SoVote

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Nov/1/23 5:02:07 p.m.
Watch

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?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/1/23 5:02:56 p.m.
Watch

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.

146 words

All Topics

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Nov/1/23 5:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the opportunity to put a question to the hon. member. There are heartbreaks beyond heartbreaks, and they seem to be unending since October 7. One of them is the dreadful irony of Hamas's brutal attack on Israel, which has taken the world's attention, for obvious reasons, off Ukraine. It has been described, and rightly so, as a gift to Vladimir Putin. I will read a statement from President Zelenskyy, because I was deeply moved by his condemnation of Hamas in this moment, while also recognizing that Israel's government has been the only one of our allies, the only modern, industrialized, western democracy ally of Canada, that has never put a sanction on Russia. Israel has not responded to Ukraine's dreadful situation of invasion and brutal assault from the illegal war by Russia. Zelenskyy himself is a Jewish leader. However, none of that contaminated his statement. He said very clearly, “Let the value of human life and the intolerance of terror be the principles that will finally unite the whole world.” He also said, “Wherever they aim their missiles and whomever they attack, terrorists must lose. And this is important for the whole world.” Again, we must not lose our focus in assisting and being there for Ukraine. At the same time, we must not ignore the breaching of international law, the bombing of civilians and so on in what is happening now, as Israel has an absolute right to defend itself.

256 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/1/23 5:05:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was absolutely correct when she said that the unfortunate reality is that some of the attention has been taken off Ukraine. That is why it is our job to keep the pressure on. One way we can do that is by continuing to push forward legislation such as this and building relationships with the people of Ukraine, so we can work together with them and not let the spotlight be taken off them and the struggles that they are going through. We have to remember that Ukraine will win this war; in my mind, it is inevitable. Its people are fighting for their country. They have been invaded by Russia, in particular, Vladimir Putin, but there is no doubt that they will win. We need to be with them so that we can help make sure that, when the time comes, they can rebuild their country, be more prosperous, be more democratic and be more committed to world peace as a result of that.

173 words

All Topics

Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Nov/1/23 5:07:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1697, 1700, 1701 and 1708.

24 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Montarville, BQ)

Nov/1/23 5:07:23 p.m.
Watch

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.

2078 words

All Topics

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Nov/1/23 5:26:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech and his work, as well as for his solidarity with and support for the Ukrainian people. We know that since the Leader of the Opposition has been in that role, he has yet to speak out and call for additional aid for Ukraine, whether military, humanitarian or financial. He has not criticized the genocide currently taking place in Ukraine. He repeats what people like Donald Trump are saying in the U.S. about Russia and the impact the war is having on Canada and the west. Does my colleague think the Leader of the Opposition truly supports Ukraine? Does he think that is why the Conservatives are filibustering right now to stop debate on the Canada-Ukraine free trade bill?

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Nov/1/23 5:27:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think I demonstrated in my speech that the Conservatives have not been good friends to Ukraine, as shown through their repeated actions. I would like to believe that they are sincere when they claim to support Ukraine. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives do not seem to walk the talk when they take action. As members know, I moved a motion in the House to condemn the kidnapping of Ukrainian children and their deportation to Russia. I do not want to reveal any behind-the-scenes secrets, but during the negotiations with the various parties that finally led to the unanimous adoption of this motion, there were reservations about using the term “genocide”, even though the House had already recognized the genocide. The motion was adopted with the support of the Conservatives, and I thank them for that. However, why the reservations? Obviously, when we pointed out that we had already voted to recognize this genocide, those reservations became a bit illogical, so we were able to move forward. I have the impression that, although the support may be sincere, their actions are pretty clumsy. What we are seeing here is clumsiness at best, and I do not even dare say what it would be at worst.

213 words

All Topics

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Nov/1/23 5:29:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my colleagues that sincere actions are exactly what I was talking about in relation to my question to one of my Liberal colleagues just a short while ago. I was the one who first called for some of the natural resources we have to go to our allies fighting with Ukraine to try to make sure they were not as dependent on Russian oil and gas as they had to be. That was a clear signal Conservatives do support Ukraine in its efforts to try to, and it will, beat Russia. I must be clear on that. Many of my colleagues and I have invited and have been very happy to accept many Ukrainian couples, individuals and families who have come to Canada in our constituencies. It is very important we put on the record we were the first to suggest we help our allies in Ukraine to get the kinds of resources they needed. I am just wondering if these parties, the Liberal and the Bloc, have any idea what the natural resources could have done if they had been put into Ukraine earlier and why they did not support that movement earlier. The Bloc wants to leave this same energy in the ground. The Liberals did not want to get it there early enough, and yet the Liberals blocked the Canadian turbine here going back to Russia. The Liberals sent it over there. I wonder if the Bloc was supportive of that.

250 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Nov/1/23 5:31:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a connection between the question that I was just asked and the one that I was asked earlier. Sometimes, we feel as though the Conservatives support Ukraine as long as it is advantageous or profitable to do so. Sometimes, we have to wonder whether they support Ukraine because they actually support Ukraine or because they want to sell oil to Europe. I think it is very wrong to always be introducing the idea that we should be selling more oil to Europe into debates about support for Ukraine. It is as though the Conservatives just discovered a new, unexplored market that they want to tap into at all costs. As I said in my speech, this conflict has brought to light not only Europe's extreme dependence on Russian oil, but also the western economies' extreme dependence on oil in general. To sell more oil to Europe, we would first have to have all of the necessary infrastructure to be able to do that, and we do not. Rather than looking to set up that infrastructure, we must first and foremost help our European allies to make the necessary green transition. That will help them to reduce their dependency on Russian oil and reduce their dependency on oil in general.

216 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Nov/1/23 5:32:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments, particularly in light of another Conservative filibuster that is really holding up progress at a time in the world when we see growing atrocities. I find it deeply troubling to take up time in this House during such a critical period in Canada and globally. It is a colossal disrespect for people in Canada and across the globe who are struggling right now, including in the many conflicts that are occurring and brewing around the globe. I want to ask my colleague, however, for his thoughts on recommendation 12, which states: That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines as long as sanctions remain in effect. I know that the Conservatives have a very narrow focus in terms of any sort of international conflict. It always seems to go to oil and gas. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.

168 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Nov/1/23 5:34:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that recommendation sort of became outdated when the Nord Stream pipeline became inoperable. However, a few weeks ago we found out that the Government of Canada went behind closed doors and granted more exemptions under the sanctions regime. I denounced that approach, which is nebulous to say the least. It seems that this government does not make anything public until it appears in the media or there is a threat of it appearing in the media. After the incident with the Nord Stream turbines, we were surprised to learn that the government allowed other exemptions under the sanctions regime. As in the case with the turbine, I think it is important for the government to explain why it granted these new exemptions. Unless it can be demonstrated, as I just did for the seeds, that the result goes against the desired objective, then we can expect the sanctions to have potentially adverse consequences here at home. We have to be able to endure this if we want to be able to effectively support our Ukrainian allies.

178 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Nov/1/23 5:36:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the hon. member's observations with respect to the Conservative Party. It is puzzling, to say as a generous observation, and hypocritical may be less generous. However, I am particularly interested in the ultimate hypocrisy that we are not here debating the free trade agreement, which was scheduled, but debating something else. It is an expression on the part of Ukraine to join the family of nations that wish to govern themselves by the rule of law. In some peculiar way and, I would say, even hypocritical way, we play into Vladimir Putin's hands, who is just simply playing for time. Does the member join me in the worry that by not debating it and by not entering into this agreement, in fact we are not only playing into the playbook of the Russian leader but also that Ukraine is simply dropping from the media cycle and it leaves Ukraine very vulnerable?

159 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/1/23 5:37:26 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member's time is up but I will allow him to answer the question.

16 words

Time

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Nov/1/23 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I simply want to say that I agree in every way with what our colleague just said. The most deplorable part of it all is that we know this legislation will get passed. The really annoying thing is watching the Conservatives constantly setting up roadblocks to delay what needs to be done. This bill will be passed and the free trade agreement will come into force for the good of Ukraine and Canada, but the Conservatives' utterly shameful partisan procedural manoeuvring will have delayed the process by several days.

95 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Nov/1/23 5:38:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to start by saying how disappointed I am that we are having this debate on a concurrence motion, when we should be debating the trade agreement with Ukraine. I just have to stand here and express the profound grief I am hearing from so many across my riding of North Island—Powell River. When the illegal war began when Russia invaded Ukraine, there was a feeling of profound heartbreak. There are a lot of Ukrainians in my riding who came together to fight really hard to do all they could. I remember being on the phone with constituents who were telling me that they were calling their families at home and that in the background, they could hear the explosions. They were so worried about where their family members were and whether they were safe. There were conversations during which explosions would happen, and then the line would die. I have sat, as I hope many people in this place have, with people who are refugees from Ukraine and are so terrified because they do not even know when it is going to be safe to go home. They are worried about their loves ones. This is really important, and here we are discussing a committee report that was unanimously agreed upon, instead of talking about how we could work to make this country stronger and better, and how we could work with Ukraine in a positive way. It is important that as we have these discussions, we remember that we are the voices of our constituents and that so many of them right now are hurting profoundly. It is important because we know that when this happens, it destabilizes other countries. That destabilization has an impact on all our communities and our country. The people in our communities who are related to those folks in other countries have a profound response, and we must recognize that. That leads me, of course, to think about my personal pain and heartbreak connected to the profoundly terrifying experience we are seeing right now in Israel and Gaza. All of us in this country are seeing things on the screen, and it is painful for us to see them. I cannot imagine living that. Our leader has been very clear, repeatedly, in this place and in the media, that we condemn unequivocally the terrorist violence of Hamas, which has killed thousands. I have heard from the Jewish community, in my riding and outside my riding, of the profound pain, concern and trauma it is experiencing right now because of this action. What we are witnessing in Gaza is beyond overwhelming. We know that children are being killed at a rate we have not seen in a very long time, and that women and the elderly are indiscriminately attacked. So many are dying. Civilians of these countries are dying. We must all stand together to say that is not okay. The NDP and our leader have been very clear. We are calling for an immediate ceasefire. I despair that the government has not chosen to stand up with respect to this issue. When we see what we are seeing, we have an obligation, morally, to call for a ceasefire and to do all that we can as a country to stand strong against it. We all know, historically, what it looks like when we do not. How many apologies do we have to make in this place because we do not stand up and do the thing that is right when it is time to do it? Right now, in our own country, anti-Semitism and anti-Palestine hate are increasing. Islamophobia is increasing. People are afraid. They are afraid for themselves, for their loved ones and for our children. When we do not stand up collectively, we create a much less safe environment for everyone. That is really important. When we think about our privilege in this place, we have to think about how we take that power and what we do with it, and when we do things, what that means for people who do not have the same voice as we do. People are not safe. We all have to stand up against that. I remember speaking with a dear friend of mine who escaped the Holocaust, just barely, and lost so many loved ones to concentration camps. She no longer believed in God. She no longer believed that anything in the world could allow this to happen. I remember those conversations with her and the terror she had experienced. One of the things I will never forget is that she said she did not believe in God but prayed for peace unceasingly. Every day, she prayed for peace because she did not want anyone to experience what she had experienced, and she did not want anyone to lose the family that she had lost. I hope that all of us are remembering that, every time we do not do all that we can for peace, we are really disrespecting those who are gone. In this time as well, when we are seeing an increase in foreign interference in our elections and when we are seeing communities being destabilized because of an active agenda of some countries to interfere, we have to again remember that every step we take matters, that people are watching and looking for leadership and stability. They are looking for consistency. I call on the government again. Please stand up and say that it is time for a ceasefire and that our voice, collectively, as Canada, is calling for that, so civilians get what they need to survive and so we can do everything in the name of justice, moving forward. To come back to the concurrence motion, it is about Ukraine, and I am going to talk about it. Again, I want to remind all the listeners at home and, of course, especially in North Island—Powell River, that this is something the Conservatives moved. It is a concurrence motion, which means we are not debating the bill we were supposed to debate today, which is on having a trade agreement with Ukraine. The report that we are right now spending this time debating was supported unanimously. We are debating it to say, again, that we are going to agree with the report. I think it is important that this committee is the foreign affairs committee. Right now, that committee is meeting. What they are meeting about is the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border and the implications for peace and security. Right now, that work is happening in another space in this place, and it is really important work. The Global Institute for Food Security is talking. The United Nations' World Food Programme and the Grain Farmers of Ontario are also some of the witnesses today. They are talking about the importance of this, so why are we here when this work has already been done? Why are the Conservatives making us debate something that has already been agreed upon? I think there are political reasons, and it is very disappointing. If they have a problem with the bill that is in front of the House, then let us debate it. Let us do the work of the House and look after that. I have to say that, in my riding, not too long ago, we had an amazing couple of events called Still Standing With Ukraine. The Comox Valley Ukrainian Cultural Society put them together. It was a couple of events just to bring awareness again to what was happening in Ukraine and to highlight some of the refugees locally within our region who are in our communities and who are doing the best they can when they are under such emotional distress because of what is happening in their own country. They were beautiful events where we got to see some profoundly amazing Ukrainian dancers from Alberta who came out to fundraise, to make sure that the people here in our area have the supports that they need. I want to give special thanks to Janette Martin-Lutzer, who is the ED there and who did just a phenomenal job of educating people. I just think it is so important. I want to say that when this happened in my riding, when Russia attacked Ukraine, we had so many phone calls to our office. Tons of people were calling. They wanted to do all they could to help, so we collected a list. It was a significant list of constituents. We were able to create an email list, and then our office went out and found everybody in the region who was doing work to support refugees who were coming. We were able to bring them all together. We did a town hall. A lot of people showed up for the virtual town hall, and all those organizations and groups that are doing incredible work in the riding were able to talk about what they were doing, how they were doing it and how people could help. It was amazing. Something I am so proud of in my riding is that when people need help, we come together. There is a large Syrian family in our riding. A lot of people came together to support that family, and every time I see the leaders of that family, I am told about all of the success because of what the community invested and because the community stood up. Again, for this, I have been profoundly moved. People come together. They want to support people who are struggling and suffering, and we need to make sure those supports are in place, so why are we here debating this when there is so much work to be done? I will talk about some of the recommendations and show the people that all parties agree. One of the recommendations is “That the Government of Canada continue to play a leading role in the pursuit of justice and accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in relation to Russia’s war against Ukraine.” I agree with this, and I think it is something we should be talking about in the context of what we are seeing happen in other places in the world. Of course we want to see the Government of Canada stand up. Hopefully every party here agrees, and according to the report, all parties do agree, that we should do that. We should stand up for human rights and for justice. I know people in my riding are calling for that. They want to see action taken. They want to see accountability, and they want to know that human rights are being protected and that Canada is doing everything possible to make sure those human rights are being protected. Another recommendation is “That the Government of Canada work with Ukraine and other international partners in support of the documentation, investigation, and prosecution of sexual- and gender-based violence committed during Russia’s war against Ukraine, and provide support to survivors.” This is a particular passion of mine. We know that in every war, women and children are the focus of much violence. As well, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community is targeted for horrific crimes that we should never see happen, but that we know, unfortunately, do. We need to make sure there are processes put into place. I know that in my work in the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, we have talked about how important it is for women, peace and security that these things are documented and that we make sure that international law has the capacity to take information. Things are changing quickly, and information is recorded often on social media. Something we need to make sure of is that, if things are recorded and they can be verified as clear sources, that information can be used under international law to hold people to account for the violence they do during wartime. There are a lot of conversations. I am glad to see that all parties agree that this is important. We need to protect people. We need to have very strong international law so that when people do terrible things like this, they know they are going to be held to account. Another recommendation is “That the Government of Canada work with Ukraine and other international partners to prosecute individuals principally responsible for Russia’s crime of aggression against Ukraine by supporting the establishment of the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine or another similar mechanism.” It is a little bit rich to be in this space having this conversation, knowing that the work is being done in committee, and here we are agreeing to agree instead of talking about how we are going to support Ukraine in the trade deal. We are at the part where the legislation has not even gone to committee yet. Let us get it to committee. If there are concerns, let us do the work in committee. That is where the work happens. Again, I am frustrated. At a time in the world when we are seeing so much incredible violence and when young people across this country are worried about that violence and are worried about the climate crisis we are in and the fact that we are teetering on the brink of profound outcomes that could leave the world physically unsafe for people to even be in, why are we wasting time in this place when we could be doing the work that needs to be done? There are serious things happening in this country and other countries that we have to take a leadership role in as Canada, and this is what we are doing instead. It is really important that we talk about the recommendation to “strengthen global food security, and the role of Ukraine as one of its guarantors, and join the efforts with Ukraine on the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the Global South.” The reality is that we have sanctions. I have seen the graphs in my work at the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association. The sanctions had an impact, which was then lost. We need to support this country, and I hope we can get on to more important business.

2412 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/1/23 5:54:58 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

26 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Nov/1/23 5:55:42 p.m.
Watch

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.

56 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/1/23 5:55:42 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the clarification.

4 words

Mr. Serge Cormier (Acadie—Bathurst, Lib.)

Nov/1/23 5:56:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-322

moved that Bill C-322, An Act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, before I give my speech, I would like to acknowledge the following people. First, I want to thank my constituents in Acadie—Bathurst, who gave me the honour and privilege of representing them over the past eight years. I thank them from the bottom of my heart for putting their trust in me. Second, I want to recognize my father, André; my mother, Rollande; my mother-in-law, Bernadette; my father-in-law, Hébert; my brother, Jeff; my brothers- and sisters-in-law; my Cormier-Thériault family; and my friends who are watching right now. I recognize them and thank them for their help. They know that it is not always easy to be a federal MP, and so I thank them for all of the help that they give me. Third, I want to thank my extraordinary employees: Janice, Jocelyne, Sylvie, Gilles and Léopold, as well as Vanessa, a former employee. I thank them for all they do for me. Fourth, I want to thank my good friend Greg Burn for his help with the research for my speech. Finally, I want to recognize the four most important people in my life: my daughters, Arianne and Chloé, and my stepson, Léo, who I consider to be my son. I love them and look forward to seeing them again. I want to thank my partner Isabelle, who is an MLA in New Brunswick. I love her dearly, and I sincerely thank her for all of the help she gives me every day. I miss her and look forward to seeing her again. I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to my bill, Bill C-322, an act to develop a national framework to establish a school food program. The purpose of this bill is outlined clearly in its title: to develop a national framework for the establishment of a school food program to ensure that all children in Canada have access to healthy food. I truly believe this is one of the most important pieces of social legislation the House will debate this session. There are far too many children in Canada going to bed hungry or starting off the school day without a nutritious breakfast. Can my colleagues imagine trying to pay attention to the lesson or trying to do schoolwork while they have pangs of hunger that are gnawing at them and distracting them from concentrating on anything else? Our own studies, including the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey have shown that up to one in five young people report going to school or bed hungry, often because there is not enough food in the home. In addition, the 2021 First Nations Food, Nutrition and Environment Study found that approximately 50% of first nation households have difficulty putting food on the table. Think of that number: 50%. These numbers are heartbreaking, but we have the opportunity to do something about it. My hope is that this sad reality will serve as a catalyst for action. Canada is one of the few member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that does not have a national school food program in place. We have the power to change that, the power to ensure that fewer children in this country go hungry and that children have access to healthy food and a greater opportunity for success. In 2018, Canada introduced “Opportunity for All - Canada's First Poverty Reduction Strategy”. As outlined in the report, food insecurity is an indicator of poverty. Food insecurity is defined as “the number of Canadian households that do not have enough money to purchase or access a sufficient amount and variety of food to live a healthy lifestyle”. While this problem persists across the country, it is especially high in the north and among indigenous populations, black populations, lone-parent households, rural and remote communities, households that must rely on social assistance or employment insurance as their primary source of income, and renters. The number of children without access to nutritious food in some communities is very disturbing. In my home province of New Brunswick, food insecurity for many families, is very real, including within my riding of Acadie—Bathurst. In New Brunswick, there is great regional disparity in the number of school breakfast programs, which creates an unacceptable social inequity. The provincial government funds certain schools but not others. Why should some schools have a breakfast, lunch and snack program and not others? We know that schoolchildren without access to nutritious food are significantly disadvantaged. School meal programs can help to improve school attendance, foster better academic performance, improve health outcomes, and support students to achieve their life goals. I want to commend all the dedicated volunteers, private sector donors and community organizations that are stepping up and trying to make a difference. Many are sponsoring or supporting school breakfast programs in communities in New Brunswick and throughout the country, but the demand far exceeds the supply, and they cannot do it alone. Here are two good examples. To start, I would like to acknowledge the Fondation des petits déjeuners de la Péninsule acadienne and its president, Wanita McGraw. Over the past five years, the foundation has raised over $1.2 million and has helped provide breakfast five days a week to 5,000 students at more than 20 schools on the Acadian Peninsula. I would also like to recognize Alexis Légère, a local market gardener who runs a community greenhouse at Marguerite-Bourgeoys school in Caraquet. The school gave him a plot of land where he grows and harvests vegetables with children from the school. These vegetables are then handed over to the cafeteria to use in meals. My thanks and congratulations go out to these extraordinary individuals and groups. A comprehensive national framework geared at a school food program would make a real difference. This framework can be a road map for co-operation, bringing many stakeholders together in pursuit of this common objective. Our government also provides support for school food programs, but despite the efforts being put in at all levels, school meal programs only reach 21% of school-age children. We can do better. We cannot have a program that does not serve every school. All children who require nutritious food should be able to access in their own school. Bill C-322 also supports the development of a framework. It provides the basis for the discussions that will take place across the country with provinces, territories, municipalities, first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, parents, volunteers, charitable organizations, teachers, students, school administrators and subject matter experts. The agriculture and agri-food sectors will also be engaged in this framework development. We can have a program that not only achieves its goal of making sure every child has access to healthy food, but one that will provide a creative blueprint for supporting farmers and agricultural producers in pursuit of that goal. Canadian-made foods are responsible for one in eight jobs in Canada. The objective of Canada's food policy is to “help guide public, private, and non-profit sectors on food-related decisions and actions that can improve people’s lives, their health, and the health of the environment and the economy.” A national school food policy will support local food production, create jobs, grow the economy and help us achieve food security and sustainability. When it is rolled out, a national school food program will also provide much-needed relief for struggling families who are often faced with difficult decisions when providing for the needs of their children. These decisions might see a family cut back on its grocery order or look at less nutritious food options, because they cannot afford what they want and need. I am proud that our government has introduced many programs to support families, such as the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, which reduces the cost of child care to $10 a day; the Canada child benefit; the Canada housing benefit top-up; and the dental care plan. These are just a few of the support programs this government has put in place. There has also been support for Food Banks Canada, community food centres, and local-level organizations serving people experiencing food insecurity, but we can do even more to help children and families, and this is the reason we need to develop a national framework for a school food program. Some children may be hesitant to participate in a school breakfast program because they are worried that other children may see them as coming from a poorer background. If school nutrition programs are widely available, there is less chance that a child who needs a nutritious breakfast, lunch or snack will feel stigmatized. This is just one of the issues that can be addressed in developing the framework. There will be many things to discuss following the passage of this bill, and considerable input will be required in the effort to design the best framework possible, but it is not an insurmountable challenge. There has already been a lot of work done to date. The consultation undertaken by Employment and Social Development Canada on building a pan-Canadian food policy has provided valuable insight and advice. It is important to have a national framework if we want to meet the goals of a high-quality school food program that is focused on health and nutrition. As we all know, school food programs that currently exist vary from school to school and across the country. This does not mean that all meal programs will look the same, but that choice decisions can be made that will ensure the objectives and goals of the plan will be met. We must also take into account our diverse cultural needs in the design of a national school food policy. All children should be able to enjoy nutritious and culturally relevant food in their schools. While the goal is to ensure that all programs focus on nutrition and health, it stands to reason that the meals will need to be appealing to students. It would not make much sense to design a meal program with food that students do not like. Again, this is something that can be addressed in the framework. This bill is very straightforward. It would empower the minister of employment and social development to consult with the Minister of Health, representatives of provincial and territorial governments responsible for health and education, other relevant stakeholders in those fields and representatives of indigenous governing bodies to develop a national framework to establish a school food program to ensure that all children in Canada have access to healthy food. As outlined in the bill, the framework will: (a) set out the criteria for determining whether a food is healthy, taking into account Canada's Food Guide; (b) indicate which meals and snacks, at a minimum, must be offered in schools under the program; (c) take into account the different circumstances in which children live, including cultural diversity, and the resulting dietary requirements; (d) take into account the rights and priorities of First Nations, Inuit and Métis; (e) provide for measures to avoid stigmatizing pupils who use the program; (f) provide for measures to foster the use of local and sustainable food systems; (g) take into account existing local initiatives and infrastructure, build on existing school food programs across Canada and use best practices from other jurisdictions; and (h) promote evidence-based healthy food education in schools across Canada. The bill establishes a timeline for the consultations and the preparation of a report by the minister setting out a national framework. The report must be completed within one year and tabled before each House of Parliament within the first 15 days on which that House is sitting. I believe this is a reasonable time frame to carry out the consultations and develop the framework. There is also provision in the bill for reviewing the effectiveness of the framework within five years after the tabling of the report. We will not achieve the goal of a national school food program overnight, but we will have set a path forward to do so. I feel passionate about this bill and what it can achieve. I know that all members of both houses recognize what this bill can do for children and families, and how transformative it can be. Politicians often come under fire and there can be public skepticism about politics and politicians in general, but I have always believed that people run for public office because they want to improve others' living conditions and help their community prosper. It was my motivation to offer as a candidate for Acadie—Bathurst. I am working to improve the lives of my constituents and fellow citizens, but more importantly, in this case, I am working for our successors and the next generation, the children. We all have the opportunity to make a real difference in people’s lives by passing this bill and ensuring that every child in Canada will have access to healthy food in every region of the country. In closing, I am calling on my colleagues to think about all the children and families who will benefit from a national school food program and support a bill that will serve as a shining example of what makes Canada such a great country in which to live and raise a family.

2321 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 244