Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1501 - 1564 of 1564
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Canada lost a staggering 112,000 private sector jobs in August. Over the past year, our working-age population has grown by 375,000, but only 15,000 new full-time jobs were created.
The Conservatives' small business tax credit will make this dire situation worse by giving employers a perverse incentive to actually cut jobs. The Liberal plan would foster growth and help create as many as 176,000 new jobs.
Why would the government not adopt our plan?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently made remarks to the Ontario Bar Association that were so strikingly sexist that lawyers there described them as offensive.
As one of the many mothers of young children in this House, I wonder whether the minister believes that we, too, should be intimidated by the old boys' network. Does the minister think that we, too, should stay at home because of our special maternal bond with our young children?
Will the minister apologize for his blatant chauvinism?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this month Toronto will have the honour of hosting the WorldPride Celebration. My constituency of Toronto Centre will be at the heart of the festivities.
We can be proud this landmark celebration will take place nearly nine years after gay marriage became legal across Canada.
What better symbol of our decade of equality than our victorious premier, Kathleen Wynne, the Commonwealth's first openly lesbian elected head of government?
WorldPride is a moment for us to redouble our work to support LGBT rights. Here at home, a particular focus must be LGBT youth, who are too often a target of bullying and disproportionately find themselves homeless and unemployed.
WorldPride is an essential time for us to speak out about LGBT rights around the globe as well. Too many countries, ranging from Russia to Uganda, are turning back the clock.
LGBT rights are human rights. Canada must be both a world leader and a global haven on this crucial issue.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, it does seem cruel to be talking about Canada's excellent cheeses at a quarter to six. I got very hungry listening to the previous presentation.
Having heard about the hon. member's great love for Canadian cows and Canadian dairy, I cannot resist sharing with the House the fact that I am not only the daughter-in-law of a dairy farmer but also a granddaughter of dairy farmers, and so I join everyone here in our support for our great dairy industry and the tremendous innovations that are happening there.
What I would like to talk about today, and what I think this gives us an opportunity to talk about more broadly, is our trade policy. I would like to discuss what is happening with the CETA deal and the need for transparency in our trade policy so that Canadians can see what is happening and the House can discuss what the deal actually contains. I want to talk about a trade policy that actually delivers, a policy whereby deals that are announced are actually concluded and whereby the deals that now stand concluded actually deliver the results. We in the Liberal Party know a good trade policy can and must deliver for the Canadian economy.
We need trade to work for us because we are a small country—not in geography, but in population—in a huge world economy. Without effectively joining Canada into the global economy, Canada will fail. Our middle class will fail to have the rising incomes that we are not getting now and that we really need.
We are really supportive of an effective trading policy. However, I am sad to say that we do not feel we are getting the results that a truly liberal trade policy should be delivering. In particular, I would like to talk about CETA.
The CETA deal, as we all know, was signed with a lot of fanfare on October 18 of last fall by the Prime Minister and the President of the EU, José Manuel Barroso. We still do not have that deal concluded, although we have had some opportunities. The Prime Minister was recently in Brussels. There was a lot of speculation and a lot of hope among Canadians that he would come home with a done deal. He has not done that. We would like to hear why. We would like to know what is going on.
The irony of the situation for us as Canadian legislators, at least for those of us on this side of the House, is that right now we and Canadian citizens are hearing more from EU officials and EU diplomats.They have been quite open in talking about how the deal is not quite ready and talking, quite frankly, about how that initial agreement was signed much earlier than is normal in these trade negotiations and that much more work needed to be done then. More seems to still need to be done now than we were led to believe when the agreement was signed with such great fanfare.
It is even the case that we have had a hard time tracking down what was actually signed. We submitted an access to information request to access the agreement that was actually signed by the Prime Minister and the President of the EU. Here is what we were told by the Privy Council Office:
A thorough search of the records under the control of PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found.
This really is theatre of the absurd. We really would like to know. I think everyone in the House would like to know and needs to know. As the private member's bill suggests, we need more transparency on what is happening. We need not just great photo ops, but the details of what is going on with these trade deals that are so essential for the Canadian economy and for Canadians.
What I am particularly concerned about when it comes to the CETA deal is that because of the timing, because of the lag between today, in the middle of June, and October 18, Canada now finds itself behind the United States in the queue of nations that are negotiating trade with the EU. The story of Canada, the story of Canadian diplomacy in the world, is understanding what it means to be the neighbour of the United States. There can be big advantages, but it also means we have to dance delicately and lightly and act smarter.
While we were ahead of the U.S., while the U.S. proposals were not on the table, there was a real opportunity for us to have the full attention of EU officials and EU negotiators. Now, however, I am very sad to say that people informed about these deals are saying that EU officials are, understandably, focusing much more time and energy on their negotiations with the United States. We are now, I am afraid to say, in a position where important concerns, including concerns of the Canadian dairy industry and of Canadian auto manufacturers, are going to have to take a back seat to the deal being hammered out by the Americans, and we may well find ourselves having to settle not for a deal made for Canada in Europe but for a copy of what the Americans are able to negotiate.
It did not have to be that way, given that this deal was being worked on earlier, and we would really like to hear why we have let ourselves fall behind a party that has a bigger economy to bring to the table.
I would also like to point out that despite the fact that many of us in this House agree that trade and exports need to be, and are, an essential part of a healthy Canadian economy, we are just not seeing that performance today. We have photo ops and we have trade deals announced, but they are not moving the dial when it comes to Canada's actual economic performance.
I do not ask members to blindly trust my assertion. I do not ask members to simply take my word when it comes to the undeniable fact that Canada's trade policy, although we are getting the photo ops and the announcements, is not delivering for the Canadian economy. Here is who I do ask members to trust: the Bank of Canada.
In its financial system review published this month, this is what the Bank of Canada had to say, in part, about export and trade and its performance for the Canadian economy: “In Canada, the anticipated rebalancing of economic growth toward exports and investment remains elusive....”
These are damning words. It is not enough to have photo ops of trade deals. It is not even enough to have trade deals. What we need are trade deals that do the job we need them to do, and that is to strengthen the Canadian economy. Right now, as the Bank of Canada economists say, we need a tilt toward exports. Trade deals are meant to facilitate that, but as the Bank of Canada says, that shift remains elusive.
We really need to see and would like to see more transparency about what the government is doing on this file. We need and want to see harder work on this file and more delivered results.
I would like to cite another source, another group that is deeply concerned about Canada's export performance. This is another group that we in the Liberal Party listen to very closely, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. What business has to say about Canada's trade and about export performance in particular is very worrying. Its report was issued just last month, and even the title is very worrying: “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada’s Trade Success”. It states that “... the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.”
This is echoing the Bank of Canada report. We are just not seeing the export performance that we need.
The Chamber of Commerce is worried. In referring to “Canada's lagging trade performance”, here is what it says:
Despite more firms looking abroad, Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.
Most worrying of all, the chamber did an interesting calculation in which it backed out the increase in commodity prices that has flattered Canada's export performance. It concluded:
If these price increases are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.
Therefore, the real story—what the numbers say, what the Chamber of Commerce is worried about, and what the Bank of Canada is warning us about—is that our trade performance is lagging behind. We need to do better.
To conclude, we very much hope that we will have more transparency and better performance on the CETA deal and on deals with some of the big emerging markets in the world.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, this month Toronto will have the honour of hosting the WorldPride celebration. This is an essential moment for us all to assert that LGBT rights are human rights, and to establish Canada both as a world leader and a global haven on this crucial issue.
My constituents understandably expect their Prime Minister to take part. Could the Prime Minister please tell the House which of the many Pride events he will be attending?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Bourassa.
It is a real honour and a pleasure to be talking about this subject here in this House today. Rising income inequality is one of the most striking and most important new characteristics of the 21st century economy. It is a way the world economy and, particularly, the economies of the western industrialized countries have changed.
For all of us here in this House grappling with that transformation, it should be our absolute priority to understand it and work on ways to make this new economy work for all Canadians.
I would like to start with some data points. According to the IMF, since 1980, the richest 1% increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries. That is a really significant data point, because very often debates about income inequality happen in a national context, as our debate is happening here, and we lose sight of the fact that this particular story is a global story.
Of course there are national aspects, but overall the shape of what is happening is something that is happening particularly across the western industrialized countries. We must understand that in order to really understand what is going on.
This is happening in Canada as well. In 1980, the top 1% collected $8 out of every $100 earned in Canada. By 2010, that had surged 50% to $12 out of every $100. In the meantime, middle-class incomes in this country have been stagnating.
In 1980, middle-class families reported income of $57,000, and 30 years later they were still at $57,000. This growing income divide—and as I said, an income divide that we are seeing growing across the western industrialized countries—is also translating into a growing wealth gap.
I would like to cite one figure. This is based on some very important research that Oxfam has done, which is really important and something for us to all focus on. Oxfam calculated that if we took the richest 85 people in the world, their wealth is equal to the wealth of the bottom 50% of the whole world, 35 billion people. That is just 85 people, which is a lot fewer than it would take to fill this House. It would fill maybe a quarter of my side of the House. Let us think for one moment about what that says about our world today and about how the world economy is working.
It is important when we are talking about this, and particularly when our conversation moves to talking about political solutions, to really reflect on and acknowledge the fact that this is a new phenomenon. The world economy today is working differently from the way it did, particularly in the post-war era, when I think many of our conceptions of how the world economy works, and certainly many of our political ideas, were formed.
In the post-war era, we had a Goldilocks economy. It was a time when there was very strong economic growth across the western industrialized world, and at the same time income inequality was actually decreasing.
Starting about 30 years ago, that changed. Even as the economy grew, we started to see income inequality surging: a growing share of the income going to the very top and incomes in the middle either stagnating or actually declining, depending on which measure and which timeframe.
There is a lot of debate about what is driving this phenomenon. Inevitably that debate becomes politically tinged. All of us who approach honestly what is happening will have to agree that there are three primary drivers. One of them is in fact political.
The 30 years in which we have seen this surging income inequality across the west also coincided with the rise of neo-liberalism, what we might want to call the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. We saw a combination of weaker protections for trade unions, a culture that accepted higher compensation, particularly for executives—higher CEO compensation—a new philosophy of shareholder value in companies, lower taxes at the top, and crucially, deregulation of many industries.
Therefore there was this political element, and again that political element had national features, of course, but it was also something that happened across countries, particularly because we are living in an age when so many businesses operate internationally and there has been, in many cases, particularly on the taxation front, competition across jurisdictions.
However, there are also two other factors that are really important drivers of what is going on, and those are globalization and the technology revolution. For me, those two factors are the ones on which it is really important to focus; and it is important for all of us, particularly those who see rising income inequality as a huge problem, to acknowledge that these two drivers of rising income inequality are also very positive. That is the paradoxical nature of what is going on.
The technology revolution, bringing us so many pluses, is also a driver of increasing income inequality. The same is true of globalization. If we are blind to that paradoxical nature of what is happening, we are not going to be able to come up with good solutions. Particularly when it comes to the technology revolution, it is important for us to understand something. I will refer to one of my favourite books on the subject, The Second Machine Age by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee. They argue that there is no law in economics that provides that the technology revolution will lead to more jobs or evenly distributed rewards. That is really important to bear in mind. Changes in the economy, which are good in aggregate, may not be good for individuals, and it is going to be our job as legislators to find ways to strike that balance.
What can we do about this? I have talked about something that is big, that is new, and that is global. How can we cope with it? I would like to quickly talk about five ways in which we can approach it. The first is to do no harm, and that is why we in the Liberal Party are absolutely opposed to income splitting. At a time when there are powerful economic forces, many of them good, which are driving up income inequality, introducing changes to our own legislation, rather than pushing back against them, and increasing income inequality is absolute political and democratic malpractice.
The second absolutely important thing is to focus on equality of opportunity. A terrific Canadian economist, Miles Corak, has identified something that has been dubbed by his admirers The Great Gatsby curve, which shows that rising income inequality correlates with declining social mobility. We have to push back against that, particularly with investment in schools, families, and early childhood education.
A third area that is absolutely essential is to be open to innovation, particularly innovation for people who might not have the opportunities and networks. One thing we are seeing is that old businesses are dying. That is part of the technology revolution and of globalization. We have to be the country where it is easiest for someone with a great idea to start a new business.
Finally, and this is really crucial, we have to understand that we operate in a globally connected economy. We are living at a time when capital is global, but politics and legislation very often are not. If we want to capture the wealth that is being accumulated in the world, we are going to have to come up with some global answers. I am going to quote Larry Summers, the former U.S. secretary of the treasury, and then Pope Francis. Larry Summers stated:
The share of corporate profits taken by tax authorities around the world is probably a little more than half of what it was 40 years ago. And the reason is a basic process of competition, a basic ability to move business activity or to use accounting tricks to move income to low-tax jurisdictions.
Therefore, we are going to have to work together to push against that trend.
In conclusion, I would like to cite a higher authority on why this is so much of an issue and that is, as threatened, Pope Francis himself. He has said that increasing income inequality is the root of social evil. I really believe that. I hope that together in the House we can identify this as a major problem and work together to try to fix it for Canadians.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I did not misspeak. It is the position of our party that we believe, like the late minister Jim Flaherty, that income splitting would increase income inequality and we are not in favour of it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I think the Nordic countries provide some very important examples and lessons for us. Interestingly, if we look at market incomes before government intervention, they too have experienced an increase in income inequality among those countries, as my hon. colleague knows very well, and the IMF has cited in its research.
What they have done though to push against those tides is a few things. They have had a very great focus on social opportunity, particularly on education, and I think Finland in particular has some important lessons. They have had a very great focus on innovation and opportunity for economic innovation. There I would say we have a lot to learn from Sweden and maybe from Norway.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, today what we are talking about is future policies. As we have discussed, and we have heard some very good data cited today, income splitting has been supported and advocated by the Prime Minister, although it was opposed by the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. It is something that we oppose precisely because we believe, as the C.D. Howe Institute has argued, as most reputable economists have argued, that it would increase income inequality.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I think there is no dishonour in agreeing, sometimes, with my hon. colleagues in the NDP or in citing someone I think we all respected very much, the late Jim Flaherty.
As I tried to argue in my comments, this is a phenomenon that has been going on for 30 years. The IMF found income inequality increasing over 30 years in 24 of 26 countries it studied. Of course, it is our job to try to pinpoint specific moments of legislation, but this is a global trend. We have to, if we are being honest, see it that way, try to understand it that way, and try to figure out what to do about it.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Petro Poroshenko will be inaugurated as president of Ukraine, after earning a powerful democratic mandate in last month's election. However, Ukraine continues to face extreme pressure from Russia. Crimea has been annexed, and Russian nationals, armed by Russia, are terrorizing the people and undermining the government in Donbass.
When will Canada finally join our ally, the United States, in adding Igor Sechin, president of Rosneft and a member of the Kremlin inner circle, to our sanctions list?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister flew to Brussels amid great fanfare last October to sign an agreement in principle on the European trade deal, but that deal has now stalled, and when we requested the documents signed in public by the Prime Minister, the Privy Council Office replied that, quote, “no records relevant to the request were found”.
Did the Prime Minister sign anything at all in October, or was it merely an expensive photo op with no substance behind it?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, tonight I will speak about why the Liberal Party is supportive of free trade as an important, essential part of Canada's economic strategy. I will talk about why we support this Honduran free trade deal. I will talk about some of the problems with this deal that we need to be aware of. We think it is a deal that we need to enter into with eyes wide open, and I will speak about some of the overall problems that we are seeing in the trade strategy being pursued by the government.
Let me start by talking a little bit about free trade and why it is so essential to Canada. Eighty per cent of our economy is in some way connected with international trade. We are a big country geographically, but there are not too many of us. In this globalized world economy, it is absolutely essential for Canada to be open to the world economy. Some 19.2% of jobs in Canada are directly connected with trade. In addition, each job in the export sector adds another 1.9 jobs, so trade is really an essential part of any economic strategy to make Canada grow.
With the Honduras deal in particular, we have been talking about the relative size of this deal, the relative size of the Honduran economy, why it is really a small piece of our overall trade puzzle, and that is absolutely right, but it is also really important to get Honduran trade right. In fact, right now, I am sad to report that when it comes to Honduras, we are not dealing particularly well. Currently, as of 2012, we exported $39 million worth of goods to Honduras, and imported $219 million worth of goods.
A little bit earlier in the debate we heard some loose talk about Ricardo, and how, when it comes to trade, we should not worry too much about trade deficits. It all evens out in the end. Trade is just basically good. That is a nice theory and a nice point of view, but I submit, when it comes to jobs in Canada and the real lives of middle-class Canadians, it is absolutely essential that we have a strong, export-led, and export-driven economy. I would urge people who are interested in the works of Ricardo, if they have read them, to actually look at the more recent experience of highly successful economies like Germany, where we have seen very powerful, very strong, very strategic export-led growth be a recipe for a strong middle class. I think to argue that deficits do not matter, trade deficits do not matter, is a very profound mistake.
I would like to talk a little bit now about the Honduras deal and an issue that I think is very important for us to bear in mind, and that is the value side of the equation. As I have said, we support this deal. We believe in trade and we believe in trading with the world, but it is important to note that Honduras is a country that has a very troubled political and human rights record. We do not think that is a reason to not trade with Honduras. We are great believers that engagement, that trade, can be a way for Canada's democracy to help countries along that continuum. We have seen that happen in many parts of the world.
We also believe it is absolutely essential to be aware of these issues from the start, and to enter into this trading relationship aware of them and with a plan to monitor them. I would urge all of us, as we are talking about expanding our trade relations with Honduras, to be very mindful of the example of Russia, a country I personally know very well and really love.
As Russia moved out of Communism on the path to a market economy and democracy, we made a similar argument, that trade and engagement would be a valuable way of helping Russia become a more open society, and for many years, I believe that was the case. However, sometimes that just does not work, and what we have seen with Russia is Russia making a choice with Ukraine in November 2013, and most crucially and tragically, with Crimea in February 2014, to exclude itself from the international community.
What that has meant is that the countries that made this pact with Russia, which said they were going to extend a hand of friendship and trade with it, are now having to pull back, and that means a real economic cost. I would say to all of us here, particularly those members who, like the Liberal Party, support this deal with Honduras, let us make a pledge tonight that part of the deal is putting values first.
Part of the deal, of course, is about the Canadian economy and the importance of trade, but we also need to pledge to watch very closely what is happening with democracy, journalists, labour activists, indigenous people, women, and the LGBT community. If there is a tipping point, we have to be prepared, even if it comes at an economic cost, to pull out of that trading relationship. I cannot emphasize how important it is to us as a country to put those values at the centre.
Having spoken about Honduras, I would like to speak a bit more generally about where our free trade agenda is in the picture of the Canadian economy. Like everyone in the House, I noted with great disappointment the surprising trade deficit in April, which was $638 million according to Statistics Canada. That is a very poor performance and it is very worrying.
I suspect that my respected colleagues, especially those on the other side of the House, may not take my word for it when it comes to where Canada's trading relationship and performance are. I think there is an organization, you gentlemen, and it is only gentlemen this evening—we could talk about gender issues, but we will not do that right now—I think you gentlemen are probably interested in the Canadian—
Mr. Jeff Watson: Why is everything a gender issue with you?
Ms. Chrystia Freeland: I think you gentlemen are probably interested—
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I will do that, although I would ask you to help ensure more collegial behaviour on all sides of the House.
I suspect that the members on the other side of the House will not doubt the credibility or the significance of a report from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, one of our country's leading industry bodies. In May 2014, it published a report called “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada's Trade Success”. That title should worry us. It does not sound like it is too great a verdict.
The first chapter is called “Canada's Lagging Trade Performance”. Here is what it says:
International trade is one of the fastest and most effective ways for Canadian businesses to grow, create jobs and contribute to the economy. However, the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.
...Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.... If...price increases [in energy] are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.
For a party like the Liberal Party, which believes strongly in middle-class prosperity and in trade as a path toward that, these are damning words indeed.
According to the report:
Canada’s foreign investment trends tell a similar story. Export Development Canada has recorded significant growth in sales by Canadian foreign affiliates...but evidence suggests that sales levels are relatively higher for affiliates from the U.S., the U.K., Japan and Australia.
Not only are we doing less well than we did in 2000, despite a robustly globalizing world economy, we are lagging our international peers. This is why the Liberal Party believes so strongly in trade and why we would really like to see Canadian policy, Canadian action, that is not just about slogans, not just about photo ops, but is actually about a strategic approach and getting deals done.
That brings me to a deal we have been speaking about quite a lot this week, which is the European trade deal. In October, our Prime Minister, with great fanfare and at some expense, travelled to Brussels to sign an agreement in principle on the European trade deal. I am very sad to report that unfortunately, that deal has not yet been concluded, despite the fact that the Prime Minister has travelled again this week to Brussels, which would have been a great opportunity to conclude that very important deal.
I have more worrying news still to report. We requested from the government the actual documents the Prime Minister signed. We can see the Prime Minister signing it if we look at video of that October 18 event. Here was the response we had from the PCO:
A thorough search of the records under the control of the PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found.
We would like to hear at some point what the Prime Minister actually signed and what is happening with that deal. We believe the Honduras free trade deal is important, but obviously the European free trade deal is much more important.
In conclusion, we believe absolutely that particularly today, in 2014, in the age of globalization, in the age when technology has truly flattened the world economy, Canada has no choice but to be an energetically and strategically trading nation. That is our path to prosperity for our own middle class, and if we do it right and we do it with pure hearts, as well as with smart brains, we can use trade to be a real way of encouraging the growth of democracy in civil society around the world.
However, I am very sad to say that today in our trade agenda we see Canada falling behind. As the Canadian Chamber of Commerce itself concluded just last month, we have a lagging trade performance. I submit that it is because we are focusing far too much on photo ops, which may have been without an actual document signed. We would love to hear more about that.
We have much less of a clear strategy focusing on big trading partners and on the big places of growth in the world, and much less effective follow-through. We would love to see much more focus on Africa, for example.
Here is what Canada needs: a truly strategic global trade policy, a policy that is about world strategy and fitting Canada into the global economy, a policy that always remembers that we cannot be an effective trading nation without putting our values first, and finally, a trade policy that is not just about photo ops but is about actually getting the deal done.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the hon. member's point about Germany and how its apprenticeship system, which I think has a lot of admirable traits, may not be relevant to Canada.
I would like to point out to the member that his own employment minister speaks often and very favourably of the German apprenticeship program. Although the German apprenticeship program is not on the agenda tonight, it would be great for the government to get its act together, but maybe the talking points on apprenticeships were not on the top of the pile this evening.
To the point of trade, of course, anyone who advocates trade as strongly, wholeheartedly, and with as deep an interest in it as the Liberal Party does understands that trade is a two-way relationship. What I am arguing, however, is that right now what we are seeing in Canada is a worrying one-way relationship, as witnessed by that $638-million trade deficit in April. What we are seeing is that we are pretty good at buying goods from other people, but we are not that great at selling our stuff abroad. That worries me. It should worry everybody else in this House.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by addressing the gender point. I salute all the women in the House. It is important to have more women here. It is always a pleasure for me to meet them and see the very strong female presence, particularly on this side of the House, and the solidarity among us. It is great that they are here. It is great to see some women on the other side of the aisle as well.
To the point of democracy and human rights in Honduras, as I said in my remarks, this is tricky. It is a difficult issue, and it is a tough continuum. Of course I would prefer a world in which everyone enjoys the democracy and human rights Canada does. All of us in the House are united in the belief that part of our duty as Canadian parliamentarians is to work toward improving those conditions not only for Canadians but for everyone in the world.
It is, however, my belief that trade can be a way to help countries move on that authoritarianism-to-democracy continuum. Cutting countries off from the world economy should be a last resort, not the first thing we do.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. The hon. member for Kings—Hants identified a powerful and important opportunity in the Canadian-Honduran relationship.
I would point out, as he so very wisely said, that we have to understand that the learning here is not one-way, and there is a lot for Canada to learn on this specific issue as well.
I would also point out in terms of opportunities that there are some terrific trade opportunities for our beef and pork producers, and that is one reason we in the Liberal Party support this deal.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I believe in listening to what the markets say and to what market experts are forecasting. Part of the reason I was so worried and concerned about the April trade numbers is that they were a surprise to market economists. They found them to be very disappointing and part of a worrying trend.
If the hon. member on the other side of the aisle feels that the view of Bay Street economists does not matter, that is his purview. I personally really listen to the people who are in our capital markets and who are paid to have a opinion.
I would also point out, the view of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which noted just last month that Canada's lagging trade performance was worthy of a report. That is something all of us should be worried about. We in the Liberal Party believe in listening to what business is telling us. When this esteemed business institution issues a significant, thoughtful report pointing to our lagging trade performance, people should look beyond their talking points and look at what is happening with our economy.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, StatsCan reported today that in April, Canada posted a worrying $638 million trade deficit. This follows last week's anemic first quarter GDP figure of 1.2%, well below the budget's 2.3% forecast for 2014.
To reverse this decline in exports and boost our stagnant economy, it is essential to secure Canada's access to global markets, so when will the stalled European trade deal finally get done?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade has the time to take potshots at opposition backbenchers, which is flattering, but he and the Prime Minister do not seem to have the time to close a CETA deal, an agreement the Liberal Party supports. Canadians were led to believe CETA was signed, sealed, and delivered last October, but nearly eight months later the treaty is in limbo with even Europeans questioning its success.
As the Prime Minister heads to Brussels, can he and his party tell us when he will finally get the much ballyhooed CETA deal done?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we support free trade and we support this agreement.
In thinking about free trade and what the Canadian trade agenda should be, it is important to understand how dependent Canada is on trade and the extent to which we really are a trading nation.
Here are a few data points: 80% of our economy depends on access to foreign markets for Canadian exports, and we believe that it is essential for us to be supporting that access to support Canadian businesses, Canadian jobs, and Canadian people. As well, 19.2% of all Canadian jobs are directly associated with exports, and each export-related job supports an additional 1.9 jobs. This is really key, really central, and it is why free trade is a crucial part of any sound economic strategy for Canada and a crucial part of our own economic strategy.
What I am sad to point out, however, is that essential as trade is as a centrepiece of our economy, right now we are suffering. We are running significant trade deficits. What that says to me is that the government talks a lot about trade, but our economic strategy is not delivering, and it is not delivering particularly in the trade area.
We see that with Honduras. In 2012, Canadian business exported only $39 million in goods to Honduras. Meanwhile, we imported $219 million worth of goods from Honduras.
We need a trade strategy that is about integrating Canada into the global economy, selling Canadian goods abroad, and creating jobs in Canada.
Part of what we need to be doing when it comes to Honduras is creating an opportunity for Canadian beef and pork exporters. They see a real opportunity there, and the opportunity they spot is one reason we are in favour of this agreement.
In the debate so far today, we have heard reference to the need to have a more comprehensive approach to trade, a more comprehensive view of how Canada fits into the global trading arena. The Liberal Party absolutely supports that position.
We support the deal with Honduras, but Honduras is a tiny economy. This deal is not going to move the needle, and it is really important for us to have a much broader view of where Canada fits in the world and who we trade with.
In particular, we would like to see much more attention on the fast-growing emerging market economies. We should be paying a lot more attention to Africa, since some of the fastest-growing economies in the world are in Africa. There are several countries in Africa that have had more than 5% GDP growth for the past five years. That is a tremendous rate of economic activity, and Canada, with its very strong reputation in that region, should be taking advantage of it. We need a Canadian trade policy that looks to these vast growing markets in a comprehensive way.
We have spoken a lot already today about the European trade deal, and it is very important to spend a little time talking about that deal and focusing on it. Europe, of course, is a vast market. We have supported the deal that the government has been talking about, but, like many people in this House, we are very disturbed that the deal, which was announced with so much fanfare in October, has not yet been inked.
We urge the government to complete it. Yes, we are going to support the government on Honduras, but we would very much like the government to pay attention to the European deal and get it done.
This deal is essential for Canada. Now that the Americans are talking to Europe, there is tremendous danger with the European deal that that they are going to leapfrog us in the procedural process in the civil service and that we are going to find ourselves at the back of the line.
That would be a real pity for Canada. We have to pay close attention and devote all our efforts to getting that European deal done.
We have spoken today about some of the internal problems in Honduras. They include issues with democracy, labour rights, and the environment, and even as we support this deal, it is worth dwelling on those issues. It is really important for us to enter this trade deal with our eyes wide open.
Canada cannot trade only with perfect democracies. It is a big global economy, and we need to be part of it. It is actually helpful for countries that are on the path from authoritarianism to democracy to have trading relations with democracies like Canada.
However, even as we enter into those relationships, we have to do so with two points of view. First, we have to see the building of these connections between Canada and a country like Honduras as part of a strategy to help open up the country, to help democratize it, to help those journalists who are in trouble, to help opposition politicians and labour activists. That has to be an essential part of our approach.
Second, as we enter into a closer economic relationship with a politically troubled country like Honduras, we have to be very clear with our businesses that if a tipping point is reached, it must be the position of Canada that morality and our values will trump dollars.
We have seen that happening most recently in the Ukraine conflict. We have had a very strong economic relationship with Russia, and that economic relationship was based on some of the ideas that are driving this trade deal with Honduras. It was based on the hope that Russia's engagement with the world, with the west and Canada, would help tip it in the direction of being more democratic and being a more open society. Sadly, that has not happened, so we have had to pull back from that relationship at some economic cost.
In entering into deals with countries like Honduras, countries in a troubled place on the path from dictatorship to democracy, we have to be very clear in our own minds and in our discussions with Canadian businesses that it is a possibility that this could happen, because we never want to be in a position where the values that are so important to us in Canada, the values that we stand for in the world, are compromised.
In conclusion, we do support this deal. We hope the House will vote in support of it. We are very much in support of a Canadian economy that is integrated into the world.
However, as we work on Canadian trade, it is very important to remember three things.
One, we have to do a much better job of ensuring that Canada is a successful trading nation, and our trade deficits right now show that such is not the case.
Second, and in pursuit of that first goal, we have to have a much broader, much more comprehensive vision. The Honduran deal is great, but it is a very small country and, as we discussed today, our deal with the very big European Union is stalled. Let us get that done, and let us start working on some comprehensive deals with the fast-growing emerging markets, particularly in Africa.
Third, even as we strongly and energetically support trade and openness to the world economy as a centrepiece of Canada's economic strategy, we have to bear in mind that the world is very spiky. The world is not flat, it is spiky. Different economies are playing by different rules, and sometimes that is going to mean that we will come into a values clash with countries that we have been building a trading relationship with. At those moments, we have to be prepared to let our values stand first.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, indeed we are paying a lot of attention to the European trade deal, as are our colleagues in the NDP. We are very troubled that although this deal was announced with a lot of fanfare, we have seen very little detail and very little progress toward concluding it.
We are comfortable in supporting it and indeed proud to do so, because doing a trade deal with Europe needs to be one of Canada's top international economic priorities. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the need for a comprehensive approach to trade and a comprehensive approach to getting access for Canadian businesses to the world's big trading blocs. That said, it is a real problem that this deal has not been done and that so little detail has been released. We hope the member will join us in pressing the government.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with that point. It is very important for all of us to acknowledge and appreciate that these are going to be very hard issues and that we have to look at them case by case. There are going to be countries that cross the line in terms of how they treat people at home or the way they behave on the international stage, and when that happens, we cannot have trading relations with them.
That said, trade and engagement can be and has been, as we have seen historically in many cases, a very effective way of bringing countries into the international community and of fostering more democracy and more openness at home, as well as being of great benefit to Canada. In our judgment, Honduras falls into that category, and that is why we support this agreement. Again, having said that, we do think it is important, going forward, to watch the situation closely and to enter into this agreement with our eyes wide open.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, we strongly believe that it is important for economic considerations and trade to be a big part of Canada's relationship with the world, particularly now as the rules of the world economy are shifting.
As I said earlier, though, it is very important for us to understand that we are not playing in a world economy that plays by a single set of rules. We are playing in a world economy where some countries are playing by state capitalism rules. They are authoritarian at home and they take that authoritarianism abroad when they trade. It is very important that we build a trade policy that understands that, is conscious of it, and is aware of the problems that might await us.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the OSCE currently does not intend to send parliamentary observers to Donetsk and Luhansk for the May 25 presidential election in Ukraine. We appreciate the security concerns that motivated this decision, but it is in these two regions where Ukraine sovereignty is at greatest risk and where it is most important to make sure a fair, internationally monitored vote takes place.
Can the minister tell us what the government is doing to ensure there is a senior international presence in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts during this crucial vote?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, StatsCan has released jobs data for April and the news is dire. Among young people aged 15 to 24, employment fell by 27,000. Among women between 25 and 54 years old, employment fell by 29,000. Overall, 31,000 full-time jobs were lost in April.
This is a dreadful employment picture, particularly for young Canadians and women. When will the government fix this jobs crisis and stop laughing about it?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Patriarch Sviatoslav, head of the Ukrainian Catholic church, is visiting Ottawa today.
Vladimir Putin has said he will withdraw Russian troops from the Ukrainian border and that Russia will not interfere in the May 25 Ukrainian presidential elections.
Does the government believe the Kremlin's assurances? Will the government show it means business by adding Igor Sechin to the sanctions list? Can the minister tell us what Canada is doing to ensure this crucial vote takes place freely, fairly and that its results are recognized in the Ukraine and the world?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report this week says StatsCan is not collecting good enough jobs data, and the Minister of Employment himself has just admitted we need better labour market data.
The government's evisceration of data collection makes for bad policy. It is like driving blindfolded. Southwestern Ontario has seen a huge influx of temporary foreign workers, but we have no way of knowing what sectors they are working in.
Will the Conservatives reverse their cuts to StatsCan so we can have better data and better policy for all Canadians?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra for the excellent points she made. In particular as she began her presentation, she spoke of the ways in which this program, properly administered and properly managed, can be of great benefit to the Canadian economy and to Canadian business. We strongly believe that, and that is the direction in which our motion is going, to say this is a program that can work but needs to be managed very carefully with very good data and very good oversight.
I am going to speak later, as my colleagues already have, about some of the dangerous economic consequences of the mismanagement, which Canada is suffering right now. However, I would like to start with something a little bit bigger, which is the devastating and really dangerous social, political, and even moral impact of allowing this program to go out of control.
One of the things of which I am proudest as a Canadian, and I think we all are, is the way in which our society has succeeded in being a proudly diverse immigrant society. One of the things that Canada does really well, that is a key to our success as a country, that the rest of the world looks to us for, is the way in which we welcome and integrate immigrants into our society.
The temporary foreign worker program, if abused as it is now, really threatens to erode and tear apart that social consensus around immigration. We have that social consensus partly because the Canadians who are already here really believe, see, and experience that new Canadians, immigrants coming to our country, strengthen our economy and strengthen our society, that they add, not subtract. That is one really essential piece of Canada's success, and it is something we are seeing fall apart in a lot of societies, particularly in Europe.
The second reason that Canada has succeeded so spectacularly as a diverse immigrant society is that new Canadians are fully integrated when they come here. New Canadians have the path to permanent residency, to citizenship. They become part of our society. There are no tiers, no classes of Canadian citizenship, no classes of belonging.
It is those two pillars that have made Canada successful as a diverse immigrant society—really one of the key Canadian values, one of our most important national successes in the past and going forward.
The reason we are focusing so much on the abuse of the temporary foreign worker program and the reason it has attracted so much national attention is that it very seriously undermines and threatens this core Canadian value and core Canadian accomplishment.
One data point, which I think has shocked us all and which really underscores the extent to which this program is truly being abused, is what we have seen happening in southwestern Ontario. As we know, that is a part of the country where the economy is particularly weak, and yet it is a part of the country where we have seen numbers of temporary foreign workers soar. In Windsor, even as unemployment has gone up by 40%, the number of temporary foreign workers rose by 86%. In London, Ontario, unemployment is up by 27%; meanwhile the number of temporary foreign workers is up by 87%.
Mike Moffatt, who is a professor at the University of Western Ontario, at the business school—someone who is sensitive to the needs of business—says about this program and what is happening in southwestern Ontario:
We're bringing in more and more workers into the worst labour markets in the country. People see that and think this doesn't make sense.
It certainly does not, and that is really an example of a program that is not being run carefully.
Professor Moffatt points to something else, and my colleague from Vancouver has pointed to this as well, that part of the problem with this program, part of the reason it is clearly being mismanaged, and part of the reason it is hard to manage properly, is we just do not have the data. We believe in evidence-based, pragmatic government, and we can only have evidence-based, pragmatic government if we actually know what is going on.
When scholars like Professor Moffatt looked at southwestern Ontario and tried to figure out what the heck is going on and why more temporary foreign workers are going to cities like Windsor and London, they found the data does not exist. There is no breakdown of where those workers are going. Part of the motion is designed to say that we need good data to make good policy. I think everyone in the House must agree with that. I really cannot see how anyone could fail to support the motion.
Another data point—which I think needs to worry us all and should be absolutely irrefutable evidence that, as it is being currently managed, the temporary foreign worker program simply is not working—is what reputed scholars from independent think tanks, even think tanks that perhaps lean a little to the right, have found about the effect of the temporary foreign worker program on unemployment. A study published last month by the C.D. Howe Institute stated that the temporary foreign worker program “...eased hiring conditions [that] accelerated the rise in unemployment rates in Alberta and British Columbia”.
Again, this is an independent study that found that unemployment rates are rising through a mismanaged program, and that does not speak about the downward pressure on wages for people in these occupations.
I have been focusing on unemployment concerns and downward pressure on wages for people who were already in this country when we let the temporary foreign worker program to run amok. We also need to be concerned about the threat that misuse of the temporary foreign worker program transforms the idea of immigration, integration, and diversity in our society. There is a very real danger that this program can start to create a permanent underclass of people in our country, people who are not citizens, people who do not have rights, people who are not fully integrated into our society and yet are working alongside us. That is a profound threat to the idea of Canada and social cohesion, and it is another reason that this program must be handled very delicately and managed very carefully. It is just not the Canadian way.
I have a data point, which really shows we are risking losing that balance. In 2012, 213,573 temporary foreign workers came to Canada. In that year, 257,887 people became permanent residents of the country. As we can see from those numbers, there were nearly as many temporary foreign workers as permanent residents. Liberals are a pro-immigration, pro-diversity party to the tips of our fingers and toes. Creating this underclass of workers whom we import, whom we treat differently, and to whom we do not grant the rights of other Canadians or a path to citizenship is simply wrong.
There is huge national interest in this issue, and that is for a very good reason. Canadians understand that, properly managed with good reliable data, the temporary foreign worker program is a useful and important contributor to our economy and Canadian business, but run badly, as is the case today, it is a threat not just to employment and wages but to Canada's most central values.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned quite prominently the importance of good granular data and the need to get much better labour market data. I did that because we just do not know.
I do not think my beliefs are the key issue. What matters is what is really going on in the country. Where are temporary foreign workers going, into which sectors and in which regions? What are the actual labour market conditions and shortages?
Because of underfunding, because of a lack of belief in the importance of data for good policy, which I believe is absolutely fundamental, we simply do not have the data to give a good answer to that question.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the hon. member agrees with me that we need more data to make better decisions, and I have a very specific decision that the government can act on right away to help us get that better data.
According to a Globe and Mail story published last month, Statistics Canada surveyed 25,000 employers, in a survey that cost $4.6 million to conduct, on the skills gap, employment, and future skill shortages. However, it has not actually analyzed that data because Statistics Canada, our premier statistical agency, does not have the money to do it.
Therefore, since we are in such glorious agreement about the need for better data, let us get the funding in place to actually get it, so we are making these decisions based on what is really happening in the Canadian economy, not based on Kijiji.
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have long benefited from the CPP, a cornerstone of our society. Yesterday Ontario recognized the growing need to strengthen Canadians' pensions, introducing a proposal that will—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Mr. Speaker, if the members on the other side of the House would like to hear my big-girl voice, listen up, gentlemen.
Ontario showed leadership that has been lacking from the Conservative government. Will the Conservatives finally follow Ontario's lead and help all Canadians achieve financial security when they retire?
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: 1501 - 1564 of 1564 | Page: 16 of 16

|<
<
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data