SoVote

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Nov/3/23 1:04:25 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

26 words

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Nov/3/23 1:04:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to start by clarifying what we are debating and why we are debating it. For folks watching at home, we should be debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement legislation, which is important to Canada and to Ukraine. It is important to help Ukraine win the war, and it is a priority for President Zelenskyy for a number of reasons, which I will get into. However, instead of debating that, moving it forward and getting it to a vote so that it can get passed to the Senate and passed to become law, we are debating a motion for concurrence on a committee report. So, we are redebating a committee report that has already been debated at the defence committee where MPs from all parties have already had a chance to express their points of view on the matter. Why have the Conservatives brought this forward? They claim they are doing this because they care about Arctic security. I will start by saying that Arctic security is an important issue. I sat on the defence committee, I worked on the issue of Arctic security and I spent a lot of time with my colleagues on this matter. I think that there are a lot of things that are important that Canada needs to do to make sure that we protect our security. However, if we look at what our government has done in terms of our investments in a number of things, including equipment in the navy and Arctic presence, we have done a tremendous amount to strengthen our Arctic security over the last several years. However, I want to get back to why we are here. Let us not pretend that we are debating this motion because Conservatives suddenly care about Arctic security, which is something they almost never raise in this House, I do not think I have heard them raise it over the past year at all, and they rarely raise it in committee. Let us not pretend that Conservatives care about Arctic security, because if they cared about Arctic security, when they were in government, they would have invested in Arctic security. However, when in government, the Harper government reduced spending on defence to below 1% of GDP. Our government has not only increased the amount of spending on defence in dollar terms but actually as a percentage of GDP. So, while our GDP has grown, we significantly invested in our defence capabilities. However, the Conservatives do not care about Arctic security, because they did not do anything about it when they were in office. They do not raise it the House, they do not raise it in committees, but suddenly they raise it when we are about to debate the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. For those who care about Arctic security, and I think many people here in this House do, the best way to defend our Arctic security is to help Ukraine win the war, because the greatest threat to our Arctic security is Russia. If members ever thought about who our neighbour to the north is, it is Russia. What is the country that has previously tried to make claims to Canadian territory in the Arctic? It is Russia. If Ukraine were to lose the war against Russia, then Russia would know that the international community, democracies around the world, the western world, does not have the desire or the resolve to defend a sovereign, democratic ally. What does that mean for the rest of Ukraine? What does that mean for Poland, the Baltics and other NATO countries, which Putin has said that he believes should belong to Russia? What does that say about the Arctic territory in Canada, which Putin has said belongs to Russia? It means all of that is under much greater threat. If the Conservatives really care about Arctic security, then let us stop the filibuster tactics, let us stop bringing forward concurrence motions on things we have already debated in committee and voted on, things that the government is already working on. Let us move the free trade agreement forward so it can benefit Canadian businesses and workers and Ukrainian businesses and workers and, most importantly, actually help Ukraine win the war and rebuild. However, the Conservatives do not want to do that. This is the second time that I am sitting in this House over the past week when, instead of debating this free trade agreement, we have been debating concurrence motions. This is basically a filibuster. Why are Conservatives doing this? As I said yesterday when I rose in the House during question period, we have worked very hard. I chair the Canada-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group and I work with MPs of all parties. I have worked very hard, members of this House have worked very hard, to make the unwavering support for Ukraine a non-partisan issue. Members can look at my statements from the beginning of the further invasion and they will see that. They will see the effort that I have made and others have made to make this a non-partisan issue. We have worked so hard. However, the reality is that the Conservative leader and some Conservative MPs clearly do not support Ukraine. I do not want to have to be saying that in this House. I want to be able to say that support for Ukraine is unanimous, that everybody is pulling in the same direction and that we are all together on this, but the facts show otherwise. Let me present the facts that I am talking about. First of all, the fact that we are spending hours upon hours debating concurrence motions on things that the Conservatives actually do not really care about and do not ever treat as priorities, instead of debating the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, shows that the Conservatives do not consider the free trade agreement a priority and they want to push it back and delay it. That is obvious. Anybody observing this can see that is what has happened. The Conservatives are delaying the debate, therefore delaying the vote, therefore delaying passage and therefore delaying the benefits that come from this free trade agreement for both Canada and Ukraine. Let us remember that this free trade agreement is not just symbolic. It is meaningfully important for our economy and for the Ukrainian economy, but it is also meaningfully important for Ukraine. Ukraine's economy after the further invasion by Russia declined by 50%. Let us just think about that for a second. When our economy moves by half a percent or by a percentage point, that is meaningful. Canadians feel that, we talk about that and we try to address that. It is 50%, so President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government are trying their best to do everything they can to strengthen Ukraine's economy, and trade with Canada is part of that. This free trade agreement and its passage are also critical to help Ukraine negotiate this type of agreement with other countries around the world and therefore further help strengthen its economy. The free trade agreement is also important because it facilitates not just the trade of goods or even the trade of services, but foreign investment in Ukraine, which is fundamental not just to rebuilding the economy but to rebuilding Ukraine. Ukraine is going to need, by some estimates, well over $1 trillion in foreign investment to rebuild. That includes schools, hospitals and roads and this free trade agreement would facilitate that. When President Zelenskyy was in Canada visiting, one of the things he made time for, and a priority for, was meeting with people who are interested in investing in Ukraine, because he is that concerned about it. This agreement is not just symbolically important. It is substantively important to helping Ukraine and Ukrainians survive and fund this war and rebuild their country and win this war. As the Conservatives get in the way of this free trade agreement, they get in the way of Ukraine winning the war. We have to be clear about that. The second thing is that the Conservatives are not just delaying the agreement; they are actually criticizing it. I do not think that they actually support the free trade agreement. We have had members getting up in this House during the limited debate that we have had with respect to the free trade agreement and they have had the audacity to call this free trade agreement “woke”. One of the members suggested that Canada, in negotiating this agreement, has actually taken advantage of Ukraine. How preposterous is the suggestion that somehow, by doing something that helps Ukraine win the war and rebuild its economy, it is bad for Ukraine? That argument makes no sense at all. Let us remember whom they are suggesting we are taking advantage of. They are suggesting we are taking advantage of President Zelenskyy. This is the man whose government and whose people have stood up to the second-largest military in the world, and we have seen the success they have had on the battlefield. These are the people who are not giving up and will fight until every inch of their territory is back and somehow we are taking advantage of them by helping them build their economy. Last is the thing that is most concerning. As I said yesterday in question period, it is the Conservative leader's lack of support for Ukraine. The Conservative leader, since becoming leader, has not once advocated for more military support, for more financial support or for more humanitarian support for Ukraine. He has not once called out Russia's acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Yvan Baker: Madam Speaker, he has not once done that. Even the Conservative members are surprised.

1650 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/23 1:14:10 p.m.
Watch

Order. I want to remind members that if it is not time for questions and comments and they do not have the floor, they need to wait. I would ask them to please hold on to their thoughts until then. Mr. Michael Barrett: On a point of order, Madam Chair. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I am sorry, but the hon. member is not in his chair so I am not going to recognize him. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

83 words

Deputy

Mr. Yvan Baker

Nov/3/23 1:14:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader's silence in his lack of support for Ukraine speaks volumes.

16 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/3/23 1:14:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would inquire of the Chair if it is incumbent upon all members when they are giving speeches in this House to be truthful. Is that still the case?

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/23 1:14:51 p.m.
Watch

A point of debate is what that hon. member is doing, and again I would appreciate if members did not run into the chamber and yell. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

32 words

Etobicoke

Mr. Yvan Baker

Nov/3/23 1:15:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear Conservatives talking about telling the truth when they do exactly the opposite every day in this House, especially in question period and especially their leader. Last, I will say that—

38 words

Mr. Michael Barrett

Nov/3/23 1:15:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have been told many times by Chair occupants that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do directly. The member there just accused members of the official opposition of lying. That is unacceptable in this place. The member should withdraw and apologize for his comments. They are unacceptable.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/23 1:15:52 p.m.
Watch

I am just going to double-check on something. I did not see that the hon. member was talking about a specific member. I do want to remind members to be very careful with the words they use and how they direct those words. This happens on both sides of the House. I am going to review the Hansard and see how that wording was actually used, because I am not quite sure. I will come back to the House if need be. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre.

89 words

Mr. Yvan Baker

Nov/3/23 1:16:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, once again it is the height of hypocrisy for the member to get up, suggest that I am lying and then to raise a point of order to suggest that I should not be challenging him and his leader for not telling the truth. However, I will finalize my remarks on this issue we are debating in the House by saying that the Conservative Party of Canada clearly does not support the people of Ukraine. Their leader is silent on support for Ukraine. He has not called out Russia's acts of genocide against Ukraine since he has become leader and he never advocates for additional assistance for Ukraine. Now, his party members are introducing motions for us to debate, which have already been debated in committee, to delay the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. It is time for Conservatives to stand up and start supporting the people of Ukraine. I am going to continue doing that. This government is going to continue doing that until they win.

170 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/23 1:17:18 p.m.
Watch

I just want to remind members, because when I allowed the hon. member to restart again he specifically mentioned another member not telling the truth, that type of wording actually causes disorder in the House. I would just ask members to please be very careful on how they use their words. They should not be directing specific adjectives to individual members. I would just ask members to please be respectful within their debates here in the House.

77 words

Hon. Seamus O'Regan

Nov/3/23 1:18:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1710, 1712, 1715 to 1719, 1724, 1725, 1711, 1713, 1714 and 1720 to 1723.

33 words

Hon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.)

Nov/3/23 1:18:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-34

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.

90 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Nov/3/23 1:18:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the discussion that the Chair had on previous points of order and the things we can or cannot say in the House, such as implying that a colleague is not telling the truth or that a party lacks courage. I would sincerely appreciate some clarification. When it is proven that colleagues are saying things that are not true and that are known to be false, am I to understand that, as members of Parliament, who are meant to hold the government to account for its actions and to denounce comments made by another opposition party, we have no way of doing so in the House, since we are not allowed to say that what a colleague is saying is false? I would sincerely like some clarification on this, because I get the impression that, for some time now, we have been somewhat limited in our scope of action and our flexibility, particularly in our choice of words.

166 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Nov/3/23 1:20:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, my understanding is that it is entirely appropriate to say that what someone is saying is false. What is not permitted is to call somebody a liar in the House. Madam Speaker, if you are not prepared to rule on this right now, perhaps you should reflect on that and come back at a later time. The comments the member from the Bloc brought up are extremely germane to this, and I would hate to see us rush into making a ruling right now without proper reflection because it is very important.

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Nov/3/23 1:20:35 p.m.
Watch

Your points are all well taken. We will have more discussions, do a little more research and come back to the House on this. I would hope that members, when giving their speeches and participating in debate, are making sure that the information they are using is correct. It does not bode well for either side when that is not the case. I would also ask members to please be very judicial.

72 words

Mr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

Nov/3/23 1:21:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that the member talks about unity, and then goes on to give a speech basically attacking Conservatives and attacking the Conservative Leader. First of all, the member should take a look at something published on February 20, 2022, by the Conservative leader, where he condemns the invasion and calls for more support. To say that the Conservative leader has not done that is absolutely the definition of misinformation. There is so much misinformation in what the member said. First, there is an existing free trade agreement right now, one that the Conservatives negotiated. To talk about the issue before us, this piece of legislation is at pre-study at committee on Tuesday. The pre-study will turn into the study so that the bill can be voted on and brought back to the House. To suggest that this is somehow delaying that shows the member's absolute incompetence as a member to understand what is happening in the House. He should stop using those lines. In fact, he should apologize, and apologize to the Conservative leader.

182 words

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.)

Nov/3/23 1:22:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unity is what I am asking for. Unity around support for Ukraine is what I am asking for, and we are not getting it from the Conservative Party of Canada. We are certainly not getting it from the Leader of the Conservative Party. What I said about the Leader of the Conservative Party's record on Ukraine is absolutely true. Did the member just get up to say that the last time the Leader of the Conservative Party said anything about Ukraine that includes any degree of support was October 2022? Has he not realized that there is a genocide happening in Ukraine every day, that people are dying every day, and that Canada's security, including our Arctic security, is under threat every day? Maybe the Leader of the Opposition should wake up to that and start speaking out. He has never advocated for more support for Ukraine since becoming leader. He has never called out the act of genocide. It is about time he did.

169 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Nov/3/23 1:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I am thoroughly disgusted by this debate. I know that Nunavummiut are as well. Inuit from northern Quebec were forcefully lied to. They were made to go from northern Quebec all the way up to the high Arctic in Grise Fiord and Resolute. They are called the high Arctic exiles. This was done in the name of Arctic sovereignty and Arctic security. This report is very important to us. For the debate to focus on other matters outside of this is very disconcerting. What the Arctic is experiencing right now, in addition to threats from Russia and outsiders, is climate change. I would like to ask the member if he agrees with a statement by chief of the defence staff, General Wayne Eyre, who has said “making that infrastructure durable and sustainable into the future with the changing circumstances related to climate change” is important. Does the member agree that we also need to ensure that the Arctic is able to deal with the existential threat they are experiencing because of climate change?

176 words

Mr. Yvan Baker

Nov/3/23 1:25:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I think we do. That is why so many of us in the House, and so many of us on the government side as well, have worked with some colleagues in the NDP and the Bloc to make sure we advance policies that continue the fight against climate change, which is so important to the folks in the Arctic, and around the world, frankly. I would like to clarify for the member's understanding that Arctic security is incredibly important and the people of the Arctic are, of course, incredibly important. I have worked on this as a member of the defence committee. My sole concern about this is that the Conservatives are bringing this forward in a way that is designed to undermine measures we are taking to protect Arctic security, undermining our ability to support the war that is happening right now, which ultimately threatens all of our security.

154 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 246