Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, periodically, we hear members across the way talk about trade, and they try to glorify the Conservatives. It reminds me of Maurice Richard, the great hockey player, the Rocket. He knew how to get the puck in the net. I would say that the current Deputy Prime Minister is kind of like the Rocket: She gets the puck in the net when it comes to trade agreements. That was a sidetrack as I make reference to trade agreements. When we talk about international trade and all the agreements that are out there, a message we are sending to the world is that Canada is very much open to the world economy. We want to be engaged in foreign investment. Today, we are debating an important piece of legislation because it would modernize it, after 14 years of no real changes, and would ensure that Canadian interests are best served from economic and security points of view. Would the member not agree that the principles of that legislation would be good for business?

Madam Speaker, as in the past, the government has brought forward very positive legislation. It went to committee. Ministers and committee members with very open minds saw a number of amendments passed through the committee. The government was very supportive of some of the amendments that were proposed. Other amendments were questionable, but at the end of the day, with what we have before us today, we will see a better, more modern act. Hopefully, the government amendments will pass. That would be in the best interests of all Canadians, given the changes in technology, with AI and the amount of interest around the world, in terms of investing in Canada. This bill is in the best interest of Canadians, both economically and security-wise. Would the member not agree that it is sound legislation and even that it would be nice to see the legislation pass before Christmas?

Mr. Speaker, I think at times Conservatives are challenged when it comes time to look at the reality of what is taking place not only in our communities, but around the world. First and foremost, it is important for us to recognize that Canadians are, in fact, hurting. We are very much concerned about inflation rates, interest rates and the whole issue of affordability. We do not need to be lectured by Conservatives who have the mentality that the way to resolve things is to just cut, aimed recklessly at where it is they would like to take the country and at a huge risk. That is the Conservative way. We have been consistent. Let us compare Canada to any other country. Let us look at the U.S. or the G20 countries, from Germany to France to England, and what they have for interest rates and what is happening with inflation. In comparison, Canada is doing relatively well. That gets completely lost on Conservatives, because they have a specific agenda of trying to say that everything in the country is broken. They are like the Prince of Darkness. They have nothing to say that is positive about the economy, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created and the supports that have been put into place. That does not mean that we do not have to provide additional support. We have legislation before us, which Conservatives continue to filibuster, that is going to put money into the pockets of Canadians and ensure we see thousands more homes being built. I have news for the member opposite and the Conservative Party. No government in the last 50 or 60 years has invested more into housing. Stephen Harper was an absolute failure when it came to investing in housing. One of the reasons we have a shortage today is because of the former government's inability to have affordable housing. It was this government that came up with the housing strategy that ultimately led to millions of dollars of investment into the repair of affordable housing, and thousands of affordable homes. It is this government that has supported things such as infill housing through non-profit agencies and working with provincial entities to ensure that we can improve Canada's housing stock. Compare that to Stephen Harper. Yes, we have seen substantial growth, and growth throughout the pandemic, which had created very difficult times for a lot of people. Let us put it in the proper perspective, in a context that is fair, which is something Conservatives are not. I think $300 million was spent on 99 homes built. The reality is Conservatives were missing in action when it came to the issue of affordability in housing. There is no doubt they did not believe there was a federal role, that the national government should play a strong leadership role. That is the absolute opposite of us. When it comes time to deal with things such as interest rates and the issue of inflation, the member's leader said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Now he is glorifying him and putting him on a pedestal when a number of months ago he said he would fire him. Those are the flip-flop policies we cannot count on. It is risky to go with Conservatives. I can say that much.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member is presenting the case. In the agricultural sector, there are many strong advocacy groups and farmer personalities. They are always very happy, I have found in the past, to share their opinions. Many of us recognize that we need to do more for the environment. When we are doing that, there is no intention to devastate an industry. The diversification of crops benefits not only the farmer but also all the communities in many different ways. We could talk about what we see on the food table for Canadian products and of the overall future through diversification. I love the amount of diversity we have witnessed. Being from a Prairie province, I think of strawberries from Portage la Prairie, which irrigation plays a role in. The member made reference to potatoes. Manitoba grows a lot of potatoes, too, and irrigation is important. I am sympathetic to what the member is saying, and I am going to have—

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion we have before us. I want to address a couple of the points. I always find it interesting that, when we get into debates on motions or private members' bills, sometimes individuals will read into them things that are not necessarily there from the sponsor's perspective. I have seen that before. When I look at this particular motion, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has done a wonderful job in identifying an issue that is very important to many people. Most people would be quite surprised. Some might say that the centre of a runway or the total length of a runway is a bit of a nuance. I was in air traffic control before, posted in Edmonton. It has the longest runway in the Commonwealth. A space shuttle could land on it. I can recall the fire hall's having drills, and I can say that it takes quite a while to get down a 14,000-foot runway. I can understand and appreciate that every second counts. We need to recognize that when members bring forward motions, not very many of them will pass in the life of a session. The member has been inspired to bring this issue forward, and I suspect it might have had something to do with discussions we had about recognizing cancer agents for firefighters. The government was made aware of this in a very real and tangible way by another member of the chamber, the former deputy House leader. By their raising the issue, the public and the House of Commons became more familiar with it and ultimately passed legislation. Today, firefighters from coast to coast to coast have benefited from that. The motion my colleague from British Columbia has brought forward deals with the issue of safety. When we canvass about different professions and ask which ones Canadians really respond positively to, I suggest that firefighters are close to the top of the list. I will not say where politicians are. When I think of the firefighters in the community I represent, Winnipeg North, I have an incredible amount of confidence in people like Alex Forrest and the associations that not only advocate for the safety of their membership but also ensure that Canadians are safe, whether they are in their homes or in international or domestic airports. To be honest, I had no idea that firefighters at airports are not allowed to go into a plane. That surprises me. I think it would surprise a lot of people. The other point that is raised in the motion is that the location of fire halls is also important. If there is a three-minute standard and the location of a fire hall could make the difference, then why would we not give some sort of consideration to that? Across the way, some would ask why the member brought this forward in the form of a motion as opposed to talking to the department. After all, it is a so-called regulation, and the regulation should be changed, as one member across the aisle pointed out. However, the member also indicated that this has been an issue for many years, for decades. Let us not try to make it a political partisan issue. Let us believe that the member has taken an initiative during private members' hour and that he feels that, at the very least, he now has a mandate to be able to bring it to a standing committee. Not only are we having a debate here, but if it passes the chamber, it can also get the standing committee engaged. I think there was one member who spoke, talking about whether the matter should be brought to a standing committee. I love the answer that was provided. We are setting this as the goal, saying that people need to be aware of this. This motion makes us all aware of a very important issue. In terms of how it is actually implemented, the standing committee could assist in that. Members who want to pick up the ball from where the member has brought it to now, to date, could ultimately bring it to a standing committee. The committee could work out the different ways in which it can actually be implemented. If at some point in time, unlike in the last 40 or 50 years, it is determined that this could be done, I think there would be a greater likelihood today that we would actually see the change as a direct result of the initiative from the private member. This is if a standing committee has also taken a look, and, through the standing committee, there have been invites to professionals, whether firefighters or municipalities, to come forward to make presentations. I do not think we should be discouraging private members from identifying issues that are important to them. We should be encouraging it. Through that, we get the type of changes into the future that can really make a difference. I respect that about the member's motion. As I said, as a member of the Canadian Forces, I sat out in a tower. It is no longer there, as this was a few years back. I do not want to date myself, but I can say that one builds up a bit of a relationship and sees the practice that is taken, and justifiably so. Our firefighters take their jobs seriously. They are very quick to respond. There is a standard that we are talking about, in terms of three minutes, and maybe it is time that we try to raise the profile of this issue to a degree where we can see some specific action. That may mean, at the end of the day, that the municipalities and Ottawa need to work together and maybe even bring in the provinces. Our airports are economic engines. They provide so much to our communities, and they need to be safe. That is why, ultimately, when I would see the fire trucks going out onto runway 29-11, back at Lancaster Park, I saw first-hand the types of responses. I must say that they actually did, at least in the military, even more than that, by going out. There are other types of benefits. They are not just direct but also indirect. I hope that members will, in fact, support my colleague's motion with the idea that the issue has now hit a point in time where we will at least have some sort of discussion on how it can actually be done. Then we can work on ways in which we can improve the issue of safety at our airports. I thank the member for bringing the resolution forward.

Mr. Speaker, the slogans and the bumper stickers will do well under the Conservatives, leading up from now until whenever the next campaign is going to be. The Conservatives are more concerned about character assassination. They are more concerned about saying how broken Canada is and about getting as many people as possible worked with anxiety. They are not interested in resolving issues, because when it comes time for them to actually step up to the plate and put money in the pockets of Canadians, they choose to play games and filibuster. That is the reality. All we have to do is take a look at what the members have actually done. One can take a look at the affordability legislation and moving motions of adjournment and concurrence motions. There is not enough time for me to explain to the member how much of a game this is for the Conservative Party. We take it seriously.

Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about a very important issue, and there is no doubt about that. I am very sympathetic to the farmer, and also very understanding of the Conservative Party's positioning on the issue of the price on pollution, or carbon tax, whatever one wants to call it. When it comes to farmers, I do believe there have been some healthy discussions with different ministers, in particular the Minister of Agriculture, who has been following this issue very closely. We want to ensure, as much as possible, we are helping farmers. At times I too get frustrated. I remember when I was in opposition and there were huge ships out in the Pacific Ocean that were not able to come in and pick up the wheat piles all over the Prairies. The wheat, in many cases, was getting wet, and there were serious issues back then. The member would know, if he recalls, at the time there was that issue along with the one of the Canadian wheat board. I bring this up because I do very much follow agriculture and the importance of food supply. Canada plays a critical role in this whole area. I would like to think, given the number of stakeholders out there, that they will continue to work with not only the federal government but provincial jurisdictions, and to a certain degree the many municipalities. We need to ensure farmers are supported in a very real and tangible way. However, then the member brings in the issue of the carbon tax. As the member is very much aware, it is very much an issue of contention in Ottawa nowadays. The Conservative Party says it will get rid of the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, and its members have made that commitment. If by chance, whether it is in two years, four years, six years or eight years, they ever get the opportunity to govern, I suspect there is a very good chance that commitment will happen. I say that tongue in cheek to a certain degree because in the last campaign, they actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution. When it was in the election platform, did they exempt the farmer? If not, why did they not do that? I would be very much interested in knowing if the member is aware of that. Having said that, I realize there has been a change, but it is an important point. It demonstrates consistency of party policy. The member knows full well the government's position on the price on pollution and the carbon tax. We will continue to provide rebates. We should continue to have dialogue with farmers and see how the government can continue to work with the agricultural community to ensure it is able to continue to grow and prosper. The agricultural community as a whole is one of the greatest environmentalists in the nation. On many of the techniques and ways it cultivates land, we lead the world. We also lead the world in many different ways when it comes to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to what the Speaker said on Thursday, October 19, when he raised two items for Private Members' Business that appeared to infringe on the Crown's financial imperative and asked members to bring forward interventions on these matters. Without commenting on the subject matter of the two bills in question, I submit that Bill C-353, sponsored by the member for Thornhill, and Bill C-356, sponsored by the member for Carleton, both infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative and that both bills require a royal recommendation. Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-353 relating to the programs to encourage co-operation provides that: The Minister may, in cooperation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, establish and implement programs designed to encourage individuals to co-operate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada. Subclause 21(2) of Bill C-353 further provides that “the Minister may pay a monetary reward to the individual who provides that information in an amount and manner determined by the Minister.” I submit, respectfully, that there is no authority in statute or in an appropriation to establish such a program set out in subclause 21(1), nor the authority to make payments subject to the provisions set out in subclause 21(2). Therefore, subclause 21(1), in toto, seeks to impose a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund in a manner that is not currently authorized. Turning to Bill C-356, I submit that the repurposing of $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and the provision to give effect to a 100% GST rebate on the new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate both seek to infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative. First, the housing accelerator fund was established as a program administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is funded by a voted appropriation by Parliament through the estimates process. The member is seeking to change the terms and conditions and the purposes of the housing accelerator fund in a manner that is inconsistent with the program parameters as established and that therefore deviates from the authority granted by Parliament. The tabling of the main estimates and supplementary estimates is preceded by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General for voted appropriations. That royal recommendation sets the maximum amount, the purpose and the terms and conditions of the voted appropriations contained in the estimates documents and voted upon by Parliament. Second, the 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property would be a rebate paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for which a builder, landlord or buyer could claim the said rebate. I would point out that Bill C-56, which also proposes a 100% GST rebate for purpose-built rental housing, while different in design, was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Since, when brought into force, it would create a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund, it stands to reason that the program for which the terms, purposes and conditions of the GST rebate envisioned in Bill C-356 cannot rely on the royal recommendation provided with Bill C-56. Bill C-356 must, similarly, require a new royal recommendation to authorize a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund.

Mr. Speaker, it a pleasure to table today a petition signed by many residents of Manitoba. They are calling on the Government of Canada to work with the provincial jurisdictions in dealing with, in particular in this case, health care professionals, specifically nurses in the province of Manitoba, and the important role that Ottawa plays in working with the provinces to address credentials being recognized, the shortage of health care workers and so forth. It is a pleasure for me to table the petition.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc is supporting the bill. This trade agreement, from an economic point of view, is an agreement that would benefit both Canada and Ukraine, but that is not the aspect I want to pick up on. The member spoke a great deal about the special and wonderful relationship between Canada and Ukraine. We have an opportunity here with the passage of this legislation to make a very powerful statement that would go far beyond just the economics. It could deal with everything from the illegal invasion of the Putin war to morale boosting on the front lines of Ukrainian freedom fighters. The question I have for the member is this: Would he not agree with me that it would be a wonderful thing to ultimately see this bill pass through all stages, including the Senate, before the end of this year?

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the member's concerns with the consultations. I am sure she can appreciate the fact that we have a negotiating team representing Canada. This is a team of individuals who have great experience. They have an understanding and, no doubt, have had considerable dialogue with respect to all the different issues, including what has happened in some of the debates that have occurred in here in the past with respect to trade agreements and the concerns about them. A good example of that would be the issue of supply management. These individuals know full well how political entities and others feel about supply management. The general feelings of Canadians are reflected at the beginning of the negotiations and throughout the negotiations to ensure that Canadians are best served. Would the member not agree that at some point we have to allow the Canadian negotiators to actually get the agreement, so that the heads of both governments are able to sign off and we are afforded the opportunity to have further ongoing discussions?

Madam Speaker, toward the end of his comments, the member said that we could be leaders here, and the member is right. What we are seeing is legislation that would clearly demonstrate Canada's leadership in the world. This would be the first trade agreement for Ukraine at a time when it is going through a war, as we all know. We all want to give that support to Ukraine in whatever way we can. The general consensus seems to be that the House is in favour of the legislation. The legislation, if passed, would not only be economically in the best interests of both Canada and Ukraine, but would send many other positive messages. We are the first country that would have an agreement with Ukraine during a war. I am wondering if the member will join the leadership being demonstrated, get behind the bill and hopefully agree we need to see it pass before Christmas. Would he not agree with that?

Madam Speaker, the member has to know I am going to challenge him on saying that Stephen Harper had 40-plus signed trade agreements. History and the facts will very clearly show that the member is wrong. In fact, those were agreements that were signed by this government. The bottom line is it is good. The Conservative Party supports the agreements that we actually were able to bring across the goal line and get signed. I see that as a good thing. The trade agreement that we are debating today goes far beyond just the economic benefits for both Canada and Ukraine. At a time when we are seeing the war taking place, the illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine, we can send a very powerful message that goes well past the economic benefits. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on the importance of that message, whether that is to Putin, that we are moving forward with a trade agreement with Ukraine, and that is a very positive thing for both countries.

Madam Speaker, within Bill C-57, there are references to our environment. There are references to unions and labour standards, if I can put it that way. When I look at previous agreements, I do believe we are moving the ball forward. The member makes reference to the World Trade Organization and so forth, and at the end of the day, this particular agreement would achieve a significant amount in the right direction with respect to the environment. My question to the member is this: Can she provide her thoughts about the Green Party's position with respect to this specific deal? Does she anticipate voting in favour of it?

Madam Speaker, I would like to address the member's opening comments. We need to put in perspective that this agreement was actually signed off on just last month, between the Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine. Now we have the legislation before us, which was done in a relatively quick fashion. We have to put it in the context of the fact that we have an illegal invasion by Russia into Ukraine. It is a time of war, when allied countries around the world are coming to support Ukraine. There is a huge sense of Ukrainian solidarity. Canada is the first country to actually enter into a trade agreement, even in a time of war. It is there not only for the economic benefits of both Canada and Ukraine but also to send the right type of messaging to the people of Ukraine and Russia. What are the member's thoughts on that?

Madam Speaker, I will ask more of a general question regarding trade. The member wants to talk a lot about the oil and gas industry. One option he may want to consider is to recommend to his House leadership team that the Conservatives have an opposition day to talk about that issue. For me, trade equals good-quality middle-class jobs. No government in recent history has done more to advance the issue of trade than this government has. Over a million jobs were created pre-pandemic when we first came into office. It demonstrates clearly that it has an impact. On this trade agreement, it is more than just the economic benefits for Canada and Ukraine. It also sends a very strong and powerful message with respect to the war going on in Ukraine. One of the ways we can send a strong message is to get behind this legislation and see if we can get it passed before Christmas. What does he have to say about that?

Madam Speaker, to pick up on my colleague's question, given the war taking place in Europe today, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the messaging that could be sent by the House of Commons in having the bill pass before Christmas, having gone through the system. Would he see that as a positive thing, not only economically but with all the other messaging that could be tied to it?

Madam Speaker, we have heard a great number of members talk about how important the trade agreement is from the perspective of what is taking place today in Europe, which is the war and the illegal occupation of Russia in Ukraine. We have seen a united front on that. On September 22, the President of Ukraine was here, and President Zelenskyy signed this trade agreement. Today we are debating the trade agreement. My question to the member is something I posed to other members of his caucus. Given the very nature of this particular trade agreement, which has many economic benefits for both Canada and Ukraine, would he provide his thoughts on the powerful message this would send if it were to pass before Christmas? It would be the first trade agreement for Ukraine since the war has begun.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bloc members are supportive of the legislation. Economic trade agreements are very positive overall for the nation in that they create all forms of middle-class jobs, opportunities for entrepreneurs and so forth. We have seen that first-hand. However, this is a unique trade agreement in the sense that it is with Ukraine, and Ukraine is at war. I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on how the House passing this legislation in a timely fashion could have a very positive impact in Europe, given the war taking place today.

Mr. Speaker, the other day I talked about how reckless the opposition party is. It can be a great risk to talk about many of the things it talks about. I would like to suggest that, when it comes to the reckless behaviour of a political party, all one really needs to do to get an appreciation of that is to listen to how the Conservative Party has been talking about COVID-19. We have a very active ongoing interest in COVID. Contrary to what some Conservatives might believe about COVID-19, people are still testing positive for it today. It is very important, not only for the federal government but also other levels of government of all political stripes, to recognize the health hazard that was caused as a direct result of COVID-19. It varied depending on population and density in different regions of our country. That is one of the reasons we took a team Canada approach to dealing with COVID-19. It was a worldwide issue, a pandemic that did not spare any country. Here in Canada, we had strong leadership coming from the Prime Minister's office, all the way down, working with the different provinces, municipalities, indigenous leaders, not to mention numerous stakeholders and some opposition parties. It was taken very seriously. We saw some provinces even put in a curfew. Most provinces had mandatory masking put into place. A couple of the Conservatives are a little sensitive about this because they opposed all that in many different ways. They certainly did act as if they were very proud of that fact, which is good for them.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, there are many Conservatives who opposed mandatory masking, no matter whether it was coming from progressive Conservative provincial governments or from the Government of Canada in certain situations. The difference is that those who were in power, the provincial governments, municipalities and the federal government relied on health care professionals, individuals who had the expertise as opposed to—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your trying to tame the Conservatives on this particular issue. What transpired, virtually from day one of the pandemic, was an educational curve for all of us. We saw things, such as the importance of masking, become a reality. Initially, that was not necessarily being advocated for. We learned the importance of washing ones hands and of ventilation for collections of people in groups. We also saw different provinces in particular coming to the table with their health experts, recognizing something that the Conservatives did not recognize, which was that it was a public health issue. Contrary to what the Conservative Party tries to espouse, vaccinations worked. Vaccinations made a difference. That is why we saw the different provinces and stakeholders get behind it in a very significant way. There were some protests. We saw that first-hand. We saw a number of Conservative members of Parliament who went out to protesters, gave them a pat on the back and applauded them for what they were doing. Public health, what the City of Ottawa was going through and what was happening at border crossings, with billions of dollars put at risk, did not matter. The reckless direction coming from the Conservative Party was truly amazing.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that members have come in to listen to me getting wound up over an important issue. We got a lot of resistance when we started talking about the behaviour of some of the Conservatives. I truly believe that there some who recognize the importance of public health and see the value of vaccinations, but a good portion do not, and this is from the leader down. The person who really gave birth to this legislation was the leader of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker, not all of them are clapping, we will notice, because they recognize the irresponsible behaviour and the reckless attitude the Conservative leader has taken on this legislation. He has passed it on to another member, but the fact still remains that, as a health issue, we have seen other jurisdictions of different political parties recognize that vaccinations do in fact work. They care about the environment that people work in and want safe working environments. When people board an aircraft or a tube in the sky, air ventilation is important. These are the types of things about which we should all be concerned. The only ones who seem not to care are in the official opposition, the Conservatives. I do not know if they have mustered any other support, but I do not think they have. I do not think there is another political entity in the House of Commons that is against vaccines, let alone within provincial governments, especially since provincial governments put in things such as curfews, mandatory masking and wanting to get vaccines to the public. Many of them took the initiative of providing proof of vaccination. They should take a flip-flop on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and address the House. Whenever we talk about the Standing Orders and procedures, I have a keen interest in the issue. I know there are some members, I would suggest probably more than most, who follow the procedures of the House and take a very keen interest when it comes time to change the rules. Every year after an election, we have set in our rules the opportunity to review our Standing Orders. As I have in the past, I know the member for Elmwood—Transcona, who is proposing the motion we have before us, has had the opportunity to address the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are of great importance to all of us. They are one of the things that add to the fundamental principles of our democratic process in the debates and proceedings that take place right here inside this beautiful chamber. In representing our constituents back home from all regions of the country, we are able to do a lot of wonderful things through this chamber. Those wonders are often achieved through the rules in our proceedings, the Standing Orders. What the member is proposing is a substantial change to our Standing Orders. Let there be no doubt about that. I can appreciate that the member is trying to get some certainty or is trying, from his perspective, to simplify the whole issue of confidence and what determines a confidence vote. Over the years, I have had the opportunity, both in opposition and now in government, and hopefully in government for a few more years, to understand and appreciate the importance of a confidence vote. When the Prime Minister became leader of the party, we talked a lot about how members vote. It is one of the reasons why, when we have private members' bills, we will often see members of the Liberal caucus voting in different ways. It is because the vote is not made to be compulsory, as if we have to vote as a caucus, generally speaking, on private members' bills. There are some circumstances where the votes are whipped such that it is, in fact, compulsory for members to vote as a team, if I can put it that way. That has been long-held parliamentary tradition, whether it is here in Ottawa or in provincial jurisdictions. There are some areas where there is very little wiggle room and other areas where, as I pointed out with the private members' bills, there is a lot more grace given to members in what they feel personally about a particular issue. Let me give members the ultimate example regarding a confidence vote. We all know the Government of Canada has to present a budget. That budget will have a series of days for debate, and after that debate comes to a conclusion, it will then come to a vote. I am not aware of any political party here in Ottawa, whether it is that of the current Prime Minister or the previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, or aware of any premier in my years of experience at the Manitoba legislature, whether from NDP governments or Progressive Conservative governments, allowing any latitude to be given whatsoever on a budget vote. I realize the consequence and significance of mandatory voting with one's team. In fact, when I was first elected back in 1988, there was an election because of a confidence vote. There was a razor-thin majority at the time, and one government member voted against the government, which precipitated an election call. That enabled me to get elected back in 1988. That was my very first experience with regard to the importance of confidence votes. A confidence vote, if it goes negative, will bring down the government. In 1986 the government had a majority, and in that situation back in 1988, because of one individual, that majority was lost. Today, in a minority situation, parties have to come together. There is an agreement of sorts between the governing Liberals and the NDP. I believe there is a fairly decent understanding between the two entities in recognizing that Canadians do not want an election now. They want to see more co-operation take place on the floor of the House of Commons on different initiatives. We are seeing that. We are seeing co-operation in areas such as the dental plan. We are seeing co-operation in many of the different discussions between departments on policies, legislation and so forth. I see that as a positive thing. That is what Canadians want. At the end of the day, when we want to change a rule, especially a rule of this nature, I recommend to my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona, who is very genuine and sincere in what he is proposing, that there needs to be more discussion before it even comes to the floor because of the impact it would have on other aspects of the Standing Orders. I can see this in legislation we passed as a government. I am thinking of our child care legislation. Even though many would argue it was not a confidence vote, there was no doubt that the government, with absolute certainty, wanted to see that legislation pass. We made it very clear that the expectation of the government was to see that legislation pass. However, even if the legislation had not passed, it would not necessarily have triggered an election, because of the traditions of the House. When does an election get triggered? We have a budget introduced every year, we have throne speeches and we have budget implementation legislation. Those are all well-established, traditional votes that have taken place in parliaments here in Canada, federally and provincially, whereby if the vote is lost, it causes the Governor General or the Lieutenant Governor to take action. In a minority situation, some might argue that the Lieutenant Governor or the Governor General has the option to look to the official opposition or the next party with the largest number of seats to see if, in fact, parties can be put together to form a government. A lot depends on where we are in the mandate. There are a lot of issues out there that are unknown. Today, there is a lot of stability, as we know what those confidence votes are. We know those confidence votes take place every year at different parts of the year. I think that provides a high sense of accountability. This is a very lengthy motion. I appreciate the effort the member put into it, but I have not been convinced that it is strong enough to change the status quo, prorogation and so forth. I believe the system has worked well for us in the past. It gets parties to come together to negotiate, to talk and to work on agreements. We have had agreements with all different political parties, depending on the type of legislation we are debating. It is not just with one opposition party. The current system allows for the type of stability Canadians want to see and expect of the government. It obligates us to have a higher sense of co-operation. I can tell members that it can be frustrating. I have stood up on many occasions to talk about the frustrations of being in a minority situation. However, I accept it in the hope that common sense will prevail on the floor of the House with respect to trying to get legislative and budgetary measures through so that all Canadians can be better served.

Mr. Speaker, do not feel too regretful, as the member for Elmwood—Transcona gets a five-minute right of reply and did get the opportunity to address the chamber for 20 minutes about the issue. I want to highlight something I did not during my first 10 minutes of debate about the issue. Members talk about and mock, quite frankly, the use of proroguing a session. In fact, it is something that can be justified on occasion. We saw that the last time it was invoked with the current Prime Minister. We need to realize that the pandemic was not something unique to Canada; it was happening around the world. It was important that the House of Commons refocus, from what was taking place in the House to was happening around the world and the impact it was having on Canadians. That is why there was a need to do it. Members will recall there was a throne speech that followed, which set the agenda and provided the assurances Canadians were looking for, given the very nature of what was happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. As members will recall, the Government of Canada made it very clear it wanted to have the backs of Canadians. We wanted to focus our attention on a team Canada approach in dealing with the worldwide pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, as you have indicated, the member does not lose any time whatsoever. This is private members' hour and we will use the full hour, as we have often done. The emphasis I was trying to make is the fact that the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus made it very clear that we wanted to focus the attention on the pandemic that was hitting Canada from coast to coast to coast. That was the need and it was justified. At the end of the day, I am somewhat sympathetic to what the member for Elmwood—Transcona is saying, but I do not necessarily believe there is a need to change the rules.

Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about the aggressive approach this government has had, virtually since 2015, in recognizing the importance of international trade and how it supports Canada's middle class. In fact, no government in the history of Canada has signed off on more trade agreements than this government. That is a fact. The member opposite, at the beginning of his speech, said they did this, they did that and they had this in the making. It was this government that ultimately signed and brought to a conclusion a number of deals that have been critically important for fostering more trade between Canada and countries around the world, whether it is the United States, Mexico or those in Europe and Asia. Would the member not recognize that this is yet another agreement modifying an agreement signed off by the current Deputy Prime Minister a number of years ago and is a positive step forward that both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from?

Mr. Speaker, this is much like the legislation a few years back that was signed off on. It seemed to have received virtually unanimous support of the House, very close to it, and there was a high sense of co-operation in trying to get that legislation through. The legislation now before us would be a modernization of that legislation. The member talked about how the province of Quebec could really benefit by this, and jurisdictions all over Canada would, in fact, benefit. The member made reference, for example, to the pork industry. Manitoba is very much into the pork industry and also would benefit, not only in that sector but also in other areas. In Canada, there are 1.3 million-plus estimated people of Ukrainian heritage, not to mention the hundreds of thousands, perhaps into the millions, of other Canadians who are following what is taking place in Ukraine today. My question to the member is this: Would he not agree that this legislation would be in good part a win-win for both nations? Now is a great time to try to see this legislation pass, before the end of the year. Would he not agree that this would be a good thing to see happen?

Mr. Speaker, I would point out the fact that Canada is very fortunate. We have a team of negotiators who have a great deal of experience, years and years of it. I would suggest that Canada is probably second to no other nation in the world in terms of its ability to negotiate. We have always taken the position that it has to be in Canada's best interest first and foremost. The member seems to be very concerned about the government's going it alone. I would provide some assurances that through the agreements in the past, a few dozen agreements, we have witnessed a team that has achieved a good deal for Canada. Canada has been consulted by the many different stakeholders. Would the member not agree that at some point in time, we have to allow the negotiators to do their job and get the agreement, and that we cannot change the agreement after it has been signed off on?

Mr. Speaker, I would basically like to follow up on the last question and answer it because I think that is something that needs to be taken into consideration. The overriding thing has got to be the issue of trade agreements in principle and how it is that Canada has been a major benefactor through world trade. We are very much a trading nation. For us to be able to hit the potential that Canada has in the future, we are very much dependant on international trade. All one needs to do is to take a look at any province, territory or community and the impact that international trade has had on every one of us in Canada. It affects us all. When we talk about good-quality, middle-class jobs, these are the ways in which we are going to be able to get many of those middle-class jobs. This government has been focused on that virtually from day one, the importance of the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. That has been a priority of this government. How can one make it a priority and not deal with the issue of trade? That is the reason, and I put this forward in the form of a question earlier, there is no government in the history of Canada that has signed more trade agreements than the current Prime Minister and the government. Contrary to how the member tried to respond in his question, one cannot change history. That is the reality. The reason why we have recognized the value of international trade and how that helps all of us is that we have seen the results of it, the growth in the economy. Prepandemic, we had already exceeded over a million additional jobs. That was prepandemic, based on the type of economic polices that were being developed and implemented here in Canada. It was having a positive impact. The original Ukraine agreement was one of the first ones that was signed off on. I believe it was the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister who went to Ukraine and signed off on it. A few years later, President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister met and had a discussion about how important it was that we modernize that particular agreement. There were a number of things they felt could be done to improve the agreement. There were sound negotiations, which I made reference to earlier. We are very fortunate because of the number of trade agreements and memoranda of understanding we have been able to put into place. We have an incredible team of negotiators who negotiate on Canada's behalf. I would ultimately argue that they are second to no other team in the world. They have been at it, and we have accomplished so many agreements. Members ask about this or that region, what is taking place in this or that region or how we feel as the House of Commons. I suspect that, whether or not it is in debates after previous agreements, the experiences and the discussions that take place with the many different stakeholders, whether municipalities, provinces, indigenous people or many other stakeholders, leading into the negotiations, give a very good sense of what would work well for us as a nation. Ultimately, one could say that the proof is in the pudding. Look at the number of agreements that Canada now has with other countries. No other country has the same sort of access as Canada does around the world, even the United States, with those formal agreements. We have been aggressive in recognizing the importance of achieving these agreements because all of us benefit through them. I define the benefits as raising the standard of living for Canadians and creating thousands of good-quality middle-class jobs, which provide the type of revenue that supports the government in bringing forward good government programs. This is where the focus of the government has been. We look at the agreement being debated today, and I am sensitive to what is being said with respect to the input before signing. Why are we now being asked to either agree or not agree with it by way of a question? I think it is important to recognize the process by which the negotiations take place. The Prime Minister cannot take a document, sit down with the President of Ukraine and say that this is the agreement per our negotiators and the feedback we have received from literally hundreds if not thousands of stakeholders, who are now signing off on it, much like we would not expect the Ukrainian Parliament to try to change the agreement itself. That is how it has worked for a while now, and it has been very successful. Members have made reference to wanting to see a bit of a change. Let us put that in a different perspective. I could be wrong on this, but if memory serves me correctly, this could be the first time in modern history where a trade agreement is being achieved when one of the countries is at war. Ukraine has a lot of things on its plate right now, yet as a country, it recognizes just how important it is to look at securing the modernization of a trade agreement. It says a lot when a country at war is looking to Canada, which has been a dear friend to Ukraine, saying how important it is that we have a modern trade agreement. That was a president to a prime minister. It was signed off last month, in September. Given all the other issues we are facing, how often do I stand in the chamber to talk about the impacts of inflation, how it is hurting Canadians, the issue of interest rates and so many other issues? As a government, we recognize how important it is that we continue to push on the file between Canada and Ukraine in a tangible way. If we put it in the perspective of Ukraine being at war, given our previous negotiations and achievements through trade agreements, in particular the Ukraine trade agreement, I think there is a valid argument to be made that there is absolutely nothing wrong with allowing this legislation to, at the very least, go to committee. I realize this is day one of the debate, but what concerns me is that the Conservatives' critic, in particular, has indicated that they want to have a more thorough debate, but there was no indication as to how long they would like to debate it. I am hoping that they, in particular, will not use House and procedural tactics to filibuster this legislation. The stakeholders, whether in Ukraine or Canada, see the benefit of having this type of legislation pass. Personally, I would like to see it go to the Senate before Christmas because it still has to pass at the Senate, which is very much doable. I want to emphasize this: We all talk about what is happening in Ukraine today, with the illegal invasion of Russia into its sovereign territory. Here we have an opportunity to make a very powerful statement by believing in our negotiators. Members have a copy of the agreement. Even New Democrats voted in favour of the original Ukraine trade agreement. Collectively, as a House, we can send a very strong message to Europe and to Ukraine by saying that Canada is going to be there for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. This trade agreement would empower more economic commerce between the two nations. It would enable a wider spectrum of services and goods. It would put into place dispute mechanisms. Ukraine will prevail over Russia. When that happens, it is going to need and want to see its allied countries come to the table. Canada will be there. This is one of the ways we can be there in a real way. That is why I would suggest that we should deal with this legislation in the same format as we did for the first piece and allow it to pass relatively quickly.

Mr. Speaker, prior to question period, we were talking about the importance of trade agreements to the nation. At the beginning of my comments, I highlighted how Canada was very much a trading nation. When I look at this modernization of the Ukraine trade agreement, I note that the original one was signed not that long ago, but a lot of things have changed since that. With respect to modernizing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, I cannot help but think about what is taking place in Europe today and everything Ukraine is going through. Allied forces and others have said, both in the House and beyond Canadian borders, that they are in solidarity with Ukraine. There is support for Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. Trade relations with Ukraine go back to 2014 when Ukraine made the decision to try to build stronger, healthier economic links with the European Union. That was one of the reasons why we saw what took place, the attack on Ukraine independence and the Maidan Square. When I was in opposition, I had the opportunity to go and witness some of the aftermath. The people of Ukraine wanted to have enhanced trade relations with the European Union. The president of Ukraine, who was elected after 2014, came to Canada and spoke on the floor of the House of Commons, albeit in Centre Block. He said to former prime minister Stephen Harper and the government that Ukraine and Canada had a very special relationship, that their legislatures and members of Parliament should look at ways to enhance that. He cited the importance of trade and the potential of a trade agreement. I remember discussing it years ago with the minister, the current Deputy Prime Minister. We had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine, to be in Kyiv. We talked about the important relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the constitutional changes, the institutions and economic trade. I was very pleased with one of the very first agreements that begun prior to 2016, when the first agreement was signed. I was very proud of the fact that it responded to original speech in 2014, that there was some movement. However, I was especially proud of the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Deputy Prime Minister today were in a position to sign that formal agreement shortly after taking office. That in itself speaks to the special relationship between Canada and Ukraine. Let us fast forward to Russia making an illegal attack on Ukraine sovereignty. The reaction throughout the world was very profound and positive in favour of Ukraine, recognizing the importance of sovereignty. It has been at a substantial cost. Ukraine today is fighting for, and demonstrating the importance of this throughout the world, democracy, rule of law and sovereignty. The Ukrainians have really stepped up to the plate. With all the things that are taking place in Ukraine today, the Ukrainians have recognized the importance of trade agreements. The Prime Minister and the president met a couple of years ago. September 2022 is when the agreement was signed, but it was back in July 2019 that President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister agreed that we needed to do some sort of modernization to make some changes. These changes would ultimately broaden the goods and services, ensure a dispute mechanism and ensure better labour and working standards. We can look at how it would deal with environmental issues, and that is all within this particular trade agreement. The Prime Minister and the President of Ukraine came together, recognized the importance of it and, just last month, signed an agreement. Now that agreement is before us, and we have an opportunity, through this legislation, to make a very strong, powerful commitment to our dear friends in Ukraine. We talk about that special relationship. Canada has a very special relationship, which goes back to 1991, in declaring our support for Ukraine as an independent country. We often hear that 1.3 million-plus people who call Canada home are of Ukrainian heritage. There are tens of thousands of people who have been displaced from Ukraine because of the war who are now living in Canada, many in my home city of Winnipeg. This particular agreement makes a very powerful statement. Ukraine does matter. This agreement does matter. Both Canada and Ukraine will benefit from it. Trade agreements are one of the ways to ensure that we continue to provide and grow middle-class jobs, both here in Canada and in Ukraine. This is legislation that has been negotiated, as I indicated earlier, by some of the world's best negotiators when it comes to trade. I am confident that the deal would be advantageous, not only for Canada, but also for Ukraine. The Conservative Party's initial comments on their desire to have a lot of people speak to this legislation concern me. Hopefully we can get this legislation passed, through the Senate and all, before Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that we took a holistic approach to dealing with the relationship between Canada and Ukraine. At this time, with the war taking place in Europe, it is important to recognize that the trade agreement is one aspect of the type of support we can provide. There is the issue of infrastructure. As the member points out, there has been incredible damage to infrastructure. There are discussions taking place between Canada and Ukraine dealing with infrastructure. Even this trade agreement would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine. Ukraine will prevail, and this trade agreement we are talking about today would assist in the rebuilding of Ukraine. Just the other day I met with a young man by the name of Max. He is a Ukrainian intern I had a couple of years ago here in Canada, and he was talking about the importance of infrastructure. He understood that one of our standing committees will be looking at the issue of infrastructure, possibly dealing specifically with Ukraine. Over the lunch discussion I had with him, he was hoping to come back to add to that particular debate. Canada is supporting Ukraine in many different ways, but today we can send a very strong and powerful message, an economic message, talking about the trade relations and how both Canada and Ukraine would benefit by them.

Mr. Speaker, our trade negotiators, as I indicated earlier, are the best in the world. They really and truly are. We can just take a look at the number of agreements we have been able to achieve and what we have been able to achieve. They do their homework. Part of their homework is to take a look at the very many stakeholders in Canada. Canada is a big country with many different regions. One of that member's colleagues made reference to the pork industry. Manitoba and Quebec have very significant pork industries, and this trade agreement, at least in part, would enable more pork, from what I understand, to be sold. The negotiators ultimately put forward an agreement, which ultimately we and the Prime Minister have signed, much like Ukraine signs an agreement. If we already have the agreement signed, we really cannot change the agreement through legislation because that would potentially void the agreement that was signed. We are very much dependent on what was said in the standing committees and debates that take place here. They make sure our negotiators are informed and have a very good sense of what the different regions are and what the many different stakeholders are wanting to see, in how we develop as a nation and in world trade. All in all, I believe they have done exceptionally well, and our numbers clearly demonstrate that. As I say, we have created literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, and just over a million jobs prepandemic. A lot of that had to do with the many trade agreements we have signed.

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member's assessment. For those people who might be following the debate, let us be very clear on the whole issue of energy. In 10 years of the Stephen Harper government, how many miles of pipeline were put into place to tidewater? It is a bit of a trick question, but the short answer is zero. In 10 years, it was zero. We can contrast that to the first few years of this government, and there is absolutely no comparison. Conservatives are trying to spread misinformation, I would suggest, to say that we do not support industries. It is just not true, and we have demonstrated that. We are talking about hundreds of miles compared to not an inch, under Stephen Harper, in 10 years. When we take a look at it from the perspective of Ukraine and the war, the other thing I would highlight to the member is that one does not just wish pipelines and infrastructure into existence. They take time to develop. In fairness, we need to recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, Canada can demonstrate strong leadership with Ukraine. Let us recognize the fact that Ukraine will prevail. It will win, and there will be a need to assist Ukraine in rebuilding. Because of this particular agreement and of the relationship between Canada and Ukraine, the people of both Ukraine and Canada will be able to contribute that much more to Ukraine rebuilding to be the nation it has the potential to be. Canada is in a much better position than many other countries, whether it is because of the more than 1.3 million people of Ukraine heritage here or things like this trade agreement, to support Ukraine and make sure it is able to continue to prosper well into the future.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the member across the way played a significant role in a lot of the trade negotiations that took place. He would be very familiar with the individuals who have the type of expertise that I said is second to no other in the world. I would challenge him with regard to his conclusions on the trade agreements, but we will leave that for another day. What I would not challenge him on is that a trade agreement was signed with the Republic of China, and it was done in a very secretive manner. I noticed the member did not make any reference to that particular trade agreement. Can he provide some insight into why Stephen Harper signed that particular agreement without anyone knowing at all that there were discussions taking place between Canada and China?

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate many of the comments that the member made. I think it is fairly profound, when one thinks about what we are debating today and the impact that goes even far beyond trade. It sends a very powerful message even to Putin, in Russia. It says a great deal for morale in Ukraine, and it says so much about Canada's general attitude toward Ukraine and wanting to see Ukraine succeed. However, Canada itself will also benefit through this particular agreement. It is an all around wonderful thing to see. One thinks about second reading, committee stage, third reading, report stages and the Senate. Would it not be a powerful statement if we could somehow get this thing through the Senate before Christmas?