Kevin Lamoureux

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important that we recognize that it was on March 1 that the House made an order indicating that we would be having the vote today at 7:15 p.m., an hour ago. Every member understood before the recess that the vote would be taking place this evening.

The other issue I have is this: Take a look at the purpose of opposition days and at the process we have witnessed today. There is no new element being introduced to the motion, and I will expand on that right away. What is important is to recognize the process that has gotten us to this point.

The NDP introduced a motion. There was a great deal of debate on it. There were all sorts of crossover discussions taking place, and at the end of the day, the government House leader moved an amendment. That amendment, which is completely within scope, was accepted by the member for Edmonton Strathcona. The Speaker reread the amendment and then ruled that it was, in fact, in order, as has been done previously on many different opposition days.

I take exception when members opposite try to give the false impression that it is out of scope. Let me give a very specific example. When they stood on the point of order to try to filibuster a vote, they made reference to the fact that the Gaza issue is a very important aspect of the amendment. Let us go to what the motion actually says about Gaza and ask how they could imply that the amendment would in any way be out of scope.

I would refer people to part (viii): “the forcible transfer and violent attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank have significantly increased in recent months”. How could they say that an amendment dealing with the West Bank is, in fact, out of scope, when it is actually in the motion that has been presented?

We can go further, to part (g): “ban extremist settlers”. Again, how could we not identify that this is also a part of Gaza?

I go to part (h): “advocate for an end to the decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories and work toward a two-state solution”.

I would argue against the very premise. After the Speaker agreed everything was in order, and the vote was just about to occur, a member stood up and brought up an issue, saying that the amendment is not within scope. In fact it is, and Gaza is actually mentioned, if members had listened to the Minister of Foreign Affairs when she made her presentation to the House, and to where other members even make reference to both Gaza and the West Bank.

I would suggest not only that it is within the scope but also that we have an order from March 1 saying that the vote should occur today at 7:15 p.m. I would suggest that we get on with it and vote.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member if he could reflect on the impact the situation is having here in Canadian society, and I am speaking specifically of racial incidents in our communities and of Canadian values.

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would not try to frame the discussion of what is currently happening as being ineffective. If the member was listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs earlier, she was very clear and her comments very much reflected what I believe are Canadian values. As we continue to move forward, we are listening to Canadians and looking at what our allied countries, in particular the G7, are doing. At the end of the day, with the heartache that Canadians are experiencing over this issue, such as, for example, the racial tensions that are picked up on, there is an important role for this chamber.

To what degree has the NDP worked with all parties in this area to agree on a motion that would be passed by all?

[Business of Supply, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed the House. If colleagues take a look and read what she said, it was really a true reflection of Canadian values. That is something we really need to highlight.

At the end of the day, this is a heart-wrenching issue that is having a severe impact on people in many different ways around the world. Here in Canada, I have had thousands of emails and all sorts of discussions, as many other members have. There has been a great deal of effort.

My concern, in part, is this: The member indicated at the beginning that he is going to support the motion. Does the member, as well as the Bloc, support every aspect of this motion? Are there any specifics that he does not support?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 2204, 2206 to 2216, 2219, 2221, 2222, 2224 to 2229, 2231 to 2235, 2238 to 2242, 2244, 2246, 2248, 2249 and 2251 to 2253 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2202, 2203, 2205, 2217, 2218, 2220, 2223, 2230, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2245, 2247 and 2250.

[Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That a take-note debate to pay tribute to the late Right Honourable Brian Mulroney be held, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, March 19, 2024, and that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House: (a) no member may speak for more than 10 minutes and the speeches not be subject to a question and comment period, provided that members wishing to speak may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; and (b) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Canada-Ukraine Relations, March 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have two other motions.

I would like to ask for consent to adopt the following motion relating to a take-note debate on Ukraine.

I move:

That a take-note debate on the Canada-Ukraine relationship and the newly signed strategic security partnership be held on Wednesday, March 20, 2024, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.