House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was russia.

Topics

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. We need to create this committee soon.

I know there has been an issue of public and private information that becomes available to the committee, and how much should be public and how much should be private.

I know the member has expertise in this field. I am interested to know, as we move forward, what sort of criteria he would be looking for on public information to made public and private information to be made private. I think it is a fair question.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. I think that the committee’s mandate is exceptional, as I mentioned in my opening speech, since I do not think we have had the occasion to study the use of the Emergencies Act very often in the House.

Since world events have been pressing upon us week after week in the past two years, I am convinced that future members of the House will look back in a few years on what we did. We need to send them the right message. Yes, we will need all the information, because the committee’s report will probably be studied for many years to come.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is consensus among three of the four parties recognized in the House, as well as among most groups in the Senate. It seems to me that we could have adopted this motion by unanimous consent today and started work tomorrow.

However, one party is refusing to consent. I would like to know whether my colleague finds it unfortunate that we have to wait several days, rather than start tomorrow morning by consensus of the majority of the parties in the House and Senate.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I, too, would like to get started on this right away because, as I said from the start, I think that this is an important mandate that must be carried out diligently and responsibly. I would have liked for this motion to be adopted unanimously and for the committee to start its work tomorrow morning.

However, since we do not always get what we want in life, I will settle for hoping that this is done with diligence, that we resolve this issue and that the committee is able to start its work this week. We must not take forever to decide on the composition of the committee. My colleague is right; we need to get to work as soon as possible.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are talking here about the creation of a joint committee, which is important because it is the next logical step to the Emergencies Act, an exceptional measure. I am using the Prime Minister's words to make sure that people are not saying that the member for La Prairie is exaggerating again.

When the Prime Minister said that he was invoking the act, he said that it was the ultimate tool and the last resort, so much so that this law's predecessor, the War Measures Act, was used only three times in Canadian history. The Emergencies Act has not been used since it was created in 1988. It needs to remain an exceptional measure.

I welcome the creation of the joint committee to examine what was done before the act was invoked. We need to conduct a review and find out what happened beforehand in order to determine whether the use of this ultimate tool was justified. Obviously, we are in favour of this exercise. It is mandatory, but we still want to say that we think it is an excellent idea.

If the committee is to look back at what happened, it must absolutely examine the crisis as a whole and explore what questions need to be asked as a result of those events. The first point I want to make is that even before the truckers arrived in Ottawa, they made it clear that they planned to protest in front of Parliament. Some of them left Vancouver in their 53-foot-long trucks, and they did not get here over night. Let us just say that if they were clean shaven when they left, they looked more like ZZ Top when they arrived. I do not know how many days it took, and yet people here were surprised and wondered what they were going to do.

Why did it take so long to figure out how to let them protest here but without actually taking over and occupying the city? There had to be a way. Quebec City managed to do it, and it could very well have been done here, too.

During the first two weeks, we hardly saw the government, and the Prime Minister was pretty much absent. First he added fuel to the fire, but then said it was up to the police to resolve the matter. It will be important to paint an accurate picture of the government's actions. Was the government's inaction as bad as it seemed? Some questions need to be asked.

People can be like ducks. They can appear calm and still on the surface while paddling like mad under the water. Was that the case here? Was the government paddling like mad or did it do nothing? It is important to look at what actually happened.

Did the government use every tool at its disposal before using this last resort? Did it reach out to the various police forces? Did it offer any assistance? When the chief of the Ottawa Police Service said he needed help from the federal government, was that request acted upon? What was done?

If the committee is to do a decent job, it must answer those questions and look at what measures were actually taken. I could go on and on because we have so many questions.

The Emergencies Act was invoked on February 14, but the government did nothing with it until five days later. I wonder why. When it finally took action, did it use the legal tools available? Could authorities have done what they did on that weekend without using the Emergencies Act? In other words, was it necessary? We do not know and we wonder.

The following Monday, after the people left, we arrived here and were told that it was awful, and that we absolutely needed to continue using the legislation. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois wondered, and rightly so, what we were fighting against, and who we were intervening against with this legislation. There was no one left outside.

They tried hard to convince us. They twisted themselves into a knot. At one point they said that the situation is unacceptable and we absolutely must keep enforcing this legislation. The Liberals and the NDP wanted everyone to know that this was essential.

However, on the Wednesday, 42 hours later, the government announced that it no longer needed to invoke the act after all. It was like a balloon at a porcupine party; 42 hours later, the whole thing was suddenly over and the act was no longer needed.

That makes no sense. Can we find out what happened? On Monday evening, the government was saying that it absolutely had to intervene, even though we could not see why. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, since you were there, playing close attention and thinking the speeches were good. You were probably a bit surprised when the government, which was pushing to still invoke the act on Monday evening, decided it was no longer necessary by Wednesday.

For these reasons, it is extremely important to have a special joint committee to figure out what, exactly, happened, whether the invocation was worthwhile and, if this situation were to happen again, how the government could be more effective.

The Bloc Québécois's approach was simple. We wanted it to happen fast, we wanted to come to an agreement quickly and we wanted a neutral chair. Because all of the parties' positions were clear, we wanted a neutral chair that reflected the views both in favour and against.

This, therefore, made a single chair impossible, unless that person had a personality disorder. We then needed two co-chairs, one person in favour and one against, or two in favour and two against. That is what the Bloc Québécois was calling for. Above all, the Bloc Québécois was looking for a consensus.

Earlier, my colleague from the NDP said that his party's position was shared by two of the three other recognized parties in the House. I disagree. The Bloc Québécois was against it. Based on what my colleague, the official opposition house leader, said, he would not be okay with it either. I am not great at math, but one plus one equals two. There was more than one party against it. The Bloc Québécois was also against it because we wanted a consensus, but for that to happen, the chair would have to be neutral.

The Liberal motion proposes that the co-chairs be one NDP member, thus in favour, one Bloc member, thus against, and one independent senator, a Liberal, and thus in favour. If I have calculated correctly that makes two co-chairs in favour and one against. That is not impartial, and it is not what we are looking for. The Conservatives' amendment proposes that there be two co-chairs consisting of a Conservative senator, thus against, and a Liberal MP, thus in favour. We like that better.

We have seen the parties argue about who will serve as co-chairs. I can say that the Bloc Québécois has always sought consensus, and I am convinced that all leaders of the other parties will agree on that. That was and continues to be our position.

We must get to work quickly, and do so in the most intelligent way possible. There was a crisis and the government used a tool that we believe was disproportionate. We are asking to be convinced. It may be that behind closed doors the government will pull a rabbit out of a hat, which will convince us that its decision was not that crazy. It is possible, and that is all we want to find out.

That is why we are here. The Bloc Québécois will fully co-operate in order to get to the bottom of what happened and to ensure that this act will never be used again unless it is truly warranted.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, one thing we can recognize in the government resolution is that the Bloc was in opposition to the Emergencies Act being implemented as an opposition party. The NDP, on the other hand, was in favour of the Emergencies Act. We have two co-chairs, one in favour and one opposed, who are in a far better and greater position to be independent in taking on their role of chair.

Does the Bloc party not see the value in having two opposition parties? I do not believe Bloc members were promoting and congratulating the protests out front.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is right in saying that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP represent one in favour and one opposed. The problem is that there is one presumably independent senator. We generally know where “independent” senators stand or which side they are on. It is like the leaning tower of Pisa, as Maurice Duplessis said.

Two essential conditions must be met. First, the condition of impartiality is not being met. Second, there must be a consensus.

The Bloc Québécois agrees, but we would have liked all of the parties to be in agreement so that we could reach a consensus. That is all.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, one thing that has come to light throughout the course of this whole thing is how important it is for the government to be held to account for its actions in invoking the Emergencies Act. However, the government and the NDP seem to be holding some opposition parties to a greater account.

To the hon. member from the Bloc, how important is it for us to hold the government to account on this?

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and thank him for the question.

Once again, we need to emphasize how important impartiality is. In that regard, I want to point out that, in the beginning, the Conservatives wanted a Conservative chair, just to follow up on the thoughts and comments my colleague just shared with us.

When I spoke with the leader of the official opposition, he expressed interest in having an impartial chair, so I can only applaud his openness and willingness to compromise.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.

I in turn will ask him a question about the importance of reaching a consensus. It is all well and good for my colleague to work on reaching a consensus, and that is also what the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and I are trying to do, but there is no consensus. That is where things stand.

I find that sad. Instead of obtaining the unanimous consent of the Bloc Québécois, the government and the NDP today on a motion that will let the committee get to work tomorrow, we will have to debate it for several days.

Does he too find that sad?

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I obviously find that to be sad. However, when four parties are involved, the agreement of two or three of them does not constitute a consensus. To reach a consensus, all four parties must agree.

We have discussed this at length, and I worked to reach a consensus. Unfortunately, we were not able to do so because of the rigid position of some people in this place. What can I do?

I cannot reinvent the wheel. I have to say that there is no consensus. I would have liked to reach a consensus, but we do not have one. The Bloc Québécois cannot perform miracles.

Government Business No. 9—Parliamentary Review Committee pursuant to the Emergencies ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately have only five minutes. Like my other colleagues who have risen in the House today, I want to say that our thoughts are with the Ukrainian people. As we all know very well, the bombing has resumed, and it is getting more intense.

In the name of all parliamentarians in the Parliament of Canada and the democratic life we have in Canada, I want to say that our thoughts are with the parents taking to underground shelters to protect their children from missiles, air strikes and artillery fire.

Our thoughts are of course with the citizens and soldiers confronting the Russian tanks bearing down on them. They are demonstrating great courage and making huge sacrifices to preserve their democracy.

I'll start today like so many other colleagues have. I know I speak for all members of Parliament here when I say that our thoughts are profoundly with the people of Ukraine, where currently parents are protecting their children in underground fallout shelters and bomb shelters as the bombs have started up again. It is even more serious than what we saw yesterday. Our thoughts are with the civilians and soldiers who are standing up to Russian tanks as we speak. These are citizens standing up in defence of their democracy, and it is something all of us feel profoundly. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine at this very moment.

Since I only have a few minutes, I would like to address the motion that is before the House. This motion is to put in place an oversight committee to ensure that we get an appropriate parliamentary review of the Emergencies Act. I know that all member of Parliament believe this is fundamentally important. I think there have been a lot of discussions over the past week and a half, and the motion that has been introduced is something we support.

We believe profoundly that we need to get to the bottom of this and need to get answers for the people of Ottawa, Windsor and other communities that saw their jobs taken away in a moment by the blockades and the occupation. We know the people of Ottawa suffered egregiously during the occupation. Seniors and people with disabilities were unable to get essential services. We know that a wide variety of families were subjected to harm to their hearing because of the loud noise of the industrial horns going 24 hours a day, and to harm because of toxic diesel fumes. As members know, for three weeks Ottawa was the most polluted city in the entire country. That comes with health risks that will continue to be felt for months if not years to come. There was vandalism, assaults and general lawlessness. All of us who were here over that three-week period, particularly on weekends, saw first-hand that there was simply no longer rule of law in this community. All of those things need to be responded to by this oversight committee.

What the government is putting forward is something that has been discussed and negotiated. As I mentioned earlier, three parties of the House of Commons agreed to it and one party refused, which is their right. However, with unanimous consent, we could have been moving forward tomorrow morning with this oversight committee, and I regret that there is no consensus to do that.

We also have a fair provision for our parties. The Conservative Party would have the strongest representation. When we consider both the Senate side and the House of Commons side, the Conservative Party would be represented more than any other party on this committee. The government party would have significant representation, but the Bloc, the NDP, the Progressive Senate Group and the Independent Senators Group would all be represented as well. There was a serious attempt to have good representation from all parties and a serious attempt to have co-chairs who represent both sides of the debate around the Emergencies Act.

I believe the government and the opposition parties that are in agreement with this principle want to move ahead quickly. We could have moved ahead tomorrow morning if we had seen agreement from the fourth party in the House of Commons. We would have been able to move ahead immediately. I suggest to all members that we need to move rapidly on oversight, and we need to move rapidly to put in place this parliamentary review committee.

Hindu Religious SymbolStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of over one million Canadians of several religious faiths and, in particular, Hindu Canadians, and as being a Hindu Canadian myself, I call up members of the House and all Canadians to distinguish between the Hindu religious sacred symbol swastika and the Nazi symbol of hatred called hakenkreuz in German or “the hooked cross” in English.

In the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit, swastika means “that which brings good luck and well-being”. This ancient and greatly auspicious symbol of the Hindu religion continues to be used today at our Hindu temples, in our religious and cultural rituals, at the entrances to our homes and in our daily lives. Please stop calling the Nazi symbol of hatred a swastika.

We support the ban of the Nazi symbol of hatred, the hakenkreuz or the hooked cross, but calling it a swastika is to deny us, Hindu Canadians, our religious right and freedom to use our sacred symbol swastika in our daily lives.

Rare Disease DayStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of Rare Disease Day.

The theme of this year's Rare Disease Day is “Share Your Colours”. I offer this limerick in honour of this special day:

Millions in canada, two-thirds of them youth
Battle rare disease daily, a sad, sombre truth
These diseases touch families and count several thousand
From MS through Alport and von Recklinghausen
They are tough on their children but also their parents
For those stricken with grief, I understand as I share it
My three oldest children battle ills of this kind
And the youngest I lost is always on my mind
We here in this chamber have a big role we share
Supporting access to treatments and affordable care
So whether team blue, red, green, orange or grey
Please join me in celebrating this Rare Disease Day

UkraineStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, people across Canada are in solidarity in showing and demonstrating support for the people of Ukraine. What we are seeing in Ukraine today is horrific, but Canadians are responding. They are showing up at rallies and demonstrations. In my own home city of Winnipeg, thousands of people came out in solidarity for Ukraine. They are sending money. They are sending prayers.

The Government of Canada is providing lethal weapons and humanitarian aid. Canadians are coming together because of their concern and love for Ukraine.

Today I am calling for the House to unanimously support the efforts of all Canadians to be there for Ukraine in solidarity as one.

Long live Ukraine.

Gisèle PomerleauStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to pay one last tribute to Gisèle Pomerleau, an exceptional woman who passed away at the age of 81.

Ms. Pomerleau founded the Centre des femmes de Montréal-Est—Pointe-aux-Trembles in 1995 and stood up for women's rights her entire life. Her mission was to help women recognize their potential, and she believed in it so much that she single-handedly ran her organization, using her personal savings at the beginning and then fundraising to the last penny. Newspapers, plays, conferences, round tables, she used any means she could to promote women's rights. Gisèle Pomerleau was also known as a seniors' advocate.

This pioneer's name will definitely not be forgotten. Gisèle Pomerleau made her mark on the development of La Pointe-de-l’Ile, and now a social housing project will soon bear her name.

We thank Gisèle Pomerleau, and we will be there to ensure that her mission is carried out.

C.D. Farquharson Community AssociationStatements by Members

2 p.m.

Liberal

Shaun Chen Liberal Scarborough North, ON

Today, I am pleased to rise and recognize the C.D. Farquharson Community Association on their joyous 50th anniversary.

It all began when a few residents decided to tackle such local issues as area development, education and community infrastructure. In April 1972, the association's first president, Maurice Liberty, wrote to all residents, urging them to get involved. Named after Scarborough's former medical officer of health, Dr. C.D. Farquharson, the association began with 600 households and is now 1,400 strong.

Over the decades, hundreds of dedicated volunteers have worked tirelessly on projects like the creation of a neighbourhood watch team and block parent program.

Congratulations to the current president, Gary Loughlin, and all the past and present members of the association for achieving this incredible milestone. I congratulate them for having built, shaped and supported what is now one of the most dynamic and diverse communities in Toronto.

I wish them a happy 50th anniversary.

UkraineStatements by Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to stand with Ukraine and its people for the principles of peace and democracy and to condemn the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

For the people of Ukraine facing war and for the millions of Canadians of Ukrainian heritage who see their historical lands under attack, Canada's official opposition will continue, as we have been proud to do, to do everything we can to ensure that Canada steps up and does its part.

Vladimir Putin's aggression is an alarming wake-up call to Canada and the free and democratic world, and likewise threatens the safety and security of every Canadian and of democracy itself. Policy needs to reflect the geopolitical reality of our world. From doing our part to ensure that western dollars do not pay for oil and gas that funds Russian aggression to ensuring that there is a strong NATO that stands up for what is right, the defence of democracy in Ukraine is the defence of democracy in Canada and around the world.

Slava Ukraini.

Black History MonthStatements by Members

February 28th, 2022 / 2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Mr. Speaker, “February and Forever: Celebrating Black History today and every day” is the theme for Black History Month this year. I am proud to highlight two important initiatives from my riding that will be embedded in Canadian history this year and beyond.

First, I want to highlight the work of Kwame Delfish, the artist who designed the 2022 Underground Railroad coin for the Royal Canadian Mint to capture the painful history and journey of people of African descent searching for freedom in Canada.

Second, the Scarborough charter brings together over 52 post-secondary institutions to address anti-Black racism and to promote inclusion and equality in higher education. At its core are its guiding principles: Black flourishing, inclusive excellence, mutuality and accountability.

I want to acknowledge the leadership of Principal Wisdom Tettey and his colleagues at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus.

Happy Black History Month.

Heart MonthStatements by Members

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, February is Heart Month. We recognize the importance of heart health and taking action against heart disease, a serious and growing problem and leading cause of death in Canada.

For women, heart disease is the number one cause of premature death and 20% more women die of heart failure than men. However, women's cardiovascular health is under-researched and women often do not know the signs.

The good news is that heart disease is preventable. Beating heart disease means focusing on women's heart health and prevention. It means implementing initiatives like mandatory front-of-package nutrition labelling to help inform busy shoppers, a tax on vaping products and restricting flavours in vape products, which are being used by youth at alarming rates.

I would also like to acknowledge the Heart and Stroke Young Leaders, a group of professionals in their twenties and thirties, like Oakville North—Burlington's Charmain Tulloch, who are encouraging young people to adopt a healthy lifestyle and prevent heart disease.

UkraineStatements by Members

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Putin regime's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine has shocked millions of Canadians, including thousands in my riding who are of Ukrainian descent. Canadians now understand that the threat from Russia is no longer theoretical. They are resolute in their support for Ukraine and want Canada to do all we can to stop the Russian aggression and restore Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Canada, together with our allies, must respond with immediate and long-term actions. Canada must immediately expel the Russian ambassador to our country, and recall our ambassador from Moscow. The Canadian government must act immediately to support and expand our energy sector so that the free world can have a reliable source of ethical and environmentally produced energy. Finally, the government must also take seriously our Arctic sovereignty and military preparedness.

I call on the government to make these and other actions, which support Ukraine and our NATO partners, a priority.

Easing of Measures at the BorderStatements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Mr. Speaker, effective today, we are easing our measures at the border and preparing to once again welcome tourists in large numbers. I am proud of our tourism sector and we look forward to a strong and swift recovery.

As of today, the travel advisory is no longer in effect. Speaking as somebody working closely with our tourism industry, I can only rejoice, rejoice that we have collectively made it to this stage in the pandemic where the easing of our border measures was possible to do safely.

The tourism industry brought in $100 billion to our GDP before the pandemic, and I, for one, want it back.

To all of our hard-working hotel and restaurant workers, to all the small businesses that rely on tourism and to our fantastic tourism operators and travel agents, I say, yes, go get them. To all the hard-working Canadians who just need a beach and a break and want to travel, I say, yes, let us do this.

UkraineStatements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Laila Goodridge Conservative Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB

Mr. Speaker, I, like many Canadians, am a proud descendant of Ukrainian immigrants. Seeing the solidarity of Canadians with Ukraine has reminded me that this conflict is not just personal for Canadians with direct ties to Ukraine.

This conflict is personal to parents who are seeing families separated by conflict. Seeing parents fleeing with their children and sending them to safety before returning to fight has deeply affected me and so many. This conflict is personal to anyone who believes in the spirit of democracy in the face of autocrats. This conflict is personal for anyone who believes in the spirit of democracy. This conflict is personal for anyone who has seen or remembers the horror of armed conflict.

I think just about every Canadian citizen has good reason to see the invasion as a personal attack, not just on the people of Ukraine but on all of us, and we must respond accordingly. Our response to this unprovoked and despicable aggression must be strong and swift. We must continue to put pressure on Putin until the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from the sovereign nation of Ukraine.

Slava Ukraini.

UkraineStatements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Mr. Speaker, whether in Lac-Mégantic, Thetford Mines, Plessisville or even here in Ottawa, our world has changed over the past few days. The word “freedom” has been given a whole new meaning. Unfortunately, the unthinkable has happened: Evil has awakened and revealed its true nature.

Today, whether in Kyiv, Kharkiv or Odessa, peace has turned into war and happiness has turned into fear. People do not know what will happen or if they even have a future. Today, from Moscow to St. Petersburg, fathers and mothers are finding out that their sons, their friends and their neighbours have taken up arms against their Ukrainian cousins. From Canada to Poland to France, solidarity has also awakened. It has awakened to the horror of a vicious attack that was both unjustified and unprovoked and that served to satisfy the desires of a power-hungry leader looking to build his legacy.

In the meantime, thousands of people are being killed. We cannot remain silent. We cannot stand idly by. We must take action. I invite all parliamentarians from all democracies from every country to unite against Putin the dictator, to unite for the Ukrainian people and, most of all, to unite for peace.

HousingStatements by Members

2:10 p.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion announced the construction of 1,458 social and affordable housing units under the second Canada-Quebec rapid housing initiative agreement.

I am pleased that one of the initiative's 79 projects will be carried out in my riding of Alfred-Pellan. A total of $11.39 million has been allocated to Laval's municipal housing bureau for Habitation Bousquet, which will help build 24 new housing units for vulnerable or low-income individuals.

Our government continues to help cities meet their housing needs and give the people of Quebec and of Laval, in particular, the peace of mind that housing can provide.