SoVote

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Dec/1/23 12:41:54 p.m.
Watch

The hon. Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons wishes to rise on the same point of order.

21 words

Deputy
Rise

Dec/1/23 12:41:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the same point or order, Conservative obviously do not want to talk about this, and that is clear. The member is talking specifically about about the motive; why Conservatives have tabled this motion. The motion is not even actually on the report itself; the motion is that we concur in the report. I think it is extremely germane that the member has the opportunity to express why he believes the Conservatives are trying to block this piece of legislation.

82 words

Motive

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Dec/1/23 12:42:26 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that there obviously needs to be a link with the report being debated, but members are given a lot of leeway. I invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue his intervention. He has eight minutes remaining. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/1/23 12:42:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that point of order will be deducted from my time. It is important to recognize the previous speakers talked at great length about the price on pollution, which coincidentally is the red herring Conservatives are using in voting against the Canada-Ukraine agreement, even though Ukraine currently has a price on pollution. There is a direct link between the behaviour the Conservative Party members have been expressing and the way in which they have been preventing this Ukraine-Canada trade agreement from ultimately passing. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they do not want a price on pollution and argue that for the last half hour and then say that I cannot deal with the argument of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement based on the fact that the Conservatives do not want the price on pollution incorporated into the trade—

149 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Dec/1/23 12:43:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have read the Public Accounts and it does cover the price on pollution. It clearly shows that the government is taking more than it is actually distributing to taxpayers. However, that is in the Public Accounts; the free trade agreement is not. I ask you to bring the member to order.

61 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/1/23 12:44:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as we can see, Conservatives are very sensitive about this issue, and I can appreciate why. There is no doubt, especially if one is from the Prairies, that one has to be concerned about the reckless behaviour of the Conservative leader today. In essence, he is mandating every Conservative MP to vote against a trade agreement. That is going to have a profoundly negative impact on how many Canadians perceive the Conservative Party today, because of the mixed messaging. The president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress even wrote a letter addressed to the leader of the Conservative Party. Maybe the members of the Conservative Party are not aware of this. I will not read the entire letter, but I will read a part that is very relevant to all members. One needs to keep in mind the reason we are debating what we are debating today; it is because Conservatives do not want to vote on this issue. The issue is this: As the letter states, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading.” We were supposed to be voting at report stage today, which would ultimately see it go to third reading. I suspect the reason for this is twofold. They bring up the issue of the price on pollution and food affordability. This is something we had a great deal of discussion on this past week, and we are going to continue to have that discussion; there is no doubt about that. However, today, the Conservative Party of Canada has taken a measure to prevent, once again, an important piece of legislation from being voted on. I find that very unfortunate, and I am not alone. I ultimately believe that not only people of Ukrainian heritage but also all Canadians will see through the games that are being played. When Conservatives talk about the cost of food, let us recognize that one of the reasons Canada has some of the lowest food costs in the world is that it has things such as trade agreements. Our trade agreements provide opportunities in many different ways. I have often talked about the trade benefits in the province of Manitoba on many commodities. From canola to peas, pigs and all sorts of farm-produced products, the current government has consistently supported our farming communities, our rural communities. We recognize and value the many contributions they make, not only within the community and Canada but also throughout the world. Much of that is achieved by the status Canada has brought forward through the many trade agreements we have signed off on. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and government have; we understand and appreciate the true value of trade agreements for all Canadians. That is why it is stunning and shocking to see the position the Conservative Party is taking on the Canada-Ukraine modernization agreement. It is not acceptable. This is something we would expect to see out of the MAGA conservatives in the United States, that far right element. This is why I am saying we have that Donald Trump element in the Conservative leadership across the way today. That is why we have the leader of the Conservative Party now instructing his members to vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. I find that this is completely unacceptable and one of the reasons why I will continue to tell whomever is listening that this Conservative Party is reckless and it is not worth the risk. We have seen that amplified today by the behaviour of the Conservative Party. Even if we had passed through and not had the debate on the Canada-Ukraine deal, we were then supposed to go on to Bill S-9. Bill S-9 deals with the convention of chemical weapons. We brought it in and we had to do it through the Senate. This is the second day that we have brought it forward, hoping to get it debated. The last time, it was on Wednesday. On Wednesday, the Conservative Party brought in another concurrence motion, in order to prevent Bill S-9 from being debated. Draw a couple of lines and see where that brings us. On Bill S-9, I do not think Russia would be very supportive of it. If not directly then indirectly, there are some very strong links there. That is the reason why, once again, I would suggest to us that we do need to listen to what Canadians are saying and listen to what some of the stakeholders like the Ukrainian Canadian Congress are saying. Earlier, I asked if I could table the letter that was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. Now I hope that they will ask for the leader to see a copy of it. Read the letter. Understand what it is that they are doing because it is not right.

842 words

Stakeholders

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Dec/1/23 12:51:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I just want to recognize that there was a tragic car accident, I believe, two days ago in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, that took the life of a young volleyball player and injured multiple others. I just want to take a brief moment of silence and send my condolences to all those who are suffering. May eternal light shine upon that young man. I have listened to my colleague's speech and what really troubles me is this: from the whole narrative, I will say it right here, Vladimir Putin is a thug. He is a dictator and I am fully on the side of Ukrainians. We can talk about a vote and why we are doing what we are doing but to say that I am pro-Russia is deeply offensive. This is a time when we need to be united. We could talk about the debates but to say that is highly—

179 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Dec/1/23 12:52:35 p.m.
Watch

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

9 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/1/23 12:52:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what the member should do is tell his leader what he just finished saying to the chamber. Why did he vote against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement? One cannot have it both ways. Do not go around saying, “I am pro-Ukraine, I am not pro-Russia”, and then vote against the Ukraine trade agreement. Who do we think that helps? Do we really think that this helps the people of Ukraine? Do we really think that this helps the people of Canada, in terms of trade agreements? The Conservative Party has voted in favour of every other trade agreement except this one. Why? Why have they not done that? Is it because they come up with some sort of a red herring, because that is all it is? Instead of telling the House, he should tell the leader of the Conservative Party what he just finished saying to the House and maybe the leader of the Conservative Party will understand that they have the wrong position on this issue. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

179 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Dec/1/23 12:53:35 p.m.
Watch

I would like a little decorum from the members, please. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

19 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Dec/1/23 12:53:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak to the member for Winnipeg North through you. I want to offer him my sympathies for the Winnipeg Blue Bombers' loss to the Montreal Alouettes in the Grey Cup final. That aside, we are having a discussion about protecting Canada's food system. Obviously, the Ukraine issue is important when it comes to inputs. I would like to talk about the other end of the chain. I feel that Canada is not doing enough for our agricultural producers. What is happening in Ukraine has had an impact and driven up costs. Then there is climate change. There was a drought back home in my region. Agricultural producers are struggling. They do not even have the option of deferring repayment of the Canada emergency business account for a year so they can keep a little more cash on hand. The federal government wants to make sure it basically bleeds them dry. It wants them to repay the money right away, even though they are barely making any income in the regions. I would like my colleague to talk about the urgent need to supply an income to our agricultural producers to protect the Canadian food system.

209 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/1/23 12:54:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am still hurting a bit about that loss, but I am glad it was Montreal. It was a great game. We are talking about food security, and Purolator is a big supporter of the CFL and donates tons of food. I think that is a wonderful thing for it to be doing. I will compliment the CFL organization for making it a hugely successful Grey Cup game. Both teams played exceptionally well. Having said that, the government has taken a number of measures to support our farming community, along with consumers, through direct subsidies in the form of rebates or grants to see expansion and diversification in our communities.

112 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Dec/1/23 12:55:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for being very clear and certain as to the activities of this place and what we should be debating, which is the free trade agreement with Ukraine, an ally of Canada, a country that is currently at war. Warmonger Putin is unrelenting in his campaign against the Ukrainian people. That is why time is of the essence. Would the member please speak to how important this bill is to Ukraine and Ukrainians here at home? What message does today's lack of debate on it represent to them?

96 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Dec/1/23 12:56:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had enough time to give a good explanation of how important this legislation is. We have to go back to 2014, from my perspective, when Ukraine wanted to expand trade relations with the European Union and wanted trade agreements with Canada. It is such a critical thing to do. Hopefully, we will be able to get that legislation passed soon.

65 words

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

Dec/1/23 12:57:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely disgusted with what we are seeing unfold here today in the House of Commons. For those who are watching at home and those who might be tuning in, it is important to understand what happened here today. We put forward the Order Paper, and that Order Paper says what we plan to debate during the day. Conservatives would have seen on that Order Paper that we were taking the report back from committee, with respect to Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. They knew it was our intention to debate this today. For the fourth, fifth or maybe even sixth time, the Conservatives have, once again, used a concurrence motion to shut down debate on something they are absolutely afraid of talking about. I find it most egregious that this comes the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published an open letter to the Leader of the Oppositionthat said: The UCC was disappointed to see the Official Opposition vote against the adoption of Bill C-57, the implementation of which would modernize the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement (CUFTA). Ukraine needs assistance in strengthening economic reslience. Ukraine's government has stressed that the modernization of CUFTA would play an important role in this regard. The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill in 3rd reading. The Conservatives knew this was coming. They put forward this particular concurrence motion the day after the Ukrainian Canadian Congress published this open letter. There are two red herrings on this matter I would like to talk about. The first is the price on pollution, the carbon tax and the Conservatives' so-called reasoning for not supporting this. I would remind the House that we do not have to go that far back in Debates to see that they never talked about the price on pollution and they never talked about the carbon tax the entire time we first started debating this. They used every reason not to. As a matter of fact, the first time I gave a speech on this, I stood in this exact same place and spoke to it as though it were a foregone conclusion, that this entire House was going to support it. I talked for about 10 minutes, and then I sat down. The member for Cumberland—Colchester stood up and started to talk about the agreement as though it were woke legislation. I could not believe it. I almost fell over. Members can go back and review the tape. I stood up in shock. I did not know what was going on. Then we started to find out, as little bits of information started to make their way forward, that that member and four other Conservatives travelled in June to London, where they had meetings with people from the Danube Institute, who also sponsored some of their travel. It is a right-wing Hungarian think tank that, coincidentally, has also referred to the Canadian and western approach towards Ukraine as being woke. Then the Conservatives show up back here, a couple of months later, and they start parroting the exact same information from that particular organization. It is not a far stretch to understand why they are in this position. That is the first red herring. The second red herring, the newly developed one that just came out of committee a couple of days ago, was when Conservatives tried to put forward amendments about arms. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan kept saying, “Ukraine needs”. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to start listening to them when they say they want this agreement. What Ukraine needs is for Conservatives to listen to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress when it says they want this agreement. What Ukraine does not need are Vladimir Putin and the Conservatives telling it what it needs. That is not what Ukraine needs. It needs Conservatives to listen. Now it is in an open letter, which was just distributed yesterday. Once again, we see the same tactics from the Conservatives. They have two red herrings, and it is a red herring because I reminded the committee members, when I was there earlier this week, that there was half a billion dollars in the 2022 budget for arms for Ukraine. They voted against that. They could perhaps somehow justify that being in the opposition meant they had to vote against the budget, but I went back and looked at the speeches from the four members who were in that committee, and not a single one of them actually spoke about those arms during the budget debate. It is a red herring. It is red herring after red herring. The Conservatives are looking for reasons not to support it.

808 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Dec/1/23 1:02:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning relevance. If the member wants to speak to free trade, then he can speak to the free trade agreement when that bill comes up. He has not referred to public accounts for one second. Further, on a second point of order, the Speaker has repeatedly made a very clear ruling in the House about comments such as those that the member made suggesting that we are supportive of the ruthless dictator Putin. We are clearly not. Madam Speaker, I would ask that you bring this member back to the topic to end this rant and back from using unparliamentary language.

110 words

Putin
Speak

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:02:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, we are debating the concurrence motion on a report. We are not even debating the report. We are debating whether or not the report should be concurred in. I am speaking directly to the procedure and to why I think Conservatives are using this motion right now. I am extremely relevant on my points.

62 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:03:03 p.m.
Watch

I would invite the member to try to refer to the relevance of the motion we are debating. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

26 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Dec/1/23 1:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, as you know, with procedure and traditions in the House, when a party is blocking legislation, in this case the Conservatives are blocking the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement with their procedural delays, it is perfectly legitimate that it be part of the debate. This refers to not only to the procedural motion blocking the Canada-Ukraine trade deal, which the Conservatives are opposing, but also, of course, the fact that they have moved this procedural motion to block the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. It is a perfectly legitimate point of debate.

100 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:03:55 p.m.
Watch

We are entering into debate on the point of order. I would invite the member to bring some relevance to his comments, but it is true that we are in a concurrence debate. The hon. member for Edmonton West.

39 words

Edmonton

SoVote

House Hansard - 260