Bill C-57

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

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

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

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House was scheduled to debate Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Instead, the Conservative Party played procedural games by moving a concurrence motion that prevented debate on this important piece of legislation.

In recent months, the leader of the Conservative Party has become silent on Ukraine. He has never advocated for military, humanitarian or economic support for Ukraine, has never called out Russia for its acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people and has never raised the issue in Parliament, except for false narratives about the war, including the statement that it does not contribute to inflation in Canada.

I call on the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada to put aside the games, let us debate Bill C-57 and pass this important piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Baldinelli, Mr. Cannings, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Martel.

I'd like the opportunity to respond so I don't necessarily want to wait until the other speakers have spoken.

Is it okay with everybody if I respond to the suggestions so that there's a better understanding of where we're going with this?

We all know that Bill C-57 takes precedence, as Mr. Seeback said, over everything else. It was expected. Bill C-57 had to come. We have to deal with it because it's legislation, and then immediately following the four meetings that were decided on for Bill C-57, we go on to the port study, which is scheduled at the moment for the end of this month.

There's been a delay in the House with getting the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement into this committee due to concurrence motions being tabled. We all know what's going on. It's been deliberately to delay the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement from moving on.

The clerk has to have a schedule and we expected the legislation to be here, which is why the schedule is the way it is. We did the biocides and, normally, if it were not for the concurrence motions being moved in the House, the legislation would be here. It was scheduled for Monday, and we had asked the minister as well to be here for the beginning of that study, which is normal, and the schedule worked as well.

It's efficient use of our time as a committee. The concurrence motions in the House are delaying its getting here, because it was scheduled to be debated yesterday and Friday. We have the four meetings, and we immediately go on to the Vancouver port strike that we talked about. That was the plan. That is the schedule that is before us at the moment.

Since Bill C-57 is not here yet, but it will be at some point, the idea was to do a prestudy and then apply that information so that we can continue with the schedule that's before us. There was no intention to be devious about anything. The legislation takes precedence. It is the holdup in the House that's preventing it from being here, so that's all I'm going to say about that.

Mr. Baldinelli, you have the floor.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I therefore propose that we devote the next four meetings to our preliminary study of Bill C‑57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, given that the minister and the officials will be available next week.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, that's why I wanted to talk. I just didn't know if you had an introduction, Madam Chair.

I'm going to switch to French. It's easier for me.

Madam Chair, it is my understanding that the minister would be available to meet us next week with officials from her department. That's why I'd like to propose that we begin our preliminary study of Bill C‑57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which is currently before the House. This would allow us, over the next few weeks, to study this very important issue, and we could combine this with the appearance of the minister and the officials, given that she is available next week. We would have four meetings to conduct this preliminary study.

Shall I formally propose a motion for debate?

Foreign Affairs and International Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to bring to your attention that during my speech, I made reference to the fact that Conservatives had tried to move unanimous consent on Bill C-57. My information was incorrect. It was Bill C-350 I was thinking of when I made that comment.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the expression, “with friends like that, who needs enemies”. I feel this expression is particularly appropriate today, and today is just a new episode in a series of actions taken by the Conservatives that I believe will prove extremely harmful to Ukraine.

It takes a lot of gall for the Conservatives to launch this debate today on the motion to concur in the report on Ukraine. I will explain.

It took months for the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to concur in this report, which was supported nearly unanimously by the committee members. Indeed, the Conservatives decided to filibuster the work of the committee, which made it impossible for us to concur in this report. Not only did this filibuster unduly delay concurring in the report, it also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from travelling to Ukraine for a first time.

I will come back to this, because our Conservative friends also prevented the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development from going to Ukraine a second time.

The first time was because of their filibuster, which lasted months. I think I can safely say it lasted three months. I will digress for a moment. I have said repeatedly that the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development should be the least partisan House committee. Deep down, we are not so far apart in our values. Furthermore, it is to our benefit to present a united front abroad, especially concerning the war in Ukraine, and yet it took months for this report to finally see the light of day.

The Conservatives decided to present a motion to concur in this report today. Please understand me: It is an excellent report. I will come back to that in a few moments. However, why are they choosing to debate it today? Why choose to do it this afternoon, at the very same time the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting? I was supposed to speak in committee, but I had to ask my colleague from Shefford to take over on short notice because I had to come give a speech to the House for the concurrence of a report from this committee. Could the timing have been any worse?

Even worse, the subject the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is debating is humanitarian aid for Ukraine. Who started this debate at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development? As members may have guessed, it was the Conservatives. The Conservatives are filibustering themselves, as it were. We are debating one of their motions at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but at the same time, we must debate concurrence of this report on Ukraine in the House. What bad timing.

Worse yet, the Conservatives chose to hold this concurrence debate when we were supposed to be discussing Bill C-57. My colleagues referred to it earlier. Bill C‑57 deals with implementing a free trade agreement with Ukraine. The Conservatives are delaying the passage of a bill that would ratify and implement a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

It seems like the Conservatives are constantly trying to prevent us from getting Ukraine the help it needs. What did Ukraine need today? If we want to put ourselves in the shoes of our Ukrainian friends, our Ukrainian allies, we must ask ourselves what they needed today from the House of Commons.

Did they need the House to make progress toward the passage of a bill on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, or did they need us to concur in this report on Ukraine today, rather than three weeks, three months or nine months ago?

In other words, we could have concurred in this report some time ago. The Conservatives, however, chose to move concurrence on the very afternoon we should have been discussing the bill to implement the free trade agreement with Ukraine.

I do not believe that Ukraine needed this report concurred in today. Ukrainians needed it months ago. They needed the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to finally come out with this report months back. However, the Conservatives decided to throw sand in the gears and delay everything. This just shows how constructive our Conservative colleagues are. They never miss an opportunity to throw sand in the gears.

Our Liberal colleagues failed to get the message after the last election that they would have to govern as a minority government and take everyone's opinion into account, but I think our Conservative friends also failed to understand that their role is not to stop Parliament from functioning, but to ensure that Parliament moves forward. Every time that the discussion turned to Ukraine, the Conservatives put up roadblocks.

They blocked the adoption of this report. It took months before we could adopt it. The Conservatives spent a long time filibustering on a completely different issue: the fact that we wanted to undertake a study on women's sexual health. Of course this topic bothers them, because the word “abortion” was mentioned. It means the intentional termination of a pregnancy, and they think that it is terrible. Instead of letting us proceed with the report on Ukraine, they spent months throwing sand in the gears. In the end, they did not prevent us from launching the study on women's sexual health. We even completed it. However, they did obstruct the work of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for months, which delayed the adoption of this report for months.

Because of their obstruction, we were unable to complete the request for a mission to Ukraine. They decided that we would no longer travel, that parliamentarians should not travel anymore. Last summer, they once again refused to let the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development travel to Ukraine. As I said at the outset, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

The Conservatives keep repeating that they love Ukraine and are determined to defend Ukraine. In reality, however, they are not walking the talk. They keep looking for ways to throw sand in the gears every chance they get. It is extremely unfortunate. Ukrainians need our support, which includes increased trade between the two countries.

The implementation of this free trade agreement has been delayed because, once again, the Conservatives are using completely futile and unproductive parliamentary guerrilla tactics that only delay what must be done. That is what is the most detrimental. This report was delayed for months before it was finally adopted. The Conservatives delayed it to stop the committee from doing a study on women's reproductive health, which was finally able to take place. All the Conservatives are doing is delaying what needs to be done. This free trade agreement needs to be implemented, and it will be.

However, once again, we are being forced to deal with the tactics of the Conservative Party, which is self-filibustering in that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development is sitting right now to study the matter of providing humanitarian and food aid to Ukraine as a result of a Conservative Party motion. It makes no sense.

When this report was made public, I said that I was very proud of the work that was done by the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, but I also said that I was very embarrassed. This report sets out 15 recommendatoins and contains some very worthwhile proposals to better support Ukraine in its fight against Russia, which have not yet all been implemented by the government. As I said earlier in my speech, it took months to release this report.

At that time, I also had the opportunity to say that the war has showcased how extremely dependent western economies are on oil and gas. Our Conservative friends reacted by saying that we were going to sell more to our European allies, not realizing that the other observation coming out of this war is that we need to get away from oil and gas post-haste. We need to support Europe so that it can get moving on the green shift as quickly as possible and reduce its dependence not only on Russian oil, but on oil in general.

I said at the time that this study is not finished. It will continue as long as the war continues. That is why the committee is meeting even as we speak. That is why I said that the committee will soon go to Ukraine, which, thanks to the Conservatives, has not been able to happen until now.

I said that this is an interim report because other things are going to come up. The war is not over; it is ongoing. We have to pay attention to what is happening and adjust our recommendations as the situation evolves. That is what is being done at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as I give this speech.

Once again, our Conservative friends said that the Russian ambassador needed to be expelled. I mentioned the fact that we decided the time might not be right for such an action, although it is still an option. The lines of communication have to stay open. I am calling on our Liberal friends to show some consistency, because even though the Russian embassy remains open here, and the Canadian embassy is still open in Moscow, diplomatic communication has ended for all intents and purposes. There is no contact anymore.

We obviously support the sanctions regime that has been put in place against Russia, Belarus, oligarchs and banks of all kinds. The fact is—and this was the subject of our observations—that we are not in a position to accurately determine the extent of the assets and the nature of the frozen assets. The government made a point of passing legislation allowing it to seize assets to help rebuild Ukraine, but it still does not seem to know how to proceed legally in that regard. We have been unable to determine the nature and extent of the assets seized. This has been hard to assess for the simple reason that the government decided to outsource this responsibility to the private sector and the banks, without giving them any specific information about what was expected of them.

We understand that banks might be a little uneasy about having to sanction customers. The federal government has therefore shirked its responsibilities, which means that we are not really in a position to have a clear idea of what is happening with the sanctions. The monitoring process is difficult to follow. Of course, we have to coordinate with our allies, but we also have to take into account our own specific conditions.

We talked about the fact that a certain number of Russian banks have been excluded from the SWIFT international system, which is very good news. The problem is that there are still some Russia banks on the SWIFT system. What do members think happened? Transactions simply moved from certain banking institutions to others, so now they are getting around the sanctions, often with help from third-party states, which is enabling Russia to continue waging war on Ukraine. All these measures need tightening up.

Our agriculture critic noted that some sanctions even seem counterproductive. I am thinking of the ones targeting grains and seeds, which are punishing our own producers and making Russian products more competitive on international markets than Canadian products. In that case, the result goes against the desired objective.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development started studying our sanctions regime. We are currently finalizing a report on that. We see that there is still a lot of work to be done.

I will close by saying that it is a good report and it is a good thing that it is being concurred in. However, I will reiterate the question I asked earlier: Was today the right day to move concurrence? I do not think so, and I think I have demonstrated that, for a whole host of reasons, the strategic and tactical choices that the Conservatives made turned out to be harmful for Ukraine. We are seeing yet another example of that today, which is extremely harmful.

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

Mr. Speaker, for starters, we should probably recognize what did not happen there. Normally, a Conservative would lead to ask me a question, but not a single one of them rose. I appreciate the question from my colleague from the Bloc, and I spoke at length to Bill C-57, as I indicated, the first time it came around.

This is an opportunity for Canada to work with Ukraine and look forward into the future on how we help it rebuild when it wins the war; its people will win that war. When they do, Canada will be there with them through trade relationships and opportunities to work together to rebuild their nation. They deserve it from us. They are certainly in agreement with wanting that trade legislation. The only people I know who do not seem to be in agreement with it are some Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he, like me, would like to talk about and debate Bill C‑57 to see what it has to offer both Canada and Ukraine. The purpose is not to take advantage of anyone, but to help a country rebuild as soon as possible.

Let us slightly shift direction. I would like to ask my colleague what he would have talked about if we had had the opportunity to discuss Bill C‑57. What highlights of this bill are important to remember?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are 15 recommendations in total, and in the government's detailed letter, a 12-page response to the recommendations, it indicated that it would take note of it.

The member started her comments by talking about the trade agreement. The best I can tell, at least the Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals want to see that trade agreement pass through. All of us anticipated that that would be what we were debating today.

We are talking about a report that everyone agrees with. No one is questioning it. The report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the trade agreement. If the Conservatives do not support the trade agreement, then fine, they should say so. They should have the courage to stand up to say that they do not support the trade agreement.

Otherwise, why are the Conservatives preventing the debate from occurring? Why will they not let the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine go to committee? I highlighted the fact that we even had the president, during wartime, leave Ukraine to come to Canada to sign the trade agreement. It is a good agreement. The legislation is there. We should be passing it through the system.

My appeal, once again, to the Conservative Party is for them to stop wasting the time of the chamber. Let us debate Bill C-57, and let us get it to committee. Let us make a powerful statement to the world, jointly, in an non-political fashion, by supporting Ukraine at this difficult time in history.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would undoubtedly prefer to be addressing the Canada-Ukraine agreement as well. That said, it would seem that the problem, whether hypothetical or real—that is not for me to debate—lies in the government's response to certain recommendations, notably recommendation 15.

Sometimes it is better to get to the bottom of things and ask the question outright. Why has the government responded to recommendation 15 in this way? If the government were to explain so we could understand, it might calm things down and we could get back to studying Bill C‑57.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the detailed explanation of all of the recommendations is addressed in the letter.

It is a false argument to say that we need to debate something everyone was supporting. This particular report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the free trade agreement with Ukraine. That is what this is doing. The committee is meeting today, and it is continuing discussions.

It is false argument. If the Conservatives want to continue to have a debate on whatever issue in the House, they have an opposition day tomorrow. They could have used the entire day to debate this. However, that is not the purpose. Conservatives are using this to prevent debate on Bill C-57.

The honourable thing to do would be to agree that Bill C-57 would pass, hopefully unanimously, before the end of this week, so that we could get it to committee and have a chance to pass through the entire system before Christmas. That is the best thing we could do for Ukraine and Canada's relationship, making a powerful statement to the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to talk about Canada, Ukraine and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

Before I get under way, I want to emphasize just how encouraging it has been to see a team Canada approach to dealing with what is taking place in Europe. We have had organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, along with different political entities of the House, different stakeholders, provincial governments and municipal governments, that have expressed nothing but love and care for Ukraine. We have seen phenomenal solidarity with Ukraine.

We are looking at the report that was brought forward today, and I would like to quote the response to the report that was provided by the minister. In the closing to the letter, she states:

On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for their multi-partisan support for Ukraine, which is crucial to Canada’s ability to be a steadfast ally of Ukraine, and for remaining so actively engaged on this critical area of Canadian foreign policy. This issue is above politics; it's about defending democracy and defending the right of freedom and sovereignty.

This is a letter from the minister to the committee members, and it responds to 15 recommendations, all of which are well detailed. It is a public document. Anyone who is following this debate can get a copy of the response to those recommendations. The study itself is still not complete. As I am speaking right now, the foreign affairs committee is continuing to have that dialogue.

I should add that I will be splitting my time with the deputy House leader.

I want to break my comments up into two areas. One is the report, and I just made reference to it. I will talk about the contents of the report and the way the committee has worked together. I applaud that, but there is no reason whatsoever for us to be debating the report today. The second is what we should be debating, which is Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

This report is still being studied at the foreign affairs committee. The purpose of the Conservatives bringing forward this motion today has more to do with playing a game on the floor of the House of Commons than it does with the critical issue of what is taking place in Ukraine today. That saddens me. By doing this, they are politically intervening with what we could be debating today, Bill C-57.

Back in September, President Zelenskyy visited Canada. At a time of war, the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with parliamentarians of all political stripes. He signed a trade agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. We now have an agreement, and it means so much more than just economic ties. We recognize the true value of this trade agreement. It goes far beyond just economics. It is a very powerful statement. It says to Europe and the world that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that will have trade around the world.

What we are talking about, or what we should have been talking about this afternoon, is how this unique trade agreement would enable Ukraine and Canada to build upon a very special, friendly relationship, which we we have had for decades. We have 1.3 million-plus people of Ukrainian heritage, and that was before the displacements from Ukraine. Many of them are in the Prairies, but they are all throughout Canada. They are very much interested in the debate, whether it is the debate in the chamber or at the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs. There is also a great level of interest in all areas as to whether we will be able to get Bill C-57 passed before Christmas.

Canada is in a great position to send a strong message, a message of leadership to the world, about our relationship with Ukraine by passing this legislation. Sadly, today is not the first time in which we have witnessed the Conservative Party of Canada filibuster this legislation. It is upsetting. It is upsetting because I see, first-hand, as Canadians see, what is taking place in Europe. The expectations for us to pass this legislation is, I believe, very high. It is the right thing to do.

This should be a non-partisan issue. I would suggest that, when it comes time to actually have that debate, if the Conservative Party would allow that debate, then the government should not have to bring in time allocation for it. I would suggest that, at this stage, if the Conservatives wanted to show good will, they would agree, unanimously at this point, to see Bill C-57 at the very least go to the committee stage. They should reflect on their behaviour and what they are doing.

I referred to a question I asked the member for Cumberland—Colchester. My colleague, the deputy House leader, made reference to it as well. The Conservatives continue to filibuster the Ukraine trade deal, but one of the last Conservative speakers to speak was the member for Cumberland—Colchester. Imagine what he said in his speech. He said the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is “woke”, that Bill C-57 is “woke”, and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine by having a trade agreement when Ukraine is at war.

That aspect concerns me greatly. I do not know where the Conservative Party really is on the issue because we have raised it before, and they are not providing comments. The Conservative Party in the past would say that it supports the concept and principles of free trade. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more free trade agreements than this government. We have the expertise. It is a good trade agreement, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine. Why is the Conservative Party not allowing this legislation to move forward? If it does not support the legislation, then it would be fully understandable, but if it supports the legislation and wants to get behind the trade agreement, why not allow it to pass and allow it to be debated?

I am going to be sitting down in a minute, and I trust that there will be a question from the Conservative Party. Maybe in that question the Conservatives can explain why they do not support the bill being debated or, at the very least, if they will consider allowing unanimous consent to see it go to committee so that we would have an attempt at getting it passed through the entire system, including the Senate, before Christmas. If we all want to get behind what is taking place in Europe and Ukraine today and continue to be non-partisan about it, I think that would be the right thing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, naturally, this is a very important report. I would have liked to talk about Bill C‑57, but this is an important report nonetheless.

I would like my colleague to talk about recommendation 6. For a long time, the Prairies of western Canada were considered Canada's breadbasket, that is, the place to source wheat and other grains. Ukraine has taken on this role globally.

What consequences does war have on the world's food supply? How can recommendation 6 help avoid food security problems around the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree with me that we are witnessing a certain level of hypocrisy today.

On the one hand we have a Conservative Party that likes to pretend it is supporting what is taking place and Canada's position with the allied forces against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-57, which plays a direct role with respect to Canada-Ukraine relations and what is taking place in Europe today. Instead of debating that bill, not only for the first time but now for the second time, the Conservatives are preventing it from being debated and being passed to go to committee.

The question I have for the member is this. His colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, said that Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal, is woke. He said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war by bringing in the bill. Is that why the Conservative Party continues to play the game of preventing the debate on Bill C-57 and it going to committee?

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about a really important piece of legislation, but if you will permit me, I just want to take 30 seconds to mention a constituent I made a promise to. She is actually one of your constituents, but we may have some crossover in the days ahead with redistribution.

Mary Fraser is a resident of south Berwick, and I had the privilege of going to her 100th birthday at the Waterville fire hall. I promised not only that I would wish her a happy birthday, and I know you have done the same, Mr. Speaker, but that I would make sure it gets into Hansard so it will forever be on the record here. A big round of applause for her. We love Mary, and I hope she is able to watch this at home when her family takes a clip of it.

We are here to debate Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Behind me are my colleagues from Etobicoke Centre and Outremont, who are champions for Ukraine. I want to take a few moments to recognize their work here in Parliament on behalf of all Canadians, especially those of Ukrainian descent. I thank my colleagues for their outstanding work.

Bill C-57 is very simple. Its objective is to implement the free trade measures established between Canada and Ukraine. The first free trade agreement with Ukraine was signed in 2017 and included goods but not services. Now, services are also included as part of Bill C-57 along with the measures established between the two countries.

We have talked a lot in the House about the challenges that Ukraine is facing as a result of Russia's illegal invasion and about the need to support Ukraine and its people in defending their country.

We have talked a lot about the war and Canada's contribution. I was a bit disappointed by the comments from the member for Cumberland—Colchester, who referenced this legislation as being “woke”. That was disappointing to hear. This piece of legislation is simply establishing a trade agreement and furthering the ties we have between our two countries. Is he suggesting that the Government of Ukraine is woke? I do not think so. That government has been on the front lines of defending democracy. The member needs to clarify his comment at some point in this House. Hopefully he will have the opportunity.

This bill would extend measures that matter in the economic ties between Canada and Ukraine. It is what our two governments have been working on to advance. I know that members of this House who have large Ukrainian diasporas in their ridings are certainly proud to stand here and support this legislation. In fact, it would be great if all members of this House could agree on a way to fast-track this legislation. This should not be very controversial.

I hear some members of the NDP are calling for that. They believe in that principle. It is not within my purview, but perhaps the House leaders will have a conversation and we will not have to spend a lot of days on this bill and can advance it to committee for further study. Ultimately, when it comes from committee, we can get it to the Senate as soon as possible. Even better, and I have seen it before, is if the House leaders agree to send it right to the Senate. That would be even better, especially if we believe in this piece of legislation.

I am proud to be the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food here in Parliament and, as such, I think I need to take a moment to emphasize the importance of Canada's agricultural ties with Ukraine.

The former hon. member for Malpeque, Wayne Easter, called me a couple of weeks ago from Ukraine. He is there on a mission, working with potato farmers. This is being funded by a number of initiatives in Canada and the United States. He is there with other members. Of course, Wayne has a great history in agriculture. That is but one of the many examples where we share really deep ties between our two countries.

This agreement covers services, but we should also use it as an opportunity to highlight the deep agricultural ties between our two countries. The agriculture committee had the opportunity back in the spring, either this spring or in 2022, to have the Ukrainian minister of agriculture join us to talk about the challenges of the Russian infantry, which was laying land mines in the farmers' fields in Ukraine. I am proud to say on the record that Wayne and others are over there helping to build those ties.

There have been many other opportunities to build ties between Canada and Ukraine, particularly in terms of research on various methods related to seeds and different types of agricultural products. This is a good opportunity for Canada and Ukraine to continue their hard work.

Something I would encourage the government and all members of Parliament to reflect on is how they can contribute in that conversation as well.

We have talked a lot about the war effort and the support Canada can provide on the front lines with military assistance, but the Ukrainian economy needs the money and the opportunity so Ukraine itself can continue to fund its war effort. Of course, I stand here as a member of Parliament, and I know my colleagues before us do. We want to continue to see the government be a very willing partner and to draw international support to continue Ukraine's fight for its sovereignty, its place and its homeland. At the same time, this agreement is yet another opportunity that would be in the vested interests of both of our countries.

Ukraine would have opportunities to send products here. We would have the opportunity to send expertise and support to Ukraine. It would strengthen both of our economies at a time when Ukraine's economy is in challenging times, given the circumstances that are happening. I will note that Canada is the first country to sign, or in this case, to modernize and continue to advance our integrated economic ties. We are the only country so far that has been able to do that. I think that speaks to the importance of how President Zelenskyy and his government view Canada as a stable partner, a friend and an ally with which to move forward.

I will use my remaining time to say that this is a very straightforward piece of legislation that would build upon the existing economic ties we have. It is supported by both governments, here and in Ukraine. It is supported by the diaspora and by Canadians of Ukrainian heritage across the country, who will be calling on all members of Parliament to support really straightforward legislation to advance this as soon as possible to drive economic opportunities for themselves here in Canada and for their homeland, where they have family and friends.

We have had certain pieces of legislation before the House over the last couple of weeks that I really thought would be “slam dunks”. I thought there would be an opportunity for real partisan consensus in the ability to move legislation forward. I have been proven wrong on that, and things I thought would be able to be advanced quickly were not. I call on all members of the House. I know that on this side of the House, we will have that consensus, and it sounds as though the NDP will have that consensus. I presume the Bloc will. I do not know about the Conservatives, based on the conversations I have heard in the chamber over the last couple of hours. I am happy to take questions, but I hope the Conservatives can clarify that they are in support of this very straightforward bill that matters for Ukraine and for our economic security as well, because it is just straightforward common sense.