Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, like you, I have been very patient, listening to commentaries. You, a while back, very clearly established that you had already received enough information to make some sort of a ruling, pending a review of the situation. Members continued to stand up, which is a challenge of the ruling you have made as Speaker. I would suggest that people just tone it down and allow the Speaker to do his job.

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy the opportunity to visit gurdwaras. One of the most common words I hear at the gurdwara is seva, which means to serve, to be a volunteer. That brings me to Khalsa Aid Canada. What a wonderful organization it is. Let us think about what it says: “Recognise the whole human race as one”. Over the last weekend, in Winnipeg and across Canada in many different jurisdictions, it served groceries to international students. In Winnipeg, we have had groceries provided to the Main Street Project, the Bear Clan on Selkirk Avenue and Winnipeg Harvest. It is a wonderful way to seva. It is a community that adds so much value. If anyone wants to drop off some groceries, they should feel free to go to 1563 Logan Avenue.

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to hear more from me and I am happy to oblige. At the end of the day, I want to remind members across the way of something that is an issue with the Conservative Party. I always say those members are like a fish on a dock, flip-flopping all over the place. That applies with respect to the carbon price too. I will tell members what the leader of the Conservative Party does not tell Canadians. He would take away the rebate. That would take money out of the pockets of 80% of the constituents of Winnipeg North, the people I represent. Shame on the leader of the official opposition for being so reckless and risky.

Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the member take the attitude that he has toward Ukraine and talk to members of his own caucus as they continue to filibuster this piece of legislation. He is factually incorrect. It was this government that signed off on the first Ukraine deal. It is the Conservative Party across the way that continues to filibuster Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. The Conservatives can say all the wonderful words they want and glorify Stephen Harper as the Prime Minister of Canada as much as they want, but the bottom line is the Conservative Party is reckless and risky. At the end of the day, the Conservatives do not recognize the true value of seeing this legislation pass. It is economically the right thing to do. If we take a look at what is taking place in Europe, we can send a very strong message in favour of Ukraine that would be very powerful. Will the member stand in this place and make a commitment that he will do whatever he can to ensure this legislation will pass throughout the House of Commons, including the Senate, before—

Madam Speaker, back in September President Zelenskyy came to Ottawa and spoke in this very chamber. Part of the purpose of the trip was to sign off on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what this legislation is based on, and it was brought in shortly after the signature. Given the fact that we have the President of Ukraine coming to Canada during a time of war to sign off on a trade agreement, to see the silly games being played on this legislation by the Conservative Party of Canada is somewhat disgraceful. I believe that, in the Conservative Party, there is an element that does not want to see this legislation pass. The member's colleague from Cumberland—Colchester referred to this legislation as “woke” and suggested that, in some way, Canada should not be having an agreement with Ukraine at a time of war. I will ask the member this: Does she support his comments?

Madam Speaker, the member emphasized how the legislation is more about hope. I kind of agree with him, in the sense that it goes far beyond the economics of a trade agreement. The Conservative Party has traditionally supported trade agreements, yet today, what we heard were Conservative members condemning the legislation, in the sense of saying that it is woke legislation and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine because it is at war. The issue is whether the member truly believes what he is saying. Can he please explain to Canadians why it is that the Conservative Party is the only party of the House that appears to want to filibuster and play games with this legislation, as opposed to allowing it to pass? It would be a powerful, hopeful message to send to Ukraine if we could have the legislation go through before Christmas. Would he not agree?

Mr. Speaker, that is a cop out. That is what we just finished witnessing from a Conservative member. He says the Conservatives are not responsible for setting the government agenda and that is the reason, so do not blame them. The Conservative Party is a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is absolutely no doubt about their intentions to prevent legislation from passing. The real shame of it all is to look at where and how they are using concurrence motions to play games with very important issues that Canadians want us to address. I say shame on each and every Conservative member who continues to want to filibuster on important pieces of legislation. I am sharing my time with my colleague from Etobicoke Centre. There are many opportunities for the member and the Conservative Party to have the debates they want on all these reports that they continue to bring up in order to prevent debate on government business. The member, in his speech, made reference to the mean Russians and what is happening in Ukraine. I agree, the illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine is absolutely disgusting, and Canadians understand that and believe it also. The President of Ukraine, President Zelenskyy, was in Ottawa back in September. A country is at war, the president comes to Canada to sign a trade agreement and the Conservative Party of Canada is playing games. As opposed to seeing this legislation debated and passed, we see the type of kid's play coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. That is the reality of it. What does the member say? The most recent speaker said they were not the ones who set the government agenda, as if they have nothing to do with what is taking place inside the chamber. If we want to talk about being obstructionist and preventing legislation, we can say that we do not see any concurrence debates coming forward from the Conservative Party on opposition days. Where is the concern about the issues that they raise then? It is not there. It is absolutely bogus. We were expecting to debate Bill C-57 today. We have been waiting for that debate to hopefully collapse and go to a standing committee. We get the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of Ukraine signing a trade agreement, and then we get the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering. It is filibustering free-trade legislation more than any other political entity in the House. Is that not ironic, to a certain degree? At the end of the day, there are many different avenues. We are all concerned about Arctic sovereignty. It is an important issue. If it were really as important as the Conservatives say it is, so much so that they had to prevent the debate on free trade between Canada and Ukraine, why did they not bring it up as an opposition day? Why did they not introduce it as an emergency debate or request that the government have a take-note debate on it? Why did they not ask one question on it during question period today? However, they still felt it was so important to bring up. Let me give a rationale: We get the member for Cumberland—Colchester standing in his place and saying that the Ukraine trade debate, the legislation to enact the agreement, is woke and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine. That is what one member of the Conservative Party has said. Do they not know any shame? They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are strong allies and support solidarity for Ukraine, then behave as we have witnessed. This is not the first concurrence report to prevent this legislation, Bill C-57, from being debated and passed. They even get members who will stand up and talk about sympathy. Earlier this morning, one member said the free trade agreement is not only good for the economy, but it is also all about hope. Yes, it is good for the economy. There is no doubt about that. Canada and Ukraine will benefit economically, in many different ways, because of the legislation. It is more than that. We are the first country to work with Ukraine during a war period, to actually go ahead and get a trade agreement. We can think of the morale boost of that and the statement it makes, worldwide. As the world unites in solidarity to support Ukraine, what does the Conservative Party of Canada do? It filibusters important legislation that is going to make a powerful statement to the world in regard to the relationship between Canada and Ukraine and in recognizing Ukraine as an independent state, including Crimea. This is such an important thing, and Conservatives want to play games. We have seen them move other motions for concurrence on other important pieces of legislation. It is not just the trade agreement. However, I think the trade agreement amplifies the degree to which the Conservative Party has one intention. Its whole political scheme is bumper sticker politics, trying to make things as simple as possible. They believe that Canadians are stupid and that they are going to believe everything that the Conservatives say on a bumper sticker. That is the type of politics we are witnessing from the Conservative Party today. It is reckless. It is risky, and they are not going to fool Canadians at the end of the day. We are concerned about the Arctic. We appreciate the fine work that all our standing committees put in. However, if the member was being honest in talking about the report, why did he not talk about the billions of dollars the implementation of this report is going to cost? He referred to submarines. Does the member know how much a submarine costs? He is saying submarines, plural. He is talking about several submarines, with a bill totalling $10 billion. That probably would not even cover the cost. The Conservative Party talks about how, if they are going to spend a tax dollar, it is going to cut and find a place for it. For these multi-billions of dollars that it is prepared to commit, based on this report, where are Conservatives going to find those cuts that they talk about? Are they going to go after our senior programs or child care? Where are they going to come from? There is a hidden agenda across the way, and it will be unveiled. More and more Canadians are going to find that there is absolutely no substance to the Conservative Party that goes beyond a bumper sticker. That is what we are going to find out. The best example of that is in regard to the Conservatives' whole idea of the environment. They have no clue whatsoever about what is in the best interest of the environment. They flip-flop like a fish on a dock, all over the place. They do not know where to land on the issue. I guess they cannot get their climate policy on a bumper sticker, and that is the problem. We look to the Conservative Party as an opposition party that is supposed to be recognizing that Canadians, in the last election, voted for a minority situation. However, part of having a minority government is that it also puts some pressure on the opposition party to behave in a somewhat responsible fashion. Its actions, in virtually every way, are to prevent legislation from passing. As we can see, I really believe that there are members that are actually thinking, in the Conservative Party, of voting against this legislation. It is not as though we are asking for Bill C-57, the Ukraine-Canada trade deal, to pass third reading in 24 hours. However, I will say that Christmas is going come quickly. We have to get it to the Senate. It has to go through the standing committee. It has to come back to the House. I think it is fair to request and see that important legislation of this nature should be able to pass through the whole system, royal assent and all, before Christmas. I would like to see the Conservatives stand up and agree with that point.

Mr. Speaker, the member does not know what he is talking about. By bringing in the concurrence motion, doing what he has been asked to do by the leadership of the Conservative Party, he has prevented the debate on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That is what he has done. By doing that, the Conservative Party continues to filibuster what is a very important piece of legislation. I do not know if the member realizes that. Based on the question, I do not think he does. It is great that the standing committee is continuing a discussion and having dialogue and so forth. That is what should be happening at the standing committee. If the member wants the debate to take place on the floor of the House, he can put it forward in the form of an opposition day motion. There are all sorts of other alternatives. Why play games? Why politicize Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine deal? Why not allow that legislation to pass?

Mr. Speaker, some of the oil subsidies the member referred to deal with orphan wells. There are a lot of subsidies, and I understand that if they are not completely gone today from the federal government, they are going to be. We are phasing them out. However, I believe they are gone. With regard to military spending, ironically, even though the member talks about spending billions and billions of dollars, it was Stephen Harper who had the lowest number. I believe it was just under 1% of GDP around 2013. I might off be off by a year or two, but it is interesting that this government brought it closer to 2% and the Stephen Harper government brought it to just under the 1% margin. We do not need to be given lessons from a Conservative Party that depleted it and did nothing to build a stronger, healthier Canadian Forces while the Conservatives were in government.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting hearing the leader of the Conservative Party. One can ultimately say he has done a flip-flop. It was not that long ago that the NDP brought forward a motion to remove the GST on home heating. One would think, based on everything he has been blabbing about for the last week or so, that the Conservatives would have voted in favour of getting rid of the GST on home heating. Canadians would be surprised to find out that their leader did not. He looks to his colleagues and wonders if he really did that. Yes, he really did vote against an amendment that would have removed the GST on home heating oil. Why has there been this change? I think it is a fair assessment. I agreed with him. I too voted against it, but I am curious why the leader of the Conservative Party flip-flopped on this issue.

Madam Speaker, from my perspective, the way I look at it is that the government has focused on getting and encouraging people to change from oil to heat pumps. Given that oil costs are so much higher compared with other sources, it is a good way to encourage that transition. In the longer run, people will save more money, and the environment will be better for it. The member highlights the issue of bureaucracy. The program that is there is a coast-to-coast program. Manitoba has thousands of people who heat their homes with oil. Would he not agree that it will be very helpful to move forward and get provincial jurisdictions, in particular, involved in this?

Madam Speaker, earlier today, when the leader of the Conservative Party addressed the House, I pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservative Party, when its members voted no for an NDP motion that would have removed the GST on home heating. I thought that was somewhat contradictory to what he was saying. There was no answer. Now the NDP have moved another proposal that would see the GST once again dropped. What is more ironic is the fact that, in a reckless fashion, when I posed the question for the member, ultimately he said that they would get rid of that too. It is like policy on the fly, that he would get rid of the GST. However, when Conservatives were now provided the opportunity to do it again, what did the member for Battle River—Crowfoot do? He said no, that they did not want the amendment to the resolution. Why is the Conservative Party recklessly flip-flopping all over the bloody place on this issue? It does not seem to have a direction regarding the environment.

Madam Speaker, the member, right at his conclusion, said that the Conservative Party would axe the carbon tax for Canadians. Conservatives have made that very clear. No doubt it will be part of their campaign platform. The issue I have with the simplicity of the message the member just gave is that he does not talk about the rebates being given to the people of Canada. For example, in Winnipeg North, over 80% of the residents I represent will get more money back through the rebate than they will pay in carbon tax. That comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, so it is not just me saying that. The member is telling Canadians that you are going to axe the tax, but would you still be providing the rebates? If you do not still provide the rebates, you are taking money out of the pockets of more than 80% of the residents I represent.

Madam Speaker, when we think of oil heating and compare that to the impact on the environment of natural gas, or home heat pumps, I think we would probably agree that the oil heating system does hurt the environment a whole lot more, and it is a lot more costly. Does the Conservative Party have any policy, direction or thoughts regarding that, or do they feel they should leave it out there and let it evolve in society in a way Conservatives would be happy to see with regards to climate change in general.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. It is a pleasure to rise and speak to this opposition day motion. I want to break it into two parts. One is the issue of affordability and the other is the issue of oil-generated heat. When I think of the issue of affordability, it is important to recognize that the Government of Canada, over the last number of years, in the many different programs that we have brought forward, has very much demonstrated its support for Canadians, whether they are in the middle class, those aspiring to be part of it or those who are disadvantaged. We can take a look at some of those programs. We can talk about the grocery rebate program. We can talk about the dental program for seniors and children, people with disabilities, or we can talk about the rental support program. Now, I would like to suggest we can also talk about the home heating pump program and, in fact, the pause that is being put on for heating homes with oil. These are all programs that have been very supportive in making sure that Canadians can get through a time when they are experiencing inflation, among other issues. When I think of the affordability issue, we have been a government that has been very much focused on supporting Canadians. All those programs I just listed, the Conservative Party actually voted against every one of them. It is somewhat disheartening and disappointing. Conservatives seem to want to focus on one issue, and we see that time and time again, when it comes to the carbon tax. They are just taking a piece of their policy and saying that they want to add on to the pause that we have put on with regard to home heating oil. When they talk about the price on pollution, I think that Canadians need to be reminded of two things. When Erin O'Toole was the leader of the Conservative Party and campaigned in the last election, along with 337 other Conservative candidates, they all campaigned in favour of a price on pollution. Whether we like it or not, or try to figure out why it is, the Conservatives changed their minds. They no longer support a price on pollution. They say they are going to get rid of that price, and they classify it as the carbon tax. They say they are going to “axe the tax”. It is a great bumper sticker, I must say, even though, I would suggest that it is very deceiving. It is deceiving, because I put forward a question earlier to a member about why it is the Conservatives are being very one-sided in their messaging. Conservatives are trying to give an impression, for the more than 95,000 people who I represent in Winnipeg North, that if they form government, they are going to get rid of the carbon tax. A vast majority of the constituents that I represent, over 80%, actually get a net benefit from the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as the Conservatives refer to it. What the Conservatives have been quiet on is the question of what they are going to do with the rebate portion. That rebate portion is put into place as a result of the carbon tax being collected. If they get rid of the carbon tax, they are getting rid of the rebate also. The member opposite, when I posed the question to him, said that if one does not collect the tax, then one does not have to worry about giving money back. The Conservatives do not understand that the price on pollution, which was something that was adopted in the Paris conference back in 2015, was to provide incentive for people to think of the environment in terms of the choices they make. It is based on a rebate. Most Canadians will actually receive more money back than they paid for the carbon tax. When the Conservatives put on their bumper stickers that they are going to get rid of the carbon tax, what they are really saying is that for more than 80% of the constituents, some of whom I represent, they want to take more money out of their pockets. That is the reality, but they do not talk about that. That idea has been amplified. Earlier today, the leader of the Conservative Party, who raised the issue we are debating today, said the Conservatives are going to get rid of the carbon tax for all Canadians on all home fuels. That is what he said. I asked him why the Conservatives opposed a motion that the NDP proposed which would get rid of all the GST on home heating. We have heard a leader recklessly make a policy statement on the floor of the chamber. He proclaimed that the Conservatives are going to get rid of all taxes on home heating. He actually said that, even though a couple of hours later, his party denied the opportunity to actually say yes to what it was he had just finished saying. Talk about reckless. Canadians need to know and understand just how risky it is to consider the Conservative Party of Canada, because it does flip-flop all over the place. Conservatives are more focused on bumper-sticker politics, the far right and populist attitudes than they are on the general welfare and well-being of Canadians. We see that in the debate. Let us think about it. Coal used to warm up homes during wartime. They would put coal in little steel boxes in many wartime houses. That coal would be used to heat homes. It was not very good for the environment. A lot of that coal was converted into natural gas. Some of it was converted into heating oil. It is good to transition out of coal. What we are talking about today, and what the government is talking about, is a policy for all Canadians, even though the Conservatives will try to say that it is divisive. It is not divisive. In their own minds, possibly it is, but I have news for them. Canadians from coast to coast to coast use oil to heat their homes. Canadians in all regions will benefit. What we will see with this policy is a greater emphasis for people to convert, with incentives, to home heat pumps. By doing that they will save thousands of dollars every year. We do not hear people saying that is not the case. A simple search on Google or Yahoo will show there are significant cost savings in converting from oil to a heat pump. It is a good policy idea, but the Conservatives are not concerned about that. They are concerned about bumper stickers. For them, it is about the simplicity of the message, even if it means they have to flip-flop and turn into pretzels here, based on voting patterns and what they have told people at the polls. The Conservatives will continue to do the twisting and turning. We will continue to be there to ensure affordability for Canadians and to be there for the environment.

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to fish in the Red River. I could have used the analogy of the Conservative Party being like a fish on the dock at The Forks flipping and flopping all over the place. That is what I mean by risky and reckless policy. We do not hear an environmental policy coming from the Conservative Party. We just do not see it. It is more interested in trying to fool Canadians on issues by simply saying it is going to axe the tax because that sure does sound good. The member wants to go by polls. If we were to canvass a poll asking if we should decrease the pay of members of Parliament by 30%, I guarantee that 95% of Canadians, or a very high majority, would say yes. Does that mean we are going to see the Conservative Party say it would slash MPs' salaries by 50%? After all, that might make for a good bumper sticker too.

Madam Speaker, the member is just wrong on so many accounts. Does she not realize that the Canada child benefit program generated, in Winnipeg North alone, over $9 million a month to support children? Thousands of children, hundreds from Winnipeg North, were lifted out of poverty because of that one measure. Does the member not realize we now have $10-a-day child care across Canada? This federal Liberal government ensured we could lower the price of child care, which provides many benefits to women and many others, as a direct result of this policy. We have made affordability an issue on many different fronts. I would hope the NDP would see through the Conservative con job on this motion and do the right thing, which is to stand up for the environment and ensure that we continue with affordability for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the independent Parliamentary Budget Office has made it very clear that it is 80%, and the biggest benefactors are seniors, many children and those in smaller homes. However, this is something that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to take away. It is something they do not talk about, but that is the reality. Whenever we hear a member from the Conservative Party say that they are going to axe the tax, we need to realize that they would be taking money out of the pockets of 80% of homes, and I can guarantee that in the riding of Winnipeg North.

Mr. Speaker, this is interesting subject matter. I do not believe it would be in our best interest, ultimately, to see Bill S-242 pass. I understand that the Bloc in particular came up with an alternative idea of having the matter brought forward to a standing committee. I do believe there is a great deal of merit in that. What we are talking about is an issue that I think there would be a great deal of sympathy toward. I care deeply about rural Manitoba, and at the end of the day, whether one is north of Dauphin or in any region in the province of Manitoba, we would like to deliver a modern spectrum that would incorporate rural connectivity. I think that is really important, and it is very admirable to see what we can do as a House to better facilitate that maximum connection. I do not believe that the bill itself would achieve that. I think it could add a great many complications and there could be some side effects that members would not necessarily want to see, like the billions of dollars in licences that have already been given out over the last decade and how that could potentially be jeopardizing. There are some very well-defined timelines that are being incorporated into the legislation. I do not think that would be the intent of what the mover was suggesting. I think the intent is wanting to see more rural connectivity, like I do. That is why I think the INDU standing committee is well positioned. I believe it might actually be initiating a study on it now. I would like to allow that standing committee to continue to do the study, and hopefully we can come up with some good ideas as to how we can achieve two things: dealing with spectrum deployment and meeting the needs of rural connectivity. To me, a big part of it is about the infrastructure. We need to recognize that we need more infrastructure in our rural communities. I had the good fortune of being able to acquire a relatively modest cottage in Sandy Hook, between Winnipeg Beach and Gimli. Even though it is only 45 minutes away from the city of Winnipeg, there are some connectivity problems there. We now see fibre optics being brought into more rural communities in Manitoba. Interestingly enough, the other day I was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. One of the projects through the Canada Infrastructure Bank is rural connectivity. The point is that whether it is the private sector or government working and encouraging this through the possible spectrum auctions that take place, we should be doing what we can to encourage connectivity. That is why I was glad to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank had that as a project. Manitoba is not alone; it is one province that is actually dealing with some of the infrastructure through that particular bank. I am hoping the Conservatives might change their opinions on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, especially if they take a look at all the different projects out there. Why is connectivity so important? I believe it is one of the ways in which we can ensure ongoing rural economic diversity. We can look at what is on the web today. There are a number of small businesses. We often hear about small businesses being the backbone of Canada's economy. I go to some smaller workshops and community gatherings where there are small business entrepreneurs getting their businesses up and running. One of the things we will always find on their business cards is a QR code, which we can take a picture of to go to their website, where we will find amazing products being sold through the Internet. The nice thing about this is that we can live anywhere and do not have to be in the big cities, whether it be Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina, Toronto, Vancouver or wherever. The Internet can play an important role in levelling the field, providing opportunities for people in rural communities that were never there before. I see that as a positive thing. When we talk about the issue of spectrum deployment and going forward, I think that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, or INDU, is doing its job in coming up with some ideas and recommendations of how we can incorporate these ideas when we do auction off spectrum so that all Canadians would be able to benefit by it. People would be surprised by the number of communities where a dial tone is virtually the best they are going to get in terms of speed, it would seem, at times. The need to move on this is important, but I do not believe that Bill S-242 is going to advance the cause to the degree some might imply. In fact, it could be the opposite and could cause more damage. For that reason, I will not be supporting the bill. I would encourage members to go to the INDU committee and let us see it do some wonderful work and come up with some recommendations, because I am sure that it will.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would agree with me that we are witnessing a certain level of hypocrisy today. On the one hand we have a Conservative Party that likes to pretend it is supporting what is taking place and Canada's position with the allied forces against what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-57, which plays a direct role with respect to Canada-Ukraine relations and what is taking place in Europe today. Instead of debating that bill, not only for the first time but now for the second time, the Conservatives are preventing it from being debated and being passed to go to committee. The question I have for the member is this. His colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, said that Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal, is woke. He said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war by bringing in the bill. Is that why the Conservative Party continues to play the game of preventing the debate on Bill C-57 and it going to committee?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to talk about Canada, Ukraine and the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Before I get under way, I want to emphasize just how encouraging it has been to see a team Canada approach to dealing with what is taking place in Europe. We have had organizations, such as the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, along with different political entities of the House, different stakeholders, provincial governments and municipal governments, that have expressed nothing but love and care for Ukraine. We have seen phenomenal solidarity with Ukraine. We are looking at the report that was brought forward today, and I would like to quote the response to the report that was provided by the minister. In the closing to the letter, she states: On behalf of the Government of Canada, I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for their multi-partisan support for Ukraine, which is crucial to Canada’s ability to be a steadfast ally of Ukraine, and for remaining so actively engaged on this critical area of Canadian foreign policy. This issue is above politics; it's about defending democracy and defending the right of freedom and sovereignty. This is a letter from the minister to the committee members, and it responds to 15 recommendations, all of which are well detailed. It is a public document. Anyone who is following this debate can get a copy of the response to those recommendations. The study itself is still not complete. As I am speaking right now, the foreign affairs committee is continuing to have that dialogue. I should add that I will be splitting my time with the deputy House leader. I want to break my comments up into two areas. One is the report, and I just made reference to it. I will talk about the contents of the report and the way the committee has worked together. I applaud that, but there is no reason whatsoever for us to be debating the report today. The second is what we should be debating, which is Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine trade deal. This report is still being studied at the foreign affairs committee. The purpose of the Conservatives bringing forward this motion today has more to do with playing a game on the floor of the House of Commons than it does with the critical issue of what is taking place in Ukraine today. That saddens me. By doing this, they are politically intervening with what we could be debating today, Bill C-57. Back in September, President Zelenskyy visited Canada. At a time of war, the President of Ukraine came to Canada to meet with parliamentarians of all political stripes. He signed a trade agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. We now have an agreement, and it means so much more than just economic ties. We recognize the true value of this trade agreement. It goes far beyond just economics. It is a very powerful statement. It says to Europe and the world that Ukraine is a sovereign nation that will have trade around the world. What we are talking about, or what we should have been talking about this afternoon, is how this unique trade agreement would enable Ukraine and Canada to build upon a very special, friendly relationship, which we have had for decades. We have 1.3 million-plus people of Ukrainian heritage, and that was before the displacements from Ukraine. Many of them are in the Prairies, but they are all throughout Canada. They are very much interested in the debate, whether it is the debate in the chamber or at the Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs. There is also a great level of interest in all areas as to whether we will be able to get Bill C-57 passed before Christmas. Canada is in a great position to send a strong message, a message of leadership to the world, about our relationship with Ukraine by passing this legislation. Sadly, today is not the first time in which we have witnessed the Conservative Party of Canada filibuster this legislation. It is upsetting. It is upsetting because I see, first-hand, as Canadians see, what is taking place in Europe. The expectations for us to pass this legislation is, I believe, very high. It is the right thing to do. This should be a non-partisan issue. I would suggest that, when it comes time to actually have that debate, if the Conservative Party would allow that debate, then the government should not have to bring in time allocation for it. I would suggest that, at this stage, if the Conservatives wanted to show good will, they would agree, unanimously at this point, to see Bill C-57 at the very least go to the committee stage. They should reflect on their behaviour and what they are doing. I referred to a question I asked the member for Cumberland—Colchester. My colleague, the deputy House leader, made reference to it as well. The Conservatives continue to filibuster the Ukraine trade deal, but one of the last Conservative speakers to speak was the member for Cumberland—Colchester. Imagine what he said in his speech. He said the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is “woke”, that Bill C-57 is “woke”, and that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine by having a trade agreement when Ukraine is at war. That aspect concerns me greatly. I do not know where the Conservative Party really is on the issue because we have raised it before, and they are not providing comments. The Conservative Party in the past would say that it supports the concept and principles of free trade. No government in the history of Canada has signed off on more free trade agreements than this government. We have the expertise. It is a good trade agreement, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine. Why is the Conservative Party not allowing this legislation to move forward? If it does not support the legislation, then it would be fully understandable, but if it supports the legislation and wants to get behind the trade agreement, why not allow it to pass and allow it to be debated? I am going to be sitting down in a minute, and I trust that there will be a question from the Conservative Party. Maybe in that question the Conservatives can explain why they do not support the bill being debated or, at the very least, if they will consider allowing unanimous consent to see it go to committee so that we would have an attempt at getting it passed through the entire system, including the Senate, before Christmas. If we all want to get behind what is taking place in Europe and Ukraine today and continue to be non-partisan about it, I think that would be the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, the detailed explanation of all of the recommendations is addressed in the letter. It is a false argument to say that we need to debate something everyone was supporting. This particular report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the free trade agreement with Ukraine. That is what this is doing. The committee is meeting today, and it is continuing discussions. It is false argument. If the Conservatives want to continue to have a debate on whatever issue in the House, they have an opposition day tomorrow. They could have used the entire day to debate this. However, that is not the purpose. Conservatives are using this to prevent debate on Bill C-57. The honourable thing to do would be to agree that Bill C-57 would pass, hopefully unanimously, before the end of this week, so that we could get it to committee and have a chance to pass through the entire system before Christmas. That is the best thing we could do for Ukraine and Canada's relationship, making a powerful statement to the world.

Mr. Speaker, there are 15 recommendations in total, and in the government's detailed letter, a 12-page response to the recommendations, it indicated that it would take note of it. The member started her comments by talking about the trade agreement. The best I can tell, at least the Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals want to see that trade agreement pass through. All of us anticipated that that would be what we were debating today. We are talking about a report that everyone agrees with. No one is questioning it. The report is being used as a tool to prevent debate on the trade agreement. If the Conservatives do not support the trade agreement, then fine, they should say so. They should have the courage to stand up to say that they do not support the trade agreement. Otherwise, why are the Conservatives preventing the debate from occurring? Why will they not let the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine go to committee? I highlighted the fact that we even had the president, during wartime, leave Ukraine to come to Canada to sign the trade agreement. It is a good agreement. The legislation is there. We should be passing it through the system. My appeal, once again, to the Conservative Party is for them to stop wasting the time of the chamber. Let us debate Bill C-57, and let us get it to committee. Let us make a powerful statement to the world, jointly, in a non-political fashion, by supporting Ukraine at this difficult time in history.

Mr. Speaker, numerous reports come from committees. One could virtually come up with a report for concurrence almost on a daily basis. There are a lot of aspects in terms of how this particular trade agreement would broaden the range of goods and services. It includes things such as infrastructure rebuilds. There are all sorts of positive things in this trade agreement. That is the reason I was actually looking forward to listening to that particular debate, and I was hopeful that we would be passing that legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition today signed by many health care workers. The petition deals with the need for Ottawa to work with provincial jurisdictions to deal with issues such as the credentials of health care workers, particularly nurses and doctors, making sure they get recognized, and to deal with overworked health care providers, ensuring that we give better treatment to our health care professionals, particularly in the areas of retention and pay performance.

Mr. Speaker, during the mid-nineties, Manitoba was in a difficult position in terms of immigration, as the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was seeing immigrants coming to Canada but avoiding the province of Manitoba. The creation of the Manitoba provincial nominee program allowed the province to really grow through immigration. If it were not for immigration, the population of Manitoba would have actually decreased, so immigration has been so critically important to the province. Manitoba has a certain amount of control, though nowhere near as much control as, let us say, what the Province of Quebec has. I have never heard government officials in Manitoba saying that we have too many immigrants coming to the province of Manitoba. Does the hon. member feel that there are too many immigrants going to the province of Quebec? It seems to me that the Province of Quebec has more jurisdiction in terms of handling the numbers coming into its province than other provinces do.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc wants to personalize it to the immigrant who is coming to Canada, and that is great. We should all put the immigrant who is coming to Canada first. One of my greatest frustrations is recognizing immigrants who come to Canada as health care professionals. However, primarily through provincial jurisdictions, their credentials are not being recognized. This puts a huge obligation on those immigrants to go through education facilities and so many other barriers that are put in place. That is one reason that I would love to see a resolution similar to this, but that deals with issues that would have a positive outcome for immigrants. The member talks about targets. Should we not be incorporating the need to recognize the credentials with which individual immigrants are coming to Canada? Does he think that all provinces need to do more in getting rid of some of those barriers so that they are able to use their education and experience from their home countries?

Mr. Speaker, I have always cautioned some members not to throw stones in glass houses. The member talks about processing times. When I was in opposition, and I am sure the member does not have the paper for this, the processing times for people getting married was three or four years, easy. Those were the types of calls I was getting. We could talk about sponsoring parents and grandparents. The Conservatives actually killed that program. They ended it. We can look at the numbers when it was going, and processing times before they ended it were eight or nine years. My question to the member is not related to processing times but to the provincial government's role in identifying people who are coming to the provinces. Manitoba alone, through the provincial nominee program, which was a Jean Chrétien creation, provides more economic immigrants coming to the province than any other program. Does the member not recognize that provinces also have a role to play when it comes to the type of immigrants coming to Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We witnessed this yesterday and, once again, we are starting to see it today, where members of the Conservative Party will stand up and start off their speeches with dialogue on the price on pollution, the thing they actually supported back in the last election, and being critical of the government. It is not relevant to the debate at hand. I get the feeling that we are going to see more and more of that throughout the day. Members should be cautioned regarding staying relevant to the debate at hand.

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the Manitoba provincial nominee program has been absolute gold for the province. One of the biggest concerns I have in Manitoba today is with respect to international students. Provinces, through the nominee program, have an opportunity to ensure they can maximize the ability of international students who study, for example, in Manitoba, to obtain a provincial nominee certificate, which would ultimately allow them to become permanent residents. I am a big advocate for that. Can the member provide his thoughts on that aspect of the provincial nominee program and on how international students could benefit from it?

Madam Speaker, one of the areas under the targeted list is the provincial nominee programs. Through provincial nominee programs, the provinces lead the way by recognizing the individuals they will be bringing into the country. In Manitoba, for example, the majority of immigrants in the last 10 years have come under that particular program. Would the hon. member acknowledge that even the province of Quebec has far more control over immigration and the types of people coming into the province? Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to the provincial responsibility to support the settlement of immigrants and the types of occupations they are filling?

Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any provincial jurisdiction in Canada that says Canada needs to allow fewer immigrants into the country, not officially at least. I have not heard that. I am curious as to whether the leader of the Bloc Party is aware of any provinces in Canada that have taken the line that we are allowing too many immigrants into the country. What I often hear is that we have a huge shortage of labour, particularly in the health care field. The member talked about credentials. One of my greatest frustrations is that barriers are put in place, usually through provinces and organizations within the provinces, to prevent credentials from being recognized. I am thinking specifically of health care workers, who seem to be in demand in every province in Canada. Could he expand on what he believes is necessary in order to get credentials recognized? At the same time, could he indicate to me any province that says fewer immigrants should be coming to Canada?