Conservatives weren’t only trying to protect the Ukrainians, but were, also, trying to protect Canadians
In other words, Canada is fully bound by this agreement and the present laws established under this government. And the Ukraine, if we change governments and/or the rules, can take issue with Canada, including demanding a Panel be struck for dispute resolution (see Article 13.29). This includes the “carbon tax” issue (Article 13.10 para. 8).
Thirdly, provincial jurisdiction. Most certainly the federal government can enter into agreements as it did for soft-wood lumber – but when it comes to forest management – that is completely under provincial jurisdiction. So, when this agreement speaks to “Sustainable Forest Management,” in Article 13.22, expressing that “each Party shall encourage trade in forest products from sustainably managed forests harvested in accordance with the law of the country of harvest,” in Canada, it isn’t the “country of harvest” laws – it would be the province of harvest laws.
This would mean the federal government is attempting, through this agreement, (i) to bind the various provinces to an international bilateral agreement, and (ii) interfere, again, in provincial constitutional jurisdiction.
In light of this, it seems the Conservatives weren’t only trying to protect the Ukrainians, but were, also, trying to protect Canadians. Perhaps an entirely different agreement should be struck leaving out the entirety of Article 13, considering Canada and the Ukraine already have international agreements, either pending or in place pertaining to all subjects in Article 13, wouldn’t one agree?