44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 1, 2023 10:00AM
- Dec/1/23 12:19:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, only one thing is happening here, and Canadians should take note.
This morning, on the Order Paper, we were scheduled to debate once again the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and once again, Conservatives have used a procedural tactic to slow down the process. The member should be absolutely ashamed for what he and all Conservatives are doing right now. He needs to come clean and tell Canadians why he does not support Ukraine and why his leader does not support Ukraine. They need to stop slowing the process down and start doing the responsible thing: stand up for Ukraine and stop telling Ukraine what it needs. I think Ukraine has heard enough of what Conservatives have to say about what it needs.
It is time for Conservatives to start listening to Ukraine, to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and to do the right thing: allow us to debate the free trade agreement and get to a vote.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 12:41:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the same point or order, Conservative obviously do not want to talk about this, and that is clear. The member is talking specifically about about the motive; why Conservatives have tabled this motion. The motion is not even actually on the report itself; the motion is that we concur in the report. I think it is extremely germane that the member has the opportunity to express why he believes the Conservatives are trying to block this piece of legislation.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 12:57:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted with what we are seeing unfold here today in the House of Commons.
For those who are watching at home and those who might be tuning in, it is important to understand what happened here today. We put forward the Order Paper, and that Order Paper says what we plan to debate during the day. Conservatives would have seen on that Order Paper that we were taking the report back from committee, with respect to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. They knew it was our intention to debate this today.
For the fourth, fifth or maybe even sixth time, the Conservatives have, once again, used a concurrence motion to shut down debate on something they are absolutely afraid of talking about. I find it most egregious that this comes the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published an open letter to the Leader of the Oppositionthat said:
The UCC was disappointed to see the Official Opposition vote against the adoption of Bill C-57, the implementation of which would modernize the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA).
Ukraine needs assistance in strengthening economic reslience. Ukraine's government has stressed that the modernization of CUFTA would play an important role in this regard.
The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.
The Conservatives knew this was coming. They put forward this particular concurrence motion the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published this open letter.
There are two red herrings on this matter I would like to talk about. The first is the price on pollution, the carbon tax and the Conservatives' so-called reasoning for not supporting this. I would remind the House that we do not have to go that far back in Debates to see that they never talked about the price on pollution and they never talked about the carbon tax the entire time we first started debating this. They used every reason not to.
As a matter of fact, the first time I gave a speech on this, I stood in this exact same place and spoke to it as though it were a foregone conclusion, that this entire House was going to support it. I talked for about 10 minutes, and then I sat down. The member for Cumberland—Colchester stood up and started to talk about the agreement as though it were woke legislation. I could not believe it. I almost fell over. Members can go back and review the tape. I stood up in shock. I did not know what was going on.
Then we started to find out, as little bits of information started to make their way forward, that that member and four other Conservatives travelled in June to London, where they had meetings with people from the Danube Institute, who also sponsored some of their travel. It is a right-wing Hungarian think tank that, coincidentally, has also referred to the Canadian and western approach towards Ukraine as being woke.
Then the Conservatives show up back here, a couple of months later, and they start parroting the exact same information from that particular organization. It is not a far stretch to understand why they are in this position. That is the first red herring.
The second red herring, the newly developed one that just came out of committee a couple of days ago, was when Conservatives tried to put forward amendments about arms. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan kept saying, “Ukraine needs”. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to start listening to them when they say they want this agreement. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress when it says they want this agreement. What Ukraine does not need are Vladimir Putin and the Conservatives telling it what it needs. That is not what Ukraine needs. It needs Conservatives to listen. Now it is in an open letter, which was just distributed yesterday.
Once again, we see the same tactics from the Conservatives. They have two red herrings, and it is a red herring because I reminded the committee members, when I was there earlier this week, that there was half a billion dollars in the 2022 budget for arms for Ukraine. They voted against that. They could perhaps somehow justify that being in the opposition meant they had to vote against the budget, but I went back and looked at the speeches from the four members who were in that committee, and not a single one of them actually spoke about those arms during the budget debate. It is a red herring.
It is red herring after red herring. The Conservatives are looking for reasons not to support it.
808 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:02:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are debating the concurrence motion on a report. We are not even debating the report. We are debating whether or not the report should be concurred in. I am speaking directly to the procedure and to why I think Conservatives are using this motion right now. I am extremely relevant on my points.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have not said anything that is not factually true. The reality is that—
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:05:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin has tried to tell Ukraine what it needs, and the world finds that to be incredibly offensive. When I sat in the trade committee earlier this week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan tried to tell the rest of Canada what he believes Ukraine needs. My only point was to say that the people of Ukraine do not need either Vladimir Putin, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, or any Conservative member to tell them what they need.
They are very capable of telling us what they need, and they have told us that they need the Conservatives to start supporting them because Conservatives are not supporting them. I recognize the fact that this member and many other members feel really uncomfortable about this, and I encourage him to bring it up in his caucus meeting to start talking about why they are not supporting Ukraine and why they are coming up with these red herrings to try to make up reasons for not doing so.
My point is to tell members that I believe the reason Conservatives are doing this is that there are elements within their caucus that support these alt-right narratives that encourage the world to turn against Ukraine. Members do not need to take it just from me. They can take it from the Leader of the Opposition's very own supporters.
I published a poll on Twitter not that long ago in which I asked, “Do you support [the Leader of the Opposition] importing MAGA politics into Canada?” Ninety-one per cent of the respondents, of over 20,000 respondents, said yes. People do not have to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
289 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:07:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, where is the disruption coming from? Is the disruption coming from me pointing certain things out and people feeling uncomfortable about that? Yes, it is very possible.
All I am trying to say is that I know for a fact, based on polling I have done on social media, that it is very well understood and regarded that a lot of the member for Carleton's supporters are all over my Twitter feed. They voted, and 91%, which is over 20,000 votes, said they support MAGA politics.
I am not even trying to draw a loose link here. I am giving a direct result. A lot of Conservative supporters support the alt-right movement. As a result, these Conservatives do not want to put themselves in a position where they could possibly lose some of those supporters to Maxime Bernier. That is what is going on here. Everything else is a red herring.
I think Canadians can see through it. I think Ukrainians can see through it. I think the Ukrainian Canadian Congress can see through it. It is becoming extremely clear to Canadians that Conservatives have turned their backs on Ukraine.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:11:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Ukraine already has a carbon tax. It has since 2011. It was part of getting into the European market. To suggest—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:11:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what a ludicrous defence they have. They are trying to suggest that we are imposing something on Ukraine that it already has. To make matters even worse, the Ukrainian president is asking for this. He came to this country. He signed the deal with the Prime Minister. I get a kick out of it when she says we are trying to kick somebody when they are down. That is literally what they are doing to Ukrainians right now.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:12:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right that climate change is going to impact farmers, probably more than anybody else. When we think about it, where we used to be able to grow certain crops in the world at one point, we will not be able to; suddenly, in other areas, we will be able to. This is a result of climate change. I strongly believe that the current government has been there for farmers and will continue to be there for farmers, to provide them with the supports that they need, particularly in relation to climate change.
The trumped-up rhetoric coming from the other side about a carbon tax, or a price on pollution, is absolutely just that. Of course, Conservatives always neglect to tell Canadians about the rebate they get out of that, which puts eight out of 10 Canadians in a better position compared to what they spent on the carbon tax.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:14:27 p.m.
- Watch
It leaves me speechless, Madam Speaker. Eight years ago, when I was a new member of Parliament, I travelled with the defence committee to study operations Reassurance and Unifier. Members of the Conservative Party were there. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman were there. They cared about Ukraine. They talked as though they were there to support Ukraine. Now, all of a sudden, they are absolutely silent.
I do not doubt the member Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman's commitment to Ukraine. What I have a problem with is how he is being influenced by the Leader of the Opposition and the alt right fraction of the Conservative Party of Canada.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 1:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, sometimes there are bills that come before the House that require royal recommendation and, typically, those types of bills do not get through. I had some concerns when reading through the bill as to whether or not this one was going to fall into that category.
I wonder if the member can comment as to whether or not she has had any advice on that and whether it would require royal recommendation.
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 2:14:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for the introduction of Bill C-353, the foreign hostage takers accountability act.
Canada's promotion of human rights and a rules-based international order are pillars of our foreign policy. The practice of arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations undermines our democratic values and our security and threatens the foundation of our international system, which is based on trust and amicable relations between states. Incidents of hostage-taking by terrorist groups often ensnare innocent civilians and pose significant threat to national security. We also recognize the immeasurable impacts that these practices have, not only on victims but also on their families, their friends and their supporters around the world.
This is why Canada has responded. Almost three years ago, we launched the initiative against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations, and we have been playing a leadership role in the fight against arbitrary detention. In addition, to deal with instances of hostage-taking by terrorist groups, we have put in place a robust system and most recently named a senior official for hostage affairs. Our government continues to explore all options to deter, prevent and respond to these egregious acts and to defend the rights of Canadians.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the proposals in the private member's bill introduced by the member for Thornhill. I believe that all members in this House agree that Canada must continue to uphold its firm commitment to protect Canadians, to defend human rights and international peace and security, and to respond to cases of wrongful detention and hostage-taking in an effective and meaningful way.
To respond effectively to the egregious practices of arbitrary detention and hostage-taking, we must have the appropriate tools and services in place. These issues are incredibly complex, and any response must be very carefully considered. Bill C-353 focuses on the tools at the government's disposal to combat arbitrary detention for diplomatic leverage as well as hostage-taking of Canadians, permanent residents or eligible protected persons outside Canada. We agree on the importance of enhancing the tools available to the government and of refining our approach. However, these issues are incredibly complex and any response must be carefully considered in order to minimize any potential harm to victims. Our overriding concern must always be the well-being of the detainees. Therefore, my remarks today will focus primarily on this consideration.
This bill addresses two extremely serious but distinct issues: arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and international hostage-taking. The motivations, tactics and risks of harm to the victims can vary greatly. For example, while a state may be more receptive to diplomatic pressure to release a hostage, non-state actors may be less responsive to this type of pressure. Also, the risks of serious harm to the victim may vary across such cases. Every situation is unique and each case therefore requires a sophisticated and tailored response.
Further, there are distinctions to be made among types of hostage-taking incidents. There are those involving terrorist entities versus those perpetuated by criminal groups. In general, the government considers hostage-taking by terrorist groups as a threat to national security and therefore our response differs compared to how we deal with kidnappings by criminal gangs, for instance. This bill, however, proposes the same set of tools for all of these scenarios and would mandate some actions on the part of government in response to these cases, which raises a range of concerns.
We know that an effective response must be designed to respond to each unique situation to ensure the safe release of the victim. Moreover, the imposition of sanctions must be very carefully considered. The pros and cons must be weighed in each case. Imposing sanctions during a hostage situation could, for example, increase the risk that the hostage is mistreated in retaliation by his or her captors.
The use of monetary and migratory incentives, as the bill proposes, may give rise to serious unintended consequences. It could increase the amount of false information provided by opportunistic individuals, including those associated with captor groups. This could complicate investigative work and leave families more vulnerable to scams by predatory individuals seeking a payday. In fact, there is potential that this could create a market for hostage-takings in Canada.
I think we can all agree that no member of the House wants to see taxpayer dollars ending up in the hands of terrorist organizations. No member wants to increase risk for Canadians travelling, working or studying abroad. Further, the reporting and information-sharing provisions in the bill also require careful consideration in order to avoid any potential repercussions to efforts used to secure release of detainees. In pursuing the safe release of a Canadian, we must always be very careful about how information is shared. It is imperative that we not share information that could jeopardize negotiations for the safe release of a detainee. It is also important that we have the discretion to share information with families of victims as and when appropriate. There are cases where victims do not want to have their information shared with family members, for instance. Family dynamics can be complex. We must respect their wishes.
Responding to these egregious practices and protecting Canadians are priorities for the government. As a result, many programs, policies and authorities have already been put in place and are being used to support Canadians facing arbitrary detention and hostage-taking. I am pleased to confirm that we already have, in our tool kit, many of the elements that are proposed in Bill C-353.
First, Canada already has two autonomous sanctions regimes, which have been used to respond to a variety of circumstances in the international context, including gross and systemic violations of human rights. Further, existing legislation, such as the terrorist financing provisions in the Criminal Code, and regulations regarding sanctions related to terrorist entities, already impose asset freezes and dealings prohibitions on terrorist groups.
Second, the government has an established set of mechanisms to assist victims and their families. For example, there are robust policies and practices in place to adopt a trauma-informed approach to aiding former hostages and their families.
Global Affairs Canada has implemented standard operating procedures, and works closely with other governmental organizations and external partners in efforts to resolve these cases. There are also existing programs and funding mechanisms that facilitate access to financial support, medical assistance and counselling for Canadians. We continue to refine and enhance our approach to ensure effective and tailored support to victims and their families.
No one doubts that the government must have effective tools and programs to respond to the egregious acts of hostage-taking and arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. Bill C-353 is an example of the House's recognition of this fact. Nonetheless, we require solutions that are carefully considered and that are informed by deep knowledge and experience of the challenging, complex issues. It is clear that a one-size-fits-all solution may have unintended consequences, and that having the discretion to respond to a particular case, depending on the circumstances at hand, is key to an effective, victim-centred approach.
As debate continues, I look forward to working with the member for Thornhill and with all members of the House, to enhance the tools at Canada's disposal and to reinforce our commitment to address arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and hostage-taking.
I will just comment briefly on my intervention earlier today, when I asked the member for Thornhill about royal recommendation. Royal recommendation is something that is very rarely afforded to a private member's bill. I know this for a fact, because I brought a bill before the House early in my time as a parliamentarian that did require royal recommendation, and my very own government did not give royal recommendation to the bill. The bill did, nonetheless, still pass, as far as it could go without the royal recommendation, with the support of all members of the House. However, we cannot underestimate the importance of triggering such an action by the government. What is of critical importance is recognizing that when royal recommendation is required, it is very easy to allow it to go through in one particular case, but setting a precedent is where it becomes very dangerous.
I understand any government's reluctance, whether it is Liberal, Conservative or NDP, to use a royal recommendation based on that rationale. Nonetheless, I look forward to continuing discussion on this important bill.
1438 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
