Debates of Feb. 5th, 2024

Food Security

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition today comes from students and the community of St. Thomas More Catholic School in my riding of Kingston.

The petitioners call upon the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to prioritize funding a national school food program for budget 2024, with implementation in schools by the fall of 2024.

The petitioners specifically reference data that says that one in four children in Canada lives in food-insecure households, that Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, and that school food programs are recognized around the world as essential to the health, well-being and education of students. Over 388 million children in at least 161 countries receive free or subsidized meals at school.

First Responders Tax Credit

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am pleased to rise on behalf of Nunavut with respect to petition no. 12799012. This is similar to petitions already tabled by other MPs, but I wanted to table it because 51 Nunavut residents signed the petition, specifically people from Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet, who deserve the same answer as others who might be seeking the same thing.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 and to enact amendments to subsections 118.06(2) and 118.07(2) of the Income Tax Act in order to increase the amount of the tax credit for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000.

Animal Welfare

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from over 3,500 people concerned about the impact of rodent glue traps, which violate the principles of humane treatment and animal welfare. Oftentimes birds, bats and even pets are caught in these traps, undergoing immense suffering.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to implement an immediate ban on rodent glue board traps across Canada due to their inherent animal cruelty and environmental impact.

Fireworks

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a second petition, signed by over 2,000 people concerned about the impact of fireworks in Canada. The petitioners note the impact on animals, including pets, as well as on people who have post-traumatic stress disorder. They also note that there is an environmental impact and that the Government of Canada is responsible for air quality.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support the replacement of fireworks with light displays.

Children and Families

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition calls on the government to butt out of decisions that should be made by provinces and parents. The petition is in support of the rights of parents to have a role in their children's lives without the interference of the state. It notes that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institution does.

Freedom of Expression

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is in support of a private member's bill, Bill C-257, that would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. There are prohibitions on discrimination of various kinds in federal jurisdiction, but no such prohibition on discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity. The petitioners note that it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal, and also that protecting this right benefits our democracy and leads to great vitality in our public debates.

The petitioners want the House to support Bill C-257.

Women's Shelters

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my final petition denounces the government's cuts to women's shelters. It notes that at a time when the government is wasting so much money in other areas, it has made a terrible cut to women's shelters. The petitioners ask the government to restore the funding.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Softwood Lumber

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I wish to inform the House that I have notice of a request for an emergency debate.

I invite the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot to make a short statement.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I request an emergency debate on the impact on the forest industry and its workers, but also on consumers, of the recent decision by the U.S. government to raise anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

On Thursday, February 1, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced plans to substantially increase the countervailing and anti-dumping duties it levies on Canadian softwood lumber. If the United States government maintains its preliminary assessment, the duties would almost double from 8.05% to 13.86% starting in August.

The software lumber dispute is a bad serial and the episodes have dragged on for decades. As their cash is being siphoned off by the United States, our forestry companies find themselves unable to modernize and slowly decline. The U.S. is causing considerable harm to our resource-rich regions, where hundreds of communities rely on the forest.

Despite losing all its cases before the various trade dispute settlement bodies, the U.S. continues to maintain hostilities. The traditional approach, where the government issues a press release to express disappointment and challenges U.S. decisions before trade tribunals, is not working because the U.S. is acting in bad faith on this issue. This is particularly true in Quebec, where stumpage rights are awarded in open auctions using a mechanism quite similar to what our neighbours do south of the border.

An emergency debate in which parliamentarians would have the opportunity to express their support for the affected populations and, above all, to propose innovative solutions, could make an essential contribution and allow us to resolve the impasse to which we were led by the U.S. government's stubbornness. The current context and the scale of the announced tariff increase call for an urgent debate; hence my request for such a debate, which I hope the Chair will convene at the earliest opportunity.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his remarks, but I do not find that the request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders.

Alleged Limiting of Members' Ability to Speak at Committee

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair wishes to rule on a question of privilege.

This is about a question of privilege raised on December 4, 2023, by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan concerning proceedings in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and the application of Standing Order 116(2).

In his intervention, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan referenced several events that had occurred during meeting no. 80 of the committee, which began on October 30, 2023. While the meeting was suspended on several occasions, it adjourned only on December 13, 2023.

The first concern raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan was in relation to events surrounding the member for Peace River—Westlock who had sought to participate in the proceedings, though he is not a member of the committee. Secondly, he indicated that instead of giving him back the floor after giving a ruling, the chair of the committee had recognized another member to speak even though he was the one who had the floor prior to the Chair’s ruling.

The member argued that both incidents had limited debate on the matter before the committee. Therefore, in his view, the chair of the committee violated Standing Order 116(2) and the Speaker should order that all subsequent proceedings to this be nullified.

The Standing Order states:

(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any Member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such a violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

The first element I would like to address relates to process. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan elected to raise his concerns through a question of privilege, but he was in fact raising a point of order, in that he was asking the Chair to enforce a specific standing order. As such, I can already determine that it is not, in fact, a prima facie case of privilege.

Turning to the points raised by the member, I will attempt to deal with them separately, beginning with the matter that relates to the Chair’s role in applying the provisions of Standing Order 116(2).

In a ruling from April 1, 2019, Speaker Regan explained the purpose of Standing Order 116(2), at page 26496 of the Debates, stating:

Essentially, it seems to the Chair that this new rule is intended to safeguard debate in committee from a procedural hijacking, so to speak, that would permanently end debate on a motion.

To answer whether the matter now before the House is one which Standing Order 116(2) intended to address, the Chair has scrutinized the blues from the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

It is the Chair’s understanding that when the matter was raised in the House, the debate on the motion the member wished to speak to was still ongoing and that he did subsequently participate in debate on the same motion. Given that debate on the motion had not yet concluded when the member brought the issue forward and that members could still participate, the Chair can only conclude that no violation of the Standing Order has occurred.

As for the member’s contention that the member for Peace River—Westlock was not allowed to speak during the proceedings, I would draw the attention of all members to Standing Order 119, which reads:

Any member of the House who is not a member of a standing, special or legislative committee, may, unless the House or the committee concerned otherwise orders, take part in the public proceedings of the committee, but may not vote or move any motion, nor be part of any quorum.

Members need not be substituted to participate in the proceedings of a committee, unless the committee has adopted a motion to limit participation as is its right. I understand from the review of the situation that the committee chair’s decision was challenged and was sustained by the majority in this instance. The Chair can therefore confirm that this element does not relate to the conditions outlined in Standing Order 116(2) under which the Speaker would normally intervene.

As outlined by former Speakers on many occasions, the Speaker's authority does not normally extend into committee matters, unless the committee sees fit to report the matter to the House. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 152 and 153 states:

Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings only upon presentation of a report from the committee which deals directly with the matter and not as a question of privilege raised by an individual Member.

On March 23, 2015, one of my predecessors added, at page 12,180 of the Debates:

This is not to suggest that the chair is left without any discretion to intervene in committee matters but, rather, it acknowledges that such intervention is exceedingly rare and justifiable only in highly exceptional procedural as opposed to political circumstances.

Despite the concerns raised by the member, in the absence of a report from the committee on these issues, it is not for the Speaker to intervene in this matter as it remains within the committee’s authority to manage.

I thank all members for their attention.

Business of the House

[Mary Ng, Liberal, Minister of Export Promotion]

Madam Speaker, I wish to designate Tuesday, February 6, as the day appointed for the conclusion of the debate on the motion to concur on the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be read the third time and passed.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to notify you that will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Regina—Wascana.

The Conservative Party is the party of free trade in Canada. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former president Ronald Reagan signed the first free trade agreement in 1988. There was a lot of resistance at the time from a lot of nay-sayers who were saying things like we were going to lose our sovereignty as a nation.

People were saying that our agricultural sector would not be able to compete with the warmer States with longer growing seasons. Others said that our manufacturing sector would not be able to compete fairly against the bigger, more powerful, highly industrialized U.S. economy. I remember this one very well: Our wine industry was not going to be able to compete with wine regions in California. I can assure members that Okanagan Valley wines have only become better and better over the intervening years, because competition makes us better. We say to bring it on.

Conveniently, in that free trade election in 1988, for all the nay-sayers, the protectionists and the Chicken Littles, who were saying this time the sky really was falling if we were going to remove protective barriers, there was the Liberal Party where they could park their votes. Its leader at the time, John Turner, said that a free trade agreement with the U.S. would Americanize us. Does that sound familiar? We hear the same today. The Liberal Party is always fearmongering about what the Conservatives might do, cozying up too much with the United States. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Happily, the Conservatives won the election in 1988, and the free trade agreement, the FTA, came into effect on January 1, 1989. By all measures, it was a roaring success for both countries. Canada and the U.S. were both wealthier and had more powerful economies on the account of free trade. It turns out that Adam Smith and other classical economists were right and that the wealth of nations is built on the ability of free people to trade freely with each other and of free countries to be able to trade freely with other countries.

The FTA was just the beginning. Soon the Liberals, the great imitators, also became free traders, and they brought Mexico into the fold under the North American FTA, or NAFTA as we call it. However, it took another Conservative government, under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper, to bring about an ambitious free trade agenda, which encompassed many countries around the world: in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region and, of course, Ukraine, which is what we are talking about today. In 2015, late in former prime minister Harper’s administration, we entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Canada’s relationship with Ukraine is very important, not only because of the 1.3 million Canadian citizens who claim a Ukrainian heritage, but also because of the half a billion dollars of trade annually between the two countries. That is a relatively small amount of money compared to our trade with some other countries, but it is growing, and that is important.

It is also important to recognize that coal has been part of that $500 million. Of course, Ukraine, like many countries in the world, is trying to get off coal and to substitute it with cleaner-burning energy. Canada is conveniently situated for that as well because we have a lot of natural gas available. It burns much cleaner, and we want to make it available for countries like Ukraine to get off coal and for countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, thinks Canadian natural gas should stay in the ground. Many countries are looking for a reliable supplier of natural gas, and they have come to Canada asking us to come to the table. This includes Germany, which is looking for a way to cut its dependence on Russian natural gas. Yes, that is the Russia that, two years ago, invaded Ukraine in an illegal war and is indiscriminately bombing cities and killing its citizens. It is using sale proceeds, the cash it receives from selling liquid natural gas, to fuel that war. Indirectly, we are now helping President Putin build up his war chest.

Canada could be of real value here. What better way to help our Ukrainian friends than to do our part to cut off Putin's money supply.

Astonishingly, the Prime Minister told our friends in Europe, “Sorry, there is no business case for LNG.” That is unbelievable. The Americans certainly saw a business case, and where Canada dropped the ball, they picked it up and ran with it. They are now building LNG export facilities and getting ready, and they are already starting to fill the demand for clean, ethical natural gas for countries that want to get off coal and get as far away from Putin as possible.

The Prime Minister did see a business case relating to the natural gas industry, and that was to actually do business with Mr. Putin. Canada's PM wants to keep Canadian natural gas in the ground, but he delivered a powerful turbine to Putin so that he could increase Russian natural gas production for sale to the world and, with that cash, could build up his war machine against Ukraine. That is just not what friends do.

Canadians are getting tired of the Liberal Party hypocrisy and are looking forward to the day when a common-sense Conservative government would stand up to dictators like Putin and would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people. That is what the Conservative Party stands for.

Today, we are talking about Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The existing free trade agreement is now 25 years old and needs to be revisited and updated. We agree with that. However, in the meantime, the old agreement, the one negotiated by former prime minister Harper, is still in place and still functions.

Conservative members on the international trade committee have been working very diligently to improve this bill that is before the House today so that we could be in a position to vote on it unanimously and to pass it through. Here are some things the Conservative members on the committee wanted to improve. They wanted to include a commitment from Canada to provide weapons and munitions to help Ukraine in its defence against Putin's illegal invasion. That is what friends do in a time of war.

We want to include a plan to sell Canadian LNG to Europe so that it would no longer provide Putin with the cash he needs to fund that illegal war. That is a common-sense solution and a step forward.

Importantly, we also want to delete the provision in this revised agreement promoting carbon tax, because Conservatives want to axe the tax. I am sure everybody in the House has heard that many times already. We call it the inflationary tax on everything that Canadians do not need and that is ineffective, and that is exactly what we would do if we form government after the next election.

Sadly, all those common-sense recommendations were voted down by the other parties. Today, we now have before us a weaker, inferior product. We were hoping, until the vote earlier today, that it would go back to the committee for improvement.

I just want to touch very quickly on the history of the Conservative Party's support for Ukraine. It is important for people to understand this. Common-sense Conservatives, under our leader, have a long and proud history. We stood with Ukraine when President Zelenskyy asked the Prime Minister not to sign an export permit for that gas turbine that I talked about a minute ago. We stood with Ukraine when it asked for a reliable source of weapons and munitions, and we are still waiting for the Liberal government to deliver on that.

We stood with Ukraine when we asked the Prime Minister to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. Our history goes back many years. The Conservative government, in 1991, became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. We stood with Ukraine when the Harper government undertook Operation Unifier to provide critical military training to Ukraine, which was very much appreciated. Of course the agreement that we are talking about today, which I already mentioned, was negotiated by a Conservative government.

We are very proud of our long-standing relationship with Ukraine. We will always stand with them because that is what friends do.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was interesting hearing the member opposite speak. He, like other members of the Conservative Party when they have been speaking to this bill, spoke about nostalgia. They invoke what Diefenbaker did and what Mulroney did in 1991 or whatever the case may be.

What do the people on the front lines of Ukraine need right now? They need help today. Most of the people on the front lines were not born when Mulroney was prime minister. What they need is help today.

It concerns me that these Conservative MPs consistently vote against the free trade agreement, against military support for Ukraine and against Operation Unifier to train Ukrainian soldiers. These are things President Zelenskyy has asked for. These are things the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has asked for.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why will he not stand with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, with President Zelenskyy and with the Ukrainian people in their existential fight for their survival and our security?

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the people the hon. member opposite is talking about were certainly alive when Canada shipped a gas turbine to Russia that, unbelievably, allowed Russia to increase its production of natural gas, which is sold to western Europe to raise more money to feed the war machine that is killing Ukrainian people today. Do they know that?

He talks about nostalgia. Of course many Canadians are nostalgic for the great days of Conservative governments, and they are looking forward to the day when another Conservative government will be formed in this House. We would fix a lot of the errors the Liberal government made, including ensuring the munitions President Zelenskyy is asking for will actually be delivered.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a common misconception that liquefied natural gas is somehow good for the climate. The recent decision by the U.S. White House to pause LNG investments to protect the climate is an illustration of the point that, especially where LNG comes from fracked sources, the release of methane means LNG is not only not better than coal but also, on the entirety of its production life cycle, LNG has just as much carbon as burning coal. It is just that it is emitted at a different point in its life cycle.

I ask my hon. colleague from Langley—Aldergrove if he would not agree that it would be better to just call it fossil gas instead of pretending it is somehow a natural product that is distinguished from other fossil fuels.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the west coast, we know a lot about natural gas, and we now have the technology to convert it into liquid form, put it onto ships and ship it safely across the country. This is exactly what western Europe is requiring to get it natural gas coming from Russia. It just makes sense that friends should be helping friends out, particularly in a time of war. This is a missed opportunity by the Liberal government.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed travelling with my Conservative colleague when the transport committee toured the ports of Canada, and I listened intently to his views on this subject.

I had a chance recently to meet in Edmonton with the consul general of Ukraine. We discussed this matter and what he called for was unanimity and the full-throated support of the House. He was a bit astounded that there are members who intend to vote against this free trade agreement.

I wonder if my colleague has had a chance to consult specifically with representatives from Ukraine about the content of this free trade agreement and what they have told him.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, what a lot of Ukrainians are concerned about is something I read in The Globe and Mail today, which is that apparently the Prime Minister's Office had specifically invited the known Nazi who was here when President Zelenskyy was in the House. The invitation read, in part, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event...September 22”. This seems to have come directly from the Prime Minister's Office and Canadians, particularly those of Ukrainian descent, have the right to be concerned about that.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

I have to admit that, when I first glanced at the title of this bill when it was tabled in the House of Commons last fall, I was glad to see it for a few reasons. The first reason was that Conservatives support Ukraine. Ever since Russia's illegal invasion of that country two years ago, it has become imperative that all countries support Ukraine to preserve the rules-based international order. Otherwise, the international community risks backsliding into a pre-World War II era in which large, powerful countries are able to invade and annex their smaller neighbours with no repercussions. This is a concern I have heard many times in my riding of Regina—Wascana, not just from the many Ukrainian refugees who have moved to Saskatchewan, but also from ordinary citizens with no particular connection to Ukraine. Therefore, anything that we can do to support Ukraine is a good thing.

The second reason I had high hopes for this bill is that Conservatives support free trade. Long gone are the days of economic nationalism when governments insisted on an unlevel playing field to protect domestic companies at the expense of consumers. Instead, Canadians and the international community have come to recognize the benefits of free trade. It allows Canadian companies to pursue new opportunities and to find new customers for their products and services, and it allows Canadian consumers to enjoy a variety of products and services from all around the world at the lowest possible prices. In fact, Conservatives' support for free trade goes back many years to the times of former prime ministers Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney.

Finally, I thought that, if nothing else, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would give us something different to talk about. For example, we have had many, many debates in the chamber about the Liberals' carbon tax. I know I have received many emails and phone calls from my constituents about the carbon tax and how it is making life more expensive every time they fill up their tanks with gas, go to the grocery store to do their shopping and pay their home heating bills.

I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about the carbon tax because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the carbon tax. Therefore, I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Liberals' carbon tax has made its way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13 of the agreement, which is the environment chapter, under article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage”.

Free trade agreements are supposed to be about trade and encouraging the free flow of goods and services between two countries. The free trade agreement should not be about imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine. The same Liberal carbon tax that has been making life more difficult for Canadians would soon be making life more difficult for Ukrainians, assuming this bill were to pass.

Not only is a carbon tax the last thing Canadians want, but it is also the last thing Ukrainians need, given that they are in the middle of a war. It would make infinitely more sense to help Ukrainians win the war first and remove every Russian soldier from Ukrainian soil before beginning any talk about a carbon tax and how to implement a carbon tax in the middle of a war zone.

I was also hoping that this bill would give us a break from talking about the Liberals' unrealistic net-zero emissions targets. Over the last eight years, the Liberals have come up with a long list of very expensive net-zero emissions targets, including phasing out fossil fuels, restricting fertilizers for farmers and ending the sale of gas-powered cars, which are all initiatives that would make life less affordable for Canadians. Therefore, I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about these net-zero emissions targets because, obviously, free trade should have nothing to do with net-zero emissions targets. I have to say again that I was disappointed that the Liberals' net-zero emissions targets have made their way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine.

Under chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” Transitioning to net-zero emissions has proven difficult enough for Canadians to do, and we do not have a war going on in this country. We do not have the Russians bombing us every day as the Ukrainians do. It is ridiculous to expect Ukrainians to meet this goal given what they are going through right now.

It has also been well documented that the Russians have been targeting the Ukrainian power grid to maximize human suffering. If the Ukrainian power grid is going to be in shambles for the foreseeable future, one can reasonably expect that they will have to rely on various backup diesel generators and gas-powered vehicles for some time to come. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric cars. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric tanks or electric armoured personnel carriers. It is not realistic to expect Ukrainian rockets to stop burning rocket fuel, Ukrainian jets to stop burning jet fuel or Ukrainian helicopters to stop burning fuel any time soon.

I was also hoping that the debate over this free trade agreement would give us a break from the debate over the phase-out of coal because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the phase-out of coal. However, once again, the Liberals' plan to phase out coal has made its way into the free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power”.

It should be plain to see that imposing the phase out of coal will be a major burden to the Ukrainian people, who quite frankly, have more pressing concerns. Approximately 25% of Ukraine's electricity comes from coal, although that number is very volatile, given that they are in the middle of a war and that the Russians have been consistently targeting Ukrainians' power grid. It is very conceivable that Ukraine may have to rely on coal for quite some time to come.

When President Zelenskyy addressed Parliament last fall, he could not have been more clear that fighting and winning the war was his number one priority. There are questions that have to be asked. How would this free trade agreement help Ukraine to win the war? How would imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine help them stop more Russian soldiers from occupying Ukrainian soil? How would imposing net-zero targets on Ukraine destroy more Russian tanks? How would shutting down Ukrainian coal plants sink more Russian ships in the Black Sea? Of course, the sad answer is that these measures would not be helpful to the Ukrainian war effort. Therefore, they should not be in this free trade agreement, and they should not be supported.

Another topic that President Zelenskyy addressed in his speech in this chamber last September was Russia's weaponization of its energy exports. One of the best things Canada could do to help Ukraine win the war would be to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to western Europe so they can stop buying from Russia. Every dollar that western Europe spends on Russian oil and gas only enables Vladimir Putin to buy more bombs, planes and tanks to use against the Ukrainians. This Liberal government should be embarrassed for not doing more to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to Europe.

I think that I can best summarize the differences between the parties in their support Ukraine in this way: Conservatives support Ukraine unconditionally, while the Liberals support Ukraine with strings attached.

There is no reason for this free trade agreement to be pushed forward now. The current free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which was signed in 2017, can stay in place until after the Ukrainians have won the war and are ready to sit down with us. In the meantime, Canada should continue to be generous in welcoming Ukrainian refugees to our country, and we should continue to be generous in our economic and military aid to Ukraine.

As for Bill C-57, I believe that we should not be in favour of the bill. The Liberals should withdraw the bill, and we should let the current free trade agreement stay in place until the war is won. After the war is over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is out of time by quite a bit.

The hon. member for Guelph has the floor.