Chrystia Freeland

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 15th, 2014]

With respect to Canadian official delegations to Ukraine in 2014: (a) what are the names, titles, and affiliations of all persons who travelled to Ukraine as part of these delegations; and (b) what are the dates, file numbers, and titles of all documents prepared for or in respect of these delegations?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 15th, 2014]

With regard to government funding in the province of Ontario, for each fiscal year since 2007-2008 inclusive: (a) what are the details of all grants, contributions, and loans to any organization, body, or group in the province, specifying for each (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the location of the recipient, namely the municipality and the federal electoral district, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount, (v) the department or agency providing it, (vi) the program under which the grant, contribution, or loan was made, (vii) the nature or purpose; and (b) for each grant, contribution and loan identified in (a), was a press release issued to announce it and, if so, what is the (i) date, (ii) headline, (iii) file number of the press release?

[Justice, June 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice recently made remarks to the Ontario Bar Association that were so strikingly sexist that lawyers there described them as offensive.

As one of the many mothers of young children in this House, I wonder whether the minister believes that we, too, should be intimidated by the old boys' network. Does the minister think that we, too, should stay at home because of our special maternal bond with our young children?

Will the minister apologize for his blatant chauvinism?

[Dairy Producers, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it does seem cruel to be talking about Canada's excellent cheeses at a quarter to six. I got very hungry listening to the previous presentation.

Having heard about the hon. member's great love for Canadian cows and Canadian dairy, I cannot resist sharing with the House the fact that I am not only the daughter-in-law of a dairy farmer but also a granddaughter of dairy farmers, and so I join everyone here in our support for our great dairy industry and the tremendous innovations that are happening there.

What I would like to talk about today, and what I think this gives us an opportunity to talk about more broadly, is our trade policy. I would like to discuss what is happening with the CETA deal and the need for transparency in our trade policy so that Canadians can see what is happening and the House can discuss what the deal actually contains. I want to talk about a trade policy that actually delivers, a policy whereby deals that are announced are actually concluded and whereby the deals that now stand concluded actually deliver the results. We in the Liberal Party know a good trade policy can and must deliver for the Canadian economy.

We need trade to work for us because we are a small country—not in geography, but in population—in a huge world economy. Without effectively joining Canada into the global economy, Canada will fail. Our middle class will fail to have the rising incomes that we are not getting now and that we really need.

We are really supportive of an effective trading policy. However, I am sad to say that we do not feel we are getting the results that a truly liberal trade policy should be delivering. In particular, I would like to talk about CETA.

The CETA deal, as we all know, was signed with a lot of fanfare on October 18 of last fall by the Prime Minister and the President of the EU, José Manuel Barroso. We still do not have that deal concluded, although we have had some opportunities. The Prime Minister was recently in Brussels. There was a lot of speculation and a lot of hope among Canadians that he would come home with a done deal. He has not done that. We would like to hear why. We would like to know what is going on.

The irony of the situation for us as Canadian legislators, at least for those of us on this side of the House, is that right now we and Canadian citizens are hearing more from EU officials and EU diplomats.They have been quite open in talking about how the deal is not quite ready and talking, quite frankly, about how that initial agreement was signed much earlier than is normal in these trade negotiations and that much more work needed to be done then. More seems to still need to be done now than we were led to believe when the agreement was signed with such great fanfare.

It is even the case that we have had a hard time tracking down what was actually signed. We submitted an access to information request to access the agreement that was actually signed by the Prime Minister and the President of the EU. Here is what we were told by the Privy Council Office:

A thorough search of the records under the control of PCO was carried out on your behalf; however, no records relevant to your request were found.

This really is theatre of the absurd. We really would like to know. I think everyone in the House would like to know and needs to know. As the private member's bill suggests, we need more transparency on what is happening. We need not just great photo ops, but the details of what is going on with these trade deals that are so essential for the Canadian economy and for Canadians.

What I am particularly concerned about when it comes to the CETA deal is that because of the timing, because of the lag between today, in the middle of June, and October 18, Canada now finds itself behind the United States in the queue of nations that are negotiating trade with the EU. The story of Canada, the story of Canadian diplomacy in the world, is understanding what it means to be the neighbour of the United States. There can be big advantages, but it also means we have to dance delicately and lightly and act smarter.

While we were ahead of the U.S., while the U.S. proposals were not on the table, there was a real opportunity for us to have the full attention of EU officials and EU negotiators. Now, however, I am very sad to say that people informed about these deals are saying that EU officials are, understandably, focusing much more time and energy on their negotiations with the United States. We are now, I am afraid to say, in a position where important concerns, including concerns of the Canadian dairy industry and of Canadian auto manufacturers, are going to have to take a back seat to the deal being hammered out by the Americans, and we may well find ourselves having to settle not for a deal made for Canada in Europe but for a copy of what the Americans are able to negotiate.

It did not have to be that way, given that this deal was being worked on earlier, and we would really like to hear why we have let ourselves fall behind a party that has a bigger economy to bring to the table.

I would also like to point out that despite the fact that many of us in this House agree that trade and exports need to be, and are, an essential part of a healthy Canadian economy, we are just not seeing that performance today. We have photo ops and we have trade deals announced, but they are not moving the dial when it comes to Canada's actual economic performance.

I do not ask members to blindly trust my assertion. I do not ask members to simply take my word when it comes to the undeniable fact that Canada's trade policy, although we are getting the photo ops and the announcements, is not delivering for the Canadian economy. Here is who I do ask members to trust: the Bank of Canada.

In its financial system review published this month, this is what the Bank of Canada had to say, in part, about export and trade and its performance for the Canadian economy: “In Canada, the anticipated rebalancing of economic growth toward exports and investment remains elusive....”

These are damning words. It is not enough to have photo ops of trade deals. It is not even enough to have trade deals. What we need are trade deals that do the job we need them to do, and that is to strengthen the Canadian economy. Right now, as the Bank of Canada economists say, we need a tilt toward exports. Trade deals are meant to facilitate that, but as the Bank of Canada says, that shift remains elusive.

We really need to see and would like to see more transparency about what the government is doing on this file. We need and want to see harder work on this file and more delivered results.

I would like to cite another source, another group that is deeply concerned about Canada's export performance. This is another group that we in the Liberal Party listen to very closely, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. What business has to say about Canada's trade and about export performance in particular is very worrying. Its report was issued just last month, and even the title is very worrying: “Turning it Around: How to Restore Canada’s Trade Success”. It states that “... the increase in exports and outward investment has been slow in recent years, and diversification to emerging economies has been limited.”

This is echoing the Bank of Canada report. We are just not seeing the export performance that we need.

The Chamber of Commerce is worried. In referring to “Canada's lagging trade performance”, here is what it says:

Despite more firms looking abroad, Canada is lagging its peers according to several measures. Over the past decade, the value of exports has increased at only a modest pace.

Most worrying of all, the chamber did an interesting calculation in which it backed out the increase in commodity prices that has flattered Canada's export performance. It concluded:

If these price increases are excluded, the volume of merchandise exports shipped in 2012 was actually five per cent lower than in 2000 despite a 57 per cent increase in trade worldwide.

Therefore, the real story—what the numbers say, what the Chamber of Commerce is worried about, and what the Bank of Canada is warning us about—is that our trade performance is lagging behind. We need to do better.

To conclude, we very much hope that we will have more transparency and better performance on the CETA deal and on deals with some of the big emerging markets in the world.

[WorldPride Celebration, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this month Toronto will have the honour of hosting the WorldPride Celebration. My constituency of Toronto Centre will be at the heart of the festivities.

We can be proud this landmark celebration will take place nearly nine years after gay marriage became legal across Canada.

What better symbol of our decade of equality than our victorious premier, Kathleen Wynne, the Commonwealth's first openly lesbian elected head of government?

WorldPride is a moment for us to redouble our work to support LGBT rights. Here at home, a particular focus must be LGBT youth, who are too often a target of bullying and disproportionately find themselves homeless and unemployed.

WorldPride is an essential time for us to speak out about LGBT rights around the globe as well. Too many countries, ranging from Russia to Uganda, are turning back the clock.

LGBT rights are human rights. Canada must be both a world leader and a global haven on this crucial issue.

[Human Rights, June 11th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this month Toronto will have the honour of hosting the WorldPride celebration. This is an essential moment for us all to assert that LGBT rights are human rights, and to establish Canada both as a world leader and a global haven on this crucial issue.

My constituents understandably expect their Prime Minister to take part. Could the Prime Minister please tell the House which of the many Pride events he will be attending?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no dishonour in agreeing, sometimes, with my hon. colleagues in the NDP or in citing someone I think we all respected very much, the late Jim Flaherty.

As I tried to argue in my comments, this is a phenomenon that has been going on for 30 years. The IMF found income inequality increasing over 30 years in 24 of 26 countries it studied. Of course, it is our job to try to pinpoint specific moments of legislation, but this is a global trend. We have to, if we are being honest, see it that way, try to understand it that way, and try to figure out what to do about it.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, today what we are talking about is future policies. As we have discussed, and we have heard some very good data cited today, income splitting has been supported and advocated by the Prime Minister, although it was opposed by the late minister of finance, Jim Flaherty. It is something that we oppose precisely because we believe, as the C.D. Howe Institute has argued, as most reputable economists have argued, that it would increase income inequality.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I think the Nordic countries provide some very important examples and lessons for us. Interestingly, if we look at market incomes before government intervention, they too have experienced an increase in income inequality among those countries, as my hon. colleague knows very well, and the IMF has cited in its research.

What they have done though to push against those tides is a few things. They have had a very great focus on social opportunity, particularly on education, and I think Finland in particular has some important lessons. They have had a very great focus on innovation and opportunity for economic innovation. There I would say we have a lot to learn from Sweden and maybe from Norway.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I did not misspeak. It is the position of our party that we believe, like the late minister Jim Flaherty, that income splitting would increase income inequality and we are not in favour of it.