Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2023

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have a situation with the government where international relations are a mess. Our relationship with India is a mess. We just had the Quint, five members of the G7, write a letter condemning Hamas, without even asking Canada. Canada was not even an afterthought in the writing of that letter.

I want to ask the member, given the government's track record with respect to its relationships with other countries and its bungled negotiation of the free trade agreement with the United States, how we can trust the government to implement an agreement, in terms of free trade, with Ukraine.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our level of confidence in this government is as low as the official opposition's. We sometimes wonder whether the government truly deserves our trust.

In this case, one of the irritants is transparency and, frankly, the Conservatives are no better in that regard when they are in power. There are models out there in the world. It is not necessary to present an agreement like this and tell us that it is urgent, that we have to adopt it, take it or leave it, and that we cannot change it. Conservatives are no better when they are in power. It is part of Canada's monarchic culture, but it does not have to be that way.

In other countries, for example, in the United States, they have a habit of consulting their elected representatives. The European Union is also in the habit of holding debates. We are the elected representatives of the people. Before sending a negotiator out into the world, we should be given an opportunity to share our views, to be asked what we do not want to see included, what we would like to see as part of the negotiations, what our fundamental values and interests are within this negotiation process. It is the Canadian culture of transparency in trade agreements that needs a thorough overhaul, and this one is highly problematic.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we Quebeckers have worked really hard to protect supply management. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in particular has taken up that fight. The minister seemed to be saying this morning that supply-managed sectors would be excluded and therefore protected. There is definitely a lack of transparency. There are still many aspects of this bill that are worrisome.

Can my colleague reiterate the importance of making the risk of prosecution the same for multinationals as for countries? What does he think should be done next to ensure that we get our fair share and that we can monitor the government's lack of transparency?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can rest easy about the supply management aspect, because the text excludes those sectors. There is nothing that resembles the order the government made on the sly, somewhat surreptitiously, in 2022. We can rest assured on that front.

As for the power of multinationals, we will assess how much flexibility we have because, as I said, there is very little we can change. However, that would be part of it, based on our understanding of the bill at this stage, and we will be able to delve into this further in committee. If it is in the bill, there is nothing to stop us from rejecting this provision during the clause-by-clause study in committee, while supporting the agreement overall. I will vote against this provision, but that does not stop me from reiterating my request to the government for a commitment to remove this provision.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the fact that Canada is very fortunate. We have a team of negotiators who have a great deal of experience, years and years of it. I would suggest that Canada is probably second to no other nation in the world in terms of its ability to negotiate. We have always taken the position that it has to be in Canada's best interest first and foremost.

The member seems to be very concerned about the government's going it alone. I would provide some assurances that through the agreements in the past, a few dozen agreements, we have witnessed a team that has achieved a good deal for Canada. Canada has been consulted by the many different stakeholders.

Would the member not agree that at some point in time, we have to allow the negotiators to do their job and get the agreement, and that we cannot change the agreement after it has been signed off on?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to unpack everything I just heard.

First, yes, in its agreements, Canada has some experience in undermining supply management three times, failing to protect aluminum in CUSMA, not pushing for our interests and fundamental values multiple times, and hiding several things from us.

To the question from my colleague who says that we should allow the negotiators to do their job, I say, of course. I never suggested that elected members be sent to negotiate in the negotiators' place, that goes without saying. That idea never even crossed my mind. I do not think that the United States or the European Union are bad negotiators, yet they consult those who have been elected by the people. When the member says that nothing can be changed once the agreement is signed, what option do we have other than to fight the agreement? We cannot say that we are 75% in favour and 25% against the agreement and then choose what we will take and what we will leave. In other words, we have to take all or nothing. We cannot cherry-pick here. I call this a miscarriage of democracy.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. This bill would update the agreement made in 2017. Much has happened in the past six years, as we all know.

First, I would like to speak a bit about the original agreement, as it forms the core of the present one, then cover some of the changes outlined in Bill C-57. I will wrap up with some comments about how free trade agreements are presented to Parliament for the debate that they deserve.

The NDP is very much in favour of free trade agreements. We hear catcalls from both sides every time we debate free trade agreements here, saying that the NDP is always against them. We are not. We have voted for free trade agreements in the past and we voted for the Ukraine free trade agreement when it was presented. Our main caveat for these agreements is that they be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs, protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment, and promote the well-being of our citizens. The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian companies. It must also include measures of good labour agreements, both here and in the countries we are making deals with, and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well.

These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved. I have to say that this new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us that would implement that agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Today, there are more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. They are very proud of that heritage and their cultural traditions.

Canada has consistently supported Ukraine's development and reform efforts, providing over $460 million in international assistance between 2014 and 2021. Of course, Canada and Canadians have been strong supporters of Ukraine since the illegal invasion by Russia in February 2022. Since then, Canada has committed over $8.9 billion in assistance, including financial, development, humanitarian, military security, stabilization and immigration aid.

With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply managed products, such as poultry, to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but I think it is fair to say that Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during these horrific times in their struggles.

I would like to step back a bit in time and spend some time talking about the original agreement. I would like to thank Tracey Ramsey, who is the former member for Essex, the NDP international trade critic when the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was debated and came into effect. Tracey was and remains a passionate defender of Canadian workers, and she took her role very seriously. She recommended that the NDP support the original Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement because it upheld those basic principles I mentioned previously.

The Canada-Ukraine trade relationship is relatively small. Ukraine represents less than 1% of the total Canadian global exports. Following the signature of the original trade agreement, Canada's non-coal exports to Ukraine grew by 28.5% between 2016 and 2019. Total merchandise trade reached an all-time high of $447 million in 2021, although that of course declined in 2022 because of the illegal invasion.

The original free trade agreement eliminated most of the tariffs on Canadian imports to Ukraine and Ukrainian imports to Canada. Canadian exporters have largely welcomed the deal. Canadian products that benefit from the free trade agreement include iron and steel, industrial machinery, pulses, canola oil, and fish and seafood.

While the original free trade agreement includes a state-to-state dispute settlement mechanism, it did not include the investor-state dispute settlement system, ISDS provisions. It is important to note that these provisions actually existed before the free trade agreement came into place because in 1995, Canada and Ukraine signed a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement, which included these investor-state provisions.

The NDP, in general, does not like ISDS provisions because they allow foreign corporations to literally tell Canadian governments at all levels how they should be protecting their environment or protecting their people. We believe that is an infringement on our sovereignty and we think that ISDS provisions do not have a place in any foreign free trade agreement. We are happy to see that the new Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement did not include them. They were in both the Canada-Europe trade agreement and the CPTPP. We believe that foreign investors should be obligated to go through domestic courts before being granted access to a special court where they can sue our governments, and that should be done at the state-to-state level.

New Democrats analyze trade deals as a whole. As I say, we have supported trade deals in the past, including the Ukraine agreement and the South Korea deal.

The original Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement entered into force in 2017. It has a review clause that it be reviewed within two years of entry into force with a regard to expanding it and that was done. In 2019, Canada and Ukraine agreed to modernize the free trade agreement with expanded sections. There were public consultations held in the winter of 2020, but those consultations did not seem to include the Parliament of Canada. I will talk more about that later.

Canadian and Ukrainian officials conducted negotiations from May 2022 to April 2023. The new agreement includes more chapters on a broader array of services and business. It covers professional services like engineering, legal, computer services and telecommunications. It covers investment. It covers temporary entry for business persons. There are other sections that promote more broad interactions around trade and commerce. These are chapters that are included in other free trade agreements that Canada has with other countries and we welcome them here.

The agreement also has an updated environment chapter, which is subject to dispute settlement, aiming to ensure parties do not lower the levels of environmental protection to attract trade or investment. Again, that is obviously an important part of trade agreements. Trade agreements should raise the level of the standard of living of people in both countries in commercial and financial terms, but also in terms of their environment, human rights and labour dealings.

This bill has an updated labour chapter, which is again subject to dispute settlement provisions. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in both countries.

As I say, the NDP in general supports this kind of free trade agreement. Whether we support this bill or not, I would like to say here that, unfortunately, this bill was tabled only last Tuesday and I have not had time to bring it before the NDP caucus for discussion, which happens on Wednesdays, as we all know. This is a big, complex agreement and the NDP caucus likes to discuss all legislation before we decide whether we will support it.

We think it is important to allow Parliament to have input into trade negotiations before they begin. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. When the first Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was tabled, the government followed that policy. It tabled the enabling legislation along with an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment more than 21 sitting days after tabling the treaty. However, the government did not follow any of these standard procedures when introducing CETA, the Canada-Europe trade agreement. We were happy when it followed those procedures in the previous first version of the Canada-Ukraine agreement, but it seems that the government has forgotten those policies with this new agreement.

When the government negotiated CETA and CPTPP, Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deal was already finalized, and the government said that there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point. It is not too much to ask for input on these important policies. The United States Congress has the right and ability to debate what the priorities of their country will be before entering into free trade negotiations.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona wrote a letter, in December 2019, to the Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Finance, regarding increased transparency around the negotiations for the new Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement. In response to that letter, the minister agreed, on February 19, 2020, to change the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. Those changes:

To require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the [committee on international trade].

To require objectives for negotiations towards a new free trade agreement to be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. Under normal parliamentary procedures, those objectives would be referred to the [committee on international trade].

As I mentioned previously, there were discussions with some stakeholders about the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but as far as I can tell, and we have done some research on this, the matter was never referred to the international trade committee or tabled in the House.

The government also seems to have broken standard policies on introducing implementation legislation for free trade agreements and other treaties. There should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and tabling of legislation, and that did not happen with this agreement. On top of that, as I mentioned, the minister tabled this legislation last Tuesday and here we are debating it on Monday. This is a big, complicated bill. There was no opportunity for opposition parties to discuss this in caucus last Wednesday.

To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine and we will be discussing this new legislation in caucus on Wednesday. I urge the minister and her government to follow the standard policies on how to introduce treaties and implement legislation before Parliament. These are not minor details; these are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the NDP voted in favour of trade agreements in the past and will be reviewing this one on Wednesday, but does he believe that this agreement in Bill C-57 will make life better for workers both in Canada and in Ukraine and vote in favour?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we were in favour of the previous agreement, and this agreement seems to be an improvement and an expansion on that.

There are many details, the devil is always in the details in free trade agreements, and we will be taking a closer look at that agreement over the next couple of days. However, as I said, there is supposed to be 21 sitting days between so that we can have that time to really look at things closely. I think there might have been 10 sitting days between the time the treaty was signed and the enabling legislation tabled and only a couple of sitting days since the actual implementation legislation was tabled. That is where I think the government should have done better.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay gave a fulsome review on such short notice. I really appreciate the amount of research he has done already on it.

I want to ask a specific question on article 13.10 of the free trade agreement, which focuses on climate. That section commits both parties to “work together to pursue domestic and global efforts to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels”. That is the globally recognized amount to prevent climate breakdown. It is a really important number.

What is also true is we are in a country right now that is continuing to build new fossil fuel infrastructure, including owning and expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline, in which we have invested $30 billion. The UN Secretary General has called this “moral and economic madness.” We continue to invest around $20 billion a year to subsidize the very industry most responsible for the crisis we are in. I would love to hear a comment from the member on how he reconciles what he is seeing from the federal government right now when it comes to continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry and yet committing to a treaty that would purport to ensure we do our part on the climate crisis.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for taking part in a press conference I held with the member for Timmins—James Bay on that subject last week, where we called both the government and fossil fuel companies to account for the fact the International Energy Agency has said we cannot move forward with any new fossil fuel projects and here we are, as he mentioned, $30 billion into the Trans Mountain pipeline. I could go on and on about other projects.

This is something the government and the fossil fuel industry need to face. The fossil fuel industry has known since the 1980s where we are headed. It warned in the 1980s that it could not go down that path, and then it decided that would be too expensive and there was too much money to be made. We need to call both the government and the industry to account on this and make some very important changes very quickly.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard that two years ago the Deputy Prime Minister had informed our finance critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, that on all future free trade agreements, the government would give 90 days' notice to this House, that 30 days before the start of negotiations the government would notify the House of the objectives of the free trade agreement and that at the same time as the implementing legislation was tabled in the House, the government would also table an economic impact assessment.

Can my colleague share with us why this is so important for us to be able to do our job in this House and for the input from outside the House from different stakeholders who would be impacted?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the member for Winnipeg North say that we have had good negotiators and that, once they finish the negotiations, that will be it as we will not have any opportunity or reason to intercede. We have real reason to intercede beforehand, when we can talk and discuss in this place what our priorities should be in free trade agreements or any treaty regarding this country.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona brought this to the minister before we were negotiating the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement because the United States was already holding debates within their congress about what priorities they should have in these negotiations. We did not have that opportunity. There was a commitment made in policy that this would be the way things move forward, yet for this agreement, which is really the first agreement we have entered into since CUSMA, this has not been followed. I asked the member for Elmwood—Transcona and the member for Windsor West, who was our international trade critic, if it had happened. We queried the clerk of the committee on international trade on if this happened. Nobody could find any evidence of it happening.

This is what we have been pushing for. We want to help the government really form good policy to negotiate good treaties. We should have some discussions before our good negotiators take their jobs and negotiate the treaties. We should give them some direction that comes from all of us here.

We come from different parts of the country and from different backgrounds. We have to have that input in these negotiations to make sure that they will benefit all Canadians. That is what the NDP really stands for, that these agreements should help not just corporations but all Canadians.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are in favour of free and fair agreements, although we still have not had a chance to really review this one.

One of the principles of a free trade agreement is that it help the economies of both countries. I was wondering if my NDP colleague could comment on this. Right now in Ukraine there is a noose and a stranglehold because of Russia, especially with the energy side. Looking at lower emissions, does it not really make sense that Canada would really focus on exporting clean, liquid natural gas to Ukraine and to Europe in general to help, not only from a geopolitical standpoint, but also from a practical standpoint? If we want to improve its economy, does it not make sense to give Canadian, clean, liquid natural gas to Ukraine instead of having Russia have a stranglehold over that entire country?

Could he comment on the common sense of that approach?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will avoid a long debate about how clean liquid natural gas is and the whole idea of liquid natural gas actually being a good way to move forward with climate action, but I will say that there are liquid natural gas projects that are well on the way to completion in British Columbia. They take time. They cannot be built overnight. They are being built very quickly.

I would hope that this illegal action, this war in Ukraine, would not be going on by the time they are eventually shipping liquid natural gas. There are countries around the world that are much better placed, because of their situations, to supply that liquid natural gas to Ukraine, but Canada is moving in that direction. I just hope that the war is over by the time we are able to help in that regard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to follow up on the last question and answer it because I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. The overriding thing has got to be the issue of trade agreements in principle and how it is that Canada has been a major benefactor through world trade.

We are very much a trading nation. For us to be able to hit the potential that Canada has in the future, we are very much dependant on international trade. All one needs to do is to take a look at any province, territory or community and the impact that international trade has had on every one of us in Canada. It affects us all. When we talk about good-quality, middle-class jobs, these are the ways in which we are going to be able to get many of those middle-class jobs.

This government has been focused on that virtually from day one, the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That has been a priority of this government. How can one make it a priority and not deal with the issue of trade? That is the reason, and I put this forward in the form of a question earlier, there is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and the government.

Contrary to how the member tried to respond in his question, one cannot change history. That is the reality. The reason why we have recognized the value of international trade and how that helps all of us is that we have seen the results of it, the growth in the economy. Prepandemic, we had already exceeded over a million additional jobs. That was prepandemic, based on the type of economic polices that were being developed and implemented here in Canada. It was having a positive impact.

The original Ukraine agreement was one of the first ones that was signed off on. I believe it was the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who went to Ukraine and signed off on it. A few years later, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister met and had a discussion about how important it was that we modernize that particular agreement. There were a number of things they felt could be done to improve the agreement.

There were sound negotiations, which I made reference to earlier. We are very fortunate because of the number of trade agreements and memoranda of understanding we have been able to put into place. We have an incredible team of negotiators who negotiate on Canada's behalf. I would ultimately argue that they are second to no other team in the world. They have been at it, and we have accomplished so many agreements.

Members ask about this or that region, what is taking place in this or that region or how we feel as the House of Commons. I suspect that, whether or not it is in debates after previous agreements, the experiences and the discussions that take place with the many different stakeholders, whether municipalities, provinces, indigenous people or many other stakeholders, leading into the negotiations, give a very good sense of what would work well for us as a nation.

Ultimately, one could say that the proof is in the pudding. Look at the number of agreements that Canada now has with other countries. No other country has the same sort of access as Canada does around the world, even the United States, with those formal agreements. We have been aggressive in recognizing the importance of achieving these agreements because all of us benefit through them.

I define the benefits as raising the standard of living for Canadians and creating thousands of good-quality middle-class jobs, which provide the type of revenue that supports the government in bringing forward good government programs. This is where the focus of the government has been.

We look at the agreement being debated today, and I am sensitive to what is being said with respect to the input before signing. Why are we now being asked to either agree or not agree with it by way of a question?

I think it is important to recognize the process by which the negotiations take place. The Prime Minister cannot take a document, sit down with the President of Ukraine and say that this is the agreement per our negotiators and the feedback we have received from literally hundreds if not thousands of stakeholders, who are now signing off on it, much like we would not expect the Ukrainian Parliament to try to change the agreement itself. That is how it has worked for a while now, and it has been very successful.

Members have made reference to wanting to see a bit of a change. Let us put that in a different perspective. I could be wrong on this, but if memory serves me correctly, this could be the first time in modern history where a trade agreement is being achieved when one of the countries is at war. Ukraine has a lot of things on its plate right now, yet as a country, it recognizes just how important it is to look at securing the modernization of a trade agreement.

It says a lot when a country at war is looking to Canada, which has been a dear friend to Ukraine, saying how important it is that we have a modern trade agreement. That was a president to a prime minister. It was signed off last month, in September. Given all the other issues we are facing, how often do I stand in the chamber to talk about the impacts of inflation, how it is hurting Canadians, the issue of interest rates and so many other issues? As a government, we recognize how important it is that we continue to push on the file between Canada and Ukraine in a tangible way. If we put it in the perspective of Ukraine being at war, given our previous negotiations and achievements through trade agreements, in particular the Ukraine trade agreement, I think there is a valid argument to be made that there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing this legislation to, at the very least, go to committee.

I realize this is day one of the debate, but what concerns me is that the Conservatives' critic, in particular, has indicated that they want to have a more thorough debate, but there was no indication as to how long they would like to debate it. I am hoping that they, in particular, will not use House and procedural tactics to filibuster this legislation.

The stakeholders, whether in Ukraine or Canada, see the benefit of having this type of legislation pass. Personally, I would like to see it go to the Senate before Christmas because it still has to pass at the Senate, which is very much doable.

I want to emphasize this: We all talk about what is happening in Ukraine today, with the illegal invasion of Russia into its sovereign territory. Here we have an opportunity to make a very powerful statement by believing in our negotiators. Members have a copy of the agreement.

Even New Democrats voted in favour of the original Ukraine trade agreement. Collectively, as a House, we can send a very strong message to Europe and to Ukraine by saying that Canada is going to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. This trade agreement would empower more economic commerce between the two nations. It would enable a wider spectrum of services and goods. It would put into place dispute mechanisms.

Ukraine will prevail over Russia. When that happens, it is going to need and want to see its allied countries come to the table. Canada will be there. This is one of the ways we can be there in a real way. That is why I would suggest that we should deal with this legislation in the same format as we did for the first piece and allow it to pass relatively quickly.

Housing Initiative in Brampton

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Brampton is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, and housing is top of mind for its residents. That is why our government has taken historic action to build 24,000 homes in the next 10 years in Brampton.

One hundred and fourteen million dollars from the housing accelerator fund will allow the City of Brampton to expedite 3,150 units and build them within the next three years. This partnership with the City of Brampton and municipalities across Canada will allow the removal of barriers to housing supply, accelerate growth and support the development of low-carbon and climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive and diverse.

We will continue to work hard to make housing more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast.

Member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour two people without whom I would not be here today: Giuseppe and Alba Caputo. My parents were both born in the province of Cosenza in southern Italy. My grandfather, Pasquale Spina, first made the trip to Canada in 1952. He left behind my mother, two-year-old Alba Libaretta. Her name means “freedom at dawn”, and she was so named because my grandfather was freed from being a POW in the early morning. My mother would follow with her mother in 1957, and my father arrived in Canada with his family in 1961.

My father was a mill worker, who displayed an unparalleled work ethic. I worked at his sawmill as a summer student; after two shifts, I knew I could not do the job he had done for 30 years. My sisters, Ellie and Rosie, are both teachers; in the family, we count eight degrees.

As my mother once asked: What would my grandfather say if he could see me in Parliament? I am not sure, but today I say thanks to my parents for all their sacrifices.

Latin American Heritage Month

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, October is Latin American Heritage Month, a time to recognize the many contributions that Latin American communities have made and continue to make to the socio-economic development of Canada.

Canadians of Latin American descent have enhanced the cultural mosaic of Canada through their artistic and culinary traditions. This month, we had many opportunities to discover the long and rich history of the many Latin American communities here in Canada, and we celebrated their culture, resilience and heritage.

I would like to recognize Jaime Marulanda, editor of Eco Latino, and community leader Carolina Izaguirre-Campos for their services to the community. I would like to thank Professor Luis Abanto Rojas, chair of the University of Ottawa’s Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, for inviting me to a Latin American Heritage Day event.

National Firefighter Appreciation Day

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the National Firefighter Appreciation Day ceremony, the Government of Quebec awarded the medal for meritorious acts to five firefighters from the Val d'Or fire department for their response to an incident that occurred on April 14, 2022, in Val‑d'Or.

On arrival at a 13-unit building that was engulfed in flames, the firefighters heard two people, who were blocked by fire and smoke, calling for help. It was during that perilous intervention that they were able to pull out the victims, one of whom was unconscious. Their heroic actions, their physical efforts and their composure allowed them to evacuate the building and avoid the worst.

I want to thank and congratulate the chief of operations, Yves Barbe, and firefighters Jonathan Alarie, Francis Duchesne, Kristian Fortin-Chartier and Tomy Joly for their courage, their professionalism, their teamwork and their quick action.

Congratulations to them for this well-earned distinction.

120th Anniversary of Alliance Française Halifax

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Alliance Française Halifax on its 120th anniversary. This organization has been promoting the French language and culture, including Acadian culture, since 1903.

Thirty years ago this year, I began working with people in this organization and we have been working together ever since. Their hard work has led to a stronger economy, better public services and more opportunities for all Canadians to build stronger ties with each other.

I want to once again congratulate the entire team for these many years of success and offer them my best wishes for the future.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years, the NDP-Liberal government creates so many questions for Canadians. Canadians question the charade of a 12-month price freeze that retailers have imposed on producers, which will only see major price increases later. This was done just so the Prime Minister can put this problem off until after the next election. Canadians want to know how these suppliers absorb the increase in the carbon tax applied at every step of the food value chain. How do producers absorb the costs of higher interest rates and un-thought-through label and inspection charges imposed by the CFIA? Why is the government allowing a price ceiling to be imposed by retailers on suppliers, which are forced to absorb these costs? Why not instead remove or reduce the costs? The Prime Minister is all hat and no cattle; he is not worth the cost.

Canadians want to know, and Canadians want the Prime Minister to go.

Taro East Landfill

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996, I joined residents of Upper Stoney Creek and Hamilton East in opposition to the planned operation of the Taro East landfill. Against stiff opposition to the plan, the Conservative Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, approved its operation. To fast-forward a quarter century, with the landfill poised to close in 2019, Premier Ford ignored overwhelming community opposition. He approved the landfill's expansion and continued operation for another decade.

This past summer was unbearable for Stoney Creek residents. Odours from the expanded landfill prevented them from enjoying their properties and local parks, and many were physically affected by its operation.

Ontario's provincial government has yet to act. I rise today to voice my support for local residents, who have called upon Premier Ford and other elected representatives to immediately close the landfill until the company implements measures to eliminate odours at the site.

Creek 53 Conservancy Trust

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the steadfast and dedicated team at Creek 53, a conservancy trust based in my community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. Made up of landowners, trustees, academics and environmental stewards, the team at Creek 53 is working toward the environmental preservation of the Hudson escarpment and the creek 53 watershed, an area rich in biodiversity that is located in Hudson.

This initiative was made possible through the vision and hard work of administrators Richard Adler, Bernard Blouin, Christoper Buddle, Lindsay D'Aoust and Brian Grubert. Thanks to them and the generosity of donors who share their vision, Creek 53 is ensuring that this magnificent ecosystem supports research, education and awareness initiatives and that future generations can benefit from it.

On behalf of everyone who calls Vaudreuil—Soulanges home, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to the volunteers, supporters and trustees at Creek 53. They are pioneers not just in conservation but in truly living the ethos of environmental harmony and preservation.

Housing

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians cannot afford to move out of their parents' homes; now seniors are forced to sell their homes because they cannot afford them anymore. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, inflation is so high that Canadians who have worked for decades, saved up for their retirement and contributed their entire lives are forced to sell their homes. Worse than that, they cannot even afford to rent.

The Prime Minister needs to admit to Canadians that his so-called sunny ways policies have cost seniors their retirement. With housing costs more than doubling, they can no longer afford to live in their homes. Many, even those who have been retired for more than 10 years, are trying to re-enter the workforce to pay for the basics: food and rent.

Common-sense Conservatives would start by capping spending and bringing inflation and interest rates down, so that people can keep their homes. It is now obvious to the young people who cannot afford to move out, and it is painfully obvious to the parents who have to move back in with their kids: The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.