what the cost is? Absolutely, we do not just blindly rush into things such as national pharmacare and free dental for everybody without wanting to know the cost.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course, I am very much a supporter of free trade with Ukraine and anything else we can do to help a democracy stand up against an invasion of its territory.
I am a little concerned by the Conservatives saying that their support for Ukraine is unequivocal and then saying that it has limits, and that they seem concerned about the cost. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the speech, saying there is unequivocal support and then saying that we have to know how much it costs before that support is unequivocal.
I know that the government and New Democrats certainly stand with Ukraine. We do not want to offer any hope to Russia that we are somehow going to abandon Ukraine, which I am afraid the member's speech did toward the end.
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course, Canadians know that Conservatives support Ukraine. We have demonstrated that through our support of the help and the aid that we have provided to Ukraine in the last year and a half.
Our support is unequivocal for Ukraine.
Conservatives are prudent, and we like to know what the cost is before we make big commitments. Really, all we are asking of the government is to, for once in its history, provide Conservatives, the House and Canadians with the cost of what it is saying it is going to be. There needs to be transparency, and that is something that is sorely lacking from the Liberal-NDP government.
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the problem with that last speech is that none of the facts back up what the member said.
He said that Conservatives stand with Ukraine. He will have to explain to me why, when President Zelenskyy came to the House, the Leader of the Opposition never once mentioned it on social media. As a matter of fact, in an act of subtle defiance, the member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back a year ago, to the last time Zelenskyy addressed this Parliament, to quote a tweet of what he had said that time, as though that was somehow justifying the fact that he had visited this time.
More importantly, to the red herring that he just pulled up about why we need this now, it is because Ukraine came to the table, sat down with Canada and made the deal. Now the Ukrainian Canadian Congress says that it “strongly supports the strengthening of trade and economic ties between Canada and Ukraine. Canada and Ukraine have negotiated this treaty, and we call on all parties to support the swift adoption and implementation.”
Does the member know better about this issue than the Ukrainian Canadian Congress?
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is an honour, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation today.
I am from a Mennonite background, and the majority of my constituents are of Mennonite origin. Canadian Mennonites, by and large, come from Ukraine. The first group migrated to Canada in the 1870s, and another large group followed in the 1920s, fleeing socialism and communism. After the war, many fled, escaping from the socialist dictatorships in eastern Europe and fleeing to Canada via Paraguay and other South American countries. The stories these folks tell are truly mind-blowing, stories of how families walked out of Ukraine on foot with just the clothes on their backs, at times having to resort to eating grass and travelling by night trying to avoid the communists so they could come to Canada, a land of freedom and opportunity. My grandparents were among those who fled the Russians and came to Canada in the 1920s, so Ukraine and the Ukrainian people have a special place in my heart and in the hearts of my constituents.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Canada has sought to help Ukraine. In fact, it was 35 years ago this month, in November 1988, that the dissolution of the Soviet Union began. The communist experiment had failed. The Marxist socialist fantasy had collapsed under the weight of its own tyranny, moral bankruptcy and economic weakness. It was shortly thereafter, in December 1991, under Prime Minister Mulroney, that Canada proudly became the first western nation to officially recognize Ukraine. Fast-forward two decades to 2015. It was the Conservatives whose successfully negotiated the first and current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and voted unanimously to ratify it. In fact, it was my good friend and fellow Mennonite, the member for Abbotsford, who was the lead negotiator on that deal, and I commend him for his great work, which today stands the test of time. Conservatives are strong supporters of free trade, and we are supporters of Ukraine.
I say all this to dispel the ridiculous notion the government tries to propagate that somehow Conservatives do not support Ukraine. We do. To equate or try to correlate a lack of support for this government's failed policies with a lack of support for Ukraine is simply dishonest and in very poor taste. Again, for anyone not paying attention thus far, let me say it one more time: Conservatives are strong supporters of free trade and we are strong supporters of Ukraine.
No one is debating whether or not we should have free trade with Ukraine; that is not the question. The question is this: What are the changes being proposed, and, as with any trade agreement, will those changes be of long-term benefit to Canada? However, there is a second question, and I do think it is a fair question, which is whether now is really the right time to be doing this. I guess if I were to sum up my feelings on the bill before us, my response would be “No, now is not the right time.” Ukraine is in the middle of a war for its very survival. I am not a Ukrainian government official, but if the situation were reversed and Canada were in a war for its survival, and suddenly Ukraine came knocking from halfway around the world and said, “Hey, we realize you're kind of busy surviving, but we thought now would be a great time to revisit our trade relationship”, my response would be “Seriously, you're bringing this up now?” Free trade is great. Free trade is important. Conservatives are the party of free trade, but, frankly, we do have a free trade deal in place. It has not expired and will not expire, so why now?
The government has added 11 new chapters to the agreement. It is pushing to rush this legislation through the House. The questions is why. What kind of woke clauses is it trying to slip in here, a carbon tax perhaps?
The government has bragged, “For the first time in a Canadian free trade agreement, the environment chapter includes provisions recognizing the importance of...climate change policies, including through market-based approaches and trade-related climate measures to achieve green growth objectives.” That sounds like Liberal for carbon tax to me. I know that is a big concern we are hearing from business leaders. Carbon taxes hurt trade the same way they hurt families. They increase the cost of everything while doing nothing to demonstrably help the environment.
Europe has been begging us to support LNG, and where the Americans have done so, Canada has once again fallen behind. It has fallen behind because the government continues to put its ideological vendetta against our energy sector and its carbon tax scam ahead of Canadian competitiveness and affordability for families.
Failing to develop and export clean and ethically sourced Canadian energy to Europe only serves to strengthen Russia. By failing to develop our vast energy resources, we are actually helping Russia and keeping Europe reliant on Russian oil and gas. In fact, as my colleague from Calgary Heritage noted in his speech a while back, “Canada is the sole NATO ally with the potential to backfill European energy demand with $3-trillion worth of natural resources, the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, NATO’s third-largest reserves of natural gas and the capacity to scale agricultural products and technologies for the world.” That is Canada.
Canada could be an international leader, helping to strengthen developing democracies while at the same time growing our own economy and national security through reasonable and responsible resource development, rather than the international pariah we have become after eight years of the failed Prime Minister. He is not worth the cost to Canadians and he is not worth the cost to the free world.
As I wrap up my remarks this afternoon, I would like to stay on this subject for a moment: the cost of the Prime Minister to Canadians and how this relates to the current conversation and current conflict in Europe.
We are united in this House in saying that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was wrong. We are horrified by the violence. With one voice, we condemn the violence. We have stood with the people of Ukraine in their hour of need. Canada has provided some 10 billion dollars' worth of humanitarian, military and direct financial support. That said, the Prime Minister and the government have been consistent and unequivocal in saying, “We will...support Ukraine with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.” That concerns me a bit, and I have heard that concern from a growing number of my constituents. I think when a leader makes statements like this, Canadians deserve to know what that looks like. When the Prime Minister says, “whatever it takes, for as long as it takes”, what exactly does he mean?
Ukraine is our friend. Russia's invasion was wrong. Still, Canadians should have reasonable expectations and know what and who their government is committing them to. I fear the government's woke excitement and alarmism blinds it not only to what is really important in a trade deal, but also when it comes to the basic democratic values that we expect of our friends and international partners.
As my colleague from Yellowhead noted in his speech, “Canada stands as a beacon of democracy and human rights on the world stage. When people buy Canadian, they are not just buying a product. They are buying into a set of values, values that respect human dignity, prioritize environmental sustainability and advocate for peace.” Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press are things that matter. They are under assault in Canada under the Prime Minister and are under assault in Ukraine. Truth is the first casualty of war, and freedom quickly follows. Friends should always have each other's backs, but sometimes we also need to sit down and have tough conversations. I recognize that is part of a larger conversation than the one we are having here today.
To wrap up, Conservatives believe in supporting our Ukrainian friends, including through trade, but those costs need to be clearly defined for Canadians. We believe Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strengths to support the Ukrainian people, including by exporting Canadian LNG to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia.
Conservatives are looking very carefully at this legislation. We are talking to those in affected sectors. We will work to ensure our trade and other international agreements are always in the interests of Canada and all Canadians.
1476 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the report of the Standing Committee on National Defence concerning the Arctic, I would like to briefly touch on the other debate that was supposed to take place today, on Bill C-57, which implements a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.
In the questions I asked earlier today, particularly to the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, I mentioned that, unfortunately, even if we do take time to debate bills meant to implement international trade agreements, the role of MPs is, after all, quite limited. We can basically only agree or disagree with the content of the treaties, since they are negotiated and drafted by the executive branch. The role of MPs—who represent the people and are supposed to play the most democratic role of all—is rather limited. It is so limited that, as I mentioned earlier, when an interim agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom was being negotiated after Brexit, the members of the Standing Committee on International Trade did not even have the text of the treaty in front of them when they were supposed to be debating it. This shows just how limited the role of Canadian members of Parliament is in drafting, negotiating and improving international treaties.
Even though we have clearly not had much time to debate Bill C‑57, from what I understand we will have even less given the announcement that was just made about a time allocation. I still have questions about what MPs are even able to do with the time they are allocated for debates on international agreements.
That said, I want to make a few comments on the Arctic committee's report. First, I would say that the content of this report, no matter what other debate might be overshadowed by the Arctic debate, is extremely important and is bound to change over time. Since this report was first debated, there have been articles in the media that have made me rather pessimistic about the importance the government places on monitoring in the north. During questions and comments today, there was a lot of talk about climate change in the north. We know that traffic in the north has increased by approximately 44% between 2013 and 2019. That is the result of melting glaciers and the fact that the Northwest Passage is opening up even more.
In the meantime, the government is decreasing its investments in environmental monitoring and follow up. This summer, we found out that some weather stations are closing. Since 2017, some of these stations have no longer even been able to send information on what is happening weather-wise in the north. That is problematic in terms of ship navigation and knowledge of the area. It even affects the statistics collected by Environment Canada since the data that is collected in the north is no longer being taken into account.
In the meantime, we see that Russia is investing heavily in weather stations. In the past year, Russia installed 42 new weather stations to learn more about the land because it is interested in that land. There is a major gap between these two Arctic nations, Canada and Russia, when it comes to their interest in what is going on with the climate. This is going to be a critical issue in the next few years.
Madam Speaker, I see that you are about to cut me off.
579 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that it is hard not to see a pattern this week, as on both Wednesday and Friday, Bill C-57 was scheduled. It is made all the more odd by the fact that most people in Canada who claim Ukrainian descent live in an area represented by Conservative MPs. I hope those Conservative MPs are able to explain themselves to their constituents.
I want to ask my hon. colleague a question about this report. We know that the Arctic Ocean is warming at a rate that is seven times the global average. We know that the loss of permafrost and the opening of sea lanes present an existential threat to our military capabilities and Arctic communities there. We were disappointed in not seeing any emphasis in the report on that particular point.
I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the need to focus more attention on how a warming climate is affecting our capabilities there.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what he is talking about. By bringing in the concurrence motion, doing what he has been asked to do by the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has prevented the debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what he has done. By doing that, the Conservative Party continues to filibuster what is a very important piece of legislation. I do not know if the member realizes that. Based on the question, I do not think he does.
It is great that the standing committee is continuing a discussion and having dialogue and so forth. That is what should be happening at the standing committee. If the member wants the debate to take place on the floor of the House, he can put it forward in the form of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of other alternatives.
Why play games? Why politicize Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine deal? Why not allow that legislation to pass?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
