SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 253 - Nov/22/23

Nov/22/23 6:41:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do want to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his passion and his advocacy, and for the leadership he has shown on this. I was disappointed that the Liberals voted against the amendment to the act that would have provided more opportunity to produce weapons and ammunition to send to Ukraine. We started advocating the provision of weapons in 2018. We had sniper rifles and the Carl-Gustaf anti-tank weapons. We had rocket propeller grenades and side arms that we wanted to send to Ukraine that were sitting in storage, collecting dust and going nowhere. We asked the Liberals to send them, but they did not send them until after the war started in 2022, four and a half years after we started asking them to send them. The Liberal-NDP coalition called me a warmonger. The truth is that we all knew Putin was going to try to fully invade Ukraine. We are coming up to the Holodomor commemoration on Saturday. We are having a commemoration here on the Hill tomorrow. It was the genocide of several million Ukrainians by Stalin and his Communist thugs to wipe the Ukrainian nation off the earth. It is happening again. It is being done again by Moscow, by Vladimir Putin and his Kremlin kleptocrats. We have to stand with Ukraine. It needs weapons and not a carbon tax.

234 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Nov/22/23 6:43:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the discussion about the report from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”. As Canadians know, Conservatives have always stood with Ukraine. Those who have had the pleasure of hearing at committee some stories from my personal history will have heard that, back in 1991, when the Soviet Union was collapsing, I was the senior adviser to Canada's foreign minister. I can remember the weekend that I spent on the phone with the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office and former deputy prime minister Don Mazankowski, the first Ukrainian deputy prime minister of Canada, discussing what we should do. The Soviet Union had not quite collapsed, and Mikhail Gorbachev was trying to institute his glasnost reforms. It looked like, within a few weeks, there would be a collapse. We had a long discussion about recognizing Ukraine first. We were the party that recognized Ukraine on that weekend, December 2, and we were the first country in the world to recognize Ukraine as an independent country, separate from the old Soviet Union. That was a momentous thing because, of course, we have a large diaspora of Ukrainians in Canada. I am proud to have played a very small and minor role as a senior adviser to the then minister of foreign affairs, Hon. Barbara McDougall, when we did that. We do support all of the recommendations in this report, but I would like to draw attention to a couple of particular interest to us. The previous speaker spoke about recommendations 12 and 13, and I will come to that, but I would like to focus a little on recommendation 8, which says: That the Government of Canada work with its international and domestic partners to improve the coordinated implementation and enforcement of sanctions against Russia, by working to identify all assets connected to designated persons and closing any loopholes that may exist. There are a lot of loopholes that still exist today. Not to toot my own horn, but I worked on creating the legislation the Government of Canada still uses today back in 1991, when there was the coup in Haiti. We wanted to impose economic sanctions, globally through the OAS and then through the UN, on Haiti and the illegal coup of Haiti's first democratically elected president. There was no power to quickly impose economic sanctions. We quickly created within about four days a piece of legislation that was introduced and passed unanimously through the House and Senate within about 48 hours to create a bill that gave the Governor in Council the power to quickly move and impose economic sanctions. We know these sanctions are leaking, and I have raised this before in committee. I said it as a member of the fisheries committee. While the government has targeted specific individuals, and all of those are justified, what it has not done is looked at the leakiness of the sanctions overall. I have an example that has had a very large impact on Atlantic Canada. The snow crab fishery is a very big fishery off Newfoundland, and 52% of the crab fishery caught in Newfoundland was, until this war happened last year, bought by Japan, through contracts. When the war broke out and Russia was desperate for cash, it started to sell their snow crab at a much cheaper price on the global markets. Most countries respected the fact that that money would be used for fuelling Putin's illegal war and did not bite. Japan did bite, broke every contract in Newfoundland and stopped buying all their snow crab from Newfoundland. Now Japan buys most of their snow crab from Russia, helping to fund their war. The minister and the Liberal government have never raised those kinds of issues with counterparts. We have raised them with the minister, and the minister was totally unaware that this had happened. It is not unusual for a Liberal minister to be unaware, but one would think that, when we are dealing with sanctions in a war, it is not just about the individuals but is about the flow of cash that is going in by buying goods of our G7 allies. I would also like to comment on recommendation 12, which reads, “That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines....” Remember, with the turbine, Russia did this fake thing about needing the turbine for the pipeline that brought natural gas and oil into Europe. It brought in a need for repair, and the government said it was no problem, to bring it in here and we would repair it. Then the war broke out and Russia said it wanted it back in order to facilitate the continued supply of that oil and natural gas, supposedly. The government acquiesced, granted a waiver, sent it back to Russia and allowed it to continue to ship oil and natural gas to fund its war. In fact, if we look at some of the testimony in this report, it quite clearly shows that a number of witnesses were flabbergasted the Government of Canada would allow such fakery to happen. In addition, in a rare moment of clarity on the liquefied natural gas issue, the Minister of Natural Resources said at the time, and this is from page 31 of the unanimous report, that he could not “overemphasize the depth of concern on the part of the Germans, but also on the part of the European Union, with respect to the potential implications associated with their effectively not being able to access natural gas.” The report goes on: In addition to the concerns expressed by Germany and the EU, the Minister [of Natural Resources] noted that, in conversations had with the United States, “they reflected and shared the concerns about the divisions that could end up undermining support for Ukraine....” That was the Liberal minister, but yet when the Chancellor of Germany came to Canada and Germany was begging for our natural gas to deal with the issue of the impact on energy supply in Europe because of this illegal war, the Prime Minister said that there was no business case to ship it oil. Maybe there is a case to get it done because there is a war on, but of course we were not ready to do that. When the Prime Minister and these Liberals came to power in 2015, there were 15 LNG plants on the books. As they progressed with their agenda, their no-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, or the “no capital bill”, as I call it, to drive capital out of Canada, we have how many? I am sure there are members here who could tell me how many have been built since those 15 were proposed and going through the environmental system. I hear a colleague say zero. Maybe the true answer the Prime Minister should have given the Chancellor of Germany is that he messed up and that he was not ready to deal with the issue of making sure good, clean, ethical Canadian natural gas could be accessed by Europe, which has become totally dependent on Russia, in case of emergencies. Unfortunately, that was not his answer. He glibly said that there was no business case for it. I am not sure the Prime Minister has actually ever read a business plan, but he told the Chancellor that, and so Germany went and obtained the natural gas it needed from dirty dictatorships. That is the great foreign policy we have had. My colleague mentioned the fact that if the Liberals were truly interested in supporting Ukraine, they would have put provisions in the free trade bill to enable and foster the ability of our country to supply more munitions to Ukraine and to manufacture them. In fact, if there is a gap in political risk insurance by the EDC, it is easy for the Government of Canada to show its commitment to Ukraine by using the Canada account to help Canadian munitions manufacturers located in Germany and deal with the risk insurance issue. Have the Liberals used the Canada account to do that? No, so their commitment to Ukraine is, like all other things, fairly superficial and not done with the seriousness one would expect from an ally of an important democratic country in this world and of our diaspora of 1.5 million Ukrainians in Canada who expect more from the government.

1446 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/22/23 6:53:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member referred to foreign policy and he talked about being superficial. President Zelenskyy came to Canada last September and signed a trade agreement with Canada. Ukraine wants this trade agreement. If I had enough time, I would explain to the member why. The 1.3 million people of Ukrainian heritage in Canada support the Canada-Ukraine deal that the president signed off on. Amazingly, the Conservative Party of Canada is the only party in the chamber that said “no” to that Canada-Ukraine trade agreement for all sorts of red herring types of reasons. The bottom line is that the Conservative Party is abandoning sending a solid message to Russia, providing more hope for Ukraine. Why did the Conservative Party vote “no” on the Canada-Ukraine agreement?

134 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Nov/22/23 6:54:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Winnipeg North has a selective memory, but I will remind him that we had a free trade agreement with Ukraine already. It was negotiated by the Harper government. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Rick Perkins: Madam Speaker, yes, they signed it, but they did not negotiate a comma of it. It was all negotiated and put to bed and then the election happened in 2015, so they came in and signed it, just like Jean Chrétien in 1993 when he said that he would tear up NAFTA. Then it came in and became part of the “three amigos”. He talked like he invented free trade with NAFTA, even though he ran on an election campaign against it, as did another former Liberal leader, John Turner, who fought the 1988 election against free trade. Thankfully, we won that election 35 years ago yesterday or we would not have free trade with the United States. The member should do a little bit of history about which party has truly been committed to free trade and which party has tried to impose woke conditions on a carbon tax on a country that is at war, taking advantage of that country to put forward its domestic political agenda and impose it on another country.

222 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Nov/22/23 6:55:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, just in response to that last intervention, I think it is fairly obvious that trade deals need to be evaluated based on the substance of what is in those deals. There is a long history of various parties in this House opposing certain trade deals, doing so because they had particular views on provisions in those deals. It was not because they did not care about the other countries with which the deals were negotiated. It is because they had issues with the content of the deals. In particular, the Liberals have tried to sneak a carbon tax provision into this trade deal. Meanwhile, Conservatives have tried to amend the deal to support expanded weapons transfer. We can ask anyone connected with the Ukrainian government or the Ukrainian community; they may have a variety of opinions on the particulars of the deal in general but if someone were to ask them what their priority is, weapons or a carbon tax, I think they would all say the priority is weapons, not a carbon tax. We need to keep the eye on the ball here, which is that Ukraine needs to win this war. That means having the weapons and munitions that will allow it to win this war. The Liberals voted against including weapons in this deal. They are the ones abandoning Ukraine. We are the ones standing with Ukraine.

232 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Nov/22/23 6:57:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who made an eloquent speech on this very issue previously. It is outstanding to me that the Liberal government would think that the priority of what to do with the Ukrainian government right now is to try and impose a Canadian carbon tax on Ukraine and then, at the same time, vote against providing the ability of Canadian companies to establish free trade and manufacturing facilities back and forth in munitions, during an illegal war. There is a coalition between a former and still, really, KGB agent, Putin, who is in an unholy alliance with China and Iran, trying to attack these dictatorships and trying to attack democracy around the world. The government has not banned and declared the Wagner Group, which is in this report, as a terrorist group. It has not abided by the resolution of this House for many years now, and still refuses to declare the IRGC as a terrorist group. I do not know why the government is so opposed to declaring these organizations as terrorist groups and letting them operate in Canada, while not providing our ally, Ukraine, what it needs.

201 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Nov/22/23 6:58:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to bring the voices of Chatham—Kent—Leamington to the chamber this evening and to rise to continue debating concurrence on the 10th report of the foreign affairs committee, “The Russian State's Illegal War of Aggression Against Ukraine”. Before I go on, I will tell members that I will be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon. As this report deals with our support for Ukraine, I would like to focus on three key recommendations related to energy and food security, not only for Ukraine but also for our European allies as well. The first recommendation I will touch upon is recommendation 12: That the Government of Canada not grant a sanctions waiver to Siemens Energy Canada Limited for Nord Stream 1 pipeline turbines as long as sanctions remain in effect. Last December, the natural resources minister said that Canada was revoking the exemptions to sanctions that allowed a Montreal company to repair turbines for the natural gas pipeline operated by the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom. The world was aghast. As background, in July, Siemens Energy was granted an exemption to Canada's sanctions against Russia to repair up to six turbines for this pipeline, which carried natural gas from Russia to Germany. The federal government defended its decision by saying that it was “calling the bluff” of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who Canada had accused of withholding gas exports to Europe. I question if this is the position of our ally Ukraine. Is that what it asked for when it came to the turbines? Once again, the government miscalculated at a great cost to our allies. As the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated, “the government's decision to suspend their own sanctions is a slap in the face to the Ukrainian people in their darkest hour.” He continued by stating how important it is that we hold firm in our resolve with Russia: “If we aren't, then Russia will simply continue to escalate their pressure”. That is exactly what it has done. It has weaponized energy against the Ukrainian people and, indeed, against our European allies. Instead of standing firmly with our allies, Canada has turned its back on them in their time of need. As usual, the government has not considered the long-term consequences of its decisions by allowing Russia to manipulate the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, and this may have far-reaching consequences for global energy security, not to mention our own international relations. With its ill-thought-out policy, the government has once again sent the message to our international partners that Canada is not reliable. The world came calling for Canada's abundant supply of LNG but, in true form, the Prime Minister and his Liberal cronies shut the door on its allies. Why? We learn that, for the first time in the history of free trade negotiations, Canada is again betraying Ukraine by adding a carbon tax to our free trade agreement with Ukraine. I will ask the question again: Is this what Ukraine came to Canada asking for? The Prime Minister has the audacity to virtue signal and, in essence, double-cross Ukraine by making the carbon tax part of the agreement. Ukraine does not want our carbon tax any more than Canadians want it. That is why the Conservatives oppose the ineffective carbon tax here in Canada and in Ukraine. Ukraine is looking for a reliable trade partner, not to be force fed a carbon tax. Ukraine has not requested it and has not requested that we export the Liberal government's empty ideology. Instead, Canada should focus our trade agreements on areas in which we excel, such as agriculture, technology, LNG expertise, grain storage and the so many other areas I could list. Members remember that the Conservatives negotiated the first trade agreement with Ukraine back in 2017 and fully support free trade. The member for Dufferin—Caledon mentioned in his speech yesterday that the Liberals voted against an amendment that would allow Canadians to build munitions requirements that would allow Ukraine to win the war. The Liberals believe that by imposing their useless carbon tax, Mr. Putin will turn tail and run. It would be laughable if it were not so serious. Conservatives also proposed that we would both provide civilian nuclear technology and sell our civilian-grade uranium from Saskatchewan to power nuclear plants that would give emissions-free electricity to Ukrainians to replace bombed-out electricity plants. I guess it made too much common sense because, in true Liberal custom, they did not include that in the agreement either. Again, I reiterate that Ukraine needs Canada to be a reliable trading partner and ally. Putin has stated numerous times that Ukraine is not a nation but rather a state of Russia. Timothy David Snyder, a professor of history at Yale University, told the foreign affairs committee that the major issues in this conflict, territory, neutrality and security, have “never really been the problem.” He explained, “Putin was never actually fighting a war about NATO”; Putin was “fighting a war to destroy the Ukrainian state.” Let us go back 100 years, to the death of my great-grandparents in the Holodomor. It seems the Canadian government is hell-bent on fighting a war to destroy Canadian energy that would bring stability to Ukraine and our European allies. The current Liberal regime is determined to rob the world of reliable energy security that would, in turn, provide sustainable and clean energy sources, preventing our allies from being forced into vulnerable reliance on an authoritarian regime. We can and should contribute with sustainable clean energy solutions, reducing our allies' dependence on single suppliers and creating a more geopolitically stable international environment. We can contribute clean energy solutions that align with climate change goals and demonstrate our leadership in both energy security and environmental responsibility. That is not to mention the economic benefits this would bring to Canada in a time of skyrocketing inflation brought on by eight years of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister also stated that there was no business case for Canada to build LNG export facilities. However, in the last two years, the U.S. has built eight such facilities, partly using Canadian gas, adding value to it by liquefying it and then exporting it. At the foreign affairs committee, we continue to look at the food and fuel effects of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this week, Trevor Kennedy from the Business Council of Canada testified that there was, and continues to be, a business case for infrastructure to export Canadian LNG. Canada should have played a role in Ukraine's and Europe's energy security, and it should still do so. There are eight billion people in the world, and four billion of them owe their lives to the use of synthetic fertilizers, in particular, supplemental nitrogen. Nitrogen is produced from natural gas through the Haber-Bosch process. Canada should also be there for Europe and Ukraine as a fertilizer supplier, supplanting supplies from Belarus and Russia. I will come back to this point in a minute. Another recommendation I want to touch upon is recommendation 6: That the Government of Canada continue to strengthen global food security, and the role of Ukraine as one of its guarantors, and join the efforts with Ukraine on the Black Sea Grain Initiative in the Global South.... In July 2022, Ukraine's title of the breadbasket of the world was once more becoming a reality when Russia signed on to the Black Sea grain initiative. The first ships left Ukrainian ports on August 1, 2022, making over 1,000 voyages from Ukraine's Black Sea ports. Unfortunately, a year later, Russia pulled its support for the deal, and the world was once again thrust into further food insecurity. The international community watched in despair as Russia now used essential commodities to gain world domination and control, now using food as a weapon. If we were able to ship our fertilizer, our potash, to eastern Canada from Saskatchewan by rail, we would not have to rely upon Belarusian and Russian fertilizer, We would be able to step in and fill the gap to ensure food security for not only Canada but also other parts of the world. I have shared this earlier in other speeches: On my own farm, we have used more Russian and Belarusian potash over time than we have our own from Saskatchewan. We have used more imported urea from Russian sources than our Canadian-made fertilizer from western Canadian gas, because we do not have a pipeline that brings natural gas to eastern Canada. It would be possible to bring Saskatchewan potash more affordably into eastern Canada by rail if our train cars were not hauling so much crude to eastern refineries. There is much we could do. Canadians have paid the price for the Prime Minister's “all socks and no substance” policies. Now, unfortunately, the world has to pay a dear price for the same Liberal rhetoric in the form of energy and food insecurity. The foreign affairs committee made several recommendations with respect to Russia's illegal war against Ukraine. The Conservatives are calling on the Liberals to stop supporting pro-Putin policies, as it did by signing off on the six turbines for Nord Stream. It is time for the Conservative common-sense plan that would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our own people in this country. I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

1623 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Nov/22/23 7:08:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member could justify his comments around forcing an ideology on Ukraine, considering that it has its own homegrown carbon pricing system. It was a co-operative partner in the development of this agreement and urged us to pass it. Could the member make this make sense?

54 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can answer very simply. Is this what Ukraine needs? Is this what it came to Canada asking for? I have not heard any speech or anything from the Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada, any Ukrainian representative or any member of Parliament asking us to negotiate a carbon tax into our trade agreements. If there is evidence, I would be open to looking at it. That is not what it needs right now. It needs a reliable partner in all of the areas that Canada has expertise in and exporting a carbon tax is not one of our Canadian pieces of expertise.

104 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/22/23 7:09:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I find it very disturbing that Conservatives are trying to rewrite history. President Zelenskyy was in this very House calling for all parties to support the trade agreement with Ukraine. We had the Ambassador of Ukraine endorsing the trade agreement with Ukraine. Ukraine is going through an incredibly difficult time. I know Conservatives try to minimize the horrific bombings and attacks that are taking place daily as Ukrainian citizens die, but what happened yesterday was a betrayal of every single Ukrainian and Ukrainian Canadian by the entire Conservative caucus. Conservatives rose as one not to vote about the details of the trade agreement, but to say they opposed in principle a trade agreement with Ukraine. My simple question, through you to the hon. member, is this: How could Conservatives betray Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians in such a nefarious fashion?

141 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's party ran in every single election against free trade. Our record is perfectly clear. We negotiated with my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, and signed the agreement in 2017. As we have heard from other Conservative members in this House, we are solidly in favour of free trade. Where in this free trade agreement is energy security? Where is the partnership and research? Where is supply chain infrastructure and the establishment of a Canadian-Ukrainian agri-food business council? Why would the member say we are minimizing the horrific attacks? I would like to know the basis of that. We stand with the Ukrainian people. We call out the violence there. I have no idea where that comes from.

125 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Nov/22/23 7:11:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was a great pleasure working with my colleague on the foreign affairs committee in the course of the development of this report. We are in a new global cold war. The member correctly describes the way in which access to commodities is a crucial part of that struggle. Canada developing its capacity in areas around food and fuel and supplying our democratic allies around the world in order to make them less dependent on Russia and other hostile powers is a very important part of this struggle for freedom and democracy. That is why Conservatives have championed the role Canada can play in supporting global energy security. Sadly, the Liberals do not understand this. Their anti-energy ideology is getting in the way of Canada playing its global role in defending global security. It is very telling that in an agreement that should have been about supporting Ukraine in meeting its food and fuel needs, supporting Europe with its energy security and a deal that could have included provisions around energy security, the government instead wanted to impose a carbon tax on Canadians as well as Ukrainians, which underlines how wrong it is. This is the big question right now. In their hearts everybody would say they want to help Ukraine, but the concrete way to help Ukraine, yes, crucially, is to supply it with weapons, but to also undermine European dependence on fuel exports as part of the Russian war machine. This is what has been missing. This is what needs to change. I would like my colleague's comments on how important it is to take into consideration the energy security dimension of this new cold war.

282 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:13:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I absolutely agree with the premise of the question put before me. Canada has so much more it could give toward energy security for Ukraine and our European allies, not only energy security, but also food security. I have raised this several times, both at committee and in this House. Eight billion people are in this world and four billion of them owe their lives to the conversion of fossil fuel, natural gas, to synthetic fertilizers. This has neither been challenged by anyone, nor has it been acknowledged other than by my Conservative colleagues. I would ask those who are opposing the conversion of natural gas to supply to our allies in the form of either energy or fertilizer for food this: Which 50% of the world's people do they not want to see live?

138 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/22/23 7:14:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member asked what proof he has. The reality is that he was here in this room when President Zelenskyy called for the adoption of the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. He witnessed that. He knows that the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the ambassador from Ukraine to Canada called for this. However, reprehensibly, given the new extremism of the member for Carleton, each Conservative rose in turn yesterday to repudiate all those commitments to Ukraine—

77 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/22/23 7:15:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is some confusion here, but the member said that he was splitting his time. He recalls saying that, so I believe the question and comments period should be over and we should be on to the next speech. Many members heard that said.

53 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/22/23 7:15:36 p.m.
Watch

Neither the table officers nor I heard it.

8 words

Mr. Dave Epp

Nov/22/23 7:15:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said it in my second sentence. I said that I would be splitting my time with the member for Dufferin—Caledon.

32 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Nov/22/23 7:16:05 p.m.
Watch

We have to see if there is time for questions.

10 words

Time

Mr. Peter Julian

Nov/22/23 7:16:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if it was not stated, of course, the member could ask for unanimous consent to split his time afterwards, and that is up to the House to decide.

30 words

Split
Time

Mr. Garnett Genuis

Nov/22/23 7:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we agree to unanimously hold that it had been said.

12 words