OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 246 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, November 3, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES November 3, 2023 DEBATES No. 246 No. 246 N o 246 Volume 151 246 03 11 2023 2023/11/03 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Government Orders Government Orders

(1005) [ English ] Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023 Bill C-57. Second reading

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57,

An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine , be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, a decade ago, this very month, I walked through the Euromaidan. On the cobblestone streets of Kyiv spanned crowds of thousands. They were jubilant, humorous and optimistic. They sang and cheered in peaceful protest. On stage, speeches extolling the promise of a future independent of Kremlin domination, enabled by oligarchs and their corruption, gave voice to generations of Ukrainians fed up with the old order. Ukrainians had survived Stalin's famine 90 years ago through Holodomor, Ukrainians whose perilous march to freedom had been perpetually subjected to subversion.

As far as the eye could see, ribbons of yellow and blue adorned a people with the powerful idea that they might soon be free of the yoke of the neo-colonial, revanchist ambitions, free of a neighbour they longed for good relations with, yet a neighbour determined to deny the self-determination of an entire people. I accompanied my friend and former boss, Canada’s foreign minister John Baird. I watched him take in what we had been witnessing together, make a wide grin, and then take to the stage to stand with a people whose moment of independence had arrived.

Months later, we returned to charred buildings and cobblestone ripped from the ground by protesters fighting a government that turned its guns on them and flowers laid before portraits of the fallen. In the subsequent vacuum of transition, on March 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea. It was the opening

chapter of what now constitutes Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. By April, Russian special operations, Spetsnaz GRU units, paratroopers of the 45th Guards Spetsnaz Brigade of the VDV and Wagner contractors seized territory in Donbass. Too often we start the story at the middle and not at the beginning. To some, the story of Ukrainian independence commenced in the mid-2000s, amid political turmoil, economic challenges and external pressure. The Orange Revolution in 2004 set the stage for a democratic transition but the road ahead was far from smooth.

At communism’s end, Ukraine held the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. They divested that power to guarantee their territory. In 1994, they received those guarantees from the Russian Federation, the United States and the United Kingdom at Budapest. Had the allied world deepened this commitment to Ukrainian territorial integrity, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper strenuously recommended at NATO in 2008, today’s brutal, illegal, costly war in Europe would never have happened.

The Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement that Prime Minister Harper first negotiated in 2015 was one part of a much more robust approach. It led the world. It supported the people’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and their territorial integrity, even as war was being waged against them. Conservatives, with Harper, recognized the importance of supporting ascendent Ukrainian civil society and its democracy. We strengthened Ukrainian democratic institutions, enhanced the rule of law and combatted corruption. Conservatives, with Harper, were at the forefront of imposing sanctions on Russia at every stage.

Serious costs were imposed on the Kremlin. Along with free trade, Conservatives, with Harper, stabilized the Ukrainian economy, preventing financial collapse and bolstering Ukrainian resilience. As Russia's aggression escalated, Conservatives, with Harper, launched Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission that founded the modern Ukrainian Armed Forces. That, as President Petro Poroshenko said, was instrumental in how Ukraine repelled Putin’s opening advance toward Kyiv in February last year.

The strength of the Conservative approach to securing Ukraine, stabilizing the world, was indeed the envy of the world. It culminated in 2014, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper confronted Vladimir Putin’s repugnant deceptions at the G8, looked him squarely in the eye and said, “Get out of Ukraine.” The G8 became the G7, rightly so, because of a strong and principled Conservative leadership that ensured the integrity of our alliances. Compare that to NDP-Liberals who arrived in office to an inheritance in which Canadian influence was undeniable. What did they do with it?

They pursued entreaties of appeasement instead. NDP-Liberals dispatched senior diplomats to capitals around the world with a message of “Canada is back”, back to the Kremlin, back to Tehran, back to Beijing, appeasement that even as Russia intensified its invasion of the Ukrainian east, then-foreign minister Stéphane Dion dispatched his officials to seek to restore good relations with Vladimir Putin. It was appeasement by sending emissaries to the clerical regime in Iran, even as it showcased its domestic brutality.

Exported terror armies were now attacking Israel from across the Middle East and pursuing nuclear weapons. They did not learn. In 2020, there was appeasement after Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 was shot out of the sky by a regime sheltering itself under the human shield of civilian flights, killing 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents. There was appeasement that shocked the families of victims, watching their prime minister warmly hold the murderous regime’s foreign minister’s hand, beam a warm smile and bow his head.

There was appeasement by pursuing free trade, extradition and cybersecurity treaties with Beijing, while turning their back on the trade deal Conservatives negotiated across Asia. We will now watch as the Liberals pretend Bill C-57 is the singular triumph of a foreign policy that is clearly broken. Conservatives will consult, we will be clear-eyed about the interests of Canadians, and we will take the right decisions for our country and our alliances. Conservatives will pursue policies of peace through strength, instead of entreaties of appeasement. How about a real trade deal that could end the war in Europe?

Canada is the sole NATO ally with the potential to backfill European energy demand with $3-trillion worth of natural resources, the world’s fourth-largest oil reserves, NATO’s third-largest reserves of natural gas and the capacity to scale agricultural products and technologies for the world. Today, Putin mimics Stalin nearly a century ago: He is bent on creating famine by weaponizing the food supply, and burning and blockading Ukrainian grain so it cannot reach fragile markets. Vladimir Putin spent years choreographing Germany’s dependency on Russian oil, having exploited that to shake down Europe.

He intervened in Syria and Libya to subvert pipelines that would supply Europe and amplified misinformation against Canadian energy. It ensured a steady stream of revenue for Russia’s war machine, nearly $1 billion a day, including more than $250 million a day from Germany alone to fund his war. When Germany finally realized the costs of this, Chancellor Scholz came knocking on our door for Canadian energy and we turned him away. Russia and Iran scale production today, evade sanctions and provide discounted prices to Beijing to wage their wars in Europe and the Middle East.

Qatar, host to Hamas, inked a 3.5-million-tonne gas deal with France just this week. If NDP-Liberals truly care about trading relationships that support Ukraine, then they can do the one game-changing thing the world has been demanding: end Russia’s weaponization of energy, and let Canadian resources be what fuels, feeds and secures the world and Canadians. Across the world, we must confront the illiberal project posed by our medieval rivals upon the modern age of democracies. Our town squares are burning. Mobs are threatening individual dignity and freedom.

The time has come for the return of leaders with conviction, leaders who do not bow before the illiberal age upon us, but who instead unlock the economic and military strength required in this generation’s greatest test. I think of Ukraine a decade ago and all that has transpired since, from the jubilation of the Revolution of Dignity, to all the carnage, the rubble, the costs of chaos and disorder that appeasement has resulted in. Hope seems like an idea so far away. One year ago, in a report from the bombardment of Kharkiv, an elderly woman stood in the rubble of her apartment.

She interrupted her neighbour in the middle of an interview, surveying the damage inflicted by Russia’s indiscriminate attacks. She shared three words: Hope dies last. If we are to live up to our potential as a country, then we will heed her wisdom that without hope we have nothing. It is time to replace a government unwilling to do what Canada must. It is time to replace it with one that delivers upon the strengths of our nation to a world eagerly awaiting them; one that restores the promise of Canada to alliances broken so badly by the NDP-Liberals.

Let us make the trade deal we should be making, the one that delivers hope and the one that delivers the energy that would end the war, bring strength to the alliances we depend upon, and secure the future for all Canadians.

(1010) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member take the attitude that he has toward Ukraine and talk to members of his own caucus as they continue to filibuster this piece of legislation. He is factually incorrect. It was this government that signed off on the first Ukraine deal. It is the Conservative Party across the way that continues to filibuster Bill C-57 , the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. The Conservatives can say all the wonderful words they want and glorify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want, but the bottom line is the Conservative Party is reckless and risky.

At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of seeing this legislation pass. It is economically the right thing to do. If we take a look at what is taking place in Europe, we can send a very strong message in favour of Ukraine that would be very powerful. Will the member stand in this place and make a commitment that he will do whatever he can to ensure this legislation will pass throughout the House of Commons, including the Senate, before—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar :

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. House leader, especially because I think his perspective on what is going to make a difference in this war, in this world and for Canadians is quite skewed.

If the Liberals want to deal with the issues the world and Europe are dealing with, their dependency on the energy they have come to rely on the Russian Federation for, and for Putin's domination of the energy order of Europe to now come to an end and make a singular decision to end the war, then the energy and effort that Canadians need to be making is to get our energy and resources to market to displace Russian dependency with Canadian long-term supply. We are a country that has the highest standards for the rule of law and the highest ethical standards. Our production reduces emissions internationally.

It is one of the most important projects we could be undertaking in this venture.

(1015) [ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague and thank him for his speech. Obviously, we applaud this new agreement with Ukraine. I fully recognize that the previous agreement was negotiated by Stephen Harper. It was about to come into force when an election was called. This agreement goes further. Given that Ukraine is part of the World Trade Organization, there will be little to be gained from tariffs. The main purpose of this bill is to send another very strong message of diplomacy and show that Ukraine is our friend. Obviously, we need to look at the financial markets.

One thing about this agreement is that it entrenches in a treaty that Ukraine's territory includes Donbass and Crimea. We think that is an excellent message to send. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[ English ]

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar :

Madam Speaker, Canada has always stood for Ukraine's territorial integrity. It will never accept Crimea's illegal annexation. It will never accept the idea that Russia's claims over the Donbass are somehow credible. They are not. They have never been credible. They are a giant pantomime hosted by Vladimir Putin in his own mind about a neo-Russian idea of the country. When we think about how to deal with the issues the hon. member has raised, the most important thing to do is to assess what kind of trade deal we want to make. The trade deal around getting our energy to Europe is one of the most important deals we could make.

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that when my hon. colleague talks about illegal occupations and indiscriminate attacks he condemns Russia for it, but of course his party praises Israel when Israel does it. I was in this House when the Harper government was in power. It was totally disrespected on the world stage because of that kind of inconsistent, imbalanced, outdated and Cold War oversimplification.

From 2015 to 2021, we had a Liberal majority government and a Liberal minority government, yet in the member's speech he incorrectly and repeatedly asserted that these were Liberal-NDP decisions in that time period. An accurate history is the basis of sound foreign policy. With that kind of disregard for Canadian history, how can Canadians have any trust that Conservatives would have sound foreign policy in the future when they cannot even get Canadian history correct?

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar :

Madam Speaker, I am deeply offended with how the hon. member has described the situation in the Middle East. As we know, there are many anxious communities affected here in Canada today. He and his party are determined to try and paint the State of Israel and the IDF that way, when they have every right to defend the hostages who have been taken from their land and their state and believe that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. This hon. member is clearly on the path of anti-Zionist thinking. It is a condemnation of a democratic state that should never be tolerated in this chamber.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this important agreement. I want to focus my comments on a few things. First, I noticed in debate that there has been some insinuation that reviewing this bill and its contents is somehow inappropriate for Parliament. I want to refer colleagues who are making that assertion to comments that were made earlier in debate, I think it was last week, by the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay . He talked about how, in previous trade agreements that have come before the House, the government has not afforded Parliament a lot of time to review things.

He actually cited that, in February 2020, ahead of the renegotiated CUSMA agreement, the minister made the following commitment: to require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiation toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations, and to require objectives for negotiations towards new free trade agreements to be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.

Under normal parliamentary procedures, these objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade. As far as I understand, and I am happy to be corrected, I do not believe that the government actually did that in this case. That is problematic. Because the government has failed to do this, it is incumbent upon parliamentarians to take time to scrutinize this legislation. It affects many different aspects of the economy, some in very positive ways. Our job here is to scrutinize legislation, and the assertion that somehow we should not be doing that is actually anti-democratic.

I hope that hon. colleagues refrain from making that assertion and, instead, focus on the subject at hand today. I also hope that, if the government is going to enter into future negotiations such as this, they abide by the rules that they have put forward to this place. It would make things a lot more productive, and it would be far more respectful of our time and parliamentarians' time here. On the subject of the agreement, I would like to focus my comments on this bill for consideration in two key components. First is the concept of treatment of intangibles in free trade agreements.

There was quite a bit of rightful concern about the government's lack of focus on how to treat intangibles in the previous Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I think it is incumbent on us to be looking at this particular aspect in any free trade agreement, including this one. I would just implore colleagues to do so, should this bill make it to committee. I want to read one passage, just to put it into the record for colleagues to consider as they are deliberating this bill. It was a passage by Jim Balsillie, a Canadian industry leader, talking about intangibles in trade:

The instruments designed to govern the intangibles economy – including the new-age trade agreements such as CUSMA, CPTPP, and the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – entrench and expand protection for owners of IP and data.

However, he noted that this is not new. He said:

... in 1990s trade agreements became the main tool for devising preferential marketplace frameworks that suit the owners of IP.... Nowhere was the shift from a tangibles to an intangibles economy set in sharper relief than with Canada’s largest trading partner the United States.

Later, he went on to critique how:

Canada’s woefully late recognition of the shift to intangibles and failure to understand its significance for national prosperity and security resulted in its falling behind, walking into strategic errors, and now leaving it poised to enter the post-pandemic world not just in catch up mode but relegated to competing globally on the cost of its tech talent with low-wage jurisdictions.

He talked about how:

Canada has an IP trade deficit. The Council’s recommendation would have us paying even more rents out to IP owners, who are principally foreign.

This is something that I really hope colleagues will consider in their deliberations over this bill, particularly as Canada still lags behind the rest of the world in terms of dealing with artificial intelligence regulations. We are entering a phase where the global economy is not just entering into a digital economy; it is in a digital economy and progressing into a generative economy.

(1020) If we just have widgets and tangibles as a primary focus of trade agreements, and we promulgate other aspects, such as intellectual property protection and data ownership, without thinking about the downstream impact on our economy in 10 or 15 years, then we are setting Canada's economic prospects behind. I am not necessarily saying that is the case in this agreement, but I would just hope that parliamentarians who are tasked with looking at it, particularly in the committee stage, would focus on the precedent that is being set with regard to intangibles and the intellectual property component.

Moreover, with any other trade agreement, that is something that Parliament needs to be seized with. This is just a note to colleagues who might be looking at that in the future. The other thing I want to focus on would be

article 13.10 of the trade agreement, under subsection 8(d), which says, “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power to clean energy sources”. This is a great, laudable objective. As colleagues have talked about previously in the House, the provision of clean energy and reducing Ukraine's and other European countries' reliance on Russia for energy should be an objective of the Canadian government. However, as other colleagues have pointed out, the government's own actions over the last eight years have been antithetical to that posture.

Therefore, it is very difficult for the government to make such an assertion in a trade agreement after eight years of failing to acknowledge that Canada has a duty to build up facilities to provide cleaner sources of energy, such as liquefied natural gas, to other economies. The reality is that Canada's government has taken a posture that is against the development of this resource. In fact, I would draw members' attention to an

article in Reuters from October 6 of last year, over a year ago, titled “Canada's [ Prime Minister ] under pressure from Conservative rival to back new LNG”. This

article extensively covered what happened when the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, came to Canada. He was seeking a major role for Canada in replacing Russian supplies, such as energy. The rebuff that our allies in Europe got from the current government was wholly inappropriate. A year has gone by, and we are now taking this posture in this trade agreement without having seen any movement forward from the government on how to increase this type of export in an environmentally sustainable way. That is wholly irresponsible.

Earlier, my colleague from Calgary Heritage talked in his speech about Canada's failure to provide when we have this resource in abundant supply and some of the strictest environmental controls in the world. Canada is actually remarkably well placed to develop this resource in an environmentally responsible manner. There are colleagues from all different parties who represent ridings that are part of the development of this resource. There is a bit of cognitive dissonance between the posture that the government has taken in

article 13.10 of the trade agreement and the reality of building out this infrastructure. Therefore, I would encourage colleagues, as they consider this bill, as well as colleagues from the governing party, to look at ways to close that gap or to bring those two postures together. We cannot be putting postures like this in a trade agreement with any sort of truth to it without building out that infrastructure. It is good for the Canadian economy, and it certainly would defund the Russian war machine. This is really important.

It is a broader objective, and it would provide stronger economic support for the country. I will just close with this: Many colleagues in the House have pointed out in the debate over the Conservative motion on removing home heating tax, which will be voted on this Monday, that natural gas is a cleaner source of energy and that we should be looking to displace it. I do not understand why that cognitive dissonance exists in other areas.

(1025) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, back in September President Zelenskyy came to Ottawa and spoke in this very chamber. Part of the purpose of the trip was to sign off on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what this legislation is based on, and it was brought in shortly after the signature. Given the fact that we have the President of Ukraine coming to Canada during a time of war to sign off on a trade agreement, to see the silly games being played on this legislation by the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat disgraceful.

I believe that, in the Conservative Party, there is an element that does not want to see this legislation pass. The member's colleague from Cumberland—Colchester referred to this legislation as “woke” and suggested that, in some way, Canada should not be having an agreement with Ukraine at a time of war. I will ask the member this: Does she support his comments?

(1030) Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, I am actually surprised my colleague brought up the incident that happened during President Zelenskyy's address. It did not go so well for the government. I think the government owes a significant apology to the Ukrainian people for its complete mishandling and the debacle that ensued there. It was disgraceful, what happened, and the government should be ashamed of itself. In terms of calling the review of legislation that is before this place “silly games”, I think that is very indicative of the government and the Liberal Party's disrespect for Parliament and parliamentary privilege.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

First, I want to remind members that, if they have other questions, they should wait for an opportunity to ask. Second, if they want to have conversations, they should take them out of the chamber while the House is in session.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill for her speech. I heard her make various comments about the content of the agreement. More generally speaking, we know that MPs have almost no power to change the content of international treaties. They can only agree or disagree with the agreement. We are not able to propose amendments. The role of parliamentarians is very limited.

Members will recall that, in November 2020, during the renegotiation of the post-Brexit agreement with the United Kingdom, members of the Standing Committee on International Trade were asked to debate a text that they did not even have a copy of. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that parliamentarians have almost no power to influence the negotiation of international treaties and that such negotiations are left exclusively up to the executive branch.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent point. I know that the member's colleagues in her party have been making this point in debate, and it is a good one. It is a strong contrast to what the parliamentary secretary said when he characterized the scrutiny of the agreement as “silly games”. That is not appropriate. That actually denigrates Parliament and our role. I would point out again that, in debate, our colleague from South Okanagan—West Kootenay pointed out that the government made a commitment to Parliament to give advance notice and to have trade negotiation go through the international trade committee.

That has not happened in this case, and it is incumbent upon us to point out that Parliament has a role. We have a large, diverse regional economy, where we have many stakeholders who will want feedback. That is our job, and I fully support the member's assertion that the government did not undertake that in this instance, and now we have a duty as parliamentarians to undertake that role. That is an excellent point that I fully agree with.

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , one thing I have noticed about this draft is that there is a

chapter on trade regarding indigenous peoples. I really like that there is a

chapter to make sure that there are some activities regarding economic development in free trade. If I understand it correctly, this is the first time that there has been a

chapter like this in a free trade agreement. Does the member agree that, for any future free trade agreements, there should always be chapters to make sure that Canada's indigenous peoples are highlighted and have a profile, ensuring that we have better economic development activities to support them?

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner :

Madam Speaker, it is vitally important that Parliament and the Canadian government consider the economic self-determination rights of indigenous persons in all activities. This should be a principle that is extended beyond these agreements to natural resource development, environmental assessment and the inclusion of indigenous and traditional knowledge in policies such as health, science, and research and technology. As such, it is encouraging to see more discussion of this and this particular principle included in debate in Parliament writ large.

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I believe in free trade. I believe in Canada and in Canadians. I know that we are some of the most creative people in the world. I know that there is no one who surpasses us in business acumen or in the quality of the products we make. I also know that, on a level playing field, Canadians will always succeed. Our strength is our people. We are so much more than the hewers of wood and drawers of water of our colonial past. We are energetic and innovative, and we have been energized by the input of people and cultures from around the globe. Canadians are not afraid of free trade; we welcome it.

Before the people of Edmonton Manning asked me to be their representative in the House, I was a businessman. Arriving in Canada as an immigrant with little more than the clothes on my back, I took the opportunity that this country gives. I worked hard and built a business that had customers around the world. Anyone who has experience in international business will say that there seems to be no end to the possible problems and pitfalls. All too often, in too many places, the rules of business do not seem fair.

A free trade agreement is designed to make rules fair and to open up opportunities for business people in the countries it covers. A free trade agreement tells the world that the countries signing it are not afraid of fair and honest competition, and that they believe in the ability of their citizens and want them to prosper. I know first-hand that Canada and Canadians can compete with whatever the world has to offer. I know that we have the people and the brain power to shine on the world stage. The ties between Canada and Ukraine are long-standing and historic.

It was under a Conservative government that, on December 2, 1991, Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. It was under a Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, that Canada undertook Operation Unifier, the Canadian Armed Forces mission to bolster the capabilities of the armed forces of Ukraine through the provision of critical military training. Ukraine has been so successful in the past two years in fighting against the invader in part because of that partnership with Canada. That partnership is more than a military alliance; it is also about trade.

It was Conservatives who successfully negotiated the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. What would the bill before us do? Among other things, it is designed to:

(

b) promote, through the elimination of barriers to trade in goods and services, the expansion of reciprocal trade and the strengthening of economic relations between Canada and Ukraine in order to create opportunities for economic development;

(

c) promote conditions of fair competition affecting trade between Canada and Ukraine;

(

d) ensure a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment.

As a former businessman, I appreciate that the word “predictable” is very comforting. What any business person wants to know is that the rules are solid, that the ground does not shift in the middle of a deal. In a world where there seems to be an increasing number of variables, where so much is uncertain, it is important to have a predictable commercial framework if we want business to invest and spur on the economy. I am a big fan of fair competition. As I said, I believe in Canada and in Canadians. I think we can hold our own in a fair competition. Indeed, we can do more than hold our own; we can excel.

Canadian businesses are always looking for opportunities for economic development, opportunities for expansion. One of the reasons we have free trade agreements is to create those same opportunities.

(1035) The legislation before us would update the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which was first proposed by the Conservative government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The agreement, which came into force on August 1, 2017, eliminated tariffs on 86% of Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine. In 2022, Canada's merchandise exports to Ukraine totalled $150 million, while merchandise imports from Ukraine were $271 million. As a reflection of the need brought about by Vladimir Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine, Canada's top export to that country in 2022 was armoured vehicles and their parts.

Also on the list were fish and seafood, pharmaceuticals, machinery and private donations. Canada top imports from Ukraine were animal and vegetable fats and oils, iron and steel and electricity machinery and equipment. In 2022, Canadian businesses invested $112 million directly in Ukraine. Canada currently has a $150-million trade deficit with Ukraine. When the Harper government originally negotiated the FTA, it was designed to be an asymmetrical agreement in which Ukraine would initially gain the most benefit.

The inclusion of more services trade in the updated FTA, and some of the other changes, should balance out bilateral trade. Especially in this time of conflict, Canada should continue looking for ways to use our economic strength to support the Ukrainian people. That includes exporting Canadian liquid natural gas to break European dependence on natural gas from Russia. However, the bill before us, despite being called the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, is not really about free trade. It is about hope.

It is about the hope that one day, hopefully soon, Vladimir Putin will realize that his brutal invasion of Ukraine is doomed to fail, and the hope that once again there can be peace in the land. It is about the hope of millions of people displaced by fighting who are longing to return home to pick up the pieces of their lives. It is about the hope of a return to a normal where there is no longer the fear of falling bombs. It is about the hope that those areas scarred by war can be rebuilt and restored. It is about the hope that with peace can come renewed prosperity.

The agreement is about the future of Canada and the future of Ukraine, about an ongoing partnership that would benefit both countries. Canadians have been impressed with the courage shown by the Ukrainian people in the face of war. Their commitment to freedom and democracy is an inspiration. We want to do what we can to support them in their struggle. Indeed, the worldwide assumption was that in any military confrontation between Vladimir Putin's Russia and Ukraine, the outcome would be a swift and decisive Russian victory. On paper, there was no contest.

The bill is a sign that there is indeed life after war, and it will be a good life. It is important for Canada and all other democracies to show their support for Ukraine in its time of need. We have shown our support militarily. We have shown our support morally. Now, we need to ensure that postwar Ukraine has the tools it needs for rebuilding and for continued success. Conservatives will always work to ensure that trade agreements are in the interest of Canada and of all Canadians, but part of that is ensuring that the agreements are fair to our trading partners.

We are stronger as a trading nation when we deal fairly with others. Common-sense Conservatives support Ukraine 100%. I look forward to the bill's coming before committee, which will allow us to examine what is proposed and to see how it benefits the people of Canada and also the people of Ukraine.

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member emphasized how the legislation is more about hope. I kind of agree with him, in the sense that it goes far beyond the economics of a trade agreement. The Conservative Party has traditionally supported trade agreements, yet today, what we heard were Conservative members condemning the legislation, in the sense of saying that it is woke legislation and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine because it is at war. The issue is whether the member truly believes what he is saying.

Can he please explain to Canadians why it is that the Conservative Party is the only party of the House that appears to want to filibuster and play games with this legislation, as opposed to allowing it to pass? It would be a powerful, hopeful message to send to Ukraine if we could have the legislation go through before Christmas. Would he not agree?

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif :

Madam Speaker, the questions coming from the government side have been so divisive on the issue that Conservatives believe is very important. I have spoken about hope and fairness. I said in my speech, if the hon. member was listening, that we need free trade agreements to be fair for Canada and for our partners, which, in this case, is Ukraine. Hopefully, the government will be more open to the opportunity to have an agreement that is very fair for both parties.

(1045) Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I have a similar question to the one that was just asked. There have been times when Bill C-57 was scheduled for debate and, for one reason or another, my Conservative colleagues decided that debating concurrence in a committee report was more important. If, as my colleague emphasized in his speech, the relationship between Ukraine and Canada is so important, does he see the importance of eventually getting to a vote on the bill, and are there particular sections of the legislation that he thinks the committee needs to pay more attention to?

I would like to get a little more clarity on that from my Conservative colleagues. This is not a question with an agenda; I am just genuinely curious whether they eventually want to get to a vote on this and improve it at committee.

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif :

Madam Speaker, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that I am an international trade expert. I was involved in it as a private citizen before I got into politics. We need enough studies to make sure the bill would be to the best benefit of both parties, which are, in this case, Canada and Ukraine, the Canadian people and the Ukrainian people. That is the lens through which Conservatives would like to see this agreement go.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I would like to ask him a question about this and the other agreements. In Canada, agreements are negotiated by the executive, the government. We know that the provinces have the authority to implement treaty provisions in areas under their jurisdiction, but they are not really involved in the negotiations. In Europe, for instance, we see the opposite. Member states play a key role even though the treaty is signed with the European Union. Could Canada follow Europe's example in this regard?

[ English ]

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif :

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. As I said earlier, I have been involved in trade myself on the international stage. I know that the implementation of any agreement, with the consultation of all, especially, in Canada's case, with the provinces and so forth, is very important. The input of everyone is very critical. Parliament, especially, has to have a proper say in order to make sure that such an agreement would serve all parties, in this case, Canada and Ukraine, well and with fairness.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to rise today to speak to this bill on free trade between Canada and the Ukraine. I represent the riding of Calgary Centre, but a lot of people know that I grew up in small towns around Edmonton, Alberta. When someone grows up in and around a bread basket of Canada like Edmonton, Saskatchewan, as they do in so many parts of the Prairies, they become intertwined with the Ukrainian communities. I think of so many friends and hockey teams from when I was young, Harvey Czerwinski, the Boychuks and all the families we were intertwined with.

This was the result of the wave of Ukrainian immigration that came into Canada after the Holodomor, which is a horrific episode in history, a genocide of the Ukrainian people. We have built our lives together with those of the Ukrainian immigrants who came at that time, and it is a wonderful blending of cultures. We know these people, and we love these people. We will continue to support these people in any way we can going forward. I am also a Conservative, and everybody knows that. Part of the bedrock of what I believe is the openness of free trade around the world, free and fair trade.

Conservatives started free trade in Canada back in the Mulroney years. In the 1988 election, we fought for free trade with the United States. Other parties opposed that then, but it carried. The parties that opposed it are now jumping on board and saying what a great thing free trade is. I remember pushing Canadians over the line because of the negative talk from the opposition parties, both the NDP and the Liberals, who were staking our country's future on not having free trade. I am glad they have come on board, and they have helped expand free trade into other countries, including Ukraine.

The Ukraine free trade agreement was implemented by the last Conservative government, again expanding on that free trade, which we require across the country and across the world so we can continue to advance economic progress and our values, our values of freedom and democracy. Let us think about how that took root in Ukraine. We supported Ukraine. The Conservative government recognized Ukraine as a country at the time. It was one of the first to recognize Ukraine as a country. There was that bedrock of our blending with the Ukrainian people because of our common threads that bind us.

This is something that we continue to build upon today. This is a great debate. I am glad we are actually having this debate on this free trade agreement and that we can talk about the importance to Ukraine and the importance to Canada. This is an important free trade agreement, as was the one that was just recently negotiated and came into effect in 2017. It was less than six years ago that we started having open free trade with Ukraine. What happened since then, of course, close to two years ago, was that Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine.

We recognized then what his goal was, and it was to submerge the Ukrainian people. He does not believe they are a separate people, a separate country or a separate entity where the people get to decide, in a democracy, how they rule themselves. We stand for them doing that. We stand for that here in Canada. We stand for that around the world. Democracy is something we need to uphold, and we will uphold it anywhere we can. My party and, I hope, all parties in the House agree that this is a bedrock of democracy. We continue to support democracies around the world.

We continue to strongly support the people of Ukraine in their struggle against an oppressor, on their border and inside their border, which is killing people on a daily basis. These people are putting their lives on the line to maintain what we have built together. We support them every step of the way, every day. I remember when the invasion first happened. I asked the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources a question about whether he would stop the oil trade between Canada and Russia because it was a transfer of about $5 million per day from Canada to import Russian oil.

At that point in time, the minister stood up and said that we do not import any crude from Russia. The minister did not then understand the difference between crude and oil. We did import about five million dollars' worth per day of partially refined oil from Russia to Canada to supply our needs on the eastern coast. We are a country that imports energy in the east and exports it in the west. This is a bit of a travesty because we were funding $5 million per day to Russia's war machine, so it could take away the sovereignty of a democratic country.

(1050) This was an issue we had to get ahead of very quickly. Eventually, the minister , in about a week, figured out I was right. We do have trade with Russia on oil, and we do need to do something about it. Of course, within the next month, they looked around and figured it out. It was incompetence. I accept that not everybody is going to be on top of every file. It was brought to the attention of the government what it should do about trade with Russia while it was subsuming, or attempting to subsume, one of the best and emergent democracies in Europe.

We needed to act quickly, and I deplore the government for not acting as quickly as it should have. I implore it to act more quickly in getting Ukraine its needs as soon as possible, particularly in this existential fight it has with an authoritarian regime right on its borders. We gave support. Let us think about where Conservatives are on this. Conservatives have supported free trade everywhere in the world. Everywhere there is free and fair trade, we have negotiated great agreements all along the way. We have one here we have to look at. Of course, like with everything, the devil is in the details.

We are going to go through it. We are looking forward to looking into the details of this and getting input from so many people at the international trade committee when we examine it there. I think about the other support we have given Ukraine. Under the Harper government, we helped it build its military. We brought a bunch of expertise. Effectively, its ability to defend itself is largely dependent on the fact that Canada stepped up at a time when danger was not on the horizon.

Ukraine needed our help to build the infrastructure and security, which has sustained it, and it has helped ensure it does not just become subsumed by a much larger entity, Vladimir Putin's Russia, as it has been historically. It is called the “bloodlands” for a reason. A lot of conflict has happened there over the centuries. We talk about all the things we could be doing with Ukraine if the government were to look at what trade means to this country. We do not have liquefied natural gas going to Europe. Why not?

It is because we have had our head in the sand about the number one way we can contribute to fixing global warming around the world, and that is to get so many countries off of coal. Who has stepped up? Vladimir Putin's Russia has. It exports natural gas everywhere it can. It has pipelines into Europe. It has pipelines through Ukraine going to Europe. It actually has pipelines of natural gas supplying the people it is fighting against. We stand against this. We think there should be the availability of resources from a democracy such as Canada to supply Europe with the energy it requires now.

I want everybody to know that, when conflict happens, such as a war in Russia and Ukraine, resources are everything. If someone does not have the resources to fund their democracy, they will have to eventually capitulate. We need to continue to supply those resources and think about what we can do here, think about how we can displace the Russian oppressors here. We could actually replace its natural gas with Canadian liquefied natural gas. We can replace its fertilizer. They are the number one and two exporters of fertilizer around the world.

Canada is the swing producer, and we could get a whole bunch of fertilizer, potash, offshore to displace Belarus and Russia, which are funding a war machine that is challenging the existence of Ukraine. Those would be important trade mechanisms to take here. International commerce has to proceed. I remember very well the CUAET program. At the beginning of the war, the government developed the CUAET program, which is the Canada-Ukraine immigration program, where we allow them to come to Canada and potentially move back. It is a temporary program for Ukrainians to come and be safe here in this country.

Many of them came through Calgary Centre. My office helped so many of those people. I am proud. I meet with those people often, and it is another great testament to how our two countries work together, hand in hand, in advancing common goals, common objectives and common culture. Let us see how this free trade agreement melds into that.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

(1055) [ English ] Tribute to a Mother

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Madam Speaker, it would not be appropriate, so I would not dare point out to members if there was someone quite special to me in the gallery, even if it were my mom. The daughter of Italian immigrants, she was the first to model for me what it looks like to passionately advocate for someone else. In my case, she was fighting for me through the depths of our health care system when I was just a kid.

She is the first one who showed me what care and thoughtfulness looked like, such as when she would make lunch for my brothers and me, carefully noting on each lunch bag whose tuna salad sandwich had celery in it and whose most certainly did not. She is the one who, through all of the years, reminded me again and again that I can be my own harshest critic and that I can only do my best. Whether it was when I got nine out of 10 on a math test or came in second in my first election campaign, she has always been my biggest fan, reminding me that she loves me to the moon and back. [ Translation ] Thanks, Mom.

I love you too.

[ English ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member is correct. It is not right for him to point out who is in the gallery, but I am sure his mother is very proud of him. The hon. member for Nepean.

Hindu Heritage Month

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, every year, November is Hindu Heritage Month. This provides us the opportunity to recognize, preserve, celebrate and promote Hindu culture and heritage. Hindus are close to one million strong in Canada. They have come to this wonderful country from all across the world. It is important for us to preserve our Hindu culture and heritage in Canada for our future generations. Hindu Canadians are the most peaceful, highly educated and hard-working community, and hence, it is a successful community.

Hindu Canadians have significantly contributed and continue to do so for the socio-economic development of Canada. We have immensely enriched the rich Canadian multicultural fabric. Though the ancient Hindu heritage is alive and growing, it freely adapts to any society or civilization and also gives to whoever it comes in contact with. I wish all members a happy Hindu Heritage Month.

(1100) Remembrance Day

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Canada will mark Remembrance Day next Saturday, and we will gather to honour those who have served in guiding our country's freedom, those who currently serve and those who have paid the ultimate price. We are forever in their debt. In Calgary, Remembrance Day ceremonies started on November 1, as we mark 10 additional days of memorializing those who answered the call. These 10 days occur along the aptly named Memorial Drive, where the tree-lined sides serve as a living testament to soldiers who died during World War I.

The Field of Crosses began in 2009, when it was started by local hero Murray McCann. It punctuates Calgary's landscape with over 3,500 crosses paying tribute to soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of freedom. Sustaining this endeavour is an army of local volunteers and those who are inspired to provide ongoing support for remembrance through the adopt a cross fundraising effort. It is a sight to behold: white crosses, representing our fallen, row on row. Lest we forget.

Buckam Singh

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast could tell us about the many contributions that Sikh Canadians have made in all sectors of our country, but during this Veterans' Week, I would like to especially recognize the tremendous sacrifices made by the over 365,000 Sikh soldiers who fought with us and our allies during World War I and World War II. This Sunday, many Canadians, including myself, will be attending the Sikh Remembrance Day ceremony at Mount Hope in Kitchener, to remember these heroes.

The annual Remembrance Day ceremony for Sikh Canadians in Mount Hope is a 15-year-old tradition that has been held at the grave of Private Buckam Singh. Private Buckam Singh joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force in 1915. He was a pioneering Sikh Canadian who served right alongside other Canadian troops in World War I. Private Buckam was a brave hero who was wounded twice in two separate battles. He fought and died for our country. In honour of his memory, today in Brampton, we have a school in his name.

As Canadians, may we never forget the sacrifice and contribution that Sikh Canadians such as Private Buckam Singh have made to Canada.

Foreign Affairs

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I urge the Prime Minister to call for a ceasefire in Israel and Palestine. We must condemn the horrific killing of Israelis by Hamas and the taking of hostages. We must condemn Israel's relentless killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including over 3,000 children. UNICEF has said that Gaza has become a graveyard for children. Let me be clear. Canada is complicit. Canada's arms exports to Israel are at record high levels, with over $20 million exported last year. A significant percentage of our exports include explosives and components related to military aircraft.

There is the risk that they have been used in the bombings of refugee camps, hospitals and the killing of entire families. Canada used to be a leader for peace, in Sinai, in Cyprus and at the UN. We need to be that voice for peace now more than ever. I urge the Prime Minister to call for a ceasefire, for the freeing of hostages, for immediate humanitarian aid and for a two-state solution, with peace and security, including the end of the occupation and a just peace for Palestinians.

[ Translation ] Farmer Resilience

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we had a very hard summer. We experienced extreme heat, torrential rain and forest fires of unprecedented proportions. Once again, I was struck by the courage and solidarity of Châteauguay—Lacolle farmers in the face of climate adversity. I am pleased that my colleagues from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation and Laurier—Sainte‑Marie were able to admire their resilience and know-how as well. Better still, we have been listening to them, and we will continue to be there for them. Farmers exist on the front lines of climate change. They are our partners in the battle we are waging together for the future of our planet.

(1105) [ English ] Steve Hayward

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC) :

We have lost a good one, Madam Speaker. Steve Hayward passed away in August this past summer. He spent his entire life serving our community in Caledon. I met Steve in 2019 at the Alton Legion during a Remembrance Day ceremony. Steve was a fixture there. In fact, Steve spearheaded the $400,000 renovation of the Alton Legion. He was also in charge of trying to get Dixie Road renamed “Veterans Way”. He was always giving to our community and always giving to the Legion. It was all about community for Steve. He volunteered everywhere. He founded Club Caledon to help young people.

He volunteered with lacrosse, minor baseball and minor hockey, just to name a few. He was also, in 2021, Caledon's senior of the year. However, there is more. To children all across Caledon, he was Mr. Santa. He dressed up in that beautiful red costume and brought joy to children all across Caledon. We have lost a good one. Steve's family and friends have our deepest condolences. He will be missed.

Lebanese Heritage Month

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this November, we celebrate Lebanese Heritage Month and the rich culture of Lebanon, its generous and hard-working people and their contribution to making our communities vibrant and prosperous. Thousands of Lebanese call my community of Windsor—Tecumseh home, and because of that, my hometown boasts some of the best festivals and food in Canada. Whether it is the annual St. Ignatius and St. Peter's festivals or the bounty of restaurants such as Souq, Hamoudi's, Mazaar, Al-Sabeel or Tabouli, our Lebanese community proudly shares its rich heritage.

It is also a community of dedicated doctors, nurses, teachers, artists, athletes and entrepreneurs. Yesterday, the founders of Cedar Valley, our local manufacturer of fattoush salad dressing and authentic Lebanese-style pita chips, were featured on CBC's Dragon's Den . Let us deepen our appreciation of the priceless contribution that Lebanese Canadians make to our Canadian mosaic. To everyone back home, Kulluna lil-watan, lil'ula lil-'alam .

Housing

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Milton, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I proudly grew up at the Chautauqua Co-op. It was a vibrant community built with federal funding from Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberal housing strategy back in the eighties. We do not have enough public non-market housing in Canada, and that is a real problem, so I am proud of the government for investing over $1.5 billion in non-market housing solutions going forward. However, this week I was disgusted to hear the Conservative leader refer to co-op housing as “Soviet-style” housing. My mom's family escaped Soviet Hungary and she has been building co-ops in this country for the last 30 years.

To hear that from a guy who has never had a job outside of government and lives in government-subsidized housing was tremendously disturbing. Stigmatizing low-income Canadians will not build housing, and neither will the Conservatives' risky, irresponsible plan. It is time that we end this stigmatization of people on the lower-income scale and get them the housing they need and deserve.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Martin Shields (Bow River, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Canada was once a country where everyone was equal, but after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it seems that some Canadians are more equal than others. Rather than axing the tax for all Canadians everywhere, the Prime Minister declared a carbon tax exemption for some Canadians in some places. Why? It is because his Atlantic caucus revolted with dwindling poll numbers. The Minister of Rural Economic Development said if people want an exemption, they should vote Liberal. My father had a phrase for that, which I cannot say here.

On Monday, the Liberal member for Edmonton Centre will have two choices: Will he side with the Prime Minister 's ideological project and tell his constituents he does not care how much it will cost to heat their homes in frigid Edmonton this winter, or will the Liberals have a free vote for the common-sense Conservative motion to make all Canadians equal by axing the tax?

(1110) British Home Children

Mr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this week I met with Lori Oschefski and representatives of Home Children Canada, an organization raising public awareness about an important time in our history when Canada's immigration laws facilitated the flow of orphaned or low-income children to be immigrated for the purpose of domestic servantry. While many of these children lived hard lives in the U.K., enduring the industrial boom and world wars, their time in Canada was hardly easy. They worked on farms or in homes under very harsh conditions, and many of these young children were abused, mistreated and neglected.

So many of the stories of home children have been lost over time that many Canadians today are unaware of their family's connection to this issue. I know this because I am a descendant of one. My great-grandmother Elizabeth Boardman arrived alone at the very young age of 13. I share this statement today to ensure the stories of British home children are never forgotten considering the harrowing fate many of them met while in Canada. I thank Lori and all members of Home Children Canada for their continued advocacy on this very important issue.

Carbon Tax

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, on the Liberal tax on home heating, inexplicably the member for Edmonton Centre suggested that his constituents should switch out their natural gas furnaces for expensive, higher-emitting heating oil systems. The member for Calgary Skyview has done precious little to get Calgarians the same tax relief for home heating that his party has given to other parts of the country. In debate here, the member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River defended the Liberal tax on home heating, even as people in his community are struggling to afford food and housing under eight years of the NDP-Liberal coalition.

These Liberals need to get their act together. On Monday, the Liberals have the opportunity to admit the Liberal carbon tax is not worth the cost and vote in favour of our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating. Winter is coming, and Canadians in all parts of the country are watching. The Liberals should do the right thing, stand up for their constituents and vote in favour of this motion.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Nova Scotia Liberal MPs got an earful this summer on how the carbon tax was making life more unaffordable in that people were having to choose between eating, heating and housing. Last week, on the day of the massive rally for the leader of the Conservatives in Nova Scotia, the panicking Liberal Prime Minister , who is plummeting in the polls, made an emergency announcement. What was the big announcement? Was it to remove the cause of the problem of the cost of living crisis and axe the carbon tax? No. Was it to permanently take the carbon tax off home heating at least? No.

It was to pause the tax on oil heating temporarily but quadruple it after the next election, and the Liberal minister from Newfoundland said the pause only applies to places that vote Liberal. Atlantic Canadians want fairness, not divisive politics. I challenge the Atlantic Liberals to vote for the Conservative motion to remove the Prime Minister 's costly carbon tax from all forms of home heating so that Canadians can keep the heat on.

[ Translation ] International Inuit Day

Hon. Mona Fortier (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, ullaakkut . I rise today to mark International Inuit Day, which is celebrated annually on November 7. Are members aware that the number of members of the Inuit community living in the national capital region represents the largest Inuit population in southern Canada? The riding of Ottawa—Vanier has several organizations for the Inuit community, including Isaruit Inuit Arts; the Inuuqatigiit Centre for Inuit Children, Youth and Families; the Nunavut Sivuniksavut education centre; and St.

Margaret's Church, which welcomes members of the community on Sundays to gather together and practice their faith in Inuktitut. [ English ] This Sunday, I invite members to join me and the Ottawa Inuit community to celebrate International Inuit Day at the Annie Pootoogook Park in Sandy Hill from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. It will be an opportunity to experience the unique Inuit culture, heritage and traditions. Community feasts, Tuvan throat singing and drumming performances will be featured.

Nakurmiik .

Electoral Reform

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, now more than ever, we need true leadership from those elected to represent Canadians. We are seeing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, and too many are struggling to make ends meet. However, the outdated first-past-the-post electoral system is not providing Canadians with the representation they need, one that truly matches our communities. Canadians know change is necessary. We do not have time to wait. The Liberals ran off a promise of electoral reform, but instead that promise was broken time and again.

Motion No. 86 calls on the government to implement a national citizen's assembly on electoral reform. Ensuring democracy is strong is the responsibility of us all as elected officials, yet Canadians are watching in dismay as divisive politics and partisan games get in the way of real action. Today, I call on all members of the House to listen to Canadians and support Motion No. 86.

(1115) [ Translation ] Quebec

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the Parti Québécois just published the theoretical finances of an independent Quebec, “Un Québec libre de ses choix: finances d'un Québec indépendant”, a study that is thorough and fair. Its publication pushed the National Assembly to unanimously adopt a motion that recognizes “the financial viability of an independent Quebec”. In other words, every elected member from every political party represented in Quebec City, including the West Island Liberals, agrees that Quebec as a country is financially viable.

The study shows that Quebec compares favourably to the G7 and OECD countries on every financial aspect. The study notes that, beyond financial viability, the economic advantage of being a country is the power to choose where to invest one's money and, as the leader of the Parti Québécois said, “putting an end to federal favouritism to the detriment of Quebec when it comes to direct investments in the economy”. Quebeckers have more than enough money for their country. The only question is: When?

[ English ] ArriveCAN

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, members will not believe what happened in a committee hearing yesterday about the Prime Minister 's $54-million arrive scam, which is now under RCMP investigation. Kristian Firth, one of the co-owners of GC Strategies, is a ghost contractor and key player in arrive scam who was ordered to appear at committee. When asked if a senior government official had a cottage, he said no. However, when pressed, Firth said that it is a chalet, not a cottage. People in rural Ontario do not speak the same language as the Liberal elite, but they do know when someone is lying.

When asked if he met with another senior government official in their house, Firth again said no, but documents prove that he did. He was asked if he met with government officials after hours in their homes. He said no, but when I pressed him, he admitted that he did in fact meet with some government officials in their homes. There were so many meetings between a shady contractor and government officials that he cannot even remember them. We have ordered him back to committee with his bank records. Conservatives are going to get answers with respect to the Prime Minister 's $54-million arrive scam.

Centre for Immigrant and Community Services

Ms. Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, happy 55th anniversary to the Centre for Immigrant and Community Services. CICS was started by a few students back in 1968. Now it provides 20,000 people annually with newcomer settlement services, language training, employment support and community health and wellness care from eight locations in the GTA, including its head office in Scarborough—Agincourt. Under the leadership of Alfred Lam, CICS is addressing food insecurity by using food from raised-bed gardens, vertical farming and an on-site greenhouse to feed local communities.

I thank the staff, board members and volunteers who make CICS special. I am proud to say that the federal government has supported CICS with a variety of funding, including a recent grant from the community services recovery fund. Congratulations to CICS and cheers to another 55 years.

Oral Questions Oral Questions

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that desperate Prime Minister announced a temporary pause on carbon tax on home heating for some Canadians in some regions, but only if they heat with oil. How is that fair? In Sudbury, temperatures drop to minus 30 in the winter. Families are struggling to keep the heat on. Conservatives would take the carbon tax off of all home heating bills on all Canadians. On Monday the Liberal MP from Sudbury has a choice to vote for the Prime Minister's carbon tax or vote for our common-sense Conservative plan to take the tax off and keep the heat on for everyone in Sudbury.

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when it comes to fighting climate change, all I ever hear from the Conservative Party members is what they oppose. They oppose providing heat pumps to save on energy bills. They oppose a price on pollution that will put more money in the pockets of Canadians. The heat pump program is a national program. They oppose offshore renewable energy projects. If the Conservative Party actually cared about Canadians, it would present policies that actually support and not just cut government programs. Climate change is important. We are taking steps to deal with it, and that is what we are going to be doing.

(1120) Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is creating two classes of Canadians: those who pay the carbon tax and those who do not. The temporary pause on home heating is for some Canadians but not for everyone in North Bay. The North Bay Food Bank reports it is running low on supplies. Winter is coming. After eight years of the Prime Minister , people are forced to choose between heating and eating. He is not worth the cost. On Monday, the Liberal MP from North Bay has a choice to vote for the Liberal carbon tax or vote with common-sense Conservatives to take the tax off and keep the heat on for everyone in North Bay.

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are helping Canadians all over the country move away from expensive polluting fuels as quickly as possible to fight climate change. That is why we are making it even cheaper and easier to install heat pumps. We are expanding the program to save $2,500 a year on home heating bills and put more money in people's pockets. This is particularly important for rural and remote communities. The Conservatives are doing all they can to end action on climate change, cut government programs and block good jobs on renewable projects.

Hon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what happened to “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”? The Liberal member for Thunder Bay—Superior North has been in cabinet for eight years, yet energy prices have skyrocketed in her region. The Prime Minister 's temporary pause on carbon tax applies to some Canadians in some regions, but not everyone in Thunder Bay. That is not fair. Conservatives would take the carbon tax off all home heating bills for all Canadians. On Monday the Liberal minister from northern Ontario has a choice to vote for the Liberal carbon tax or vote with common-sense Conservatives to take the tax off and keep the heat on for everyone in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, every day Liberal MPs stand up against the Conservative Party, which routinely votes against vital supports for affordability, housing and health care. We have been there for Canadians across every region for the past eight years. Meanwhile the Conservative MPs are opposing every single measure we introduce to address affordability and climate change. This approach is reckless. Instead of their track record of divisive politics, they should be able to support good measures to help Canadians. This is a national program, despite the misinformation from the Conservative Party. Their approach is reckless and unacceptable.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I want to remind members that I am sure whoever posed the question wants to hear it, as opposed to hearing members interrupt. [ Translation ] The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, the Prime Minister has once again invented a new way to divide Canadians: those who will benefit from a pause on the Liberal carbon tax and those who will not, which is 97% of Canadians. This is proof that this tax is not worth the cost, and neither is this Prime Minister. It is also proof that this Liberal carbon tax is a fiscal measure, not an environmental one. When will the Prime Minister understand? More importantly, when will he allow Liberal MPs to vote using common sense and abolish the Liberal carbon tax on home heating?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there is no price on pollution in Quebec. When it comes to fighting climate change, all we hear from the Conservatives is that they oppose it. They oppose a national program for heat pumps, which save on energy bills. They oppose a price on pollution and putting more money into the pockets of Canadians. If the Conservative Party really cares about Canadians, they should come up with a plan, not just list the cuts they cannot wait to make. The Conservatives want to cut programs, not support Canadians or fight climate change.

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what we want to cut is the Liberal carbon tax. Here is something everyone agrees on. Winters are cold in Canada. People have to heat their homes, so that costs a lot of money. That is why we need home heating in the winter. Everyone agrees on that. Where we disagree is that some people think it is a good idea to have a carbon tax on heating. We disagree. We will be voting on this on Monday. It sounds like the NDP will vote in favour of the motion. With all due respect to New Democrats, I will believe it when I see it.

One other unknown is whether the Bloc Québécois will vote with the Liberals or with common sense. When will we find out if the Prime Minister is going to allow his MPs to vote for common sense?

(1125) Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, every day, Liberal members oppose the Conservative Party, which consistently votes against essential support measures for affordability, housing and health care. Over the past eight years, we have supported Canadians in every region, while Conservative members have opposed all measures to fight poverty and climate change. Their approach is irresponsible. Instead of standing up for Canadians, they continue with their politics of division. We need to support positive measures to help Canadians across the country.

Canadian Heritage

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday, TVA announced the elimination of 547 jobs. This is a dark day for both the company and Quebec television. The Bloc Québécois stands in solidarity with the men and women who are being laid off today after giving of their time and talent to TVA for years. Traditional television has been threatened for a long time. Everyone knows it, but nothing has been done. What more will it take for the government to wake up and realize that the future of our television is in jeopardy?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, first, our thoughts are with the more than 500 families who are affected by these job losses. We will be there for them, and we will also be there for the cultural industry and the media. The reality is that this is the reason why we need to continue our work on Bill C‑11 . That is why we introduced that bill. The reality is that the Conservatives always oppose measures to protect the cultural industry, the media and even Canadian content.

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday, Pierre Karl Péladeau made it clear that the traditional television business model is broken. We have to go back to the drawing board. Television, radio and newspapers all face the same dilemma. Unless we make a fresh start and acknowledge the scope of the crisis facing our media industry, our access to information, to our creators and to our culture will come under threat. We have reached a crossroads. My question is simple: What is the plan? What does the government intend to do to save our traditional television and print media?

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the journalists and workers at Quebecor and TVA, all the 500 employees who lost their jobs yesterday. This is not good news for Quebec. This decision was made by a private company. We always support journalism and information sharing. That is why Bill C‑11 is so important. We hope that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives will vote with us to support Canadian and Quebec journalism.

[ English ] Northern Affairs

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP) :

Uqaqtittiji , the Liberals continue to ignore the NDP's call to reform nutrition north. Last month, the minister made an announcement that did not make any reforms and only gave support to a tiny fraction of hunters and food-sharing initiatives. Continuing to subsidize for-profit companies is not reform. When will the government stop equating a few thousands of dollars in supports to hunters with the millions in subsidies to for-profit corporations?

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, transparency, accountability and effectiveness of nutrition north are an absolute top priority. That is why we have established the nutrition north compliance audit review committee, to look at how the subsidy is rolled out. That is why we have expanded the nutrition north program to include the harvesters support grant, which helps traditional hunters hunt, harvest and fish. That is why we have created the community foods program that works with schools and non-profits to make sure people are getting the nutritious food they need.

Grocery Industry

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, Food Banks, like loaves and fishes in Nanaimo, are overwhelmed. Two million Canadians are turning to food banks. That is the highest number we have ever seen. Clearly, food prices are out of control and families are suffering. The Liberals promised food costs would be lower by now, but their out-of-touch plan of nicely asking CEOS to stabilize already high prices is not working. Will the Liberals support the NDP's plan to bring down grocery costs by putting people before profits?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government has listened to Canadians, over months, who are saying that they are struggling to pay their bills. We recognize that it is challenging when we see that the grocery industry is highly consolidated with 80% market share, and food prices are way too high. That is why we called the CEOs of the largest grocery chains to Ottawa, and they have developed action plans. We are now seeing them implement those action plans, and we are monitoring closely to make sure that we can hold those grocery chains accountable.

We are also updating our competition laws to increase competition in the marketplace, and I think that is essential. That is responsible action on behalf of our government.

(1130) Carbon Pricing

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, last Thursday, the Prime Minister flip-flopped on his NDP-Liberal carbon tax scheme. He is giving a tax pause to select people for select types of home heating. After eight years, this Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. With winter just around the corner, every Canadian deserves tax relief on their home heating, including in places like Sault Ste. Marie. On Monday's vote, can that member have the freedom to vote for our Conservative common-sense plan to take the tax off all forms of home heating for those in Sault Ste. Marie and for all Canadians?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, fighting climate change while helping families with their affordability challenges is a dual priority, and a serious plan needs to have both. Our government is standing up to take action on the environment in a way that directly helps Canadians. The recent changes are about home-heating oil, the dirtiest way to heat one's home. As a rural member of Parliament, a lot of my neighbours use home-heating oil and I want to help them get off that, and this plan does just that. There are more people who use home-heating oil in Ontario than there are in Nova Scotia. This is a pan-Canadian solution to getting off home-heating oil just like we are trying to get off coal.

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has created two classes of Canadians: those who pay carbon tax and those who do not. I am sure the member for Sault Ste. Marie has been hearing the same thing from his residents as I have from mine. People are struggling to afford to keep the heat on when the temperature goes down. They do not understand why they are being punished for using clean natural gas. So, again, on Monday, will the member for Sault Ste. Marie vote with his Liberal government's costly, unfair tax on home heating or will he stand with the Conservative motion and take the tax off and keep the heat on for residents of Sault Ste. Marie and for all Canadians?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out, since the question came from a member from British Columbia, that British Columbia does not have a federal carbon tax, it uses its own, and it is actually a leading province on fighting climate change. Conservatives keep claiming that pollution pricing is driving up inflation, and that is just false. This is about moving away from the dirtiest way to heat a home, the least healthy way to heat a home, and lowering emissions at the same time. It would great that if in this place we discussed not whether we should fight climate change but how we fight climate change. It would be great to hear from the Conservatives if they have a plan.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, they finally admitted that their carbon tax is making it harder for Canadians to afford to heat their homes. The Liberals have said that only people who elect Liberals will get a break. To folks who cannot afford to eat, heat or house themselves, this Prime Minister just is not worth the cost. Seven of eight members of Parliament in Ottawa are Liberals, but the common sense of the MP for Carleton will give them all a chance to take the tax off so Ottawans can keep the heat on.

Will the Liberal members for Ottawa vote for our common-sense plan to take the carbon tax off home heating bills for everyone in Ottawa and eastern Ontario?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, all of the Conservatives, including that member, ran on a platform that included a plan to price carbon. They also ran on a plan with a clean fuel standard almost identical to what was proposed by our government. Now, that member has many constituents who use home-heating oil, and that is bad for our air quality, it raises emissions, it is the dirtiest and it is the most expensive way to heat one's home. We are providing free heat pumps for any Canadian whose province wants to work with our government to get them off home-heating oil.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I just want to say that it is quite disrespectful when a member is standing up answering a question and others are having conversations across the way. Again, I want to remind members that if they do not want to take

part in question period and be respectful, they should maybe step out and have those conversations together somewhere else. The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what is clear is that this is a tax plan and not an environmental plan. After eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, the Liberals told Canadians that if they wanted a break from the carbon tax, they had to vote Liberal. Ottawa has seven Liberal MPs. Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has a Liberal MP and Kingston and the Islands has a Liberal MP, but with all of these Liberals, why do the residents of eastern Ontario and Ottawa not get a break from the carbon tax? Will any of these Liberal MPs, like the member for Kingston and the Islands , stand up right now and say that they will vote to scrap the tax on home heating?

(1135) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes knows that he ran on a platform to price carbon in the last election. He promised his constituents that he cared about climate change. As I said before, it would be great if we could spend some time in this House debating how we fight climate change, not if we fight climate change. Not only is this hypocritical of the Conservatives, but it also shows that they cannot be trusted. Their plans are risky; no, if they had a plan, it would be risky. It is irresponsible and reckless.

[ Translation ]

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, this government is making Quebeckers poorer. The second carbon tax applies in Quebec and adds up to 20¢ per litre of gasoline. I am not the one saying that. It is the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Even that is not enough for the Bloc Québécois though. They want to drastically increase it. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. Our Conservative motion is calling for the carbon tax to be cancelled across the board: everywhere and for everyone. Will the Liberals support our common-sense motion to eliminate the carbon tax on all forms of heating and for all Canadians?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, that is stretching the truth a bit and not putting it the right way. The member who just spoke was part of the Quebec National Assembly when it put a price on pollution. Quebec was a leader in the world when it did that. Now, in the House, she is standing up to say no. She should talk to the opposition leader and tell him that what they are doing is risky. It does not help the environment, Quebeckers, or Canadians.

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, this government is panicking. The Prime Minister announced that he was pausing the carbon tax for the Atlantic provinces. That is not enough. We are asking him to be fair to all Canadians, including Quebeckers, because unlike what the Bloc Québécois is saying, the second carbon tax does apply in Quebec. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly because they want to drastically increase the carbon tax. We like to remind people of that. Will the Prime Minister ignore the Bloc Québécois's requests and vote for our motion, which helps Quebeckers?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague clearly did not understand my answer. When she was part of the government in the Quebec National Assembly, she supported carbon pricing in Quebec, which is now a leader in that area. I do not understand how this member can rise in the House today and say that a price on pollution is not one of the best ways to fight climate change. I strongly encourage her and the other Conservative members to talk to their leader to make sure that he understands that carbon pricing is important. It is important for Quebeckers and for Canadians across the country.

Canadian Heritage

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order. Some members are not being respectful in the House when it is not their turn to speak. I would remind them once again that, if they want to speak, it would be better if they did so elsewhere. The hon. member for Drummond may begin his question again.

Mr. Martin Champoux :

Madam Speaker, a full-blown atomic bomb has dropped on the world of Quebec television. TVA, the most-watched television network in Quebec, will be laying off 547 people, a third of its workforce. We are losing extraordinary artisans of our culture. It is catastrophic. It is catastrophic, but not surprising, unfortunately. If this is happening to TVA, all of our media are at risk. We have to rethink everything, if we want to save our media. A massive undertaking is needed. Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage seriously think that Bills C-11 and C-18 are enough to save Quebec media?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, this situation is another sad example of what the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act are meant to address. We understand that it is not easy to reform the media landscape to make it fair, competitive and respectful of all Canadian voices, but we have worked to ensure that markets across Canada, including the francophone market, are supported. Our culture and our democracy depend on the measures that we are taking to support the information system that Canadians are looking for. That is what we are doing, and that is what the Conservatives have opposed every step of the way.

(1140) Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the hundreds of job losses at TVA will inevitably impact news in the regions. There will be fewer journalists, fewer editors, fewer studios, less airtime, and smaller teams with fewer resources. Add to that the fact that print and local media are in crisis, and we have the perfect recipe for our regions to fall off the radar. Meanwhile, it is clear that the Online News Act is about to hit a wall. What will the Minister of Canadian Heritage do to protect television, radio and newspaper news outside major urban centres?

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, once again, our thoughts are with the workers and their families, particularly as the holiday season approaches. This situation could have been avoided and all of those workers would still have jobs if the Conservatives had not spent the past few years opposing Bill C-11 . Yes, Bill C‑11 is enough. Yes, we are here with a bill that is in place to help save media jobs. We managed to get Bill C‑11 passed, and it will provide solutions to protect thousands of well-paying jobs.

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the single mom in Calgary who might lose her home next month woke up to news that one part of the country gets relief from the NDP-Liberal carbon tax. She does not. After eight years, the Prime Minister finally admits he is not worth the cost. When will he realize that heating a home is not a luxury and end this carbon tax chaos for all Canadians?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, with respect to the colleague, we set up a national program. We have heat pumps that will be available to all provinces. Right now, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador have signed up. Yesterday, the minister was talking with B.C. and Manitoba. Therefore, I encourage our Conservative members to talk to the Conservative premiers, to call us and to get involved, so that we can make sure that we provide free heat pumps to all Canadians and make sure we get off oil energy as quickly as possible. It is dirty, and it is expensive.

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, in Calgary, temperatures can drop to -40°C in the winter. A heat pump is not the solution for people in my community who are already struggling. On Monday, the Liberal member for Calgary Skyview has a choice. Will he vote for the Prime Minister 's carbon tax, or, after eight years of sitting as an NDP Liberal, will he vote for our Conservative plan to axe the tax and keep the heat on?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there are Canadians in every province and territory who use home heating oil to heat their homes. It is the most expensive way to heat one's home, and it is the dirtiest way to heat one's home. It is the most emissions-intensive way to heat a home, and it is also the least healthy way to heat a home. Our Canada-wide program will get Canadians off home heating oil and using a heat pump. This is a program that is for every province and territory in the country. It is all about lowering our emissions. Former Liberal governments phased out coal. We are going to continue to phase out coal, and we are going to continue to work toward an emissions-free Canada.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years with the Prime Minister pretending that his way was the only way to reduce emissions, he announced a pause on the carbon tax on home heating, but only for some Canadians, only in some regions and not for all Canadians. Calgarians are already struggling to meet everyday expenses and keep warm during cold winter nights. On Monday, the member for Calgary Skyview has a choice to make. Will he continue to support the Prime Minister 's plan to divide Canadians by taxing regions differently, or will he be allowed to support our common-sense Conservative plan to take the tax off and keep the heat on for all Canadians?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I will accept that the member for Calgary Centre probably has zero constituents who use home heating oil. That is not true across the whole province. There are Albertans who use home heating oil and are not on propane or natural gas. The difference between propane and natural gas and home heating oil is that home heating oil is way more expensive, way more emissions-intensive and less healthy. We need to get Canadians off that product and using a heat pump. We already know that the Conservative Party of Canada is here for the oil and gas sector. Let us see if the Conservatives are here to fight climate change and help Canadians get to using a heat pump.

(1145) Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that is the first time I have heard somebody differentiate the warmth going into people's homes in the wintertime to keep them from freezing, but thanks. The NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost, and Canadians can see it. Canadians are struggling to make ends meet with the inflation compounded by the Prime Minister 's policies. We have put forward a common-sense Conservative motion to take the carbon tax off, so all Canadians can keep the heat on. Residents of Calgary Skyview want to know if they will be left out in the cold by their Liberal member . Will the government allow the backbenchers to vote for tax fairness for all Canadians?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, pricing carbon is a market-based solution. I know the member for Calgary Centre is an economist, and he is a smart guy. We have spent some time in the House debating such issues, but a market-based instrument is not a controversial one. We are talking about the most expensive, the dirtiest and the most emissions-intensive way to heat a home. We need to get Canadians off that product and using an efficient heat pump to heat their homes, lower our emissions and make sure we are driving toward a net-zero future for Canada.

Small Business

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, small businesses need a real extension to repay the CEBA loans that they used to survive the pandemic. The Liberals' solution is an 18-day extension. That is a cruel insult to businesses in my riding, which are facing a perfect storm of postpandemic recovery, high inflation and, now, impacts from wildfires. The Penticton and Wine Country Chamber of Commerce is calling for action. Will the minister listen and give small businesses the one-year extension to the CEBA loan deadline that they need to survive?

Hon. Rechie Valdez (Minister of Small Business, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. That is why we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both balanced and fiscally responsible. We know times are tough, which is why our government is also cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter. We will continue to listen to small businesses, and we will be there for all Canadians.

Indigenous Affairs

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the long and painful legacy of Canada's neglected Métis people has and continues to have horrific impacts on Métis children. Métis families in British Columbia deserve a child welfare system that centres them, their culture and their future. Today, it fails to do that. Métis children deserve to know that, when their families need support, they will get that support from those who understand the most: their families. When will the government meet honourably with Métis Nation British Columbia to ensure that Métis children in the province do not continue to fall through the cracks?

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his passion in regard to advancing Métis interests across Canada. Our government is committed to working with Métis people. Our government is continuing to advocate and make sure that all indigenous children in Canada have the proper supports. We are going to continue to work with first nations. We are going to continue to work with Inuit people. We are going to continue to work with Métis people. We will get it right. We are going to have to meet with the stakeholders to make sure we do so, but we are committed to doing so.

Natural Resources

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, members of the natural resources committee have had their work brought to a standstill by a reckless and wasteful Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives are deliberately trying to stop workers from getting a seat at the table and trying to end Atlantic Canada's offshore renewable energy opportunities by opposing vital legislation. Can the parliamentary secretary please share with the House the negative impacts that delaying these important bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 , will have on the lives of Canadian workers?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is appalling that the Conservatives would rather play political games and partisan games, and derail the work of Parliament, than actually roll up their sleeves and work. The sustainable jobs act and the Atlantic accord act are vital pieces of legislation for economic development. We call on the Conservatives to listen to workers, to listen to labour leaders and to listen to Canadians who are asking them to get back to work and end this shameless, reckless filibuster.

(1150) Carbon Pricing

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Skyview should be fighting to get the same tax relief for home heating for Calgarians that his party divisively gave to other parts of the country. After eight years of the Liberal government, his constituents, who are next door to mine, are struggling to buy food and afford mortgage payments. On Monday, he has a choice to make. Will he check the mail, stand up for the people of Calgary and vote in favour of our common-sense Conservative motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are targeting home heating with oil across the country. There are 1.3 million households that have home heating oil. Oil heat is more expensive. It is two to four times more expensive compared with natural gas. Since 2022, with the war on Ukraine, oil heating has increased by nearly 75%. We have also increased the rural rebate. We have doubled it from 10% to 20%. These are affordability measures. I would encourage the Conservative Party to support climate change, to support affordability measures to help constituents and support this program all across Canada.

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I do not think the member for Edmonton Centre got that particular memo, because earlier this week, the member, whose constituents overwhelmingly use natural gas to heat their homes, suggested that his constituents, in fact all Canadians, should switch out their cleaner gas furnaces for expensive, dirty heating oil systems. I say, "wow". I have a better idea. Will the member for Edmonton Centre get with the climate plan and vote in favour of our common-sense motion to axe the tax on all forms of home heating and provide the same tax relief that his party is giving to other parts of Canada?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we know the price of home heating oil has skyrocketed due to global commodity prices, and that is why we are stepping up to help with a national program. The Conservative Party needs to do its homework. We are focused on ensuring that we are addressing the pressing needs of every part of the country. I would encourage the member of the Conservative Party to talk to the provincial premiers. We have Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland. We need other premiers to come to the plate to establish a home heat pump program and make it free for all Canadians all across—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, people in British Columbia are coming to realize that the NDP-Liberal carbon tax is exactly that, a tax plan that is causing inflation, higher interest rates and higher mortgage payments. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government's mismanaging our economy, Canadians are starting to realize that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. On Monday, will he allow his members to vote yes to the common-sense Conservative plan to take the tax off and keep the heat on?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, of course, the member opposite knows that B.C. has its own system, so that is just not accurate. It is not the only place we are seeing inaccuracies. Look at the health committee on the accusations of waste there that are completely unfounded. They are talking about an advance purchase agreement for vaccines. Details relating to this contract released to the Standing Committee of Public Accounts in the context of its study of the Auditor General's report on COVID-19 vaccines were already there. All parties were able to review the documents with the appropriate confidentiality provisions in place.

Due to a confidentiality agreement with the contractor, specific details of the contract, including the vendor name and financial information, could not be discussed publicly. Of course, the Conservatives know that.

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is not even listening to what British Columbians are saying; 72% of people in my province say that the carbon tax is both ineffective and unfair. Even the NDP premier is now calling for carbon tax fairness. The member for Cloverdale—Langley City has a choice to make on Monday. Will he vote for the Liberal plan of different taxation for different people, depending on where they live, or will he vote yes for the common-sense Conservative plan to take the tax off and to keep the heat on for all Canadians, including all members of Cloverdale—Langley City?

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that British Columbia, as a leader against climate change, has been working hard for almost two decades now on its own price on carbon. The plan we have put forward will benefit thousands and thousands of British Columbians who continue to use home heating oil. They will be able to take advantage of what we have put in place. In addition, as was already said, the Premier of British Columbia is going to work with us to ensure that those British Columbians who cannot have access to heat pumps will be—

(1155) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am sorry, but somehow the microphone went off, so I will allow the hon. member to finish up.

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed :

Madam Speaker, simply put, what we have put in place will help the thousands of British Columbians who continue to use home heating oil. It will help them move to heat pumps. The Premier of British Columbia has announced that he will work with us. That is how we will continue the fight against climate change: by working together, not by opposing every single measure like the Conservatives do.

[ Translation ] Public Services and Procurement

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the Public Health Agency of Canada wasted $150 million of taxpayers' money on a contract that failed. People must be wondering how so much money could possibly be wasted, and so are we. The government refuses to say anything about the contract, who it was with and for what services, why it did not work and, most importantly, why the government is not demanding a refund if it did not get any value for our money. Quebeckers have a right to know who took off with $150 million of public money without delivering any services, and why.

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I recall that early in the pandemic, times were very difficult across the country and around the world. At the time, we needed to ensure that all options were on the table. That is why we entered into agreements with several companies to create any kind of vaccine, because it was impossible to know at that time which vaccine would work for the population. That is why it was important to try all the options, and that is what we are talking about here today.

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the government cannot and will not get off that easy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that he would expect the government to be in a position to provide at least some details, if they cannot or will not reveal the name of the company. He also says that he thinks the loss for one contract of $150 million is clearly worth some explanation. He is right. Quebeckers deserve an explanation. The government cannot possibly be unable to provide more details. What happened to the $150 million?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, every detail was available, not just to the Auditor General, but to all the parties. The Bloc Québécois had the opportunity to see all the information. It was a process tied to COVID‑19 and all the information was available. At the beginning of the pandemic, it was so important to ensure that every option was available. It was a very reasonable measure. It is why Canada had one of the best responses in the world during the pandemic.

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Jake Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, what I hear back home about the carbon tax is that people work all week to buy food that costs too much. It is the same for gas. New Brunswick wants the carbon tax gone, just like it wants the Prime Minister gone, because he is not worth the cost. On this side of the House, we understand the pressure the Liberal carbon tax has put on everyone. We will continue to fight to axe the tax. Do the Atlantic MPs support the Prime Minister with his plan to quadruple the carbon tax to 61¢ after the next election?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, after a year in which Canadians have experienced record hurricanes and destruction from other natural disasters such as wild fires, the Conservatives still cannot say the words “climate change”. They cannot acknowledge that climate change is impacting our economy, our livelihoods and, in many cases, our very lives. We need to step up and fight climate change. It is time we stopped debating whether we fight climate change and start debating how we fight climate change. I would urge the members opposite, particularly those from Atlantic Canada whose livelihoods are impacted by climate change every single season, to consider this.

Mr. Jake Stewart (Miramichi—Grand Lake, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, that is more divide and conquer from the other side of the floor. Last week, the minister from Long Range Mountains said that the punishing carbon tax exemption was not granted to Canadians across the country because they did not vote Liberal. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister said that, if re-elected, the NDP-Liberal government would quadruple the carbon tax on home heating, gas and groceries to 61¢ a litre. After eight years, the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister direct the finance minister , in her call today with provincial ministers, to axe the carbon tax for good and for everyone?

(1200) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our vision is to move Canadians who currently use home heating oil, which is the most carbon-intensive, the least healthy and the most expensive way to heat a home, onto an efficient heat pump. I know for a fact that there are a lot of constituents in New Brunswick who still use home heating oil, but the premier of New Brunswick still has not signed on to our heat pump program.

I am going to spend the next couple of weeks talking to Conservative provincial members to try to convince the premier of Ontario to sign on, so that my neighbours in Milton who use home heating oil could have access to a high-efficiency heat pump and get off that expensive, dirty way to heat their home.

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday, Nova Scotia NDP-Liberals said that removing the carbon tax from home heating would save only pennies. Every tank of home heating oil has at least $200 of carbon tax, apparently just pennies to Liberals. The Liberal carbon tax plan now is to increase home heating oil and carbon taxes to $2,400 a year after the election. After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Liberal who supports the quadrupling of the carbon tax to 61¢ after the next election please stand up?

Mr. Marc Serré (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are not giving all of the information. There is a rebate provided to Canadians. There is also what we have done: Last week, we doubled the rural top-up to 20%, which is important. If the member cared about jobs, he would have voted for Bill C-49 . If the member cared about jobs, he would tell his party to stop filibustering at the natural resources committee so it could pass legislation on Bill C-49. They will not even have the legislation come to committee for debate, to bring in the premiers and to bring in witnesses to talk about it. It is shameful and it is reckless, and Conservatives are not there for Canadians.

[ Translation ] Families, Children and Social Development

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, when Canadians needed support during the pandemic, community groups stepped up to provide crucial aid. Today, many of them are having a tough time generating revenue and coping with rising costs. They are also having a hard time attracting and retaining staff and volunteers. Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development inform the House of the measures that are being taken to support these organizations?

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Thanks to our community services recovery fund, nearly 5,500 organizations across the country have received funding. In the member's riding, Châteauguay—Lacolle, that means that groups like Centre 55 Plus Châteauguay are now better equipped to support seniors. It also means that organizations such as Cultivons Ch