What was behind that Conservative vote against the Ukraine trade deal?

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre says his party supports Ukraine. He also says it supports free trade with Ukraine.

But when it came time this week for the House of Commons to vote on legislation to implement an update to Canada’s free trade agreement with Ukraine, 109 Conservative MPs voted against the bill.

The mere fact of those votes — after two years of broad, multi-partisan support for Ukraine as it defends itself against a Russian invasion — would be noteworthy on its own. Even more striking were the Conservative leader’s attempts to rationalize the vote.

According to Poilievre, it’s all about a carbon tax that is, somehow, being imposed on Ukraine.

“I really think it speaks to how pathologically obsessed [Justin] Trudeau is with the carbon tax that, while the knife is at the throat of Ukrainians, he would use that to impose his carbon tax ideology on those poor people,” Poilievre told reporters on Wednesday. “The last thing they need is a carbon tax when they’re trying to rebuild from war and from this illegal invasion by Russia.”

Later, during question period, Poilievre accused the Liberal government of “betraying” Ukraine. On Thursday, the Conservative used the words “cruel” and “disgusting” to describe what he claims the Liberal government is doing.

Ukraine has had a carbon tax for years

The basis for Poilievre’s concerns seems to be a clause in chapter 13 of the modernization agreement between Canada and Ukraine (the new agreement runs to 30 chapters, plus annexes).

“Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to … promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks,” the agreement states.

On the face of it, that text does not appear to be particularly imposing. Testifying before a House of Commons committee earlier this month, the federal government’s chief trade negotiator said the provisions weren’t binding and were meant to promote discussion and co-operation.

On Thursday, a spokesperson for the Ukrainian embassy in Ottawa told the Globe and Mail the modernized agreement “does not include any specific instruments on decreasing carbon footprint, including specific taxation instruments.”

Poileivre’s insistence that this is meant to “impose” a carbon tax on Ukrainians is also hard to square with the fact that Ukraine has had a carbon tax since 2011.

Even as it defends itself against Russia, the government of Ukraine is also reportedly developing its own emissions-trading system — a form of carbon pricing — to bring its policies into line with the trade policies of the European Union. 

Ukraine is actively seeking membership in the EU. If or when that happens, the country presumably will join Europe’s emissions trading system, which has been in place since 2005. 

The Liberals offer their own explanation

While the Liberals have denounced the Conservatives for voting against the modernization agreement, Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan also claimed on Wednesday that “no one is buying this carbon tax excuse.”

Government House leader Karina Gould, meanwhile, seemed to hint at another motivation when she suggested that “Conservatives are following in the steps of right-wing American politicians.”

It’s true that American Republicans are divided over whether or how much to support Ukraine in its fight against Russia. Republican opposition in Congress is currently standing in the way of the latest American aid package. And the notion of Canadian conservatives following the trajectory of American conservatives might seem particularly plausible to Liberals, who are keen to draw such connections.

But it’s just a theory. There’s scant evidence so far to back it up.

The Liberals might believe the talk about a carbon tax is just a smokescreen. But it’s enough right now to assess the Conservatives’ explanation for the vote on its own merits.

Despite the holes in Poilievre’s theory — that updating a free trade agreement is somehow going to “impose” a carbon tax on Ukraine — is it still possible that the Conservative Party’s position has something to do with its own opposition to a carbon tax?

What if it really is about carbon pricing?

When Poilievre was asked on Wednesday why his party had voted against the legislation, he stated — before claiming that Trudeau’s “pathological obsession” was leading the prime minister to dictate Ukrainian climate policy — that his party is “against putting a carbon tax into any trade agreement.”

If one ignores the rest of Poilievre’s answer, maybe that initial comment offers a narrower explanation — that the Conservatives rejected a free trade agreement simply because it includes the words “carbon pricing.” But that raises other questions.

For one thing, it’s not clear yet that Poilievre’s Conservatives oppose all forms of carbon pricing. The federal carbon price implemented by the Trudeau Liberals has two elements — a consumer fuel levy and industrial pricing system for large emitters. Poilievre has only categorically ruled out the consumer levy.

Promising to repeal both elements would create an even bigger hole in Canada’s climate regime for Conservatives to fill with different policies. But can the Conservatives logically oppose a free trade agreement because it mentions “carbon pricing” while also accepting some form of carbon pricing themselves? Perhaps they’re content to figure out an answer to that question later.

In the meantime, the Conservatives might be left with the explanation that 109 Conservative MPs voted against a 30-chapter free trade agreement with a Canadian ally simply because it included the words “carbon pricing” in a non-binding clause.

Do Conservatives consider that a matter of principle? Do they believe they would have suffered politically with their own supporters if they had voted in favour of a trade agreement that included those words? On what basis would it be worth voting against the entire agreement because of a single reference to carbon pricing?

Regardless of how those questions are answered, it might be fair to say that when Poilievre accuses Trudeau of being “pathologically obsessed” with a carbon tax, he could be projecting.