44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 3, 2023 10:00AM
- Nov/3/23 12:39:58 p.m.
- Watch
We will call for quorum.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): The House has quorum, by a generous margin.
The hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:40:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for bringing the motion forward.
I would argue that other than the affordability crisis that we are dealing with in this country right now, the government's priority always has to be the defence and security of its citizens. We obviously have a weakness when it comes to what we need to do to improve things in the Arctic.
I am looking forward to reading the whole report in great detail, considering my own past experience, in particular with recommendation 3 around ballistic missile defence. I would like to ask my colleague to expand, because it is more than just ballistic missile defence; we are dealing with hypersonic missiles and other threats. We are seeing this coming out of the Ukraine war as Ukraine fights against Russia's illegal invasion. We are seeing this with North Korea as well, as Russia, China and other nations are putting increased technology into North Korea as it develops these capabilities.
It is absolutely essential that Canada invests appropriately and reconsiders our policy around how we are going to have an all around air defence policy. I would like my hon. colleague to please expand on that.
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:41:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his service to Canada, both when he served in the CAF and now as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
The recommendation is an important one. There was a decision made in 2005. The debate seemed settled for quite some time. However, the threat environment has changed. It is incredibly important. We cannot remain stuck in an old threat environment as new ones emerge.
We heard testimony during the study. Major General Michael Wright stated that Russia sees North America as a single target. We are part of a continental defence system with the United States. There are concerns in the United States about Canada's contribution to NATO and ensuring that Canada does its part to participate in continental defence.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:43:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to serve with my colleague on the Standing Committee on National Defence, where something rather remarkable happens often, that is, members reach a consensus.
One thing that came up a lot during our study on the Arctic and other studies we have done, particularly during discussions of the spy balloons intercepted over Canada, is the fact that Canada's Arctic radar coverage is very poor. We heard in committee that less than half of the Arctic region is covered.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the risks arising from the fact that we have no way of knowing exactly what is going on in an area as vast as the Arctic. As we know, climate change is expected to make the Arctic increasingly accessible to people from outside the country. It could well become an area of growing interest to countries other than Canada as well.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:44:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member raised an excellent point that the balloon incursions occurred while we were in the midst of the study. They revealed quite clearly the limitations of domain awareness and the importance of domain awareness and being able to detect objects in our airspace, but there is also coastal defence and awareness. We heard at committee about rangers who do incredible work in the Arctic, but we cannot rely just on the hope of seeing a passing vessel that might be traversing our waters without a transponder and that would potentially be invisible to Canadians.
Yes, there are gaps in domain awareness. There are growing threats in the subsurface, on the surface and in the air, everywhere we look at it. We need better radar. We need over-the-horizon radar. We need to get the satellite system replaced or we need a path to replacing it before it fails, and we need to do it quickly.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:45:38 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, the indigenous and northern affairs committee also had a study on the Canadian Rangers. I am glad to see that there were also discussions about the Canadian Rangers in the report. It is great that it heard a witness from my riding, Calvin Pedersen, who is a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger.
I could also see in the report that some of the same issues that were addressed at our committee were also addressed at the member's committee, including what the results of the lack of investments in the north have meant, not investing in health care, housing and other activities that would allow better engagement of northerners to participate in Arctic security.
We see that the Canadian Rangers do want to participate in Arctic security. I wonder whether the member agrees that recommendations 21 to 25 are very important recommendations in the report and that the government must take these recommendations and act on them as a priority.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:47:05 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the rangers and her constituent who gave excellent testimony to the committee that was very informative for the recommendations we made.
I did not have time in my speech to get through all the recommendations, so I am glad I can now. I do not know how many I will hit, but let me start with recommendation 21: “That the Government of Canada immediately increase the equipment usage rate for Canadian Rangers.” This is a source of frustration for Canadian Rangers: the compensation for their own equipment that they need to use.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair.
I have a question for the member opposite. While I can speak about defence spending all day and would love an opportunity to sit down and discuss this with him, we were scheduled to discuss Bill C-57, the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I am at a loss to understand why we moved a concurrence motion again today to eliminate the opportunity to speak about this important piece of legislation.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:48:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for managing the government's calendar, but I do have an ability to bring forward a concurrence debate at Routine Proceedings, which is the correct time to introduce it. We had debate on that bill earlier today. I am sure we will have another opportunity for debate on that bill as soon as the government calls it next.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a cop out. That is what we just finished witnessing from a Conservative member. He says the Conservatives are not responsible for setting the government agenda and that is the reason, so do not blame them. The Conservative Party is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is absolutely no doubt about their intentions to prevent legislation from passing.
The real shame of it all is to look at where and how they are using concurrence motions to play games with very important issues that Canadians want us to address. I say shame on each and every Conservative member who continues to want to filibuster on important pieces of legislation.
I am sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre.
There are many opportunities for the member and the Conservative Party to have the debates they want on all these reports that they continue to bring up in order to prevent debate on government business. The member, in his speech, made reference to the mean Russians and what is happening in Ukraine. I agree, the illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine is absolutely disgusting, and Canadians understand that and believe it also.
The President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, was in Ottawa back in September. A country is at war, the president comes to Canada to sign a trade agreement and the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games. As opposed to seeing this legislation debated and passed, we see the type of kid's play coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of it.
What does the member say? The most recent speaker said they were not the ones who set the government agenda, as if they have nothing to do with what is taking place inside the chamber. If we want to talk about being obstructionist and preventing legislation, we can say that we do not see any concurrence debates coming forward from the Conservative Party on opposition days. Where is the concern about the issues that they raise then? It is not there. It is absolutely bogus.
We were expecting to debate Bill C-57 today. We have been waiting for that debate to hopefully collapse and go to a standing committee. We get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Ukraine signing a trade agreement, and then we get the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering. It is filibustering free-trade legislation more than any other political entity in the House. Is that not ironic, to a certain degree?
At the end of the day, there are many different avenues. We are all concerned about Arctic sovereignty. It is an important issue. If it were really as important as the Conservatives say it is, so much so that they had to prevent the debate on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, why did they not bring it up as an opposition day? Why did they not introduce it as an emergency debate or request that the government have a take-note debate on it? Why did they not ask one question on it during question period today? However, they still felt it was so important to bring up.
Let me give a rationale: We get the member for Cumberland—Colchester standing in his place and saying that the Ukraine trade debate, the legislation to enact the agreement, is woke and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine. That is what one member of the Conservative Party has said. Do they not know any shame?
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are strong allies and support solidarity for Ukraine, then behave as we have witnessed. This is not the first concurrence report to prevent this legislation, Bill C-57, from being debated and passed. They even get members who will stand up and talk about sympathy.
Earlier this morning, one member said the free trade agreement is not only good for the economy, but it is also all about hope. Yes, it is good for the economy. There is no doubt about that. Canada and Ukraine will benefit economically, in many different ways, because of the legislation.
It is more than that. We are the first country to work with Ukraine during a war period, to actually go ahead and get a trade agreement. We can think of the morale boost of that and the statement it makes, worldwide.
As the world unites in solidarity to support Ukraine, what does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It filibusters important legislation that is going to make a powerful statement to the world in regard to the relationship between Canada and Ukraine and in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state, including Crimea. This is such an important thing, and Conservatives want to play games.
We have seen them move other motions for concurrence on other important pieces of legislation. It is not just the trade agreement.
However, I think the trade agreement amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party has one intention. Its whole political scheme is bumper sticker politics, trying to make things as simple as possible. They believe that Canadians are stupid and that they are going to believe everything that the Conservatives say on a bumper sticker.
That is the type of politics we are witnessing from the Conservative Party today. It is reckless. It is risky, and they are not going to fool Canadians at the end of the day.
We are concerned about the Arctic. We appreciate the fine work that all our standing committees put in. However, if the member was being honest in talking about the report, why did he not talk about the billions of dollars the implementation of this report is going to cost?
He referred to submarines. Does the member know how much a submarine costs? He is saying submarines, plural. He is talking about several submarines, with a bill totalling $10 billion. That probably would not even cover the cost.
The Conservative Party talks about how, if they are going to spend a tax dollar, it is going to cut and find a place for it. For these multi-billions of dollars that it is prepared to commit, based on this report, where are Conservatives going to find those cuts that they talk about? Are they going to go after our senior programs or child care? Where are they going to come from?
There is a hidden agenda across the way, and it will be unveiled. More and more Canadians are going to find that there is absolutely no substance to the Conservative Party that goes beyond a bumper sticker. That is what we are going to find out.
The best example of that is in regard to the Conservatives' whole idea of the environment. They have no clue whatsoever about what is in the best interest of the environment. They flip-flop like a fish on a dock, all over the place. They do not know where to land on the issue. I guess they cannot get their climate policy on a bumper sticker, and that is the problem.
We look to the Conservative Party as an opposition party that is supposed to be recognizing that Canadians, in the last election, voted for a minority situation. However, part of having a minority government is that it also puts some pressure on the opposition party to behave in a somewhat responsible fashion.
Its actions, in virtually every way, are to prevent legislation from passing. As we can see, I really believe that there are members that are actually thinking, in the Conservative Party, of voting against this legislation.
It is not as though we are asking for Bill C-57, the Ukraine-Canada trade deal, to pass third reading in 24 hours. However, I will say that Christmas is going come quickly. We have to get it to the Senate. It has to go through the standing committee. It has to come back to the House.
I think it is fair to request and see that important legislation of this nature should be able to pass through the whole system, royal assent and all, before Christmas. I would like to see the Conservatives stand up and agree with that point.
1383 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 12:58:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since the member chose to impugn my motives in doing my job as a parliamentarian and bringing an important committee report to the floor where it can be voted on by members, I will point out a couple of things. Canada's support for Ukraine, the Conservatives' support for Ukraine and the support of all Canadians for Ukraine depends on our ability to improve the capabilities of our military, including in the Arctic. This is very relevant to the situation in Ukraine and our ability to support Ukraine.
The member thinks that this is just procedural. He is the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Is he not aware that there is a precommittee study already under way? There is nothing in this concurrence debate that is holding up the study of this bill.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what he is talking about. By bringing in the concurrence motion, doing what he has been asked to do by the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has prevented the debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what he has done. By doing that, the Conservative Party continues to filibuster what is a very important piece of legislation. I do not know if the member realizes that. Based on the question, I do not think he does.
It is great that the standing committee is continuing a discussion and having dialogue and so forth. That is what should be happening at the standing committee. If the member wants the debate to take place on the floor of the House, he can put it forward in the form of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of other alternatives.
Why play games? Why politicize Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine deal? Why not allow that legislation to pass?
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:00:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North because he always finds a way to wake up the House, even on a Friday afternoon. We appreciate that very much.
I heard him ask the Conservatives where they would get the money if they wanted to increase defence spending. The consensus in committee is that defence spending cannot be cut. We have a lot of questions about how the $900 million in cuts that were announced will be made.
Setting that aside, I might have a recommendation or suggestion for the hon. member regarding where the government could make cuts. Why not simply eliminate subsidies to oil companies, which are already making $200 billion a year in profits and yet continue to receive money? I would like him to comment on this proposal.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:01:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some of the oil subsidies the member referred to deal with orphan wells. There are a lot of subsidies, and I understand that if they are not completely gone today from the federal government, they are going to be. We are phasing them out. However, I believe they are gone.
With regard to military spending, ironically, even though the member talks about spending billions and billions of dollars, it was Stephen Harper who had the lowest number. I believe it was just under 1% of GDP around 2013. I might off be off by a year or two, but it is interesting that this government brought it closer to 2% and the Stephen Harper government brought it to just under the 1% margin.
We do not need to be given lessons from a Conservative Party that depleted it and did nothing to build a stronger, healthier Canadian Forces while the Conservatives were in government.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will agree with my colleague that it is hard not to see a pattern this week, as on both Wednesday and Friday, Bill C-57 was scheduled. It is made all the more odd by the fact that most people in Canada who claim Ukrainian descent live in an area represented by Conservative MPs. I hope those Conservative MPs are able to explain themselves to their constituents.
I want to ask my hon. colleague a question about this report. We know that the Arctic Ocean is warming at a rate that is seven times the global average. We know that the loss of permafrost and the opening of sea lanes present an existential threat to our military capabilities and Arctic communities there. We were disappointed in not seeing any emphasis in the report on that particular point.
I am wondering if my colleague can comment on the need to focus more attention on how a warming climate is affecting our capabilities there.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:03:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one only needs to look at the policy we just recently made. Across Canada, no matter where one lives, we are trying to encourage people to move away from oil and use natural gas or heat pumps, which are healthier for our environment. There are different ways to seriously look at the environment.
I think the report is lacking. I went through the 20-some recommendations in the report—
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:04:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to start by clarifying what we are debating and why we are debating it.
For folks watching at home, we should be debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement legislation, which is important to Canada and to Ukraine. It is important to help Ukraine win the war, and it is a priority for President Zelenskyy for a number of reasons, which I will get into. However, instead of debating that, moving it forward and getting it to a vote so that it can get passed to the Senate and passed to become law, we are debating a motion for concurrence on a committee report. So, we are redebating a committee report that has already been debated at the defence committee where MPs from all parties have already had a chance to express their points of view on the matter.
Why have the Conservatives brought this forward? They claim they are doing this because they care about Arctic security.
I will start by saying that Arctic security is an important issue. I sat on the defence committee, I worked on the issue of Arctic security and I spent a lot of time with my colleagues on this matter. I think that there are a lot of things that are important that Canada needs to do to make sure that we protect our security. However, if we look at what our government has done in terms of our investments in a number of things, including equipment in the navy and Arctic presence, we have done a tremendous amount to strengthen our Arctic security over the last several years.
However, I want to get back to why we are here. Let us not pretend that we are debating this motion because Conservatives suddenly care about Arctic security, which is something they almost never raise in this House, I do not think I have heard them raise it over the past year at all, and they rarely raise it in committee. Let us not pretend that Conservatives care about Arctic security, because if they cared about Arctic security, when they were in government, they would have invested in Arctic security. However, when in government, the Harper government reduced spending on defence to below 1% of GDP.
Our government has not only increased the amount of spending on defence in dollar terms but actually as a percentage of GDP. So, while our GDP has grown, we significantly invested in our defence capabilities. However, the Conservatives do not care about Arctic security, because they did not do anything about it when they were in office. They do not raise it the House, they do not raise it in committees, but suddenly they raise it when we are about to debate the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.
For those who care about Arctic security, and I think many people here in this House do, the best way to defend our Arctic security is to help Ukraine win the war, because the greatest threat to our Arctic security is Russia. If members ever thought about who our neighbour to the north is, it is Russia. What is the country that has previously tried to make claims to Canadian territory in the Arctic? It is Russia. If Ukraine were to lose the war against Russia, then Russia would know that the international community, democracies around the world, the western world, does not have the desire or the resolve to defend a sovereign, democratic ally. What does that mean for the rest of Ukraine? What does that mean for Poland, the Baltics and other NATO countries, which Putin has said that he believes should belong to Russia? What does that say about the Arctic territory in Canada, which Putin has said belongs to Russia? It means all of that is under much greater threat.
If the Conservatives really care about Arctic security, then let us stop the filibuster tactics, let us stop bringing forward concurrence motions on things we have already debated in committee and voted on, things that the government is already working on. Let us move the free trade agreement forward so it can benefit Canadian businesses and workers and Ukrainian businesses and workers and, most importantly, actually help Ukraine win the war and rebuild. However, the Conservatives do not want to do that.
This is the second time that I am sitting in this House over the past week when, instead of debating this free trade agreement, we have been debating concurrence motions. This is basically a filibuster. Why are Conservatives doing this?
As I said yesterday when I rose in the House during question period, we have worked very hard. I chair the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group and I work with MPs of all parties. I have worked very hard, members of this House have worked very hard, to make the unwavering support for Ukraine a non-partisan issue.
Members can look at my statements from the beginning of the further invasion and they will see that. They will see the effort that I have made and others have made to make this a non-partisan issue. We have worked so hard.
However, the reality is that the Conservative leader and some Conservative MPs clearly do not support Ukraine. I do not want to have to be saying that in this House. I want to be able to say that support for Ukraine is unanimous, that everybody is pulling in the same direction and that we are all together on this, but the facts show otherwise.
Let me present the facts that I am talking about. First of all, the fact that we are spending hours upon hours debating concurrence motions on things that the Conservatives actually do not really care about and do not ever treat as priorities, instead of debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, shows that the Conservatives do not consider the free trade agreement a priority and they want to push it back and delay it. That is obvious. Anybody observing this can see that is what has happened. The Conservatives are delaying the debate, therefore delaying the vote, therefore delaying passage and therefore delaying the benefits that come from this free trade agreement for both Canada and Ukraine.
Let us remember that this free trade agreement is not just symbolic. It is meaningfully important for our economy and for the Ukrainian economy, but it is also meaningfully important for Ukraine. Ukraine's economy after the further invasion by Russia declined by 50%. Let us just think about that for a second. When our economy moves by half a percent or by a percentage point, that is meaningful. Canadians feel that, we talk about that and we try to address that. It is 50%, so President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government are trying their best to do everything they can to strengthen Ukraine's economy, and trade with Canada is part of that. This free trade agreement and its passage are also critical to help Ukraine negotiate this type of agreement with other countries around the world and therefore further help strengthen its economy.
The free trade agreement is also important because it facilitates not just the trade of goods or even the trade of services, but foreign investment in Ukraine, which is fundamental not just to rebuilding the economy but to rebuilding Ukraine. Ukraine is going to need, by some estimates, well over $1 trillion in foreign investment to rebuild. That includes schools, hospitals and roads and this free trade agreement would facilitate that. When President Zelenskyy was in Canada visiting, one of the things he made time for, and a priority for, was meeting with people who are interested in investing in Ukraine, because he is that concerned about it. This agreement is not just symbolically important. It is substantively important to helping Ukraine and Ukrainians survive and fund this war and rebuild their country and win this war. As the Conservatives get in the way of this free trade agreement, they get in the way of Ukraine winning the war. We have to be clear about that.
The second thing is that the Conservatives are not just delaying the agreement; they are actually criticizing it. I do not think that they actually support the free trade agreement. We have had members getting up in this House during the limited debate that we have had with respect to the free trade agreement and they have had the audacity to call this free trade agreement “woke”. One of the members suggested that Canada, in negotiating this agreement, has actually taken advantage of Ukraine. How preposterous is the suggestion that somehow, by doing something that helps Ukraine win the war and rebuild its economy, it is bad for Ukraine? That argument makes no sense at all. Let us remember whom they are suggesting we are taking advantage of. They are suggesting we are taking advantage of President Zelenskyy. This is the man whose government and whose people have stood up to the second-largest military in the world, and we have seen the success they have had on the battlefield. These are the people who are not giving up and will fight until every inch of their territory is back and somehow we are taking advantage of them by helping them build their economy.
Last is the thing that is most concerning. As I said yesterday in question period, it is the Conservative leader's lack of support for Ukraine. The Conservative leader, since becoming leader, has not once advocated for more military support, for more financial support or for more humanitarian support for Ukraine. He has not once called out Russia's acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Yvan Baker: Madam Speaker, he has not once done that. Even the Conservative members are surprised.
1650 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:14:10 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind members that if it is not time for questions and comments and they do not have the floor, they need to wait. I would ask them to please hold on to their thoughts until then.
Mr. Michael Barrett: On a point of order, Madam Chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I am sorry, but the hon. member is not in his chair so I am not going to recognize him.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/3/23 1:14:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader's silence in his lack of support for Ukraine speaks volumes.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
