44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 23, 2023 11:00AM
- Oct/23/23 3:18:03 p.m.
- Watch
It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-50.
Call in the members.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 12 minutes.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:31:46 p.m.
- Watch
I am now, colleagues, ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 20 by the member for Calgary Shepard concerning an alleged use of unparliamentary language by the member for Whitby.
In his intervention, the member for Calgary Shepard stated that the member for Whitby accused the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes of making false claims in his oral question. The member for Calgary Shepard asserted that this was akin to claiming a member had deliberately mislead the House, had lied and that it was a breach of privilege to do so.
The Deputy House leader of the government countered that it did not appear clear that the exchange was in fact problematic. The member for Timmins—James Bay made the point that there was nothing wrong in stating that another member had “falsely claimed” a given assertion, noting that the expression has been used in the House frequently.
In reaching a conclusion, I am guided by precedents from my predecessors. On October 13, 1966, Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, at page 8599 of Debates, made the following point:
...is not, per se, unparliamentary to say of another Member that the statement he makes is false, untrue, wrong, incorrect or even spurious, unless there is an improper motive imputed or unless the Member making the charge claims the untruth was stated to the knowledge of the person stating any such alleged untruth.
I have also reviewed past Debates when similar occasions occurred. I note this expression being used with a certain regularity from all sides in the House.
Members may disagree about facts or argue that certain assertions are false. What is unparliamentary is to suggest that a member has deliberately stated something that is false or misleading, as it implies a dishonest intent.
In examining the exchange from last Friday and in considering past precedents, given the frequent use of similar expressions, I cannot find that the language itself was unparliamentary or that it constituted any sort of breach of privilege. That being said, it is incumbent upon the member for Whitby and all members to stay as far away as possible from imputing intent or motives to their colleagues and to not look for ways to do indirectly what they cannot do directly.
Mindful of my recent statement on decorum of October 18, members may find themselves looking to the Chair, from time to time, for guidance in how to interpret these new guidelines. I would ask all members to show mutual respect and good faith toward each other during the course of debate or in asking or responding to questions, and to abide by the spirit of Speaker Lamoureux's wise words.
While I cannot find anything unparliamentary in this instance, I would like to reiterate a point made in last Wednesday's statement, on page 17593 of Debates, “too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work.”
I implore members to take this message to heart when interacting with one another here in the House. Being judicious with our choice of words will, I think, reduce the frequency of disputes that arise between us and will lead to a more collegial environment for all.
I thank all members for their attention.
561 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
It is in relation to Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:36:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the most traumatic experience a parent can experience is the sudden loss of their child. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada has made this experience even more challenging for many families, by continuing to pay out child benefits and then seeking to claw them back. This puts undue stress and financial burden upon families that are grieving.
Today, I present a petition on behalf of Canadians who call on the federal government to extend the Canada child benefit to parents of deceased children for a period of at least two months after the traumatic loss of a child.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:37:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of the local Sudbury chapter of Citizens' Climate Lobby. It is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots advocacy climate change organization focused on national policies to address the global climate crisis.
The petition is in regard to the implementation of Bill S-243, an act to enact the climate-aligned finance act. The petition has 43 signatories.
The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to be a leader on aligning financial output with climate commitments.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:37:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 16th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are calling on the Liberal government to fix the out-of-control crime wave that has swept across the country and their community. Crime continues to terrorize the people of Swan River, damaging its people and businesses.
The people of Swan River support the calls from Conservatives for jail, not bail, for violent repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community.
I support the good people of Swan River.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:38:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who bring to the attention of the government the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which sets dire circumstances and indicates the drastic reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Specifically, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic in achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/23/23 3:39:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, we were talking about the importance of trade agreements to the nation. At the beginning of my comments, I highlighted how Canada was very much a trading nation. When I look at this modernization of the Ukraine trade agreement, I note that the original one was signed not that long ago, but a lot of things have changed since that. With respect to modernizing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I cannot help but think about what is taking place in Europe today and everything Ukraine is going through.
Allied forces and others have said, both in the House and beyond Canadian borders, that they are in solidarity with Ukraine. There is support for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. Trade relations with Ukraine go back to 2014 when Ukraine made the decision to try to build stronger, healthier economic links with the European Union. That was one of the reasons why we saw what took place, the attack on Ukraine independence and the Maidan Square. When I was in opposition, I had the opportunity to go and witness some of the aftermath. The people of Ukraine wanted to have enhanced trade relations with the European Union.
The president of Ukraine, who was elected after 2014, came to Canada and spoke on the floor of the House of Commons, albeit in Centre Block. He said to former prime minister Stephen Harper and the government that Ukraine and Canada had a very special relationship, that their legislatures and members of Parliament should look at ways to enhance that. He cited the importance of trade and the potential of a trade agreement.
I remember discussing it years ago with the minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister. We had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine, to be in Kyiv. We talked about the important relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the constitutional changes, the institutions and economic trade.
I was very pleased with one of the very first agreements that begun prior to 2016, when the first agreement was signed. I was very proud of the fact that it responded to original speech in 2014, that there was some movement. However, I was especially proud of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Deputy Prime Minister today were in a position to sign that formal agreement shortly after taking office. That in itself speaks to the special relationship between Canada and Ukraine.
Let us fast forward to Russia making an illegal attack on Ukraine sovereignty. The reaction throughout the world was very profound and positive in favour of Ukraine, recognizing the importance of sovereignty. It has been at a substantial cost. Ukraine today is fighting for, and demonstrating the importance of this throughout the world, democracy, rule of law and sovereignty. The Ukrainians have really stepped up to the plate. With all the things that are taking place in Ukraine today, the Ukrainians have recognized the importance of trade agreements.
The Prime Minister and the president met a couple of years ago. September 2022 is when the agreement was signed, but it was back in July 2019 that President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister agreed that we needed to do some sort of modernization to make some changes. These changes would ultimately broaden the goods and services, ensure a dispute mechanism and ensure better labour and working standards. We can look at how it would deal with environmental issues, and that is all within this particular trade agreement.
The Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine came together, recognized the importance of it and, just last month, signed an agreement. Now that agreement is before us, and we have an opportunity, through this legislation, to make a very strong, powerful commitment to our dear friends in Ukraine. We talk about that special relationship. Canada has a very special relationship, which goes back to 1991, in declaring our support for Ukraine as an independent country.
We often hear that 1.3 million-plus people who call Canada home are of Ukrainian heritage. There are tens of thousands of people who have been displaced from Ukraine because of the war who are now living in Canada, many in my home city of Winnipeg.
This particular agreement makes a very powerful statement. Ukraine does matter. This agreement does matter. Both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from it. Trade agreements are one of the ways to ensure that we continue to provide and grow middle-class jobs, both here in Canada and in Ukraine. This is legislation that has been negotiated, as I indicated earlier, by some of the world's best negotiators when it comes to trade. I am confident that the deal would be advantageous, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine.
The Conservative Party's initial comments on their desire to have a lot of people speak to this legislation concern me. Hopefully we can get this legislation passed, through the Senate and all, before Christmas.
834 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in what we can do with our Ukrainian allies.
My concern is the $54 billion in damaged housing in Ukraine, destroyed or damaged, which is almost 9% of the housing stock. There is massive damage to the energy grid and to the infrastructure, which makes it almost impossible to run an economy. There is massive environmental damage.
I want to know, beyond signing an agreement, what steps the government would take to work with Ukraine on that. The government here is having a very hard time addressing our own housing crisis, our own need to build an energy grid and infrastructure, and the climate disasters that has hit us.
How can we honestly say to Ukraine that we will be there to deal with the horrific impacts of the war Putin has caused, there for Ukraine to rebuild, while also saying to Canadians that we will be here to make sure we get the necessary housing, build the electricity grid and address the horrific costs of the climate fires?
175 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that we took a holistic approach to dealing with the relationship between Canada and Ukraine. At this time, with the war taking place in Europe, it is important to recognize that the trade agreement is one aspect of the type of support we can provide.
There is the issue of infrastructure. As the member points out, there has been incredible damage to infrastructure. There are discussions taking place between Canada and Ukraine dealing with infrastructure. Even this trade agreement would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine. Ukraine will prevail, and this trade agreement we are talking about today would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine.
Just the other day I met with a young man by the name of Max. He is a Ukrainian intern I had a couple of years ago here in Canada, and he was talking about the importance of infrastructure. He understood that one of our standing committees will be looking at the issue of infrastructure, possibly dealing specifically with Ukraine. Over the lunch discussion I had with him, he was hoping to come back to add to that particular debate.
Canada is supporting Ukraine in many different ways, but today we can send a very strong and powerful message, an economic message, talking about the trade relations and how both Canada and Ukraine would benefit by them.
229 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that the study of Bill C-57 will go quite well. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill. In any case, parliamentarians have a rather limited ability to amend a bill like this one. We know that Canada is the one that negotiates state-to-state agreements and that we then amend our internal laws to include those new provisions.
In this case, we do not necessarily want to amend the agreement. However, in the event that we did have proposals or changes we wanted to make, should we not review the way the Parliament of Canada, or Canada in general, deals with these international agreements to perhaps give more freedom to parliamentarians and even to the provinces, which may have valid input on areas under their jurisdiction? Only the leaders get to have a say in the actual negotiations between Canada and other countries.
Should we not review that entire parliamentary structure?
161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, our trade negotiators, as I indicated earlier, are the best in the world. They really and truly are. We can just take a look at the number of agreements we have been able to achieve and what we have been able to achieve.
They do their homework. Part of their homework is to take a look at the very many stakeholders in Canada. Canada is a big country with many different regions. One of that member's colleagues made reference to the pork industry. Manitoba and Quebec have very significant pork industries, and this trade agreement, at least in part, would enable more pork, from what I understand, to be sold.
The negotiators ultimately put forward an agreement, which ultimately we and the Prime Minister have signed, much like Ukraine signs an agreement. If we already have the agreement signed, we really cannot change the agreement through legislation because that would potentially void the agreement that was signed. We are very much dependent on what was said in the standing committees and debates that take place here. They make sure our negotiators are informed and have a very good sense of what the different regions are and what the many different stakeholders are wanting to see, in how we develop as a nation and in world trade.
All in all, I believe they have done exceptionally well, and our numbers clearly demonstrate that. As I say, we have created literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, and just over a million jobs prepandemic. A lot of that had to do with the many trade agreements we have signed.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the government has really been letting down our allies when it comes to responding to their needs in the area of energy security. Most of the world's democracies are geographically small and densely populated nations, such as our partners in Europe and the Asia-Pacific, that need the import of natural resources to not have to rely on hostile actors, such as Russia, to meet their energy needs. However, while Europe has been crying out for more energy exports from countries such as Canada, the Prime Minister has effectively shut the door because of his extreme anti-energy ideology.
This agreement would be an opportunity for Canada to say more and do more to promote the export of our vital energy resources to Europe to make our European partners less dependent on energy imports from hostile powers, but the government was more interested in facilitating the export of Russian energy to Germany when it granted the Siemens turbine waiver than in supplying Canadian energy fuelled by Canadian workers to those Europeans.
Why is the government letting down Ukraine, and Canadian workers, by hanging onto its ideological opposition to Canadian energy?
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's assessment. For those people who might be following the debate, let us be very clear on the whole issue of energy. In 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, how many miles of pipeline were put into place to tidewater? It is a bit of a trick question, but the short answer is zero. In 10 years, it was zero.
We can contrast that to the first few years of this government, and there is absolutely no comparison. Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation, I would suggest, to say that we do not support industries. It is just not true, and we have demonstrated that. We are talking about hundreds of miles compared to not an inch, under Stephen Harper, in 10 years.
When we take a look at it from the perspective of Ukraine and the war, the other thing I would highlight to the member is that one does not just wish pipelines and infrastructure into existence. They take time to develop. In fairness, we need to recognize that.
179 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask my colleague if he could highlight what he is hearing in his riding.
There are businesses across Canada that want to help to support the rebuild of Ukraine. Allowing for free trade agreements creates economic opportunity in Ukraine and allows for businesses here in Canada to support Ukraine and those efforts to rebuild. Could he highlight why free trade agreements give certainty in businesses?
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Canada can demonstrate strong leadership with Ukraine. Let us recognize the fact that Ukraine will prevail. It will win, and there will be a need to assist Ukraine in rebuilding.
Because of this particular agreement and of the relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the people of both Ukraine and Canada will be able to contribute that much more to Ukraine rebuilding to be the nation it has the potential to be. Canada is in a much better position than many other countries, whether it is because of the more than 1.3 million people of Ukraine heritage here or things like this trade agreement, to support Ukraine and make sure it is able to continue to prosper well into the future.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this implementation bill for the modernization of the Ukraine free trade agreement.
I always welcome opportunities to talk about trade. It is one of my passions, which is why I was somewhat disappointed by the disparaging remarks made by my colleague from Winnipeg North regarding the previous Conservative government's record on trade, especially Stephen Harper's focus on trade as the linchpin of Canada's economic strategy.
During the Harper years, the government set an unprecedented pace for negotiating trade agreements. When the Conservative government was first elected back in 2006, Canada had trade agreements with five countries: the United States, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica and Israel. By the time we were finished some nine years later, we had free trade agreements with 47 additional countries, an astounding number. That included the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. It included the TPP, which morphed, of course, into the CPTPP. It also included South Korea, which was a very difficult negotiation but was successfully concluded.
One of the agreements that former prime minister Stephen Harper really wanted to get done was between Canada and Ukraine. Even back in 2010, Ukraine was facing difficult challenges. It had a very weak economy and was struggling in trying to deal with Russia. The Prime Minister at the time, Stephen Harper, said the government was going to negotiate a trade agreement with Ukraine that would be unique in that the outcome would be asymmetrical. What that meant is that the benefits flowing each way were not necessarily going to be equal or balanced, at least at the beginning. The phasing in of market access and the elimination of tariff barriers would be done on a differentiated basis so that the outcome was not a quid pro quo in the perfect sense of the term. The Conservatives did that because we wanted to give Ukraine a leg up and help Ukraine re-establish itself as economically viable and strong.
I should indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
When the former Conservative government negotiated the trade agreement, the negotiations started in 2010 and were concluded in 2015. We left office in 2015. These agreements sometimes take a number of years to come into force, so the agreement came into force in 2017 and has served Ukraine well. Our trade with that country has increased. It was not completely unexpected that when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, trade flows declined. In fact, the current government and Ukraine stopped negotiating for a while because of the invasion by Russia into Ukraine.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and made sense out of the fact that Ukraine still needed to move forward economically and put in place the economic structures that would allow it to be successful. Negotiations were then recommenced in 2022, and here we are, a year later, in a position to pass the implementing legislation.
The purpose of modernizing this free trade agreement is that the free trade environment around the world, the playing field, is evolving rapidly. Some things are happening that are not necessarily good. For example, the world is becoming more protectionist. We are putting up more and more tariff and non-tariff barriers.
The United States, under Donald Trump, turned inward. In fact, members may recall that it was former president Donald Trump who pulled the U.S. out of the TPP negotiations. Why? I do not know. He was running for office. I suppose he saw it as politically beneficial.
The whole premise for the TPP was to take advantage of what is called comparative advantage. Every country has its own strengths and weaknesses when it comes to manufacturing goods and delivering services. If we can take the strengths of each country and cobble them together into a coherent trade strategy, we can ensure that the outcome for partner countries is optimal.
Unfortunately, the United States has pulled out, and since that time, it has really turned inward. It is not negotiating free trade agreements. When we go to the World Trade Organization, we notice that large countries, such as Brazil, China, South Africa and India, often block consensus on trade liberalization.
This causes us to reconsider how we engage with the world and open up new opportunities for Canadian companies to do business abroad and expand exports. That is why this agreement with Ukraine, which was negotiated under the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper, is now being modernized. Many of these factors that were not in play back when we first negotiated this agreement now call for us to update the agreement and modernize it.
For example, there are 11 new chapters included in this agreement. There is a chapter on cross-border trade in services. There is a chapter on investment, which is very important. There is a chapter on temporary entry for business purposes, to facilitate the travel of business people back and forth between our countries. Financial services are covered, as is telecommunications. There is a chapter on small and medium-sized enterprises.
There is also a chapter on digital trade, because digital trade has evolved so quickly that it has left a lot of our trade agreements behind. One of the reasons that our free trade agreement with the United States was updated is that we had no chapter on digital services. People are doing business online now. Amazon has become an obscenely profitable company. Why? It is because of online purchasing, which is digital trade. There is a separate chapter on that.
There is a new chapter on how labour and workers will be treated, and the high standards that both countries want to set. There is also a chapter on the environment.
The bottom line is this: We as Canadians need to step up and stand in the gap for Ukraine. Canada has a large Ukrainian diaspora that expects us to partner with Ukraine in its time of need. That is what this agreement does. That is what the original trade agreement did.
In my home city of Abbotsford, many Ukrainians have fled their home country and made their home, or at least their temporary home, in Abbotsford. We now have something called the Ukrainian village, which is reinforcing why it is so important for all of us to work together with our Ukrainian diaspora and with the people of Ukraine to put in place a trade agreement and structure under which the Ukrainian economy can be lifted back up. Both of our countries can benefit from that.
1106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member across the way played a significant role in a lot of the trade negotiations that took place. He would be very familiar with the individuals who have the type of expertise that I said is second to no other in the world. I would challenge him with regard to his conclusions on the trade agreements, but we will leave that for another day.
What I would not challenge him on is that a trade agreement was signed with the Republic of China, and it was done in a very secretive manner. I noticed the member did not make any reference to that particular trade agreement. Can he provide some insight into why Stephen Harper signed that particular agreement without anyone knowing at all that there were discussions taking place between Canada and China?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
