Debates of Feb. 6th, 2026

Standing Orders and Procedure

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was a well-informed speech on the Standing Orders, something that we were desperate for, compared with the last speaker. I thank him for delivering that leadership.

This example that he gives shows the ruinous cost. I am not independently wealthy. I am a new, younger member of Parliament. There are many of us on both sides of the aisle. We could not afford those types of legal bills. I just could not do it. I have no idea what I would do if something like that were to happen, and I am sure my gen Z colleagues feel the same.

I wonder if the member could give a little more clarity as to what the path forward might be for Parliament to try to prevent situations like that from happening and to protect all members, but in particular to bring fairness back to those of us who may not be independently wealthy.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Madam Speaker, the simplest thing would be for PROC, the next time the commissioner is before that committee, to ask whether he agrees or disagrees with the approach of accepting anonymous denunciations, denunciations other than those spelled out in subsection 27(1) of the code. If he says that he disagrees with the precedent and would not accept such an act, I think that settles the matter. If he says that he thinks that Mr. Dion acted correctly, then I think that a firmer wording is needed to make it absolutely transparent that nothing other than a denunciation or an accusation submitted by a member of Parliament or a motion of the House is acceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I approach this debate from the perspective of having been on government benches, on the official opposition benches, on third party benches and also an independent, one of two individuals, when we combine both my provincial and federal experiences. As a parliamentarian, I do believe there are some rules that would improve our system.

I would like to go back to Peter Van Loan. Peter Van Loan was the government House leader when I first got elected to Parliament. It was a very short period, my first election, because I was elected in a by-election. After that, it was a majority Conservative government, in 2011. I was quite surprised and a little disappointed in the manner in which Peter Van Loan would constantly stand up, introduce legislation and then bring in time allocation. Over the years, I can appreciate why.

I suspect there might have been a lot of pent-up frustration, at a time when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, from not being able to get things done that he was hoping to get done because he was in a minority government. When the Conservatives finally had a majority, they had no problem with using the tool of time allocation to get things done. If we advance to the 2015 election, when there was a Liberal majority government, yes, we had to use time allocation. Back then, I was being told by members opposite that I did not support time allocation when I was in opposition. The record would actually show that I did say time allocation is a necessary tool at times in order to get legislation passed.

I say all of that because I believe it is time the House of Commons modernizes its rules. We need to have government legislative programming put into place. This can take many different forms. It has been clearly demonstrated over the last number of years. I have not done the research on the minority years of Stephen Harper, but I would hazard a guess, based on what I saw between 2011 and 2015 of the Harper government, that there was frustration from not being able to get legislation passed.

I have had many opportunities, over the last couple of years in particular, to talk about how government gets frustrated by opposition not allowing legislation to move forward. As opposed to saying, “I am in government; here is what I want,” or “They are in opposition; this is what they want to resist,” I think we should be approaching it as parliamentarians first and foremost. We have legislative planning for Private Members' Business. If we look at some of the private members' bills we have, even legislation we have passed likely would never have passed if it was not for legislative planning.

Programming does make a difference. I do not say that because I am in government. I believe it would enable more potential debate. One of the appeals I have suggested in the past is, for example, I believe we waste time on Fridays. I think we could make better use of the time we spend every Friday. Yes, we have question period, but beyond question period, I would like to see any member be able to speak on any bill, whether it is a private member's bill or a government bill, by giving notification on the previous Wednesday to the Speaker that they would like to be able to address Bill X. They would be provided the opportunity to speak for five minutes with a five-minute question and answer period.

I do not even believe there should be an adjournment per se. We could at least allow eight hours of debate or go until debate collapses. That way, every member of the House of Commons would be afforded the opportunity to talk on any bill whatsoever, as long as it has been in second reading and has not passed third reading. This would provide every member the opportunity to speak. All they would have to do is notify the Speaker in advance. If no one notifies the Speaker in advance, then we would have a question period and be done for the day.

I really and truly believe every member of the House would be better served if they knew they could come in on Friday and speak on a private member's bill or a piece of government legislation, because it is important for their constituents to hear that particular debate. I used to be a big fan of having a dual chamber. Some suggested that we would even have this room as the second chamber when we go back to the House of Commons. The problem with that, from the feedback that I received, is that this would become the kids' chamber, and the adult chamber would be in the House of Commons, in Centre Block. That is why I think the Friday solution is very real. It is tangible. Every member of the House of Commons would be able to participate in it.

I posed a question on the issue of concurrence. The record would show that on concurrence motions, I do believe there is a better way. There are some very important reports out there. Concurrence debate on these reports would be better served for parliamentarians and Canadians if it took place after adjournment, much like we do for questions that are asked in question period. The reason is that we have a finite amount of time to debate legislation, and I suspect we would have more debate if we allowed for it.

I am aware that one could ultimately say it is an opposition tool. Is it really? I would argue that it seems to be a lazy man's tool, because all that has to be done is to put up a few speakers and make up for those three hours. It does not take much. For my colleague across the way and I, it is an issue. The way I look at it is that if they wanted to filibuster a piece of legislation, they could give me twelve grade 12 graduates from Sisler High, Maples, Children of the Earth or any high school in the north end, and I bet I would be able to filibuster a bill indefinitely, forcing the government to bring in time allocation or that bill would never pass. It does not take much. We should have a concurrence debate, if it is really that important, after the adjournment proceedings.

When we look at ways we can improve the chamber, there are some substantial changes, and I just listed off a couple of them. There are some very simple ones. I think we should have time clocks. Some legislatures, from what I understand, have them. It is a countdown clock. For example, during question period earlier today, we had 35 seconds to answer a question. I would be watching it count down and the Speaker would cut me off once it hits the 35 seconds. If I have a prepared text, and I am just going to read that text and know it is going to take me 25 seconds, it is not a problem. However, if I am giving a 10-minute speech, and I might be passionate about it, to be able to look and see where I am on my countdown clock would be a good thing.

When I was first elected to the House of Commons, from the Manitoba legislature, I came here and I noticed the Sergeant-at-Arms had bare hands touching the mace. I talked to the Speaker and anyone who would listen to me. In the Manitoba legislature, they have to wear white gloves, and that pleases me. I am not saying it was me, but someone made a change, and now they wear the white gloves.

There are rules, low-hanging fruit, and we can actually make some of these changes. It takes the House leadership teams and others to sit around and figure out what other kinds of rules can make our Parliament modernized going forward. I love this topic. I appreciate the time I have been provided to say a few words.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have debated the merits of concurrence motions often with my friend and colleague. Concurrence motions are an opportunity to debate a matter that the majority of a parliamentary committee has brought to the attention of the House.

I think the member misses the fact, in his discussion, that debate on concurrence motions can always be adjourned or superseded by a majority of the House. A majority of the House has the power and sets its own agenda in a case where a majority of the House wishes to see the conclusion of a concurrence debate.

I think those debates are very important and of immense value. If they were not considered important, either the committees would not have brought them to our attention or a majority of the House would be interested in adjourning or superseding them.

I disagree with the consistent effort to delegitimize concurrence debates as if they are not important. I think they are very important. They are reflective of the good work done at committees, and they are worthy of consideration in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will go further than that. I would say that they are of great value to all of us.

That is why I believe they been used as a tool for alternative measures rather than actually talking about the report itself in a substantive way. The way to avoid that would be to have it much like we have emergency debates. If the Speaker says that there will be an emergency debate, it does not take away from Private Members' Business or government business. It goes at the end of the day. That is what should apply.

Imagine if we were put all the reports that come out of the standing committees as equal. We would not have any debate. We would not even be able to have opposition days to the degree to which we do. If we believe in the importance of the reports that are being tabled, and we want to have concurrence, I would suggest to members that we could have that debate but that it would be best had after the adjournment of proceedings.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems willing to make some changes, like most of the members we have heard from this morning. Unfortunately, we all know that the kind of discussion we are having this morning often ends up fizzling out at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Discussions fizzle out there and are never revived.

It seems to me that we have proposed a number of reasonable things today. Can the member assure me that the government is willing to improve the Standing Orders and that everything will be addressed at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs rather than go there to die?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I love the question. Quite frankly, I have had the opportunity to have significant rule changes when I was in the Manitoba legislature. The way that ultimately happened was that all the decisions were made among a core group of individuals who wanted to see substantive changes.

I sat on the PROC committee. PROC tends to want to deal with the low-hanging fruit, anything that becomes big. We have the voting app because of the pandemic. We were forced to make some rule changes.

I would ultimately argue that it is the mechanism that has denied us the opportunity to have a consensus-built reform of our Standing Orders, at a great cost. I believe we are nowhere near as modernized as our rules should be. All it would take would be the goodwill of a few people who could actually make it happen. I am committed to doing that, and I would love to see the changes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am passionate about the Standing Orders. We do not get nearly enough time to speak about them. As the Green Party member, I do not have an opportunity to participate in PROC to pursue these essential changes.

I want to make a point to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I think things would work better in this place if we were to actually observe the rules we currently have. For instance, members are not supposed to read written speeches. We could shorten the time on debates if the only members who could speak would be, as in the Parliament in the U.K., able to speak without notes.

I also think we would improve our rules a great deal and have better decorum in the House if party whips were not able to have more power over the Speaker. That is not a rule. The rule is that only the Speaker recognizes individual members of Parliament, but the practice has been, just as the practice has been to allow written speeches, against our rules, which gives party whips more power over decorum than the Speaker.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I had the challenge of being a non-recognized member when I was one of two members inside a legislature, which forced me to hang around the provincial legislature all the time in order to make sure that, as a party, we were able to get our message across. I look forward to having ongoing discussions on these very important issues in the future.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have some family members in town who were planning on skating on the Rideau Canal this afternoon, but when they heard we were debating the Standing Orders, they decided to cancel and come here instead. I want to welcome them.

I want to start by talking about the use of unanimous consent in this chamber. This is an important aspect of our rules, but I think it is of profound importance to the well-being of Canadians. We have made, at various times in my tenure as a member of Parliament, some critical decisions through unanimous consent that have had a big effect on the lives of Canadians.

Parliament is designed to facilitate the considered judgment of elected members over time, and there are multiple steps that facilitate that considered judgment. There is consideration at various stages, detailed study in committee, etc. The considered judgment over time is how we harness the collective wisdom of members from different regions of the country in order to get a good outcome.

However, the rules also allow, without safeguard, the complete abridgement of that process of considered judgment over time if there is, in one instant in time, of the members who are within this chamber, unanimous consent to do something. This is a very serious problem, because it replaces the logic of considered judgment over time with the psychology of a mob.

There is great work by Gustave Le Bon that I would encourage members to review on the issue of the psychology of the mob. He observes that a mob, even if made up of a large group of people, has less wisdom if captured by passions in an instant in time than even one individual within that group would have acting on their own.

We need to be very conscious as parliamentarians about how we can sometimes be seized by the psychology of the mob and think that a decision must be made right now, to think that a decision is necessarily good, even without having studied the decision as well as its full implications.

Unanimous consent is the process by which the considered judgment of members is replaced with the psychology of the mob. Therefore, I think it requires safeguards that prevent this from happening, that prevent legislation from skipping stages without some level of proper consideration.

I would suggest one logical reform, if a request for unanimous consent has been made, would at least be that the bells be rung, that members be recalled to the chamber and that perhaps they be given a period of time, such as 24 hours, during which they can notify the Speaker of their objection. This can be grossly abused, because, as members here know, not every member is in the chamber at any given time. Most members spend most of the day outside the chamber, meeting with stakeholders and people from their riding, in committees and doing other kinds of parliamentary work that do not take place in this chamber.

Therefore, members can try to advance unanimous consent motions when they know particular other members are not present and able to object, and that deprives those members of having their views heard. It is pretty ironic that if a vote is requested on something, bells will ring and there is a set time that allows members to return to the chamber to have their vote recorded or to vote by app, but there is no such provision for unanimous consent.

I think we need clear guardrails. There are cases in which the use of this tool is legitimate, but it still has to draw on the considered judgment of members over time. The best way to do this would be for substantive proposals to have a delay of 12 or 24 hours during which members would be notified by email and could simply reply to the Speaker and say no if they wanted to register their objection.

The other way we see this kind of abuse is when members stand up to request unanimous consent for things that have not been advertised to the House previously. People do not know what is going on, so they say no. Perhaps it is a very reasonable thing that they object to because they have not had time to look at the question, and perhaps it is something they would support if it were actually debated and considered properly, but instead they are not able to.

We see many abuses of unanimous consent. It requires clear guardrails to be fair to members but more fundamentally to be fair to Canadians, because we do not want to have this mob mentality sweep up decision-making and sweep away safeguards on important issues.

Next, it is time that we did away with all instances of sycophantic onside questions from one party to the same party. Normally, the way it happens in questions and comments is that, after a speech, there is a rotation that goes around this chamber where there is one question from one's own party. Sometimes those questions have the character of, “Tell us why you are so awesome.” Some of us may enjoy this type of exchange, but it would be a better use of House time if we did away with it. For instance, after every Conservative speech, there could be two questions from the Liberals and one question from the Bloc, and after every Liberal speech, there could be two questions from the Conservatives and one from the Bloc instead of one from each party, including onside questions.

Other members have said this about committee of the whole and question period, as well as the questioning of ministers at committee. Given that many of the same-party questions tend to be of a more sycophantic, unsubstantial nature, maybe we could try, by mutual agreement, to do away with that and maximize the time for actual exchanges featuring different points of view.

I want to strongly agree with what a member said earlier. It would not be a change to our Standing Orders, but we need changes that would prevent the Senate from indefinitely sitting on private members' bills without even considering them. I believe the Senate has an important function in our democracy as a place of sober second thought, but it is frustrating when we have good bills passed in the House, with unanimous support even, that then are not considered in the Senate. The Senate should be considering and providing its considered judgment on bills that come from the House, not simply refusing to consider them for years on end until they die at the time of the next election.

I was very frustrated by how the government handled Bill C-281, the international human rights bill. This was a bill that the government did not like very much but supported for political reasons. It was a good bill and had unanimous consent in the House, but then the bill was halted in the Senate and not moved forward. I actually think that was deliberate and that the government relied on its appointees in the Senate to stop the bill from moving forward in a way that was undemocratic.

If the Senate considers the bill, has concerns about it, proposes amendments and sends it back to the House, and it can still be dealt with in a timely way, that is very reasonable and in keeping with the function that the Senate is supposed to have. However, it does not make any sense that an unelected chamber would simply refuse to consider a bill at all and stop it from moving forward. There should be a time limit around that, a point at which automatic steps are taken on bills that come from the House.

I also want to address the issue of chair occupants and expertise, specifically as it relates to committees. Right now, we have a system whereby, although a committee chair is formally elected from the committee, they are, in the vast majority of committees, appointed by the government. This is because the government chooses who its members are, and if a chair must be a member of the government, then usually only one member steps forward to be nominated.

In practice, and members of all parties would probably agree to this, if not in public then certainly in private, we have had far too many instances of committee chairs being put in for political reasons, even though those chairs do not understand the rules, do not understand the logic of how committees are supposed to work and are not very good at chairing meetings. We all have different abilities, and we all have different charisms that we can use in different ways. The purpose of putting someone in as committee chair should not be for them to have an extra point on their résumé to tell their constituents about. It should be that they are actually committed to applying the rules of that committee well. If we had a system whereby committee chairs, in particular, were elected, we would be a lot better off.

In a different system from the current election process, I would suggest we consider a system in which any member of Parliament, whether or not they have been assigned to a committee, can run to be chair of that committee, and members of the committee vote by secret ballot on who that chair is. That would facilitate potentially more competitive chair elections and a situation in which someone was chosen as chair, not because the government was trying to shore up their re-election chances in a marginal riding but because they were actually well qualified and trusted by their peers to exercise the role of chair.

I would support broader reforms that would have committee membership elected in general. There does not seem to be any substantial reason why party whips should be able to appoint committee members in general, but if we are looking for incremental steps, by changing the chair process so we actually have chairs who know and apply the rules, we would be a lot better off. I do not think it is fair to the chairs, either, to have them thrust into a situation in which they are trying to coordinate a meeting and simply do not know what the rules are that they are supposed to be applying.

Hopefully, these reforms around guardrails for unanimous consent, eliminating onside questions, addressing PMBs in the Senate and having qualified committee chairs would help this institution continue to grow and move forward in a constructive way.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. I learn a lot from him every time he stands up in the House.

As a new member, I was not surprised about the virtual voting, as I knew that existed, but I was surprised by how often some members use it; some are not in their seat very often, and they vote from abroad.

Does the member think there should be limitations on virtual voting?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, personally I would say that there is a major difference between the use of the voting app and the use of some of the other applications of virtual Parliament. I think a great deal is lost when members try to give speeches remotely or participate in questions and comments from somewhere else. I think that is generally done less now, but I would like us to do away with virtual Parliament completely as it relates to the activities of the chamber, certainly.

When it comes to virtual voting, I do think that having use of the voting app is a reasonable accommodation. I do not think members' flying across the country just to stand in their place and vote is that different from voting on an app. I think we can learn from that experience.

Having said that, I think it is important for the people who are elected as members of Parliament to spend a substantial amount of time in Ottawa and not just think they can be entirely absent and therefore always voting by app. I think a balance is required.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 2:05 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 51(2), the matter is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The House resumed from December 9, 2025, consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ukrainian Heritage Month Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill S-210, which seeks to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month. By supporting this bill, we want to recognize the role that the Ukrainian community plays in Quebec society and reaffirm our commitment to supporting the efforts of the individuals and families who settle in Quebec, learn French, discover our culture and demonstrate courage and resilience as they integrate into our society.

Historically, the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada, which is the second largest in the world with approximately 1.3 million Ukrainian people, was mainly settled in the Prairie provinces. However, it should be noted that ties between Quebec and Ukraine are based on a long history of migration, vibrant communities and solidarity between free peoples, which has only grown stronger since the war.

Ukrainian Quebeckers have long formed a community with a unique cultural heritage, as evidenced by its vibrant social fabric. This can be seen, for example, in the work of organizations such as the Alliance des Ukrainiens de Québec, which preserves and enriches the community's cultural heritage and helps to forge strong ties between Ukrainian identity and Quebec identity.

In response to the European migrant crisis caused by Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Quebec mobilized to welcome and support displaced Ukrainians. Quebec has welcomed thousands of Ukrainian nationals who are benefiting from special temporary immigration status, the Canada-Ukraine authorization for emergency travel, and specific assistance measures.

We need to recognize that the Ukrainians welcomed into our country face several challenges, such as the cost of living, credential recognition, integrating their children into the school system, and learning French, which some manage to do in just a few months, demonstrating their commitment and courage.

The debate on Bill S-210 should be an opportunity for us to remember our duty of solidarity as a host society toward all Ukrainian nationals who have been welcomed since 2022. In addition to welcoming displaced persons at the international level, Quebec has provided direct international assistance through organizations working in the areas of health, education, and culture. Since 2022, Quebec has participated in supporting educational continuity in Ukraine through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization to ensure the continuity of educational services for Ukrainian pupils and students after thousands of schools were destroyed by the war.

Since 2022, the Ukrainian flag has flown on the third tower of the Quebec National Assembly as a symbol of solidarity with the Ukrainian people. On February 20, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion recalling Quebec's ongoing commitment toward Ukraine and its people, reaffirming its engagement to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity, supporting the reinforcement of international efforts for Ukraine's reconstruction, and expressing its solidarity with the Ukrainian people and Quebeckers of Ukrainian origin.

Since 2022, the Bloc Québécois has been suggesting possible solutions to the federal government to facilitate the process of issuing or renewing visas for Ukrainians. We always support concrete measures to help protect Ukrainian refugees and displaced persons. The Bloc Québécois was also deeply honoured to attend the reception for the President of Ukraine on September 22, 2023. We fondly remember the president's speech to the House, particularly the care he took to thank the House in French.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois solemnly affirms its solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with Quebeckers of Ukrainian origin and their families. We believe in peace and freedom for Ukraine and in the right of Ukrainians to exist as a nation.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-210, an act respecting Ukrainian heritage month. By adopting this bill, Parliament would designate September as Ukrainian heritage month across Canada, offering Canadians a chance each year to reflect upon and celebrate the significant contributions of the Ukrainian community to our shared history, culture and identity.

I am pleased to inform the House that the government supports the bill. In doing so, let me start by saying that Canada's story cannot be told without the story of Ukrainian Canadians. From the first arrivals in September 1891 to the vibrant diaspora that exists today, Ukrainian Canadians have shaped this country in fundamental ways. They came to Canada seeking opportunity, freedom and stability. In turn, they helped build our country, opened businesses, enriched our cultural landscape and contributed to our democratic institutions.

Canada is now home to over 1.5 million people of Ukrainian descent. They live and work in every province and territory. They are leaders in government, the arts, academia, agriculture, sports and the armed forces. They have brought with them a rich cultural heritage of food, music, dance, language, folklore and faith traditions that have become woven into the fabric of Canada itself. We only need to look across the country to see their legacy: thriving community centres, churches, cultural associations, annual festivals that draw thousands of Canadians of all backgrounds and academic contributions that have deepened our understanding of Ukrainian history, language and literature.

In agriculture, Ukrainian Canadians played an essential role in developing Canada's prairie provinces into the breadbasket of the nation. In our armed forces, they served with distinction in both world wars and continue to do so today. Designating Ukrainian heritage month would give all Canadians an annual opportunity to reflect on these contributions and to learn about the resilience, perseverance and achievements of this community.

Declaring September as Ukrainian heritage month would also serve as an invaluable educational opportunity. It would encourage schools, libraries, museums, cultural organizations and community groups to host programs and events that deepen our understanding of Ukrainian history, language, art and traditions. It will inspire young Canadians of all backgrounds to learn about the Holodomor, the struggle for Ukrainian independence, the legacy of immigration and the contemporary challenges facing Ukraine. As we educate, we fortify our national character. We inspire empathy, understanding and unity, values that are essential to the health of any democracy.

This recognition also reflects our broader commitments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Section 27 of the charter reminds us that preserving and enhancing our multicultural heritage is a fundamental principle of Canadian democracy. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act calls upon us to recognize communities who share common origins and historic contributions to our society and to ensure that all Canadians can participate fully in our economic, social, cultural and political life.

Formal recognition of September as Ukrainian heritage month would give meaning to these principles. This designation is also consistent with our government's broader priorities, building a country where everyone feels a sense of belonging and strengthening social cohesion. Multiculturalism is not just a policy. It is a unifying symbol of Canadian identity and a source of national pride.

Why should Ukrainian heritage month be in September? It is because the month of September is particularly special. It commemorates the arrival of the first Ukrainian immigrants in September 1891, and it is a time when communities across Canada already gather to celebrate Ukrainian culture and heritage. By designating September as Ukrainian heritage month, Parliament would be aligning with existing provincial designations in Manitoba and Ontario, further strengthening the recognition across the country.

Support for Bill S-210 is expected to be broad and positive beyond the Ukrainian community in Canada. Similar heritage month bills, including those for Italian, Lebanese, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Tamil, German and Latin American communities, have passed with widespread approval in the House. Cultural recognition initiatives like these acknowledge the fundamental contributions of immigrant communities to Canada and provide an opportunity for all Canadians to learn about and celebrate our inclusive society. Such recognitions also resonate deeply with Canadians because they reflect who we are, which is a country of many cultures, histories and traditions united in a common identity.

Declaring September as Ukrainian heritage month is not a symbolic pat on the back; it is a powerful statement of Canadian identity and global leadership. It tells the world that Canada stands with Ukraine, Canada honours its Ukrainian citizens, Canada remembers its history and Canada will never waver in its defence of freedom.

I urge all members to support this bill and join Canadians in celebrating Ukrainian heritage month each September. In doing so, we will not only honour the legacy of Ukrainian Canadians but also strengthen the bonds that unite us all as Canadians.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill to recognize Ukrainian heritage month. I do so not only as a member of Parliament representing a vibrant region rooted rich in Ukrainian heritage, but also as a proud Canadian of Ukrainian descent myself, whose own story is tied to the same pioneer spirit that built so much of the Prairies.

Canada is a nation built by people who were willing to start with almost nothing and then work hard until something was built. In my rural Manitoba constituency of Riding Mountain, that story is written across the land by the Ukrainian pioneers who settled in the region.

In 1899, 16 ships arrived in Halifax after crossing the Atlantic. These ships were carrying Ukrainian families fleeing oppression from the Austro-Hungarian rule in their home province of Galicia.

I have to say that I did not realize until preparing for this speech that my grandparents could potentially have been on that ship.

Around 400 settlers travelled west by train from Winnipeg to Strathclair, Manitoba, and then moved by wagon and oxen into a region that had little to offer in the Patterson Lake district.

Before they even reached the land they planned to homestead, the hardship began to claim lives. Along the way, children died between Portage la Prairie and Minnedosa and were buried along the railway tracks. Thirteen more children died near Strathclair and were buried at the Bend Cemetery. These deaths resulted in many families being quarantined at Strathclair while others travelled onward to the Patterson Lake region. We sometimes forget this part of the pioneer story. The hardship did not begin at the homesteads; it began on the journey.

Then, on May 10, 1899, the settlers who reached Patterson Lake district arrived on a cold, rainy day. They sheltered in canvas tents, exhausted, wet and exposed. That night, a spring snowstorm moved in. The harsh weather and living conditions fuelled an epidemic of scarlet fever that spread fast. Forty-two children and three adults tragically died from this disease. They were buried on a nearby quarter section of land that is now known locally as the mass grave, to which visitors from across Canada travel today to pay their respects and learn about our heritage. It is there, at the gravesite, that a simple wooden sign captures the meaning of this story better than any speech ever could. It reads, “This memorial commemorates the suffering perseverance and courage of those pioneers who overcame tragedy. They carved homesteads out of forest and made life possible for us: their descendants.”

The phrase about carving “homesteads out of forest” is not a metaphor but an accurate description of what these pioneers did. The land in the region did not come cleared and ready to farm; it was rugged, hilly, treed and rocky. It was land one had to make livable with an axe and a tremendous amount of hard labour. The rules of settlement reflected that reality.

The Canadian government granted 168 acres to each settler for the sum of $10, but only if they took up the homestead and broke 30 acres of land. In other words, the opportunity was real, but it came with a clear expectation of work and responsibility, something these pioneers did not shy away from. They were not coming to take advantage of Canada; they were coming to build Canada, to earn their place by contributing to our nation through the toughest conditions. That is the story of these Ukrainian pioneers who settled in the Patterson Lake district of Manitoba.

If one goes to Olha, Manitoba, today, one comes up to a quiet rural intersection, yet within a few miles one can see this entire pioneer story gathered in one place. One can see St. Michael's Ukrainian Catholic Church, a beautiful church that was established in 1904. It serves as a reminder that these settlers built not only farms but faith and community. Inside the church is a metal-bound gospel book from Lviv that records a prayer offered there for “our Canadian Ukraine...written [down] for eternal remembrance”.

To the southwest is a mass gravesite, the place that pays tribute to the tragedy I spoke about earlier, when scarlet fever swept through that first camp of settlers. To the east are the Swistun buddas, reconstructions of the first tent-shaped shelters the pioneers lived in, which are built from mud and hay. Michael Swistun, who was born in a budda in 1900, later reconstructed these structures to preserve this heritage.

A few miles north of Olha is the Marconi School, a one-room schoolhouse built in the early 1920s to serve the children of the pioneer families who were building homesteads. Today, it is a well-preserved heritage site where the names of the teachers who taught in the Marconi School are etched in chalk on the blackboard.

Right at the intersection is Olha General Store, which was built in 1940 and is still serving the area today. For decades, it has been run by Marion Koltusky, who was born on the same land her grandparents first homesteaded. Marion is one of the area's most prominent stewards of Ukrainian pioneer heritage, and I thank her. She has welcomed visitors from all over the world and carried forward the spirit and history of the people who built the region. I was honoured to present her with the King Charles III's Coronation Medal in Olha last summer.

The stories surrounding Olha and the Patterson Lake district are only one pioneer story in the constituency I represent, but it reflects so many others across rural Manitoba. There are hundreds of stories like it throughout the region, from Rossburn to Russell to Sandy Lake and everywhere in between. They are stories of families that arrived with little, worked the difficult land and built lives from the ground up.

They built institutions that made Canada what it is today. With churches, schools, stores and a cultural spirit that still holds many rural regions together today, these communities preserve their heritage because it is part of who they are. For example, the community of Dauphin, Manitoba, is home to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival, where families gather each year to pass down music, dance and tradition to the next generation.

I mentioned earlier the wooden sign next to the mass grave overlooking Patterson Lake. That sign stands on the gravesite where the families buried 42 of their children, and it looks out over the land that these pioneers refused to abandon. The simple, wooden sign reads, “They carved homesteads out of forest and made life possible for us: their descendants”.

In closing, may we be worthy descendants who strengthen what we inherited; who do not just enjoy what was built, but build again; and who keep Canada a country where tradition, responsibility and hard work still matter.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill S-210, an act to establish September as Ukrainian heritage month. The legislation would recognize and honour the contributions of more than 1.3 million Canadians of Ukrainian heritage. I count many friends and members of my family as proud members of the Ukrainian Canadian community, and I am proud to represent thousands of people of Ukrainian heritage in my constituency of Parkland.

Ukrainian Canadians have served our country in every war since at least the First World War, and despite the sad, regrettable internment of Ukrainians during the First World War, thousands of Ukrainians signed up to fight and to defend Canada, including Filip Konowal, whose story I would like to share today.

Born in Ukraine, then under the Russian empire, Konowal was already an experienced soldier and tree-feller when he moved to Canada in 1913. In 1915, he enlisted in the 77th Canadian Infantry Battalion. He was a member of my own regiment, the Governor General's Foot Guards, the regiment whose tie I wear today.

Konowal took part in two of Canada's greatest military achievements: the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Battle for Hill 70. For his bravery at Hill 70, Konowal, a Ukrainian, was awarded the Victoria Cross by King George V himself.

The citation describes his gallantry:

For most conspicuous bravery and leadership when in charge of a section in attack. His section had the difficult task of mopping up cellars, craters and machine-gun emplacements. Under his able direction all resistance was overcome successfully, and heavy casualties inflicted on the enemy. In one cellar he himself bayonetted three enemy and attacked single-handed seven others in a crater, killing them all.

On reaching the objective, a machine-gun was holding up the right flank, causing many casualties. Cpl. Konowal rushed forward and entered the emplacement, killed the crew, and brought the gun back to our lines.

The next day he again attacked single-handed another machine-gun emplacement, killed three of the crew, and destroyed the gun and emplacement with explosives.

This non-commissioned officer alone killed at least sixteen of the enemy, and during the two days’ actual fighting carried on continuously his good work until severely wounded.

After the war, Konowal continued to suffer from his wounds, physically and also mentally; we know this today as PTSD. Konowal later sought his family in the Soviet Union, only to learn that his wife had died during the Soviet-induced famine, the Holodomor.

In his later years, he actually worked as a custodian in the House of Commons. Later, he was even hired by Prime Minister Mackenzie King, who recognized this custodian's ribbon: the Victoria Cross. Konowal was just one of many Ukrainian Canadians who have proudly served in the Canadian Armed Forces to this day.

I want to pay tribute to another great Ukrainian Canadian, my dear late friend Leo Korownyk. Leo was born October 14, 1930, in Ukraine, and passed to join our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, on March 1, 2024, at the age of 93. He is survived by his wife, Anne Korownyk; his children; and many grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Leo and his family are members of my church, and I was so blessed to know him.

Leo was the last known survivor in the Edmonton area of the Holodomor, the systemic genocide through starvation imposed on Ukrainians by Stalin's evil regime in Moscow. Leo survived not only the Holodomor but also the Second World War, before eventually making his way to Canada, where he established his family and flourished like so many others.

It is incredibly difficult to imagine what the decision to flee his homeland must have entailed. Leo later wrote, “When the Second World War erupted in 1941 between the Soviet Union and Germany, and also when in 1943 the Germans began retreating, thousands of Ukrainians and millions of Europeans [became refugees]. Our father then said aloud what he was thinking: ‘When the front moves back, whether I'm dead or alive I won't spend another single day under the Communists.’”

In the final stages of the war, Leo, his parents and his siblings, with all their belongings loaded onto a covered wagon, walked westward, fleeing the advance of the Red Army. I remember hearing this incredible story recounted at Leo's funeral: “That one small wagon, already on three wheels only and carrying the youngest member of our family, our sister Luba, had also on it a large shawl, the kind that usually women would wrap around their shoulders when the weather got colder. Mother had made that shawl...back in Ukraine; it was strong and it stretched, and she took it at the last minute. So now Father and Mother took that shawl...and tied [it] together, so that it formed a loop. Father...inserted the wagon's axle and carried the weight of [the wagon], while Mother pulled the wagon” [westward, out of Ukraine].

Like many immigrants, Leo struggled at first to make his way in Canada. He became a door-to-door salesman selling Fuller brushes. He later took up a position at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, where he worked servicing surveying equipment for 18 years.

An incredible writer, Leo's extraordinary contributions to Canada and Ukraine are reflected through his extensive literary achievements, which are collected in his published works, I lived there, hungered, but survived, a collection of poems remembering the Holodomor. Leo was incredibly passionate about language and preserving the language and culture of his beloved Ukraine, and for many years Leo would read his powerful poems at the annual Edmonton commemoration of Holodomor.

I would like to share a poem by Leo, which describes the horrors of the Holodomor and Stalin's attempt to destroy the Ukrainian people:

At times I sit alone and meditate about the world, the human race, chaotic history, uncertain faith, and shadows hide my downcast face.
For in Ukraine there was a restless sky, yet independence she proclaimed. There was great joy in every eye, “Long live our country!” all exclaimed.
And yet, my country's future was not bright. On the horizon, stormy clouds, a sign there may not be real peace inside. Instead, uncertainty and doubts.
For Russia always was our neighbour for engaging in a cunning ploy, thus causing wretchedness and much great woe. She thought her gift was to destroy.
So 1930 was the start to liquidate the kulak class, and Stalin acted with a stony heart. Did more evil, never less.
He sent a quarter million of our people East, and thousands died while going there. Still others, quietly in exile, were deceased. If some survived, lived in despair.
Then, in 1931, horrific deeds were taking place. A fearful sight. Great famine had begun. But Stalin tried to save his face.
150,000 starved to death, but that was nothing to what would come. What you will hear may take away your breath, or even make your body numb.
For Kremlin agents and the troops have gone, to peasants' homes with clubs and arms, to plunder them with zest like Genghis Khan. Then drink and dance in burning barns.
Thus myriads of such Kremlin's rank and file, like pythons coiled around our chests to choke our life, and all our land defile, and poison into hearts injects.
Our world was tumbling like an old brick wall, thus causing ruin and despair. Exhausted people could not walk, but crawl. It was a yawning, open hell.
So three years passed, of hungry nights and days, of Kremlin’s shedding blameless blood. All of Ukraine was in shock and dazed. Disease and death came like a flood.
Ten million people Stalin starved to death. Our fathers, mothers, children, youth, he took away God-given life and breath.
He hated God and us and truth. His mission was to see our country die, but we resolved to save our lands. He tried to kill us, jail and crucify; we kept our saber in our hand.
We called the world, “please come, we starve, help us!” They heard us well, and yet passed by, then said, “Why do these people fret and fuss?” We shrugged but did not blink an eye.
Though many decades came and now have gone, the memory still lingers on.
And now, we honour those who loved Ukraine till death, for they believed in her undying breath.
Dear God, all those who died of famine, genocide, grant them eternal rest. May they, in peace, abide.

Leo's legacy will forever endure in the hearts of those who had the privilege to know him. His dedication to Canada and Ukraine, his literary contributions, his humanitarian work and his unwavering faith in God serve as an inspiration to all.

Ukrainians like Leo and Filip Konowal made immense contributions to Canada, and I am honoured as a member of the Governor General's Foot Guards to recognize a heroic Ukrainian Canadian warrior who served in my regiment. I am also honoured to be given the opportunity today to share the story of my dear friend Leo Korownyk.

For Leo and the thousands of other Ukrainians who fled starvation and war, Canada served as a beacon of hope. I will miss seeing my friend again at church on Sunday, but I have faith that I will see him again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I recognize the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre for his right of reply.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill S-210. This legislation, if passed, would declare September of every year Ukrainian heritage month across Canada.

I would like to begin by thanking the members who just spoke for sharing their stories. I thank them for supporting this bill. There were members from Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. I thank them.

The first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada arrived on September 7, 1891, and Ukrainian Canadians have since then helped to make Canada the great country that it is today. Those contributions span our economic, political, social and cultural life. That is why I was so proud in the last three parliaments to introduce a bill that would declare September Ukrainian heritage month, and that is why I am so proud to sponsor this bill in the House today.

Many Canadians are watching this debate at home. Some of them are immigrants to Canada from Ukraine. Some of them are the children and grandchildren of immigrants to Canada from Ukraine. My mother and my grandparents were immigrants to Canada from Ukraine.

My grandparents Ivan and Olena came to Canada after World War II, fleeing oppression and seeking a better life, like so many people who have come to Canada over the years from all around the world. They were incredibly proud of their Ukrainian heritage, but they were also incredibly proud to be Canadian. In fact, I have said this many times, and some members have heard me say it, my grandparents were among the proudest Canadians I have ever known.

To ensure that I learned about my Ukrainian heritage, my grandparents and my parents insisted I attend Saturday school, where we would learn the Ukrainian language, history, traditions and more. Every Saturday, after Saturday school, my grandfather would pick me up. We would have lunch together, and then he would help me with my Saturday school homework for the following week.

Members can imagine that when I was a teenager, when I was a kid, I was not so fond of Saturday school. I was not so fond of doing homework on Saturday afternoons either. One day I was very frustrated, I was struggling, and I said to my grandfather, whom I called Dido, “Dido, I don't want to do this anymore. I want to stop.”

He said to me, “Yvan, you cannot stop. Let me tell you why. I'm very proud of my heritage, and I think if you learn more, you will be too.” Then he said, “I want you to learn about the Ukrainian people because so many of them came here to Canada. They came before you did, they came before I did, and they helped to make this country great. I want you to learn about the people who made Canada great.”

For 135 years, Canadians of Ukrainian descent have left a historic mark on our country. Their contributions span communities across Ontario and every riding represented here in the House of Commons. Most recently, since 2022, Canadians have generously welcomed approximately 200,000 Ukrainians to Canada who were fleeing the war in Ukraine. Those immigrants to Canada from Ukraine have worked very hard. They have contributed to our communities. They are filling jobs that in many cases cannot be filled by Canadians, and they are making important contributions to Canada. Through the bill before us, Parliament would recognize these contributions over those 135 years.

Ukrainian Canadians have contributed to Canada, but Canada has also supported Ukrainian Canadians. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991 and was among the first countries to recognize the Holodomor as a genocide. Our government has been a global leader in supporting the people of Ukraine as they defend themselves against Russia's brutal invasion.

To me, there are two key reasons we support the people of Ukraine right now. The first is, of course, because it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. Ukrainians are defending themselves against a brutal invasion and war crimes every day. The second reason is that it is the right thing for Canada. Ukraine's victory is vital to Canada's security. If Russia wins, it will not stop at Ukraine. We know this because Vladimir Putin has told us so. If Russia wins, if Russia prevails in Ukraine, then Canadians, Americans and Europeans will be next in defending ourselves against Russian aggression, whether that is in Europe, in the Canadian Arctic or somewhere else in the world. That is why Canada is a global leader in supporting Ukraine, and that is why it has never been more important to pass a Ukrainian heritage month bill than it is today.

Ukraine's most prolific poet, Taras Shevchenko, once famously said:

[Member spoke in Ukrainian and provided the following translation:]

Teach, read and learn from others, but be proud of that which is your own.

[English]

Today I feel the way the people at home feel, the way my parents and grandparents would feel if they were here today, the way generations of Ukrainians who came to Canada would feel if they were here today: proud of their Ukrainian heritage, proud of the contributions Ukrainian Canadians have made to Canada and proud to be Canadian.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 11, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 2:40 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:40 p.m.)