SoVote

Feb/5/24 5:44:55 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us what the international fallout might be if we were not to vote unanimously in favour of this agreement.

28 words

Unanimously

Mr. Richard Cannings

Feb/5/24 5:45:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that Ukraine is looking to the world for support in its struggle against Russia. It is looking to the world for fighting the war now and rebuilding later. What is noticed around the world is when countries have divisions within their parliaments and legislatures with respect to support for Ukraine. We are seeing that in the United States. This is very concerning to Ukrainians and they are very concerned about seeing the same pattern here in Canada. They really want to see unanimous support to show the rest of the world that we are behind Ukraine.

102 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/5/24 5:46:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, right now we are voting on a bill to implement an agreement. To my knowledge, members of Parliament are never included in the process of negotiating agreements. We are presented with a fait accompli. Since we cannot amend agreements, what does my colleague think of the attempts that we are seeing in the House to amend agreements and policies, instead of voting on a bill?

68 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Feb/5/24 5:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I would rather we have a culture in this place where Parliament is asked about free trade agreements and negotiations before they happen, which is what I mentioned in my speech about the minister telling us here in Parliament when her team is going into negotiations with another country, in this case Ecuador, so that we can look at that situation and say what our priorities should be for Canadians and Canadian workers. That way we can have an influence over the negotiations and give advice to the negotiators before things happen. As the member said, we are just simply presented with a fait accompli, and we have to vote yea or nay on that. I think we should have more say before negotiations start and we should have a proper amount of time to examine the bill before this debate happens, and that, I am hoping, will happen in the future.

159 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/5/24 5:48:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued before, that there is no other trade deal that Canada has that has implemented a carbon tax in it. I would argue, and it is a very reasonable argument that can be made, that what Ukraine does not need is a carbon tax; what it does need are weapons. When Bill C-57 went to committee, the member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan proposed amendments to the bill that would expedite the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and yet the NDP voted against that amendment to the bill. My question is: Why?

107 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Feb/5/24 5:48:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question. I would first say that there is nothing in this free trade agreement that forces a carbon tax or carbon pricing on Ukraine. Ukraine already has that. However, there is a statement in the agreement that says that nothing in this agreement will force either of the two countries to change their environmental policies or laws. That is just a false argument from the start. Second, we had an amendment about Canada providing more military support and armaments to Ukraine. I voted against that for two reasons. One, it was totally out of the scope of the bill and so we could not really listen to that; we could not hear it. Two, this is a free trade agreement. It is about setting the rules between two countries on how they trade with each other. It is not about sending aid to Ukraine. Ukraine needs armaments. I remember the very first day of the war that President Zelenskyy said, “I need ammunition, not a ride”. However, this is a totally separate question. If we had voted in favour of that amendment, it would have sent the whole agreement back to the negotiating table, and it would have set it back weeks or months, who knows how long. Of course, I voted against that. Ukraine wanted this bill passed as it was, it wanted it passed unanimously, and I am proud to say that is what I am doing.

249 words

Ukraine
War

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Feb/5/24 5:50:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy hearing Conservatives say, “Mr. Speaker, what Ukraine does not need”. However, what Ukrainians do not need is the member for Barrie—Innisfil telling them what they need. Ukraine does not need that. What Ukrainians need is for the member for Barrie—Innisfil to actually start listening to them when they tell him what they need. A lot of this discussion has been on the carbon tax specifically. I could not help but notice that yesterday even the darling of the alt-right, Elon Musk, tweeted out, “The only action needed to solve climate change is a carbon tax.” Even Elon Musk is jumping on board and saying the same thing. When it comes to the carbon tax, how out of touch are these Conservatives?

135 words

Mr. Richard Cannings

Feb/5/24 5:51:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I saw that tweet from Elon Musk, and I would disagree with him in saying that it is not the only thing we need, but it is the first thing we need. It is the easiest, cheapest way to bring down our emissions and help solve the climate crisis. We will need to do everything else, but that is the first thing we need to do. We have had it in British Columbia for over a decade and it has worked, despite what Conservatives say, and despite Conservatives telling my constituents that we should get rid of the federal carbon tax to help my constituents; we do not pay a federal carbon tax in British Columbia. However, it is an essential part of any country's fight and any jurisdiction's fight against climate change. I am boggled by the fact that the Conservatives do not get that. I am happy that Elon Musk gets it, because I do not agree with everything Elon Musk says. It is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to fight climate change, and we need to do it and everything else.

189 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Feb/5/24 5:52:24 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-57

Mr. Speaker, I fear I may disappoint my colleagues, because I will not be talking about the carbon tax. It is often said that the desire to appear clever stops us from actually becoming clever. That is what I will try to show today. I want to comment on Bill C‑57, which seeks to review the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but I will talk about it in a different way. For centuries, people around the globe have heard Hamlet asking one of the big questions: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” That is the way he put it, but I will rephrase the question: “To be, or to appear to be, that is the question”. In other words, is it better to be or to appear to be? When it comes to free trade, Canada seems to have made up its mind. It has chosen to appear to be. When I think of “appearing to be”, the word that comes to mind is “minimum”, meaning the very least, the bare minimum. The agreement does not say that this is the minimum that we want. It says it is the minimum that we are going to agree on. Last weekend, an article in La Presse caught my attention. The headline read: “Is Canada doing the minimum for Ukraine?” The article quoted authors Justin Massie and Nicolas‑François Perron, who argued that Canada's primary objective is to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. That is a quality it shares with golden retrievers. I am just throwing that in for those in the know. The authors also proved that Canada was doing the bare minimum, favouring actions that look good over those that actually work. In their chapter of a book that is soon to be published—in French, I should mention—by the Presses de l'Université Laval, they scrutinize the help Canada has offered to Kyiv. The authors argue that, far from being a leader in the pro-NATO camp, Ottawa is content to echo the positions of its allies and offer “very modest” military support to Ukraine. They write that “Canada's desired objective has more to do with being perceived as a reliable ally than any other consideration, including Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression”. We need to be clear on that. We are debating the free trade agreement, but it seems like much ado about nothing. The authors also say that Canada's policy is to project a certain image—surprise, surprise—and that waving the maple leaf flag is its main objective. That reminds us that Canada's foreign policy is a bit half-baked. In terms of total aid provided to Ukraine as a share of GDP, Canada is basically a big Portugal. Well ahead of Canada are Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia and Portugal. So much for impressing others. Canada has provided significant financial aid in the form of loans. However, if we consider overall aid, including financial, humanitarian and military aid, as a share of GDP, Canada ranks 31st out of 39 countries. Quite honestly, we are currently debating the smallest of details right now. As I was saying, Canada is basically a big Portugal, but we need to be careful. According to those experts, Ottawa is doing just enough in Ukraine to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. They say that this level of action will result in very few political consequences. Basically, that is all that is expected from Canada in its current state. This is not a government priority. One of the experts believes that the government is “more interested in provincial jurisdictions than its own”. That is a subject that the Bloc Québécois cares about. That expert also said that Canada does not have a very good track record. There is nothing new so far. Since 2015, Canada's foreign affairs policy seems to have been vague and opportunistic at best. All the same, there are a few things in the bill worth noting. Of the 30 chapters, 11 are new and were not in the 2017 agreement. I should point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that managed to get the only amendments to the bill adopted, thanks to my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The agreement is supposed to help people try to curb corruption. They know a thing or two about that. It is no secret that, before Russia invaded, Ukraine ranked pretty poorly on that score. In any case, the agreement aims to create voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation so that people can set guidelines for themselves. Frankly, this is a pipe dream. It is not going to happen. The agreement says that it is inviting the countries to work together towards respecting each other's laws. Once again, this is the bare minimum, and no one is reinventing the wheel. Basically, this is the goal in the areas of labour, the environment, gender equality, human rights and corruption. Right now, labour, the environment and human rights are not the main concerns in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that is where we are at, and it comes off as a bit of a lecture. Despite its statement of principle, there is no plan for Canada to meet its commitments, which is problematic, or at the very least unimpressive. It is important to understand that Ukraine is a marginal trading partner for Canada. We are talking about 0.2% of $760 billion. In other words, we are talking a lot about very little in terms of trade. In reality, the revised agreement will have little impact on Canada and Quebec. As I said at the start, everything I have just laid out over the past few minutes shows that we are still in the land of appearances. To appear is to be on show. Speaking of being on show, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made an appearance in Ukraine last weekend to talk about issues that matter to her. To be on show is the bare minimum of taking action. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. The risk is low. We are going to try to avoid pointless debates on the carbon tax, which our colleagues are so obsessed with, and focus on offering our assistance to the extent that the bill allows. However, I want to make it clear that, while we may be a reliable ally, reliability is the bare minimum required to be an ally.

1134 words

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

Feb/5/24 5:59:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Even though I do not agree with everything he said, his speech was very eloquent. It is a pleasure to hear arguments and a speech that is well thought out. In his speech, he demonstrated how one can be critical of a bill and still support it. I would like him to elaborate on that.

64 words

Mr. René Villemure

Feb/5/24 6:00:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the debate was hijacked, basically kidnapped by people in the Conservative Party who wanted to turn it into a debate on the carbon tax is deplorable. It is truly unacceptable. We are talking about helping a country at war through a free trade agreement that we are revising. However, we have done everything but that. Frankly, they found problems where none exist, and I completely agree with the member that it is time to take action. Even if the action is minimal, we have to do it.

92 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Feb/5/24 6:00:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the only amendment made to the bill was our own. It aims to make the agreement a little less about appearances and a little more about obligation. It is all well and good to include several chapters on responsible business conduct, but if there is no real follow-up mechanism, we are left with fine principles. That is why I am quite pleased that the amendment we brought forward in committee was the only one accepted. I was against all of the Conservative amendments because I think it is extremely dangerous to include arms sales in a trade agreement. It is nonsense, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I always voted when it was time to accept their admissibility, because I do not think it makes any sense for us to always be presented with a done deal when it comes to trade agreements. My colleague was apparently an ethicist in a former life. I have read his biography. Does he think it is ethical to have such a lack of transparency or such a lack of control in a so-called house of democracy when it comes to something as important as a huge agreement between countries?

207 words

Admissibility

Mr. René Villemure

Feb/5/24 6:01:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are always straight to the point and quite brilliant. What enables trust in a given environment? I would say that it is the ability to understand. If people want to understand, they need to be informed. Certainly, being presented with a bill, law, or treaty that is essentially a done deal does not allow us to engage with each other and make it our own. We can assess it, but we do not really own it. I believe that our aim here, in the house of democracy, must be to build trust. To do this, we need to be better at sharing information. The risk is quite simple: If we do not build trust, we breed mistrust. If we do not address mistrust, we end up with non-confidence.

135 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/5/24 6:02:34 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

65 words

Deputy

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/5/24 6:03:15 p.m.
Watch

I would request a recorded division.

6 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/5/24 6:03:21 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 6 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

24 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/5/24 6:03:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:54 p.m., so that we can start Adjournment Proceedings.

29 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/5/24 6:04:03 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Feb/5/24 6:04:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a youth climate corps is an invitation to the youth in Canada to mobilize and confront today's gravest threat, the climate emergency. On December 5 I presented a motion calling on the government to establish a youth climate corps, and I am thrilled to have the opportunity to explain what the youth climate corps is, but also to talk about how it has an essential role in fighting the climate crisis, building a better future and uplifting Canadian youth. I have spoken to young people across the country, who have told me they are scared about their future. They know that the climate crisis is real. According to one study, 84% of youth aged 16 to 25 report being worried about climate change. Almost half of them said that their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning. This is extremely concerning, but it also makes sense. It seems like every summer we are facing unprecedented wildfires, extreme weather, heat domes and flooding. Every few months there are grim scientific reports published, saying that our elected leaders are not doing enough. In the face of the climate emergency and government inaction, it is hard to have hope, but we owe it to future generations to give them tangible solutions and ways to engage in what is the existential crisis of our time. We can build a better future, with clean jobs and climate-resilient communities, and a youth climate corps could be one critical piece of making that a reality. The program would provide jobs and training in emergency response to climate disasters, in the clean energy sector, in green building and in reducing emissions, as well as in building climate-resilient infrastructure and restoring ecosystems. This past fall, U.S. President Biden announced an American climate corps, which will employ 20,000 youth and set these young people on the path to good-paying union jobs, but here in Canada, Canadian youth are being left behind. We need a federally funded job training and placement program that offers a good, green job to any young person who wants one. The Climate Emergency Unit has outlined how a youth climate corps could be implemented in Canada. It would be a large-scale, national program aimed at young people that would provide paid opportunities to work on projects that protect the environment, restore ecosystems, reduce our emissions, make communities more resilient and build the new climate infrastructure that they need. Then, when they complete their service, they would be able to access free post-secondary education or training in the sustainable jobs of the future. A recent poll showed that two-thirds of young people in Canada would consider enrolling in a youth climate corps. That is 1.3 million young people. If the Liberal government supports my motion and implements a youth climate corps, the next generation of young people, aged 17 to 35, would receive on-the-job training to participate in projects to fight the climate crisis and natural disasters and to build a better future for Canada and the planet. This program would not only provide employment for thousands of young people but also reduce our carbon emissions, incorporate environmental justice and set our youth on a path for success. Will the government implement a large-scale youth climate corps program with the urgency and ambition that we need to fight the climate crisis?

573 words

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

Feb/5/24 6:08:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to be up this evening in Adjournment Proceedings. It is always nice to chat with my friend and colleague from Victoria with respect to an area of mutual interest and enthusiasm. That is how we fight climate change in this country. I often say that it is refreshing to stand in the House and talk about how we fight climate change and all the great ideas out there that Canadians have for ways to lower our emissions and bring more attention to the issue of the climate crisis in Canada. Certainly, I would like to acknowledge that my colleague from Victoria is a leader in this way. Frankly, it is disappointing that the vast majority of the questions that we receive on environmental issues are based on misinformation with respect to how we price carbon and reduce our emissions; those are always from the Conservatives. First, I would like to take my friend and colleague up on her offer. The last time I was up in the House talking to the member for Victoria, we discussed my personal involvement in the youth climate corps initiative, in March. There is going to be a meeting with members from, I hope, all parties; I am happy to let the member know that I will be the representative from the Liberal Party, and we are going to make this happen. Moreover, we are going to do it together. Good politicians find ways to work together, put our differences aside occasionally and work towards common goals. Fighting climate change is a mutual goal of the Liberal Party and the NDP and, I would say, some other members in this House too. Sadly, we do not see that same enthusiasm for fighting climate change from the Conservatives. It is true: Young people are worried about the future, and they absolutely want to be part of solutions. I have witnessed their innovation, passion and dedication to combatting climate change. They are involved, and they have shown incredible climate leadership time and time again. Young Canadians are essential to helping Canadians build the green economy of the future. Right across Canada, young people want to be part of the solution; indeed, they already are. It is critical to amplify and elevate those voices. Unlike what the member is suggesting, our government has not only listened to our future leaders but also worked with them to ensure their participation and collaboration. We want to make sure that they thrive in the world that we leave to them. We inherited a vibrant and economically strong country from our grandparents, and I want to make sure that the country that we leave behind is even stronger from an environmental and climate resilience perspective. The Government of Canada has policies, programs and funding in place specifically for youth and specifically to fight climate change. I can think of personal ways in Milton that I am able to direct some discretionary funding through the Canada summer jobs program to environmental initiatives and to organizations such as Conservation Halton, which finds ways to gather science, plant trees, fight climate change, educate young people and develop this environmental enthusiasm and a love of the natural environment. This would not necessarily exist if young people spent all day staring at their phones, as politicians do, rather than going outside, getting dirty and playing in creeks, rivers and valleys as we all did before cellphones took over our lives. The government's overarching youth policy reflects the values of young Canadians, and it represents a whole-of-government approach to improve youth outcomes and involve young people in federal decision-making. On the point of a youth climate corps, I have the great privilege to announce that the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association is now accepting applications, via Parks Canada, to support a two-year green jobs program for youth. This is very similar to what my colleague has recommended, and I hope that we can continue to work on that. Through the CPRA, this program will provide direct financial support via wage subsidies to local governments, municipalities, indigenous communities and other sector organizations, reaching nearly 280 jobs over the next two years, at 140 jobs per year. They are going to focus on all sorts of green career-related activities. The goals of the green jobs initiative are to provide opportunities and learning experiences for over 280 youth to build skills and become successful in the workplace, and it is going to generate much-needed support to local governments and other sector organizations to hire those young people. I am happy to elaborate on the CPRA's green jobs initiative in my follow-up.

788 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 275