Michelle Rempel

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement with Ukraine already exists. The NDP could be pressuring its coalition partners to release frozen assets to Ukraine. It is not doing that right now. That would immediately impact the people that she just talked about, but she should also be trying to lower the cost of living in Canada and fight for climate change by axing the carbon tax.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not solve climate change, and it increases the cost of everything. If the government wanted to have a consensus-based approach on this agreement, it would have removed it. It is unnecessary and does not need to be in there. It is in there to be a political wedge, and I will stand up for my constituents.

To my colleague opposite, he needs to go talk to his constituents. They do not support a carbon tax either. They do not want to see an increased cost of living because of it. A carbon tax is not worth the cost. We should be supporting Ukraine with measures such as the one the Conservative leader announced today by sending surplus weapons.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, standing up and using a loud, shouty voice does not negate from the fact that the Liberals did not engage in a collaborative approach on this agreement. They did not table it in advance for the House of Commons. They did not try to seek consensus, and I oppose a carbon tax.

The Liberal carbon tax has brought Canada nowhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is increasing the price of everything for everybody in our country at a time when most Canadians cannot afford it. They are choosing between food and rent.

Yes, I oppose a carbon tax. Yes, I disagree with people, even those formerly of my own political stripe, who suggest that we should not. That is why I am here. That is why I am representing my constituents. I can do that and support strong action by Canada against Russian aggression against Ukraine.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by quoting a former colleague of mine, who said, “Ukraine is defending itself against unjustified aggression — the Kremlin’s naked attempt to destroy a country’s statehood, infrastructure & identity.

“Full collective support for Ukraine’s victory is the right legal, moral...military & strategic course of action.”

I strongly support this position. Putin's war of aggression is not just against Ukraine. His war machine attempts to undermine the western consensus for democracy, the rule of law and the pursuit of a quality of opportunity.

I will move now to Canada's role in this fight and the substance of this bill. This bill proposes updates to Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine. I support free trade with Ukraine. I do not support every measure in this bill. I take particular issue with the Liberals' inclusion of a carbon tax within the text. That is because, in the Canadian context, the Liberal carbon tax has dramatically increased the cost of living for every single one of the people I represent, all while failing to bring Canada anywhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is not solving the urgent question of climate change. It is a clearly flawed policy that creates economic harm, and those who adhere to ideology without questions put up roadblocks that have stifled the policy innovation needed to reduce emissions.

I can simultaneously hold the position that I support free trade with Ukraine and the victory of Ukraine over Putin while I oppose a carbon tax. There are tens of millions of other Canadians who feel the exact same way. For the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc or anyone else to suggest that to develop ways for Canada to support Ukraine I need to capitulate on my position on a carbon tax misses the point of democracy, which is what we are ostensibly trying to fight for.

In a dire crisis situation such as the one Ukraine finds itself in, fighting against the war of aggression being waged by Putin, it is the Liberal government that should have been working collaboratively to find a unified path forward. If its members are unwilling to budge on the inclusion of a carbon tax in this agreement, then the onus was on them to build consensus with the Canadian public and acknowledge we can have internal differences on a carbon tax while supporting Ukraine.

It is a dangerous, deadly game for the Prime Minister of Canada and anyone in this place to repeatedly suggest that, if a Canadian opposes a carbon tax, they must support Putin. This is a disgusting, morally bankrupt and fundamentally anti-democratic politically motivated aspersion that serves only to divide our country at a time when it desperately needs leadership that unifies it. It does not help Ukraine. It does not help Ukrainian diaspora in Canada.

The Prime Minister eschewed this approach when he failed to table this agreement in Parliament 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. In February of 2020, ahead of the renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement, the minister at the time made the following commitment “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.” That did not happen in this case. There was no collaborative effort.

Again, I want to re-emphasize that I will oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not help my constituents. It is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not meeting emissions targets. It is a flawed and failed policy. I will stand here and support Ukraine while saying that anybody who is suggesting we should be making politics over this is actually helping Putin. This line of attack disgusts me because I know the people who are saying these things know better. If they want to earn the votes of Canadians, they should be looking at the issues that are pushing their polls so far south, as opposed to desperately trying to cling to some sort of false narrative that only divides our country. It only helps our country's enemies. It is disgusting, and it seriously needs to stop.

Earlier today the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would not commit to asking his government to repurpose seized Russian assets. I am not going to stand here and call him a Putin supporter, so no one on the other bench should suggest that, because I firmly, strongly and backed by evidence reject a carbon tax, I somehow support that. This is exactly what the Russian war machine wants. That is the exact narrative it wants, and it needs to stop.

At the same time, what this agreement should be doing is looking at ways to materially help our allies. Just moments ago, the leader of the Conservative Party issued a press release saying that the Prime Minister must send CRV rockets to Ukraine. He is talking about ways that Canada should be sending surplus weapons to help our allies in their fight against Putin. That is a material way we should be helping, not by casting aspersions or trying to divide our country over this issue.

There is another thing that I want to implore every member of the House, as strongly as I can. I am going to read a small paragraph from a colleague in Ukraine, from a note she sent to me. She writes, “The value of frozen Russian assets is estimated to be at least $320 billion. With no reasonable prospect for Russia paying compensation to Ukraine anytime soon and Ukraine's need for both short- and long-term financial assistance, confiscations of Russian assets become the only just and viable option, especially in view of the fact that up to $1 trillion will be needed for Ukraine to fully recover. Our partners' tax-payers”, and this is from a Ukrainian MP, should not shoulder the burden of Ukraine's recovery alone, especially as they froze and can use assets of aggressors responsible for the devastation.”

These are senior government officials in Ukraine today. In the past, some of those senior government officials have suggested that Canada's military is impotent. If they are going to take that posture, then, at the very least, Canada should be using the laws that are already in place, which have already been supported by all members in the House, to repurpose seized Russian assets and lead a G7 charge to force western allies to do exactly what Ukraine is crying out for in this case.

Putin's is a war of aggression, and there needs to be compensation for Ukraine. They are the aggressor. At the very least, if Canada is true, and if Canada is going to try to make any sort of case that we are some sort of broker in the world, that we have any sort of relevancy, this is low-hanging fruit. We should be the first country to do this. We have the legal mechanisms. There is nothing in this agreement about that, absolutely nothing.

The government has had this tool at its disposal for two years now, and it has not moved on this. Am I going to accuse the government of not supporting Ukraine because of that? I could. Instead, I would rather it would move on it.

This is an issue that transcends petty partisan politics and the desperate attempt of a Prime Minister, who is 16 points behind in the polls, trying to cling on to a disgusting life raft for his political gain. We have to work together.

Our global democracy is at stake, folks. Right now, our allies are fighting a war. We have lost the plot here. Honestly, if somebody stands up and dares to question the fact that I will stand up for my constituents against a policy that does nothing to help them, that does nothing to help climate change.

I have watched this debate. I have watched pundits and former colleagues say, “Maybe the Conservatives should just capitulate on this.” Absolutely not. It is the role of the government to build consensus during a time of crisis, and it has failed to do that.

I beg the government to do something that resembles work, and to work with our partners to stop the funding of the Russian war machine by transporting more of Canada's natural gas overseas.

That should have been in this agreement, but it is not. At the very least, today, there is $300 billion. That is more than the entire sum total of all of the aid that has been sent to Ukraine. Canada could be leading the charge on this. Instead, we have Liberal members of Parliament standing here and saying these things. They have lost the plot. Canadians know this. Canadians are not buying this. Let us do better.

I implore and I beg the government to rethink its posture, both on the carbon tax and its political position on the issue, and on dragging its feet on common-sense measures that Conservatives have been calling for for some time, measures for which there is already consensus in the House of Commons and across the country.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, February 2nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague opposite, in the context of this agreement, will commit right now to talking to the Prime Minister and to his caucus to strongly commit Canada to repurposing seized Russian assets back to Ukraine. Will he commit to ensuring that Canada leads a G7 effort to send back seized assets to Ukraine?

[Carbon Pricing, February 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I did not get an answer to my question. This is the parliamentary secretary with responsibility for energy. Canadian energy production could be severely impacted by water restrictions and the drought in Alberta, so my colleague opposite should be able to provide some response to this.

It is not just energy, though. Average Albertans may be facing water restrictions several short months from now, and one of the most critical agricultural areas in the country may be facing severe water restrictions, so I will ask my colleague again whether the government is at least willing, as we do not have a lot of runway with only a bit of time, to immediately partner with the provincial government, farmers, energy producers and average Albertans to come up with a plan to help Alberta get through this time successfully. This would be not just for the benefit of Alberta, but for all of Canada.

[Carbon Pricing, February 1st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I believe in Canada. It is nice to stand up here and talk about how I believe that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts.

One of its parts, my home province of Alberta, is such an important part of our Confederation. It provides so much food, not just to Canada but to the world. It provides energy, not just to Canada but to the world. Sometimes I feel like my province is forgotten in some of the discussions we have here.

One of the areas that is very near and dear to my heart but also very near and dear to the economy, not just of Alberta but to the entire country, is water. Right now, Alberta is looking at planning for a period of drought and trying to figure out how we provide that food and energy, contribute to Canada's economy, global food security and global energy security, and also deal with the potential of a very large water shortage.

This should be an important part of Canada's environmental plan, yet the federal government has been not relatively silent but very silent on this very important issue. It is February. This is going to be a problem come summer. The time for the government to have a plan to deal with this and to partner with my province is now. There should not be any partisan politics to this. The federal government should be actively seeking to help my province and come up with a way to support and plan for what is clearly going to be a large problem that affects the entire country.

Now, in February, before we deal with the outcome of this issue, my question to the government is simple. What is it doing to assist the Province of Alberta, farmers, residents and industry in dealing with this drought situation?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to cancellation fees or similar types of fees for items and services that were booked but not used, since January 1, 2020, and broken down by department, agency, and government entity: (a) what was the total amount spent in cancellation fees, broken down by year; and (b) what are the details of each such instance, including, for each, the (i) vendor, (ii) cost to the government related to the cancellation, (iii) reason for the cancellation, (iv) description, including quantity, of items cancelled (e.g. hotel room, conference hall, car rental, etc.) (v) location of the vendor, (vi) date the items were originally booked for?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the Sectoral Workforce Solutions Program: (a) how much money has been distributed through the program to date; (b) how many funding applications were received through the program; (c) of the funding applications, how many were granted; (d) what is the total amount distributed through the program to date by province or territory where the applicant is based out of; (e) what are the details of all funding provided to date including, for each, the (i) applicant, (ii) date the money was provided, (iii) amount of funding (iv) type of funding (grant, repayable loan, etc.), (v) purpose of the funding, (vi) project summary; (f) what accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that funds distributed through the program are used as intended; and (g) have the accountability mechanisms in (f) determined that any funding has not been used appropriately, and, if so, what are the details of each such instance including the name of the recipient and what action was taken by the government in response?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 29th, 2024]

With regard to the Decompression Program pilot project for front-line staff at Health Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada: (a) when did the program begin; (b) is it still a pilot project, or is it a permanent program; (c) what has been the overall cost of the program since its inception; (d) what are the yearly operating costs; (e) what does the curriculum consist of; (f) how many employees have participated in the decompression, in total and broken down by branch and level (EX, AS, etc.); (g) what is the breakdown of (f) by year, including 2023 to date; (h) what is the qualification criteria to participate in the program; (i) what is the qualification and application process; (j) how long is the decompression program; (k) are employees permitted to enter the program multiple times, and, if so, how often are they permitted to enter the program; and (l) is the pilot project being expanded to other departments or agencies, and, if so, what are the details of the expansion?