SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:10:24 p.m.
Watch

I would ask other members to allow the member to finish her thoughts. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. The hon. member for King—Vaughan has the floor. She is asking a question of the member who just spoke, and I would welcome all members to be attentive to what the hon. member was asking. The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

72 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts

Dec/1/23 1:10:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am asking the member across the way, and I do not want him to have heart attack as it sounds like he is really emotional, if the Liberal-NDP government could explain to the Ukrainian people, who have been devastated by this war, why they would have to absorb an additional cost? We are for the Ukrainian people. We are not for incurring a devastating cost to them.

71 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:11:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Ukraine already has a carbon tax. It has since 2011. It was part of getting into the European market. To suggest— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:11:13 p.m.
Watch

Order. The same respect has to be given to both sides. The hon. deputy government House leader.

17 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:11:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a ludicrous defence they have. They are trying to suggest that we are imposing something on Ukraine that it already has. To make matters even worse, the Ukrainian president is asking for this. He came to this country. He signed the deal with the Prime Minister. I get a kick out of it when she says we are trying to kick somebody when they are down. That is literally what they are doing to Ukrainians right now.

80 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Dec/1/23 1:11:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to change tack. First of all, yes, there is a connection between Ukraine and food security, because wars do nothing to help food security. Wars are not the only issue. There is also climate change. Looking back at what happened in Quebec this summer, farmers were hit hard by the flooding and everything else, and they are asking Ottawa for emergency assistance. This request was made in August. It is now December, and Ottawa still has not provided any assistance. I would like my colleague to comment on that.

94 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:12:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that climate change is going to impact farmers, probably more than anybody else. When we think about it, where we used to be able to grow certain crops in the world at one point, we will not be able to; suddenly, in other areas, we will be able to. This is a result of climate change. I strongly believe that the current government has been there for farmers and will continue to be there for farmers, to provide them with the supports that they need, particularly in relation to climate change. The trumped-up rhetoric coming from the other side about a carbon tax, or a price on pollution, is absolutely just that. Of course, Conservatives always neglect to tell Canadians about the rebate they get out of that, which puts eight out of 10 Canadians in a better position compared to what they spent on the carbon tax.

156 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Dec/1/23 1:13:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives chose to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. On the Day of Dignity and Freedom, the 10th anniversary of Ukrainians reclaiming their democracy, which is profoundly symbolic, the Conservatives repudiated support for Ukraine. Following that, the president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, representing 1.5 million Canadians of Ukrainian origin, asked the official opposition to revisit its position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the bill in third reading. The reply from the Conservatives has been now to fully block the legislation before the House, to block any attempt to provide support to Ukraine. What are the ramifications of the Conservatives' doubling down, first repudiating Ukraine on its Day of Dignity and Freedom and now blocking any attempt to provide support through the Canada-Ukraine trade deal?

134 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:14:27 p.m.
Watch

It leaves me speechless, Madam Speaker. Eight years ago, when I was a new member of Parliament, I travelled with the defence committee to study operations Reassurance and Unifier. Members of the Conservative Party were there. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman were there. They cared about Ukraine. They talked as though they were there to support Ukraine. Now, all of a sudden, they are absolutely silent. I do not doubt the member Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's commitment to Ukraine. What I have a problem with is how he is being influenced by the Leader of the Opposition and the alt right fraction of the Conservative Party of Canada.

122 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Dec/1/23 1:15:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want to debate a report about food security within the federation that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts studied almost two years ago. The Conservatives' intentions are probably questionable, but unlike the members who like to play partisan games and the Canadian parties who can only argue with one another, I am quite happy to talk about food security. Even though this report was completed almost two years ago, it is still a very topical issue. Indeed, for a supposedly self-respecting G7 country, Canada and Quebec still have major problems with food security. Unsurprisingly, the report highlighted shortcomings regarding one fundamental duty of any self-respecting country: making sure its citizens do not go hungry. It is not a coincidence that Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts food at the bottom of the pyramid. I know that my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou will be very happy to hear me mention Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is also not a coincidence that many a monarchy in the not-so-distant past has been toppled by food riots. It is not that we want to preserve Canada's monarchy, but food security comes first. Let us consider what this report tells us and, above all, what it says about the Liberal way of governing. Let us take a look at the Auditor General's findings. First, in 2009, the government designated food as a critical infrastructure sector. That was written down back in 2009. However, the Auditor General noted: ...the government had not developed a national emergency preparedness and response plan that considered a crisis affecting the entire food system and Canadians' food security. The pandemic struck in 2020. In 2009, food security was identified as a critically important issue. Eleven years on, the government still had no plan and still had done nothing to prepare for a crisis. Second, the Auditor General noted: ...although gender-based analysis plus and sustainable development were considered during the design of each program, the responsible departments and agencies could not always measure gender and diversity outcomes, and the programs' contributions to sustainable development were not always clear. How is that for another surprise? We can tell what really matters to the government in a crisis. Clearly, it is not sustainable development, women, visible minorities or gender minorities. Wow, just wow. Third, the Auditor General noted the following: ...the responsible departments and agencies had many oversight controls in place for the delivery of the emergency food programs and monitored that the funding was spent as directed. However, [the Auditor General] also found some inconsistencies in program design, which led to unfair treatment of applicants and recipients across regions. I will come back to that. When the pandemic hit, the government decided to take action on food security. We were in crisis. With that in mind, the government created an emergency fund with various programs to address food security across the country. Criteria were established for how that money would be spent, especially for the organizations receiving it. Not surprisingly, some organizations did not meet the criteria, but they received government money anyway. Why is that? It is because we were in a crisis and money had to get out quickly, they said. However, that was not the real reason. The government is doing the same thing with Boeing. Fourth, the Auditor General also noted the following: ...each of the programs helped to mitigate some effects of the COVID‑19 pandemic on elements of Canada's food system. However, because of shortcomings in how the responsible departments and agencies gathered information, they could not show that they had achieved results against all of the outcomes intended to reduce food insecurity or support the resilience of food processors in the agriculture and agri-food and the fish and seafood sectors. Again, there was absolutely no follow-up mechanism to determine whether or not the organizations, some of which received hundreds of millions of dollars, had met their objectives. That is just great. It is truly fantastic. Let us come back to food security and the organizations that were selected for these emergency funds. The organization that was supposed to cover the beautiful nation of Quebec did not meet the criteria. That was La tablée des chefs. The department invited organizations to submit a request for the funding that was available rather than opening a competition to all. Does that not remind members of what happened last week when we learned that there had been no open competition? Does that not ring a bell for anyone? It is funny, because it does for me. Again, I am thinking of Boeing. The reason given by the department when I questioned it was that these are well-established and financially robust organizations with wide-ranging networks that cover the entire country. The first thing we see when opening the financial statements of that organization is that it received funds from the Canada emergency business account. Is that what we would call financially robust? I do not think so. What were the criteria for giving out hundreds of millions of dollars in emergency funding? It is difficult to fathom. How can one organization receive emergency funding and, at the same time, take part in a program of such magnitude? Again, no surprise there: it is all in a day's work for the Liberal government. When the Liberal government gives an untendered $9-billion contract, it claims that no decision has been made, that it is still unclear, but it still goes ahead. Once again, in a time of need or in a crisis, it brushes aside that which it considers to be unimportant. This time, it is Quebec's economy that is brushed aside to accommodate an American company, with no call for tenders, just as we see in this report. As I mentioned earlier, food insecurity is always there, crisis after crisis. I do not know how long it will take for the government to realize that food security is an important issue. The pandemic might be behind us, but we are in an inflationary crisis. Looking at what the Auditor General wrote in her report in 2021, we can see that not much has changed, unfortunately. Here is what the Auditor General said: According to a May 2020 study by Statistics Canada [and we cannot argue with the numbers], food insecurity among Canadians rose during the COVID‑19 pandemic to 14.6% (almost 4.4 million people), up from 10.5% (almost 3.1 million people) according to a 2017–18 survey. The May 2020 study also noted that the level of food insecurity for households with children was even higher, at 19.2%, [or almost one in five households] and reached 28.4% for those absent from work because of business closures, layoffs, or personal circumstances as a result of the pandemic. What are we seeing? The situation is basically the same right now. This year, when the cost of basic necessities skyrocketed, the Liberal government simply allowed normal market forces to prevail, without intervening with any tangible measures. Take, for example, the fact that grocery prices have increased by about 10%. As a result, one in five Canadians are eating smaller meals, and one in 10 Quebeckers are using food banks. Once again, this report was published in 2021 with data from 2020. It is now 2023, almost 2024, and as we approach the holiday season, we are still talking about food insecurity and food banks. One in 10 Quebeckers are using food banks. Four years later, having made zero investments in this area, the government may want to think about continuing to reflect, move forward and act. In 2019, the Liberals pledged to introduce a national school food program. Those were promises. There have been crises, yet we still have nothing, four years later. There is no national food program making sure children can go to school with full bellies so they can learn. The only thing we ask of them is to go to school. Kids are going to school hungry, and that is unacceptable in any self-respecting country. While children go to school hungry, their parents wonder how they will pay the next grocery bill, and food insecurity is on the rise in Canada, what are we learning? We are learning that this government is still taking its time setting federal standards that ignore all special local circumstances and that, after years of delays, it is still unable to ensure its citizens have a modicum of food security in the event of a disaster. The Liberals have not even considered including first nations in their approach, when it is obvious that isolated communities will be the first victims of a major disruption in the food supply. How many more crises will it take before this government finally starts planning for the future?

1492 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:25:05 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/1/23 1:25:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe that if you were to seek it, you would find consent for the following: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, I seek unanimous consent to table petition e‑4649.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:25:34 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Dec/1/23 1:25:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise today with a great deal of emotion to present the largest petition in the history of this Parliament. This petition has received no less than 286,719 signatures from Quebeckers and Canadians. Following the October 7 attack, when 1,400 Israelis lost their lives and 240 Israelis were taken hostage, the Israel Defense Forces heavily and indiscriminately bombarded the Gaza Strip. To date, 15,000 Palestinians have been killed, including 6,000 children, not to mention the tens of thousands of people left with life-altering injuries and trauma. The 286,000 signatories are demanding an immediate ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict and asking Israel to lift the blockade of the Gaza Strip and meet its commitments under the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. They are also calling on Canada to take any measure necessary to protect civilians, both Israelis and Palestinians, and help foster a climate conducive to building a lasting peace. These 286,000 Quebeckers and Canadians have spoken. I think the government needs to listen.

174 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Dec/1/23 1:27:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the ways to address food insecurity is through the strengthening of the Canadian agriculture sector and the agri-food processing sector. This is one sector of our economy that has always chosen free trade agreements and has made Canada the fifth-largest exporter in the world. Does the member agree that strengthening the modernized free trade agreement with Ukraine would go a long way to further strengthen the Canadian agriculture sector, the equipment and machinery manufacturing sector that supplies to the agriculture industry, and the food-processing sector, which can work with rebuilding Ukraine and also provide for the prosperity of Canadians?

106 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Dec/1/23 1:27:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our position has always been clear. Obviously, we support a free trade agreement with Ukraine, as long as the interests of Quebeckers are well served.

27 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Dec/1/23 1:28:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to elaborate on how this situation will affect our farmers. Are we doing enough for our farmers from a public accounts perspective? It is easy to look at other countries. Indeed, inputs are a major issue. This has changed in the past two years. My colleague reminded us that this report was produced two years ago. Are we doing enough for our farmers? I am thinking in particular of those who applied for CEBA loans. Could the government not have waited one more farming season? I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

101 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Dec/1/23 1:28:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for that brilliant question. Indeed, we are not doing enough for our friends in the agriculture sector. We know that the sector has gone through a lot. Obviously, we talked about inputs costs. We talk about climate change, which has had a serious impact on crops. There is also the Canada emergency business account. The Union des producteurs agricoles, a very important player, was among the first in the sector to note that the CEBA loan forgiveness repayment deadline needed to be extended by at least a year to help the agricultural sector, which is especially hard hit. That is what we want and what we are asking for.

122 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Dec/1/23 1:30:36 p.m.
Watch

moved that Bill C-353, An Act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, it is a first for me, as I stand here to speak to my own private member's bill, the foreign hostage takers accountability act. I will start with the fact that we are very blessed to live in a nation that, at its core, values human rights, justice, equality and the rule of law. These are the principles that define who we are as a people, the story we have written thus far and the kind of country we want to protect and, frankly, build up. These are also principles that are shared by many, but they are certainly not universal or even widespread around the world. There are still many places today where basic human rights are not recognized, where they are under attack and where simply being a Canadian can put one in grave danger. When I proposed this legislation, the events of October 7th were not even within the realm of imagination. The brutal attack and subsequent hostage-taking by Hamas terrorists of innocent civilians on a holiday Saturday have cast an undeniable light on the power of hostage-taking, even thousands of miles away. The events we bear witness to almost daily in the news impact the stability of our own country and, of course, of fellow democracies around the world. We watched the slow return of innocent civilians who had been viciously torn away from their homes and their families, at least those whose fate was not outright murder, . Virtually every democratic administration on the U.S. side of the border, from Carter to Reagan, and here at home, from Harper to our current government, has had to cope with wounds inflicted upon them by state and non-state hostage-taking. This has tilted the histories of both of our nations. The events of October 7th set a new precedent that is being watched very carefully by the most malevolent forces on earth, which happen to despise Canada no less than they do any other democracy of freedom-loving people. There has never been a comparable incident, in numbers or in its systemic nature, which has involved Canadians. In these events, hostages as young as 10 months old and as old as 85 were taken in an unusually ruthless way. These hostages have subsequently become the focus of international hatred and violence in the streets of virtually every western city everywhere in the world. While the October 7th attack is not the focus today, it cannot be ignored. The last two months opened a new chapter in hostage-taking that has proven to be a serious security threat in the world. It has the power to not only change the victims, who must live forever with the consequences and the trauma, but also the internal dynamics of sovereign countries. Every malevolent force on earth has taken note of just how much power this hostage-taking has provided for its perpetrators. How we respond is truly going to matter as to how others will act. Our legislation must be adjusted accordingly. In a world that is increasingly authoritarian, unsafe and, frankly, unstable, the threat of hostage-taking presents a real and pressing danger. Faced with these challenges, the importance of having comprehensive, up-to-date modern legislation to prevent and mitigate hostage-taking situations must be a priority. It must be something that we think about. The truth is that most legislation dealing with terrorism generally only comes to be in the aftermath of the most egregious terrorist events. Virtually every major terrorism-related UN resolution or domestic law was only in response to the specific events that compelled injured international communities to change the rules regarding terrorism. Every leap in international and domestic law was forced on western democracies by the imaginative murderers of al Qaeda, ISIS or anyone of their ilk. Canada has always risen, and should always rise, to defend civil liberties and freedoms wherever and whenever they have been challenged. On the beaches of Normandy, in the jungles of Rwanda and in the deserts of Afghanistan, we must ensure we can continue to rise to that occasion and must ensure we can protect innocent lives and assert our values as a nation. That is why I have introduced this bill. If passed, this act would strengthen Canada's ability to deter, to minimize and to resolve instances where Canadians are taken hostage abroad. It would increase government power to levy sanctions, establish more support for families and provide incentives for global co-operation. It would be a vital tool in Canada's arsenal, helping us continue to protect the lives and rights of Canadians taken hostage or arbitrarily detained. It would provide valuable support here at home and to the loved ones of hostages, who endure long periods of sacrifice and extreme stress. We have seen that in recent cases. The bill is not the silver bullet by any means to prevent and solve such incidents, but it is a necessary bullet in our arsenal as a democracy in order to deal with the bad actors more effectively and to limit the damage they can inflict on our country. Reviewing a list of the Canadian hostages taken abroad in recent years reaffirms this phenomenon. There is Nigeria, Mali, Pakistan, Haiti, the Philippines and of course China, the case in recent memory that affected two Canadians who sat in this gallery, the two Michaels. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development studied complex consular cases in 2018, recommending unanimously that Canada should provide greater support to the families of hostages and establish a more transparent information-sharing structure. Many of those recommendations informed and influenced this bill. I have worked in this space as a staffer in the prior government in the office of the minister of foreign affairs, and what I saw was a gap between what Canada could say and do. I decided to use my time as a parliamentarian here in this House to address that gap so that Canadians feel safe wherever and in whatever situation they might find themselves. Many of my colleagues have reached out to me in recent days with questions, which I take as a positive sign, but if they have questions, it means others might have questions too. First, I should make clear that this bill would not change Canada’s current and long-standing policy of not paying ransom. We do not and should not ever provide financial rewards to those who seek to kidnap, imprison or otherwise harm our citizens. The proposed incentives in this bill are not a repudiation of that principle. Rather, as an extension from the foreign affairs report, these incentives would promote greater collaboration among the government, innocent third parties, NGOs and others so we can do everything possible to bring our loved ones home, to bring our Canadian citizens home. Second, hostage-taking and arbitrary detention are not the same thing. Hostage-taking is a form of arbitrary detention. However, it goes further because it includes threats of physical violence or even murder if certain conditions are not met. In other words, the element of extortion is present in hostage-taking, and extortion is a grave threat to our entire country, the decisions we make, how we do business and our governance. Arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations occurs when a an individual is arbitrarily arrested or detained “to compel action from, or exercise leverage over, a foreign government”. I hope that provides some clarity so we can move forward into making this a new reality in Canada. I would also like to thank a few key people and groups that have played a critical role in advancing this idea all the way to the floor of the House of Commons. First, I want to thank Sarah Teich, Danny Eisen, Sheryl Saperia and Stacey Granovsky for their long-standing work on the issue and on the legislation, and on behalf of Canadians at Secure Canada. I want to also thank strong advocates such as my friend Irwin Cotler, one of Canada’s greatest advocates for human rights, and to acknowledge support from groups like the Iranian Justice Collective, Muslims Facing Tomorrow, Muslims Against Antisemitism, The Greater Toronto Kurdish House, Hong Kong Watch and the Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project, just to name a few, and from synagogues and churches. I also, of course, want to thank my own staff, who have worked on multiple iterations of something that had long been in my brain and in the brains of some of my colleagues to make that a reality and bring it through the process. We must never underestimate how much work goes into that process. These organizations, advocacy partners and our own staff understand that this concept needs to be ensconced in law because that is the way democracies establish our values and what actually matters. Statements, including statements we have heard over the last number of years, simply do not cut it any more. That is what we have become very good at in this country in far too many instances. I will be slightly crass for a moment and say that we do not just declare our objections to things like child abuse or intimate partner violence; we legislate them. We establish them as truths of our value system through law. Law is the last arena we have in which we can level the playing field against forces, including the hordes gathering around the world that are currently applauding the dismemberment of babies and the rape and mutilation of women and children. They will inevitably be back to applaud such other atrocities against those they consider deserving. There is simply no way, given the millions of trips that Canadians take a year and the tens of thousands of Canadians living outside the country in dangerous places, that the Government of Canada, regardless of its politics, regardless of who sits in what seat, will be left unscathed by this. The bill is about protecting Canada as much as it is about protecting Canadians. It is about protecting the sovereignty of the Canadian government and the lives of Canadian citizens. Voting against it would delight the hostage-takers around the world, and I ask the House to please do not give them that satisfaction, particularly after what we have seen in the last two months around the world. Every Canadian deserves to be safe and secure. They deserve a government that can help them when things go wrong. I think that anything we can do to make that a reality is worth doing. Anything we can do to make sure we bring Canadians home safely needs to be done. I hope that all my colleagues from across all parties will support the legislation.

1870 words

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Dec/1/23 1:44:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know that the member mentioned that she worked in the office of the minister of foreign affairs in a previous government, and she said that she had identified some gaps. I would just be curious to find out what this particular bill includes to address the gaps she outlined.

52 words

Gaps
Affairs

SoVote

House Hansard - 260