SoVote

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

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Dec/1/23 1:04:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is also the second point about the member's unparliamentary language.

14 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:04:19 p.m.
Watch

Yes, members should be wary of using comments that the Speaker has already judged inappropriate.

15 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Dec/1/23 1:04:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have not said anything that is not factually true. The reality is that—

17 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:04:34 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Edmonton West is rising on a point of order.

13 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Dec/1/23 1:04:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Speaker ruled on this issue, and I ask that you enforce the rules of the House. It is ridiculous. This member should be ashamed that he repeatedly pushes this garbage upon the House.

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/1/23 1:04:47 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member was referring to certain events, and I take it that is the point the hon. member is going to raise. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

31 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 260