Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to speak briefly to this motion by my colleague as well and to acknowledge some of the context for this discussion of Bill C-57.
I think reasonable people can disagree on aspects of a trade deal. There's a lot of history in Parliament about constructive debates that have gone back and forth about different trade deals. What we have seen, sadly, is outrageous hyperbole from members of the government trying to say that constructive suggestions or disagreements about aspects of a trade deal are tantamount to not supporting Ukraine, and going even further to say that somehow our opposition to the carbon tax provisions in this bill is supporting Russia. These have been outrageous, offensive and wrong comments from the government, a government that is increasingly desperate and is trying to use these outlandish accusations to cover for its own general incompetence.
Conservatives have put forward many constructive proposals related to supporting Ukraine, which government members have rejected. On March 29 of last year, for example, we proposed visa-free travel for people from Ukraine, something that was supported by the NDP and the Bloc and that was the subject of a motion adopted by a majority of the House, but it was opposed by the Liberals and never implemented. Members across the way voted against our proposal for visa-free travel for Ukrainians.
We put forward a motion at this committee to expand the scope of the bill to include provisions that would facilitate increased weapons exports to Ukraine. Liberal members have opposed our efforts to add amendments that would support increased weapons exports to Ukraine.
Last year as well, the Liberals granted a sanctions waiver to Russia allowing the export of turbines to Russia to facilitate the export of natural gas from Russia to Germany, which was bad for Canada's natural gas sector, of course, but also bad for Ukraine. At the time—this was at the foreign affairs committee—the ambassador from Ukraine came before the committee and denounced those permits.
If we go through, we see that the Liberals voted against visa-free travel from Ukraine; the Liberals granted sanctions permits to Russia to allow the export of Russian natural gas to fund the war machine; and, just in the last week, Liberals have been blocking our amendments on weapons manufacturing. These are clear examples of how the Liberals have not sided with what we believe to be the interests of Ukraine, and yet we haven't resorted to the kinds of hyperbolic accusations they have simply over a disagreement about a trade deal.
This shows, frankly, the divisiveness and the desperation of the government, a government that is unwilling to defend its failing energy policy and that is desperate for distractions.
On the motion specifically, here's why this motion is important. The process is that committees decide which amendments to consider or not. That's up to the committee to decide. There are cases, for instance, in which the chair may rule something inadmissible, but the committee may decide to consider it anyway. Ultimately, when the bill is tabled in the House, the Speaker looks at the version of the bill and if a member objects to certain amendments because they view those amendments as being out of scope, then at that point, the Speaker will make a ruling and can strike out certain amendments.
However, that issue comes up only if a member raises it in the House, so I'm calling on all members here today. If you believe that expanding weapons exports to Ukraine is important, I have six amendments that would constructively and effectively do that. I would like to move those amendments, and I would like to be able to add those amendments to this bill. Even if they are notionally out of scope, those amendments can proceed as long as no member objects to their inclusion. If, in the House at report stage, a member rises and objects to the inclusion of those amendments, then the Speaker will rule on their procedural admissibility, but the committee can, as per my colleague's motion, consider those amendments; it can adopt those amendments, and those amendments can proceed in the version of the bill that's referred to the House.
This is not an idle or an abstract consideration. I have before us—and they've been distributed to members—six different amendments that would give real effect to the need to get critical lethal weapons into the hands of the Ukrainian army to a greater extent than we have in the past. These amendments would matter. They would actually help Ukraine win the war against Russia.
For all the members who have been hyperbolic in their commentary over the last week, do the right thing. Support these amendments and support this motion, which will allow these amendments to go forward, because it is weapons and not a carbon tax...it is these amendments and changes that will concretely give life to efforts to get more weapons into Ukrainian hands and actually have a concrete and meaningful impact on the outcome. I encourage all colleagues to support this motion.
Thank you.