Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 101 - 131 of 131
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, unemployment is sky high in southwestern Ontario, and manufacturing jobs for Canadians are scarce, but temporary foreign workers are being hired at record levels. Over the past five years, their number has doubled in Windsor and is up 43% in London. There are now more than 16,000 temporary foreign workers in manufacturing, nearly twice the 2005 figure.
Can the minister explain why he is importing temporary foreign workers in a sector and in cities where thousands of Canadians are being laid off?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, since the government seems unusually interested in statistical definitions this week, let us talk about a simple concept, the median household income. The most recent StatsCan data shows that the annual median household income has only increased by a paltry $100 since the Conservatives came to power. As for the bottom 20%, their income has fallen by $500 a year.
Do the Conservatives have a plan to help these clearly middle class Canadian families?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government to consider a few more simple, yet worrying, statistics. The percentage of working age Canadians who today hold jobs is lower than when the government took office. Youth unemployment is at 14%, more than 2% higher than when the Conservatives came to power. Meanwhile, the number of adults working for the minimum wage has risen by 50%. What is the government's plan, apart from denial, to create better opportunities for these Canadians?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the hugely successful Canadian pension plan was built through constructive negotiations between the federal and provincial governments. The previous finance minister refused to continue that tradition and work with the provinces on a CPP expansion.
Now many Canadians are hoping that the new minister will reach out and finally get this job done. We can make a CPP expansion work with money the government already collects from Conservative hikes to EI premiums.
Will the new finance minister finally correct his predecessor's mistake?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I want to start by talking a little about what has happened in Ukraine and how we should understand the incredibly turbulent, incredibly tragic, and incredibly helpful events that have taken place over the past three months.
The most important thing in thinking about Ukraine today is to appreciate that the conflict we have seen has been a very clear political and even moral fight. This has been a fight about what kind of a regime the people of Ukraine want to live in and be a part of. Did they want to live in a democracy that respects the rule of law, the rights of individuals and individual freedoms, or did they want to live under an authoritarian regime?
This conflict began over a simple trade and association agreement. However, it was about this bigger issue. This is important to underscore because sometimes in the account of what is going on, particularly outside of Ukraine, the struggle is framed as a battle over nationalism; it is framed as a battle about religion, language, or culture.
Ukraine certainly has disputes over some of those issues, but it was not the central theme and not what was centrally at stake in this conflict. The Maidan spoke in Ukrainian and the Maidan also spoke in Russian, which is a central point to emphasize.
Part of the reason I underscore this is that we are hearing, and we will continue to hear, a very strong point of view expressed by some Russians, but not all. Many Russians would also like to live in a more democratic regime and have followed the events in the Maidan with great sympathy. However, what we have been hearing, and will continue to hear from some of the Russian authorities, is an effort to frame this conflict as a nationalistic clash; as a civil war scenario.
We are already hearing this. I follow the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter, and we have already seen it starting to label the people of Ukraine as terrorists and as Nazis. Let us be very careful not to give way to that sort of propaganda.
I know that the people in this House and the people in Canada who are listening to us are interested in this issue. Therefore, I am going to offer a footnote to my comments and suggest that people who are interested in this particular aspect of the conflict in Ukraine read a brilliant piece by Timothy Snyder, a professor of history at Yale, which was published recently in the The New York Review of Books. It addresses precisely this subject. We are going to be hearing a lot of backlash that says something different about Ukraine and it is very important to be well informed.
We have watched the events in Ukraine closely with fear and anguish for the lives that were lost. What does Ukraine need now?
Everyone who wants democracy to flourish in Ukraine, and I am certain that is everyone in this House, needs to focus now on three things: we need to support and help with new elections; we need to support Ukraine economically; and we need to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine, particularly in relation to some of the claims we are already hearing and may be hearing from Russia.
On the election point, a new election date has been set, which is in May. It is important that we focus on it, that Canada be present and that a high-level Canadian delegation be there in advance. This is going to be the moment when we see a new, fully legitimate government of Ukraine be formed. This is a crucial point. Let us keep our eyes on that prize. International observers are truly essential to give that legitimacy and, to be sure, not only to put our good housekeeping seal of approval on the process, but also that it is in fact genuinely fair and open.
The second issue, which we have already spoken about today, and which I cannot emphasize the importance of too strongly, is that Ukraine now has succeeded in overthrowing an authoritarian regime; a regime whose bloody intentions became ever more evident as this conflict escalated.
What Ukraine does not have yet is a functioning, effective new government, and the real difficulty for this government is that Ukraine was not in great economic shape when this crisis began. The crisis itself has deepened Ukraine's economic difficulties. If we care about the Maidan, if we believe in those values—and surely we all do—we really need to support the democratic authorities of Ukraine now. It needs to be a multilateral, multi-partisan effort. We need to have the IMF and the EU there, and Canada needs to be a part of it.
I cannot emphasize this too much. Ukraine has already had, in our lifetime, over the past just over 20 years, two democratic revolutions. This is the third one. Ukraine became an independent state in 1991. Ukraine then, in its Orange Revolution, overthrew a government that was leaning into authoritarianism in 2004–05.
Let us support Ukraine now so that 10 years from now we are not debating in the House what to do about yet another Ukrainian revolution. Because if that happens, the Ukrainian people who have shown thus far an incredible commitment to democracy, an incredible belief in it, an incredible unwillingness to give way to cynicism, they are going to have enough. They are going to get fed up too. This is a really important moment and it is important not to give way to democracy fatigue, to mission-building fatigue. The really hard part starts now.
One of our hon. members, whom I hope we will be hearing from later tonight, has tremendous experience with Poland and with Poland's own revolutions. The real lesson of Poland is that a powerful civil society is essential for overthrowing an authoritarian regime, but the second lesson is that institutional support from the outside can be the difference between success or failure of those new democratic authorities. The relationship between the EU and the way in which that desire to be part of Europe and the support Europe offered for the building of democratic Poland cannot be overstated. We have to give Ukraine similar support, a similar goal.
The third thing that Ukraine needs now, which is really essential, is we have to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The events in Ukraine were not what the Kremlin wanted or anticipated. I really believe, based on statements that we are hearing from the Kremlin, this was a complete surprise. It is very hard for Russia's current authorities to even imagine the Ukrainians as a separate people. We have heard from Vladimir Putin that he considers Ukrainians and Russians to be one people, and Vladimir Putin does not understand that Ukrainians would want to live under a different regime.
We have to make clear to the Russians that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is something that the international community stands behind, and that the Ukrainian people have made their decision in blood and we need to support it. That is essential for Ukrainian democracy and it is essential for geopolitical stability in that entire region.
In closing, I want to make a plea to my colleagues across the aisle. I believe that we have consensus in the House on Ukraine. We have consensus not only because a lot of us are Ukrainian Canadians or have Ukrainian Canadians in our ridings—the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona has many of my Ukrainian Canadian family members in her riding—but also because we all believe in democracy. It is such a core Canadian value.
Let us fight here about the political issues where we generally disagree. Let us fight about income splitting. Let us disagree about Keystone, but let us not make Ukraine a political football. Her people have died for this revolution; let us not diminish their sacrifice. I do not think anyone in the House wants to do that. If we can say to the people of Ukraine that we are united in supporting them, what a strong message that would send to them.
It says to them that it is not about party politics in Canada. The whole country supports them. We can set a fine example for the people of Ukraine. Sure, we disagree about things, but there are also some values that we share, and we are willing to set those disagreements aside to support them.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am really disappointed that this is the response from the hon. member about remarks that were meant to address not our own partisan squabbles but the very real issue of democracy and the future of Ukraine. This is a really big issue. This is an issue that has historic significance. Passing remarks on TV shows are not going to have historic significance.
I want to quickly respond to the in-passing slight about my “claimed” Ukrainian-Canadian heritage. This is not a debate about me, so I am not going to go into it, but I would like to assure the hon. member and everyone in the House that my own personal commitment to Ukraine is lifelong, sincere, and deep, as is my commitment to the Liberal Party.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her remarks. I am really grateful to her for mentioning my late mother, who did indeed devote a big portion of her life to helping to write the democratic constitution of Ukraine.
I do agree that it is a strong message that Canada could send. I would like to emphasize that I have tremendous respect for many of the members of the House in other parties, and particularly for those of Polish descent who have great and hard-won experience of what it means to fight for democracy and who have been great friends of Ukraine.
A great conclusion to our own debate this evening would be to set an example for the people of Ukraine. We are asking them to come together after literally killing each other. Surely having just heckled one another and fired a few cheap verbal shots, we could say democracy and the future of Ukraine are more important than that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Edmonton East makes an excellent point about Ukraine, and as someone who went to high school in Edmonton, I think it is delightful that the Edmonton caucus, if there is such a thing, speaks about Ukraine with such good information and such insight and warmth.
I very strongly agree with the hon. member for Edmonton East. The Maidan really was a multilingual place. It was a place where Russian was spoken proudly as part of the conversation.
Something that I learned living in Ukraine was the extent to which Ukraine is truly a bilingual culture and society. There is almost no one in Ukraine who does not understand both Russian and Ukrainian perfectly, and most Ukrainians speak both languages. It is helpful that those languages are not too far away from one another. If one begins, as I did, as a reporter arriving in Ukraine speaking only Ukrainian, learning Russian is not as hard, and if one begins as a speaker only of Russian, learning Ukrainian is not as hard. The Ukrainians start from a strong base.
I strongly agree with the hon. member for Edmonton East that something we need to do as an outside friend of Ukraine is to urge Ukrainians today, the Maidan having won, to double down on the democracy part of the message and be as inclusive as possible. That is absolutely essential.
I absolutely agree with the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton East, which I think was also a suggestion by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, that one thing Canada may be able to share with Ukraine is its experience living as a bilingual country and multicultural society, particularly given that Ukrainians trust us, given our strong Ukrainian-Canadian community and given our record as a country of supporting Ukraine. They trust us to have Ukraine's best interests at heart, and sharing our experience of bilingualism and multiculturalism is something Canada could uniquely do to help. Let us show them Canadian unity and help them with that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, the hon. member is from Winnipeg, another city that has lots of great Ukrainian Canadians.
The first line of the Ukrainian national anthem is “Shche ne vmerla Ukrayina”. That means Ukraine has not yet died. To me, that says a lot about the extent to which Ukraine as a nation and Ukrainians as a people have lived on the edge of survival.
We now have an opportunity—Ukrainians themselves have fought and died for it, and the rest of the world can help them—to get them to a place where, from now on, that anthem will be about their history, not about their present. Let us work—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I want to ask a question that is pegged to the comment made by my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party. I was especially struck by his comment that he is not Ukrainian Canadian and does not have Ukrainian Canadians in his riding. I think it is great to hear that hon. member speaking this evening.
As a Ukrainian Canadian, I am proud of the work that the Ukrainian Canadian community has done to directly support the people in Ukraine and to inform our parliamentarians. However, it is essential that we not see this as an issue simply for Ukrainian Canadians or people elected by them. This is an issue for all Canadians. I would love to hear from the hon. member on the opposite bench as to whether he agrees with that.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I would like to start by saying that I believe I just heard the commitment of the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park to Ukraine impugned, and I think I heard a suggestion that she is somehow a Johnny-come-lately to the Ukrainian cause. Of course, I sincerely hope that Parkdale—High Park will become a Liberal riding again one day. Having declared that partisanship myself, I am Ukrainian Canadian. I go to all of our events. I have seen the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park there. She has been very committed to the Ukrainian Canadian community for a very long time and has worked very hard to embrace our community.
Given her knowledge of Ukraine and her commitment to it, I would like to ask about her views on the evolution of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship. It is very easy right now for Ukrainians to feel tremendous animosity toward Russia, given the role Russia played in fomenting this conflict. It is easy for us also to try to see this as a replay, as a new Cold War. I believe that is a bad outcome for the Ukrainian people, for Ukraine, and for the world. Does the hon. member agree, and how does she see this relationship evolving?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville for quoting Ukrainian poetry. I wish I were able to quote Adam Mickiewicz in response, but I am not that advanced.
The next line of the poem Zapovit, which the member quoted, is:
[Member spoke in Ukrainian and provided the following translation:]
Sprinkle freedom with the blood of the enemy.
[English]
Let us sincerely hope and pray Ukraine does not go there.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville to comment on the Polish experience, because Poland, in addition to being a tremendous ally of Ukraine, and Polish Canadians, in addition to being tremendous allies of Ukrainian Canadians here, has the experience of building a democracy at a time when democratic institutions were weak or nonexistent and building it in the shadow of a hostile neighbour.
Are there any lessons from Poland for Ukraine today?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I will start by assuring the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona that we in the Ukrainian community have a saying that everyone is Ukrainian, but they just may not know it yet; so there is still a chance for the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.
I was very interested in the hon. member's comments about creating democratic institutions and creating institutions with civil servants who are able to enforce the rule of law rather than break it.
I wonder whether the hon. member could comment on what specifically Canada can do to help Ukraine in building up its civic institutions, which are clearly one of the things missing in Ukraine, one of the reasons it has come to this real crisis situation.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday's budget turned a blind eye to our economy's biggest problem, stagnant growth. The finance minister himself admitted that our economy will miss the target he set in his own fall forecast.
Contrary to what we have just heard from the Prime Minister, the experts agree. The IMF says we will lag both the U.S. and the U.K. in growth this year. The OECD predicts we will fall behind its average for growth in 2015, ranking just 16th out of 30. Why did the government give middle-class Canadians a do-nothing budget?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, today the average Canadian owes an all-time high of $1.64 for every dollar she or he earns. Middle-class Canadians are borrowing more because they are earning less. We have seen this story before. As in the United States before the financial crisis, ballooning personal debt is masking our economy's underlying weakness.
Why has the government built our economy on this unstable mountain of personal debt, and what is it doing to move us to a more sustainable footing?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this month, IMF economists warned that the declining competitiveness of Canada's non-energy exports is “something that concerns us”. The IMF pointed to a widening productivity gap that has “eroded Canada's external competitiveness, particularly in...manufacturing”. Middle-class Canadians know this. They are feeling the effects in their paycheques.
Will next week's budget finally do something to address these problems and help Canada's struggling middle class?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this month the IMF released a report on Canada's economic outlook. The story the IMF tells is of a lost decade. To quote from the report, “Canada’s exports have barely recovered from the Great Recession...”. The IMF warns that low productivity growth has, and I quote the IMF report, “eroded Canada’s external—”
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I see the government is not interested in the view of IMF economists, but I think Canadians are. Let me continue to quote from that report. The IMF warns—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister of Finance continue to ignore this harsh reality, as documented by the IMF, at the cost of Canadian jobs and economic growth?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Liberals support Bill C-20. The Liberal Party is strongly in support of the principle of free trade as an essential part of Canada's economic growth in the 21st century.
I would like to talk a bit about our broader vision of what we need to do with trade and how that fits into our overall economic vision, and then I would like to talk about this specific agreement and how we need to work hard in implementing it to live up to the principles of Canadian democracy and how Canada wants to conduct itself in the world.
On trade, 19.2% of Canadians work in jobs that are directly in the export sector, and up to 80% of the Canadian economy, depending on how one counts it, is dependent on exports. We are a small country in a vast globalized world economy, and without being open to that world economy, without being an active energetic participant, we have no chance of thriving and, crucially, no chance of creating middle-class jobs, which we need and which we are failing to create in sufficient number and quality right now.
However, what we need is not just a number of piecemeal agreements with small countries like Honduras. What Canada needs to be successful is an economic and trade vision that is much more ambitious, wider reaching, and which fully and ambitiously integrates Canada into the global economy. Therefore, while Liberals support this trade deal with Honduras, we believe our country needs to be more energetically engaged with other emerging market economies that are growing strongly and where we see the rest of the world competing now for a position.
In particular, I would like to draw everyone's attention to what is happening right now in Africa. A lot of us are accustomed to seeing Africa as a development story, a poverty story. The reality of the new Africa today is that it is one of the world's hottest emerging markets. Some of the leading countries in Africa have had, for more than five years, 5% economic growth year on year. This is real; this is huge. We are seeing investors pouring in, and we are seeing a competition between the big and ambitious countries in the world, notably China and the U.S., for a strategic position in Africa. Where is Canada? Africa is a continent to which we urgently need to turn our attention when it comes to trade deals, and what a great way for us to have a positive impact on the world.
The other part of an ambitious global economic agenda and global trade agenda for Canada is thinking about where we want to position our country in the world economy. Right now we are living in a winner-take-all global economy. That applies to countries, and it applies to individuals and companies. Frankly, we are not seeing from today's government a sufficiently ambitious and forward-looking economic agenda for our country.
One of my favourite books at the moment is a book by economist Tyler Cowen called Average is Over. His central contention is that we are living in a moment when if a company is the best in a space, the top talent in a space, the top city or top country, it will succeed. However, if one is in the middle and just average, there is no future. That is a lesson that Canada desperately needs to learn and that the Canadian government needs to make as the centre of its policies.
We need to be building an overall trade agenda, an overall economic vision in which we are creating in Canada a platform for being fully engaged in the world economy, but also a platform for which we have companies headquartered in Canada doing business around the world, rather than the old branch plant economy. That is not going to work. It is not going to create enough great jobs for the 21st century. This reality of an ambitious trade agenda, an economic agenda fit for the 21st century, we believe, is going to become ever more apparent in 2014.
Already this week, the first week of our new session, we have heard a lot of assertions from the Conservative benches about Canada's economic excellence, how we are better than anyone else in the G7 and so on. That is going to be less true in 2014, as the other G7 economies, which suffered so greatly from the financial crisis and from which Canada was spared thanks to the wise bank regulation policies of the Liberal government in the 1990s, have now healed. We are going to see that in 2014. We are already seeing a very strong comeback in the U.S. and the U.K., but our relative performance is looking much worse already, and we are not even through the first month of 2014.
That says that we have coasted. We have coasted on the fact that we did not have a financial crisis and we have not put in place a powerful, forward-looking economic agenda that is going to build prosperity for the middle class in the 21st century, and that includes trade. Piecemeal agreements with small countries are a good start. However, we need to be a lot more ambitious and have a much broader vision.
When it comes to the Honduras deal in particular, my hon. colleagues in the NDP have raised the important point that this is a trade deal with a country that has a very troubled record and very troubled reality on many political labour and environmental issues. We in the Liberal Party believe that it is important for us to do this deal. Not every country in the world is perfect, and we have to trade in the global economy. We believe that having a strong trading relationship can and must be a way to be a positive force in those economies. However, it will only work if it is more than words.
In implementing this trade deal, we have to be very aware of what is going on in Honduras and to the possibility that by having a trade deal with this country and having our companies engaged with it we could be complicit in political, environmental and labour violations. We do not just sign a deal and walk away; we have to watch closely and be absolutely certain that we and Canada are behaving well.
I would like to point to the fact that rather than having a binding mechanism for labour and environmental standards in the side agreements, article 816 of the free trade agreement states:
Each Party should encourage enterprises operating within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction to voluntarily incorporate internationally recognized standards of corporate social responsibility in their internal policies....
That puts a great onus on us to be aware, to watch and to be absolutely careful that those political, environmental and labour standards are watched and observed.
As the MP for Toronto Centre, I would like to draw particular attention to the tremendous abuse and repression that the LGBT community faces in Honduras. Even as we broaden and deepen our economic relationship with Honduras, this is something that we have to be absolutely aware of and watchful about. We have to take great care that the Canadian companies that will be working and trading there, and will have a relationship with Honduras, are not party to that and are in fact acting against it through their example.
Regarding the environmental standards, we have to be watchful about this. If, as the Labour Party believes, we are to use our trade agreements with troubled countries to be a force for moving those countries in a positive direction, we have to take incredible care. We have to take incredible care about the labour and environmental standards as well. This is how we ensure that free trade is a great deal for the Canadian middle class. Without watching those labour and environmental standards, trade with a country which is poorer than Canada, like Honduras, can be dangerous for the middle class.
Again, we cannot simply sign a piece of paper and walk away. This trade deal has potential. That is why we support it, but we have to be extremely vigilant. We must also move toward a broader vision, something much more than one single deal.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, our central point and our central argument about economic policy for Canada is going to be that what we need is a big global vision, a vision fit for the 21st century. That is why we are supporting the agreement but saying that it is not enough and that we need to be working on bigger deals that fit in with a broader agenda.
I do, though, have to respond to the earlier comment criticizing us for supporting the member's policy. What I would say there is that the Liberal Party is moving past the rancorous major attack politics that, sadly, we have seen dominate this House for far too long. When we think a policy is a good one, we are absolutely willing to support it. That is case, absolutely, with free trade.
Since I hope you are pleased with our support for the free trade deal, I would encourage you to support our very bold and incredibly popular move on the Senate. You gentlemen could do the same thing today. You could show how broad-spirited you are and show that you too can be bipartisan.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, first, I am sorry for not addressing you. I promise to learn the rules better as the days go on.
With regard to the Ukraine parallel, obviously I have been thinking about that a lot. It is very relevant to the current situation.
I would draw the attention of my hon. colleague to the fact that the current battle in Ukraine was actually precipitated by the willingness of the European Union to sign an association agreement, which included some trade provisions, with the current Government of Ukraine, led by President Yanukovych. That current government, even before all of this, was not an angelic regime. In fact Yulia Tymoshenko, of whom we have been speaking, was imprisoned. It was a difficult, finely-balanced decision for the European Union. It was prepared at that point to sign an agreement Ukraine, and indeed was very enthusiastic about it, because the EU felt that agreement would help Ukraine, which was tentatively building a democracy, to become fully democratic.
The same applies to Honduras now. It is absolutely not perfect. That is why I raised, and we as a party raised, some significant points, and we think this agreement has to be closely monitored. This is not something that we sign and walk away from.
At this moment, we think that this deal is good for Canada and good for Honduras.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those points. I would just like to repeat that Honduras is absolutely far from being an angelic and perfect country, and we are fully aware of that. It is our judgment that at this moment a trading relationship would help us to help the positive forces in Honduras and would help Honduras move in the right direction,
Again, this is not something we sign and walk away from. It behooves the Government of Canada and all of us here to watch it very carefully, and if we feel there is a retrograde movement in Honduras, we will need to act.
On the point about Canadian companies and their behaviour in Honduras, that falls under encouraging corporate social responsibility, which I have already cited. This is a very strong point, and we need to take great care as representatives of the Canadian people to encourage Canadian companies to behave abroad as we would demand they behave at home.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's excellent point underscores my point and our general argument that while we are strongly in favour of free trade, it needs to be embedded in a much more ambitious, much more effective agenda for Canadian economic competitiveness in the 21st century.
The hon. member's point about the trade deficit is particularly telling and particularly unforgivable, given that this has come at a time when commodity prices are at all-time highs. As we all know, we are a commodity-exporting nation, so it is really startling that this has been happening.
What do we need to do better? As my hon. colleague said, we need to ensure that when we talk about the free trade agenda, when we talk about embedding Canada in the global economy, we are not just signing pieces of paper, getting the sound bite, and walking away. We need to be absolutely sure that the structure of those deals supports middle-class jobs back home in Canada, and, more broadly, that these deals support the creation of world-beating companies based in Canada but selling into the global marketplace.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member very much for the welcome, but the action plan unfortunately was not published on my election day, which was November 25, not November 27, obviously a more important date personally for me than for other members of the House. Maybe only three other members find it as significant.
I look forward to working with the hon. member on the trade committee and I promise to carefully study that report and let him know what our priority countries are. I would say, however, that it is not only about priority countries; it is about a broader vision.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance tabled the 2013 budget, he said that Canada's biggest economic challenge was our skills shortage. His alleged solution was the Canada job grant. A year later, the only thing the government has produced is a multi-million dollar advertising campaign for a program that still does not exist.
If a new plan is not in place by April 1, will the government extend the current labour market agreements with the provinces and territories or will the government simply cut the funding and run?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, as a Ukrainian Canadian on her first day in Parliament, it is both an honour and a tragedy to be speaking to the House about the tragic and brutal events in Ukraine.
My mother was born in a refugee camp. Her parents, together with her and her three sisters, were grateful and delighted to find refuge here in Canada, like so many other Ukrainian Canadians. It left such an imprint of gratitude and delight in Canada and all it offered that my grandfather would not permit any criticism of any Canadian government at his table, no matter which party was in power. I am afraid that in my new career, I am not going to be able to perfectly follow my grandfather's instruction.
What I would like to talk about is what is happening in Ukraine and why the stakes are so high for Ukrainians, for Canadians and for the world. As my colleague has just described, the struggle right now in Ukraine began over a European association agreement. Who knew that ordinary people could be so moved by trade treaties?
What it has become is a fight about democracy or dictatorship. The fact that this is what is at stake in Ukraine became very clear last week, when President Yanukovych tried, illegitimately, to ram a series of laws through parliament that would have severely restricted the rights of association, the rights of freedom of speech, the rights of assembly and, indeed, the rights of religious organizations, including the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
Ukrainians understand that this is the fight about that democracy that they have been working very hard to build, with a lot of setbacks, over the past 20 years. We should be inspired; I am inspired by what is happening right now in Ukraine. All of us as elected officials know about the cynicism we sometimes encounter from voters.
Imagine being Ukrainian and having gone through the Orange Revolution. It was not so long ago in 2004 and 2005. Ukrainians thought that they had won; they thought that they had really built democracy. It ultimately went so badly that they elected Yanukovych. Yet still today they have faith in democracy. They have such faith in the action of people and their ability to make change that they are out there in the streets, risking their lives.
What happens in Ukraine matters to the world, and particularly, as my hon. colleague described, in the neighbourhood where Ukraine finds itself, in the former Soviet Union and the former Warsaw Pact countries. These are parts of the world where the hold of democracy is tenuous. History did not end in 1991, despite Francis Fukuyama's prediction that it would. Right now, everyone in that part of the world is watching Ukraine very closely to see what the outcome will be, and to see if people like us, democratically elected officials in democracies, will not only talk the talk but walk the walk, and whether we believe in democracy enough to support it when it is at risk.
This is a tremendously important opportunity for Canada to be heard in the world. As we have heard so eloquently this evening, many of us represent communities with strong Ukrainian Canadian representation. Ukrainians are an important people and community in Canada, and Canada has an important voice in Ukraine. That was made manifest most powerfully by a Conservative government in 1991, when Canada and Poland were the first two countries to recognize Ukrainian independence.
Ukraine listens to us and the world listens to what we do and what we say about Ukraine. This is an opportunity, as my hon. colleague suggested, for us to do what Lester B. Pearson taught us, which is to punch above our weight in international affairs, by taking the lead on Ukraine.
It is really clear what we can do. It is wonderful for me as a Ukrainian Canadian to hear so much anguish, worry and sympathy for the people of Ukraine, but now is the time to act. There are three very clear things for us to do. The first is targeted sanctions against President Yanukovych and his allies in government. That will have an impact. Indeed, one of the jokes that people tell in the former Soviet Union now is that their dictators want to rule like Stalin but live like Abramovich. That is what globalization allows nowadays, that one can be a dictator at home but have a villa on Cap Ferrat. We cannot allow that to happen and must say that they cannot have it both ways.
The second thing that we have to do is to provide expedited visas for the people who have put their lives at risk on the Euromaidan. Again, this would be a very important symbolic statement that we are with them.
Third, we have to send high-level observers. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if we are watching, I can assure everyone there will be less brutality.
I hope I will be permitted, since this is my first statement in the House and we are talking about Ukraine, to share one of the slogans of the Euromaidan.
[Member spoke Ukrainian and provided the following translation:]
The people united cannot be defeated.
[English]
That is true today in Ukraine if we unite with them and actually act. As a Ukrainian Canadian and a proud member of Canada's Parliament, the words of support are terrific, but now let us do something.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, which reflects a deeply lived experience of events similar to those in Ukraine.
If I may, I would like to answer as I did to my nine-year-old daughter yesterday. We were at a rally for the Euromaidan in Toronto. When we got home, she said, “You are talking about sanctions, but it is going to hurt the people of Ukraine. Isn't that a bad idea?” What I said to her was that these must be directly targeted personal sanctions. In particular, we need to target visa travel, find and freeze the assets in the west, and say that the regime cannot have it both ways. The government cannot be a dictator at home and travel abroad and buy real estate.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the excellent question. That similarity in position might well be why Ukrainians find themselves so much at home in Canada.
There is a saying in about politicians in Ukraine that they do not need umbrellas because they need to know how to walk between the raindrops as they navigate their way between Russia and the west. I think President Yanukovych was caught in this dilemma and he did indeed face tremendous pressure in the decision he made in the fall.
Right now, though, I do not think it is a question of subtlety. I think that President Yanukovych has attempted to restrict very severely the democratic freedoms that Ukrainians have enjoyed for 20 years. At this point, his big decision is what he should do with his people in Ukraine.
I hope that the Canadian observers we have been talking about can play an essential role. There is a need right now for mediators between the opposition and the government. Canadians could be trusted interlocutors, and I hope we will send a high-level delegation there soon.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, does that answer of the hon. member for Mississauga—Erindale mean that Canada rules out acting unilaterally? Are we waiting for permission from the United States and the European Union to have targeted sanctions against the Ukrainian government, which is repressing its people?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for his praise of my Ukrainian language skills. We first met in Kiev when he was serving our country very skilfully and admirably as a diplomat. I think that was longer ago than either one of us cares to remember.
The hon. minister said that this is one case when Canada must stand up and be counted and that we are on the side of democracy. I think all of us agree. The hon. minister also said that all parties are agreeing with the thrust of this discussion. I think we all agree with that, too. However, I have a specific question.
It is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada that we should now, in response to the indeed crucial and grievous situation in Ukraine, unilaterally impose personal, directed sanctions against President Yanukovych and his allies in government. That is the clearly stated position of the Liberal Party of Canada. I believe it clearly reflects the thrust of our discussion tonight. Is that or is that not the position of the Government of Canada?
Results: 101 - 131 of 131 | Page: 2 of 2

|<
<
1
2
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data