House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to the motion adopted on Monday, May 6, regarding the processing times for permanent residence pathways for Hong Kong residents. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to the motion adopted on Monday, May 6, regarding Canadian Armed Forces' applications from permanent residents. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

    Mr. Speaker, I move that the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Monday, May 6, 2024, be concurred in.

    I would like to inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the magnificent member for Victoria.

    Report 19, “Excess Profit Tax on Large Grocery Companies”, was put forward by my predecessor, the former NDP finance critic, Daniel Blaikie, who said the following:

    The Canadian grocery sector's $6 billion in profits last year set a new record. Grocery prices are now rising at the fastest rate in more than 40 years. At the same time, Canadians are going hungry, food insecurity is rising dramatically and demand for food banks is exceeding donations. There can be no doubt that corporate greed is resulting in higher grocery bills for Canadians.

    According to Statistics Canada, food retail profits have more than doubled since prepandemic norms, and profits continue to grow. The Competition Bureau has found that the profit margins of grocery giants are increasing and that this trend predates the supply chain disruptions faced during the pandemic and the current inflationary period.

    Loblaws has almost doubled its profit margin in the last five years, and Metro has the biggest profit margin of any grocer in Canada. Loblaws has even admitted to participating in an industry-wide price-fixing scam, yet there have been no meaningful consequences for these corporate criminals who ripped off Canadians for bread.

    While New Democrats have fought for years to make grocery giants and other corporate giants play by the rules, pay what they owe, and put the money back in people's pockets, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have refused to tackle corporate greed. In fact, the Liberals have gifted $26 million to Loblaws and Costco for new appliances. The Conservatives brought in $60 billion in corporate tax giveaways when they were last in power, and both the Liberals and the Conservatives failed to get tough on corporate criminals as their successive governments presided over an industry-wide bread price-fixing scam from 2001 to 2015.

    Due to this failure of leadership, Canadians have now taken matters into their own hands by boycotting big grocery chains. Instead of sitting on the sidelines while Canadians go hungry, it is time for the federal government to act.

    In 2022, the Liberal government agreed to bring in a one-time 15% windfall profits tax on banks and insurance firms, known as the Canada recovery dividend. There is absolutely no reason this measure should not be extended to grocery giants.

    Forcing grocery giants to pay tax on excess profits would disincentivize price gouging and encourage lower prices. It would help recoup the tax dollars that both Liberals and Conservatives have gifted to grocery giants. It would lower food costs for Canadians through a grocery rebate and an expanded national school food program.

    The finance committee report before us today is not the first time a committee has recommended an excess profits tax on grocery multinationals in this Parliament. On June 13, 2023, the Standing Committee on Agriculture presented a report to the House, which recommended the following:

    On June 27, 2023, the Competition Bureau released its retail grocery market study report, which found exactly that. The report noted that the Canadian grocery industry is concentrated, and the problem is getting worse. When the Competition Act was introduced in 1986, there were at least eight large grocery chains in Canada, and each was owned by a different company. Today, most sales are happening in stores owned by five grocery giants: Loblaws, Sobeys, Metro, Costco and Walmart. Grocery prices are increasing at the fastest rate in decades, and the profits of Canada's three largest grocers, Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, have risen significantly in recent years.

    The food gross margins of grocery giants are increasing, and this trend predates the supply chain disruptions faced during the pandemic and the current inflationary period. Even small changes in margins can be meaningful. Every percentage point increase in gross margins at grocery stores adds over $1 billion to Canadians' food bills each year. The fact that Canada's largest grocers have been able to increase these margins is a sign that there is room for more competition in Canada's grocery industry. Those were the conclusions of the Competition Bureau.

    The Competition Bureau's findings contradict previous committee testimony from grocery giants, who claimed they are not increasing profit margins on food items but instead are simply passing on higher costs from suppliers. This should come as no surprise. Canadians have every right to be skeptical of the claims made by grocery giants, as well as their commitment to corporate ethics, based on their previous conduct.

     We must never forget that in December 2017, Weston Foods and Loblaw Companies Limited confessed that they participated in what they described as an “industry-wide price-fixing arrangement” to inflate retail and wholesale bread prices for Canadians. The Competition Bureau has since executed search warrants against Canada Bread, Weston Foods, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart Canada, Giant Tiger, Overwaitea Food Group Limited, and Maple Leaf Foods Inc.

    Despite this years-long investigation, there have been no meaningful consequences for the perpetrators of this criminal price-fixing scam. Loblaws received immunity from prosecution and offered customers $25 gift cards as compensation. Canada Bread also received leniency in sentencing after pleading guilty to four counts of price-fixing.

    Given that we still do not have clear answers on this scheme or any real consequences for these corporate misdeeds that stole bread money out of people's pockets, Canadians have understandably run out of patience. It is time for their elected leaders to step up, and that is what New Democrats are doing today.

    An excess profits tax would not only discourage price gouging; it would also provide significant revenue to address growing rates of food insecurity and child hunger across Canada.

    Today, nearly one in four Canadian children does not get enough to eat, and more than one-third of food bank users are children. According to Children First Canada, there has been a 29% increase in food insecurity in children in the last year alone. However, Canada remains the only G7 country that does not have some form of a national school food program or national standards. This is a critical gap felt strongly in a time of skyrocketing food prices.

    After years of NDP pressure, including a bill I introduced in this House almost five years ago, the Liberals finally agreed to bring in a national school food program in budget 2024. This urgently needed program will be in place as early as the 2024-25 school year and help 400,000 children access the food they need to grow up healthy. By the way, that is nowhere near what is needed. There are over two million Canadians attending school from grades 1 to 6 in this country, and every one of them deserves a hot, nutritious meal every day they attend school.

    This is an important first step. While there are over two million children in grades 1 to 6 alone in Canada, and 2.6 million in grades 1 to 8, clearly the scale of this program is far from sufficient to reach all Canadian children. Revenues from an excess profits tax on grocery giants could be strategically used to provide more nutritious meals to more Canadian children. Based on the latest data from Statistics Canada's Canadian income survey, 8.7 million Canadians lived in food-insecure households in 2023.

    As a targeted income support, a grocery rebate would also be an important tool for addressing household food insecurity. It would recognize that inadequate income and high prices lie at the root of the challenges faced by Canadians who are unable to afford the food they need.

    In light of the record profits made by the Canadian grocery sector, coupled with the alarming rise in food insecurity among millions of Canadians, I call on all members of the House to support the concurrence motion before us. Corporate greed cannot be allowed to drive up grocery bills while Canadians go hungry. It is time for the federal government to act decisively for Canadians and ensure fairness for all.

    Mr. Speaker, the government is very concerned about the price of groceries. It is one of the reasons we called the grocery giants to the table to demand better from them. It is why we brought in legislation to make changes to the Competition Act; this is something the NDP supported, which I appreciate.

    The member referred to providing food for children. Just this last week, the Prime Minister was in The Maples, announcing and amplifying that particular program. Children cannot learn or participate on an empty stomach. I would suggest to the member that the government is very much aware of the situation and is taking action where it can. Could he be a bit more precise about what, specifically, he would like to see take place outside the one tax he is talking about that we need to put in?

     Mr. Speaker, there is a huge difference between making a demand of an industry and making a request. The Liberal government has requested that the grocery industry make changes in this country. It has asked that it do that.

    This industry has proved itself to be gouging Canadians and making record profits. The NDP is talking about compelling it to pay more.

    I just want to say that the Liberals and the NDP campaigned in the 2021 federal election on devoting a billion dollars to a national school nutrition program. The government has been in power now for an additional three and a half years. It took three and a half years for the government to bring in this program that the NDP has been pushing for; in that time period, millions of Canadian children have gone hungry. This should have been one of the first measures brought in by the government, not one that it waited to bring in until near the end of its term and that may not even be in place until 2025.

    Mr. Speaker, of course, the NDP persistently ignores the role of inflation and the carbon tax in driving up the price of food and other everyday essentials for Canadians.

    Conservatives recognize that greed is a common part of the human condition, and this includes government greed. Bizarrely, the New Democrats think that it is only the private sector and that the government is totally immune to greed. They ignore the role that government greed plays with respect to higher taxes, higher spending, the pursuit of ever-greater government control and how that is making life more unaffordable under the NDP-Liberal coalition.

    We hear a lot about specific grocery companies but almost nothing about Metro, which is one major grocery company in this country. Does the NDP member think the lack of mention of Metro by the NDP has anything to do with the fact that its leader's brother is a lobbyist for Metro?

    Mr. Speaker, no. The only lack here is a lack of listening by my fellow colleague, because I did mention Metro several times in my speech, so I do not know what he is talking about.

    What is interesting when we talk about greed is that the one difference between New Democrats and Conservatives is this: When we are in power, we are not going to give the corporate sector $60 billion in gifts as the last Conservative government did.

    With respect to government greed and taxation, maybe my hon. colleague needs to explain to all the seniors who are currently going to dentists in this country why Conservatives would take away dental care from seniors and pharmacare from diabetics. I do not call that greed; I call it a lack of compassion and poor public policy.

    Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to watch Conservatives, yet again, go to bat for their corporate friends. They are country club Conservatives indeed.

    I take issue with the parliamentary secretary, because he was making an intervention about the Liberals. The Liberals set up a grocery task force, which has completed no tasks and is not much of a force. Members will forgive me if I need to take the Liberal promises with a grain of salt, because we have been waiting for forceful action for over two years. They have all the tools of government at their disposal, and they are wondering what more can be done.

    Could my hon. colleague expand a bit on the Liberals' failure to take this issue with the seriousness it deserves and really recognize the hurt that so many Canadians are going through?

    Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague hit the nail on the head: The Liberals have gone cap in hand to the grocery sector and asked them to act. That is not what is required in these situations.

     What is required is strong governmental action. They did it with the banks. They brought in a windfall profits tax on the banks. There is no reason they should not do it in the grocery sector.

    At the end of the day, the NDP is interested in making sure that Canadians can afford to have nutritious food for everybody and their family. It is not happening now, and it is unacceptable in a G7 country and in one as wealthy as Canada.

     Mr. Speaker, corporate greed is driving up costs.

     At a time when Canadians are struggling, it is unacceptable to see a government fail to tackle a key driver of inflation. It is one key reason that families are having a hard time putting food on the table, paying rent, paying their mortgages and paying for essential medication.

    So many Canadians are struggling right now. They have been doing everything right, yet they still cannot get ahead. The cost of living has gotten out of hand. At the same time, the biggest corporations and their rich CEOs are doing better than ever. Between 2019 and 2023, the Liberals decided to give out $25.5 million to Loblaws and Costco. This is while these grocery store chains were making record profits.

     No matter where people live in Canada, they should be able to buy the food they need. Canadians are worried about how to put food on the table; the Liberals are worried about how many millions of dollars they want to hand out to their wealthy friends and people at the very top.

    Considering that they gave out over $25 million to corporations that were already making massive profits, it is no surprise that we have people across Canada boycotting these chains right now. It is because the Liberals and the Conservatives have failed to tackle corporate greed. Really, they lack the courage to do so.

     It is the role of government to make our country fair. Instead, the Liberals and the Conservatives before them have been making rich CEOs even richer. This $25 million is in addition to the $2.35 billion in handouts to the three big grocery chains given by successive Liberal and Conservative governments; taxpayer money is handed out to corporations that are making record profits.

     It is no wonder that the majority of Canadians support an excess profit tax. We are talking about a tax on grocery store chains, but I also want to take a moment to talk about the need for a windfall tax on oil and gas. On the eve of the federal budget, it was reported that the Minister of Finance was considering a windfall tax on oil and gas. However, according to the Globe and Mail article, multiple sources confirmed that she backed down “in the face of strong lobbying from oil patch executives and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.”

     The same lobbyists and executives are raking in record profits, increasing their emissions and gouging Canadians at the pump, all while handing out millions of dollars in bonuses to their CEOs. Luckily for them, the Liberal government has their back.

    Canadians are not so lucky. They have been experiencing the dual crisis of the cost of living and the climate crisis. There are wildfires, heat domes that kill hundreds of people and multi-year droughts; at the same time, communities are evacuated because of extreme flooding. This is costing our economy and our communities billions of dollars in damages. It has taken the lives of hundreds of Canadians.

     While Canadians are struggling with the impacts of the climate crisis, they are also struggling with the price gouging from big pharma, big grocery chains, real estate developers and investors, and oil and gas corporations, which are driving up prices while corporate profits hit record highs. Left unchecked, soaring corporate profits are a major driver in the recent inflation spike. These inflationary price increases hurt workers' pockets while padding corporate profits, particularly in oil and gas.

    Most Canadians can see that greedflation is a problem. The majority of Canadians support a windfall tax on oil and gas. The concept of a windfall profits tax or an excess profits tax is not a radical solution. It is a pragmatic approach that has been adopted by countries around the world. A windfall tax has been implemented by the United Kingdom and more than 20 European countries. It has raised over $10 billion. In response to record profits, these countries decided to put in place a windfall profits tax.

    The global surge in energy prices that has been exacerbated by geopolitical tensions, market manipulations and corporate greed has generated a response; countries levied additional taxes on the surplus profits of oil and gas companies. However, in Canada, both the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition have shown a disheartening reluctance to take on big oil and gas. While New Democrats successfully forced the Liberals to put a surplus profits tax on the big banks, the Liberals refuse to ruffle the feathers of their friends in oil and gas. The Liberals lack the courage to take on corporate greed.

    Of course, then there are the Conservatives, who continue to do the bidding of the oil and gas executives who are flocking to the Conservatives' fundraisers. Conservatives champion increasing production and emissions; they disregard the long-term environmental and economic consequences of these policies. The corporate-controlled Conservatives have no climate plan. They have no problem letting oil and gas companies pollute and gouge Canadians without consequence.

    It is not surprising that the Conservatives will not even talk about corporate greed or about a windfall profits tax when the Leader of the Opposition's top adviser had to use a shell company to try to hide her lobbying, which she denies. The fact is that their party is run by lobbyists. However, no matter what the Conservatives believe, climate change is real; the cost of living crisis is real. These crises are costing Canadians. They are costing our economy billions of dollars in annual disaster response, mitigation and adaptation. Canadians are struggling. However, the Liberals have shown that, despite a clear mandate from Canadians, who support a windfall tax and demand accountability, the Liberals would rather be wined and dined by big oil, big grocery store chains and big pharma. For years, Liberals have sat on their hands while Canada's biggest polluters have made more money than ever before and while the biggest grocery chains are gouging Canadians and price-fixing with no accountability.

     The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that, if the Liberals just made oil and gas companies pay their fair share and just implemented a windfall tax on oil and gas companies, the government would generate $4 billion a year. This could be invested in helping Canadians who are struggling with the cost of living, in clean energy, in public transportation and in helping families switch to heat pumps, ultimately driving down emissions and helping people with the cost of living. A windfall tax on the profits of grocery store chains and on oil and gas profits is not just wise; it is essential. It is a needed policy to support Canadians when they are struggling.

    I want to take a moment to talk about an amazing organization in my community: Flourish! School Food Society. It is a school food program for many communities in my region. Canada is the only G7 country without a national school food program, so we need to generate funds to ensure that we can support Canadians and make sure that kids never have to worry about where their next meal will come from, that they never have to worry that they cannot focus on school, cannot learn or cannot grow. We need to invest in Canadians, tax the corporations that are making record profits and ensure that every Canadian can make a good life.

    Mr. Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that, as a government, we are moving toward a grocery code of conduct for the first time. We have actually made amendments to the Canada Competition Bureau. The member who spoke before the member for Victoria talked about how important the Competition Bureau is in terms of being effective.

     The member talked about the national school food program, which has been incorporated into the most recent budget. In fact, just last week, as I pointed out, the Prime Minister himself was in Winnipeg North talking about that program at Elwick Community School. We understand the needs of Canadians, which is one of the reasons we continue to bring in the programs and the legislation that are necessary to support Canadians in all regions of the country.

     Would the member provide her additional thoughts regarding how important the national food program is for the children of Canada and how it is a good thing to have that in the budget? Unfortunately, the Conservatives will be voting against it.

    Mr. Speaker, a national school food program is an essential policy, and the Liberals were pushed into actually delivering on it by the NDP, but I just want to take a moment address what the member started off talking about, which is a grocery store code of conduct. The Liberals are asking grocery store chains nicely to please behave. This is not how we get greedy corporations to actually do the right thing.

    The government has a responsibility to tackle corporate greed. We need to regulate these industries. Big oil and gas companies are not going to fund climate solutions on their own; we have seen it. They have rolled back their emissions targets while they rake in record profits, and then they come to the government asking for more handouts, and for some reason the government continues to give out billions of dollars to big oil and gas companies and millions to big grocery store chains. How about the government gives that money to Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member would like to comment on the fact that the brother of the leader of the NDP is a lobbyist from Metro and that in fact its profits have actually outstripped those of Loblaw. Metro is at 4.6%, whereas Loblaw is at 3.4%. Is that just a coincidence?

    Mr. Speaker, we need to tackle grocery store chain profits: all the big grocery store chains. Unfortunately we have seen from the Conservatives that half of their national executive, their governing body, is made up of lobbyists from the big grocery store chains, from big pharma and from oil and gas. The same CEOs are flocking to Conservative fundraisers to donate to them because they know, as they have seen it time and time again, that Conservatives in power make rich CEOs richer, and Canadians get their services cut. They get the programs they depend on cut. This is what we get with Conservatives.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member so much for raising the oil and gas industry and the amount of profit that they are taking off the table. As we head into or are already deeply into the wildfire season, I wonder whether the member could talk a bit about how that is impacting Canadians at this point in time.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her ongoing advocacy for climate action. At a time when we are seeing wildfire season starting in some regions of the country in February, and when last year we saw the worst wildfire season on record, with thousands of people evacuated from their homes, we need to name the fact that rich oil and gas CEOs are culpable in the climate disasters that are happening in our country and the government is letting them get away with it.

     Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member explain to me how lower grocery prices would be seen by Canadians if the government should choose to tax 100% of the profits of the big grocery stores? How would it affect someone going to the store if the money flowed from the grocery stores to the federal government?

    Mr. Speaker, I think the member does not understand an excess profits tax. It is a tax on the excess profits, the windfall profits, and it is not a radical idea. It has been implemented in the UK with respect to oil and gas. It has been implemented in 20 European countries, and it has been shown that taxing excess profits, windfall profits, disincentivizes price gouging. It disincentivizes the greedy corporations from making even more money and putting it in the pockets of their shareholders at the expense of everyday people.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege, and I regret having to do that.

    I am raising this question of privilege today on yet another instance of public display of partisanship on the part of our Speaker, following the promotion of a Liberal Party of Canada event with the Speaker as a featured guest, combined with very partisan, inflammatory language bashing the official opposition, the Conservative Party.

    Normally this is where I would lay out the facts and then argue how they meet or differ from the relevant authorities and precedents that are on point. However, in the present instance, I think it is important for us to address upfront the importance of raising this matter in the manner in which I am doing so, as a question of privilege, and your authority to rule on the same. I will then revert to the facts of the present matter and how they amount to, in my view, a contempt of the House.

    In your December 5, 2023, ruling at page 19501 of the Debates, when the House was last confronted with the Speaker's public display of partisanship, you said, “if members wish to take issue with the conduct of the Speaker, rather than raising points of order or questions of privilege, I would instead direct them to place a substantive motion on notice.”

    This is, it is fair to say, an attempt to give expression of the statement found at page 620 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, that reads, “Only by means of a substantive motion, for which 48 hours’ written notice has been given, may the actions of the Chair be challenged, criticized and debated.” However, I would argue that the statement requires a narrower interpretation of addressing the actions of the Chair, which is to say, the actions or omissions of the Speaker or any other chair occupant here within the chamber.

    I would have you consider the following factors for the analysis. First, as you yourself said in your December 2023 ruling, there are two past examples, from June 1956 and March 2000, where dissatisfaction with the procedural rulings was vented through a question of privilege but was steered towards a substantive motion being placed before the House. I underline here that those examples involved procedural rulings of the Chair.

    Second, and on the other hand, another precedent, which was referred to in the arguments before you in December but which did not receive any treatment in your ruling, was Speaker Fraser's March 9, 1993, ruling at page 16685 of the Debates concerning the then Deputy Speaker's appointment as Chair of her party's leadership convention. In ruling against the question of privilege, Speaker Fraser did so on the merits of the case before him; that is to say, he did not dismiss it on the technicality of preferring for it to proceed by way of a substantive motion. Indeed, to that later point, the Chair said:

    In the precedent's case, as much as has been said about the current Speaker's performance in the House, I will restrain myself from doing so and will focus squarely on his publicly partisan conduct outside the chamber, which is of course not a procedural ruling's being objected to.

    Third, you yourself declined to dismiss the December 2023 question of privilege on this technicality. If the requirement for a substantive motion were truly a hard and fast rule, it would have been invoked by the Chair at the time. Indeed I believe that all of the precedents speak to the viewpoint of the limitation of using only a substantive motion concerning a chair occupant's conduct within the chamber, such as rulings, and not external conduct, which reflects on the institution of the Chair or the House as a whole.

     Fourth, the statements from Bosc and Gagnon, as well as your December rulings, must now be viewed through the constraints that were subsequently imposed by the Assistant Deputy Speaker's December 15, 2023, ruling at page 20180 of the Debates, whereby such a substantive motion moved during routine proceedings cannot be treated as a privileged motion but is instead subject to the following practice, described at page 469 of Bosc and Gagnon: “When debate on any motion considered during Routine Proceedings is adjourned or interrupted..., the order for resumption of the debate is transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders”.

    In fact, that has been the fate of the motion of non-confidence which my House leader moved for debate on December 15, 2023. It has sat on the Order Paper ever since, as Government Motion No. 33. It has never been called for further debate. It has never been put up for a vote, despite the words of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on May 8: “The motion did not find consensus, and as such, the matter is closed”. What all of this means is that a handful of members could in essence protect a Speaker from a majority decision by exercising a short filibuster to prevent a substantive motion from coming to a vote.

    If the House adopts a motion to adjourn the debate or even to proceed to Orders of the Day, that would at least reflect in some fashion the will of the majority in the moment, but that is not what happened on December 15, 2023, nor is it what our procedures would require at any other time. Of course, a government seeking to shield an openly pro-government Speaker would in turn have no interest in calling a motion that would be placed under Government Orders to allow it to be further debated.

    Combining these two factors during the tenure of a minority government, like the one we are in today, it would be very easy for a government to protect its guardian Speaker from a non-confidence motion's ever coming to a vote, despite the sentiments of the majority of the House. Then, on the basis of little, a short speech or two, it could be dismissed as a matter having been, as the parliamentary secretary said, “closed” because it “did not find consensus”, thereby depriving the House of the ability to purge itself of a festering controversy over its Speaker and to clear the air in either direction. That is, I would submit, the predicament that we find ourselves in today.

    In Canada, no one is above the law. Likewise, in the House, no one should be above the rules and the practices, certainly not the Speaker, who is called upon to enforce them. That is why I would urge you to interpret the requirements of censuring the Speaker by way of a substantive motion as being properly limited to procedural rulings to which objection is taken.

    Having addressed the matter of the receivability of my question of privilege, I will turn now to the substance of the present concern. It has come to light that the Liberal Party of Canada is advertising “a summer evening with the Honourable [Speaker]”, scheduled to be held on the evening of June 4 in the shadow of Parliament Hill at a location adjacent to the Gatineau bank of the Ottawa River, less than a kilometre over my right shoulder.

    The promotional material of the event used very partisan, inflammatory language concerning the Conservative Party and the leader of the official opposition. Allow me to read just some of it for the benefit of the whole House: “Join us for an event in your community—you don't want to miss it. It's an opportunity to join fellow Liberals to talk about ways we can continue to build a better future for all Canadians—because a better future starts with you.”

    It goes on to say this:

     The Speaker's event is being promoted by attacking the very same leader, on whom he recently used his authority to kick out of the House of Commons, allegedly for his choice of wording in the middle of question period, when the Liberal Prime Minister, merely seconds before, had used equivocally questionable language and had been given a pass for it.

    A footnote beneath the promotional rhetoric explains, “Team [Prime Minister's name] events are posted by local volunteer teams....” That means, I would submit, the Speaker must take personal responsibility for what his local team, the Hull—Aylmer Federal Liberal Association, whose past president, I would add, is the Speaker's chief of staff, has organized and published.

    The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs noted in its 55th report, “Today, an expectation exists among members of the House, and the wider public, that the Speaker’s duties ought to be carried out with scrupulous impartiality and independence.... The Speaker must be fair and impartial.” The House concurred in this report on January 30, lending its endorsement to that position, and it is a position that the Speaker has yet again fallen short of. Moreover, it is an established standard that has not been lived up to.

    Our leading procedural guide, Bosc and Gagnon, on page 323, says, “When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.” When he was elected Speaker, his extensive partisan history, from being the president of Young Liberals, to being national director for the Liberal Party, to being parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, among other offices, gave many members of the House pause about lending their trust and goodwill to him. Regrettably, his subsequent actions have done nothing to dispel these concerns. If anything, they have only been heightened.

    During the seven months as Speaker, he has repeatedly engaged in questionable partisan behaviour, including in October when he called a former Liberal member of Parliament and opinion writer and asked him to pen an op-ed slamming the official opposition for its efforts to hold the government to account. In November, he attended and spoke at a cocktail militant, where donations were solicited in support of the provincial Pontiac Federal Liberal Association.

    In early December, a partisan tribute was broadcast at the Ontario Liberal Party's leadership convention, where he was seen in his full Speaker's trappings, heaping praise on the party's outgoing interim leader and current parliamentary leader, a man who is not actually retiring from politics, but fully intends to run as a candidate in the next provincial election. As we know, that led to an unprecedented ruling of prima facie contempt in the House, to a committee study and to a Board of Internal Economy penalty. Then, while the House was seized with the fallout of this scandalous video, and in the midst of a sitting week, he jetted off to Washington for a trip centred around a retirement party for a personal friend from international Liberal politics, where he made a speech reminiscing about his days as Young Liberals' president, and of course, we now have this summer rally for the Liberal Party of Canada.

     As for the Speaker's events scheduled next month, I fully acknowledge that Speakers do not arrive in the chair through some form of immaculate conception. Speakers have all been politicians before being elected to the chair, and some have even gone on to further partisan service after serving in the chair.

    Most Speakers have typically sought re-election to the House of Commons under their original party banner, which understandably requires the usual groundwork any member of Parliament places in his or her constituency association by engaging the support of volunteers and by ensuring adequate resources are available come election time.

    That being said, long-standing tradition and custom in the Canadian House of Commons and in its sister legislatures across the Commonwealth all have the expectation of the Speaker's impartiality while in post. This varies from country to country, as was explained in greater detail by the official opposition leader of the Conservative Party in the December question of privilege concerning the Speaker's convention tribute when he quoted various procedural authorities in Quebec, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India, for instance, and I would commend those texts to the Chair.

    Our own Bosc and Gagnon reflects, on page 324, “In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings)”.

    In a campaigning context, the same authority adds, on page 314, “although the Speaker eschews partisan political activity, he or she does not make a complete break. When running for re-election, incumbent Speakers are usually careful to avoid partisan statements that might prejudice their perceived impartiality in the future.”

     Reconciling these demands on the Speaker as a local member of Parliament and as a candidate for re-election is typically not that onerous. A Speaker can focus on local issues, promote his or her efforts on intentions they might want to undertake as a local member of Parliament, and build up local enthusiasm and resources, all without taking partisan statements that might prejudice their perceived impartiality. If those types of statements are considered inappropriate when Parliament is dissolved, then it must be even that much more inappropriate during an actively sitting Parliament.

    Indeed, as my party House leaders told the House in December, in respect of the video controversy, if the Speaker openly engages in partisan conduct, it opens the door to public analysis of all partisan motivations underlying his rulings. That is exactly where his habits, with this month's event promotional material I quoted as an example, have led us.

    It has simply become impossible to make any distinction now between the member for Hull—Aylmer, who also serves as the Speaker, and the Liberal member for Hull—Aylmer. Every ruling that is now given and, with hindsight, every ruling that he has ever given, will now be assumed to have been delivered with a red hint.

    The Speaker has failed at showing, and at being seen to show, the impartiality required of a Speaker. In turn, he can no longer count on the trust and the goodwill of members from all corners of the House. That is not where the House ought to be. It is far from it, in fact.

    Following the convention tribute video scandal, the Conservative and the Bloc Québécois caucuses lost confidence in the Speaker's continuing in his office.

    Meanwhile, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, speaking to journalists, for the New Democratic Party, after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs' review of the issue, said, “This cannot happen moving forward. From now on, you cannot have a Speaker engage in partisan activity.” He also said that, “if there was any derogation from that, in the weeks and months to come”, his party would join in voting “non-confidence” in the Speaker.

     If the NDP House leader and his party were true to their word, there would now be a majority of members, representing the majority of parties in the House of Commons, who have lost confidence in the Speaker. For the good of the institution of Parliament and of the enduring interest of the House of Commons, I regret to say that the Speaker must go. Failing that, it is incumbent upon the House to take action immediately.

    That is why I urge you to find in favour of my question of privilege establishing a prima facie contempt so that I may put forward a motion of remedy to vacate the chair and to schedule the election of a new Speaker.

    Mr. Speaker, in response to the question of privilege raised by the Conservative Party, I would like to present the Bloc’s position and thinking on the fact that the Speaker of the House released a partisan message. This is the third instance where there is clear evidence that the Speaker of the House lacked judgment and breached his duty of impartiality. Unfailing impartiality and sound judgement are the foundation of the office of the Speaker and are required of a Speaker, and yet this is the third time we face this kind of situation.

     The Bloc Québécois made its position clear in December. It said that the events in which the Speaker had been involved at the time proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Speaker did not have the skills required to continue in his role. What we are seeing today, unfortunately, is a repeat of what happened before. Therefore, it would seem that the Speaker, who issued his mea culpa at the time, simply does not understand the role he has to play. This is obvious, and it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is unfortunately maintaining its position and calling for the Speaker in question to step down.

     As everyone can see, House debates are becoming increasingly acrimonious. That is why we need someone at the helm who can command respect and has the skills required to control the debate, which tends to get overly heated in this chamber. The responsibility of the Chair has become increasingly important in view of the climate that has taken hold in the House.

     Obviously, we all know that the Speaker, who is the member for Hull-Aylmer, was well known for his partisanship at the committee level. That went without saying, and there was nothing wrong with that. He had a job to do, and his partisanship was not out of place in committee. However, there is no place for partisanship in the role of Speaker.

     We simply raised the flag when we saw him assume the speakership for the first time. We wanted to let him know we would be watching him, and we hoped he would show impartiality. What we are seeing, unfortunately, is that he is the wrong person for the job.

     I have nothing personal against the Speaker and neither does the Bloc Québécois. However, with all due respect to the Speaker, he does not belong in the chair, as evidenced by the fact that 150 members expressed their loss of confidence in the Speaker back in December, mere months after he was elected to the position. At the time, the NDP said that this must not happen again, but now it has.

    That is very worrying. What really worries me is that the three events we all know about may be just the tip of the iceberg. That is the problem. We know that he showed obvious partisanship and lack of judgment on three occasions, but he may have done so more than three times. We do not know. That is what worries us. Whenever he rises in the House, we always have nagging doubts about the decisions he will make, his behaviour and what he does outside the House. What does he say when he speaks to people on behalf of the House of Commons? It is impossible not to think about that.

    There are only two ways to put our minds at ease and ensure that, whenever the Speaker rises, he does so competently and with absolute respect for the House. Either the House implements a mechanism for him to leave the Chair, or the Speaker resigns, as a true statesman would. In all honesty and impartiality, that is the question I keep coming back to. I wonder what it will take for the NDP and the Liberals to say that enough is enough.

    Mr. Speaker, this is, of course, very worrying. The New Democratic Party is very concerned. We would like to reserve the right to come back at some point in the future. As with all questions of privilege, it is important for us to take the time to look at this very clearly.

    I thank the members for their interventions. Knowing that the decision back in December was to bring the substantive motion forward, I do understand the concern brought forward here. We will go back and look at this attentively and, of course, wait for further interventions on this as well.

    Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House of Commons and speak on behalf of the people of Peterborough—Kawartha.

    It is an even bigger responsibility as the critic, or shadow minister, for families, children and social development. Without families, without healthy families, without healthy children, we have a serious problem in this country. There is no doubt whatsoever that there are some serious problems in this country.

    I will be 45 years old in two weeks, and in my time living here, I have never seen Canada in the state it is in now. I have never seen kids struggle in the way that they are struggling. I have never seen seniors struggle in the way that they are struggling. Every member in the House would know this if they were door knocking, which is part of our job when an election comes, to knock on the doors of people, to listen to them, to hear them, to take the emails and to take the phone calls. I have never seen such genuine misery and fear in my life.

    I originally come from a very small community. It is called Douro. Douro is what I always call the foundation of Canada. It has four corners. It has the elementary school. It has the church. It did have a town store, a general store, which was like a mercantile. Sadly, it burned down. The town hall was right beside it on the same corner. It also has a graveyard.

     I want to also mention that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. We are, as they call us, the Peterborough pistols.

    The community of Douro really represented what Canada is. It is this community where, when one needs help, one's neighbours show up. There is the community centre where one has the weddings, events, hockey games and soccer games. There are the schools. Everybody knew everybody, and everybody helped everybody. Slowly, the erosion of the country has happened. It is no coincidence that this has happened in the last nine years under the leadership of the Prime Minister.

    I want to tell members a surprising stat. This is officially the longest-running minority government without an election in Canadian history, surpassing Lester B. Pearson's government in 1968. Why is that? It is because of the leader of the NDP.

    Why is this because of the leader of the NDP? It is because the Prime Minister knew he was tanking, knew that his gaslighting was no longer working. He took Canadians and he spoke about sunny ways, sunny days, and that things would never be better. Canadians caught on, really quickly, when they realized that they could not afford the interest rates, that they could not afford to keep their mortgages and that they could not afford food.

    They cannot afford food and are spending $700 extra a year in groceries. Two million Canadians a month are using a food bank, and 33% of those are children.

    The Otonabee-South Monaghan Food Cupboard operates in what will soon be my riding, but is now in my colleague's riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. She came to my office last week and said that they have seen a 100% increase in the usage of food banks. She said that they are not the most vulnerable. These are working families that are doing everything that was asked of them. They go to work, and they cannot afford to feed their kids.

    They cannot afford to feed their kids. I think it is deeply upsetting because we have never had people work so hard and feel so hopeless. We have the worst GDP in the G7. People want to say that it is the sign of the times, that it is everything. They want to blame it on everything.

     This is about leadership. I often say that politics is very much like parenting. Parenting is a very perfect metaphor for politics. It is one's job as a parent to give one's kids the tools and the knowledge to go and thrive. One should never be on the field with one's child. One should be there to help them. If one does everything for them, what happens? They do not learn how to do it.

    Right now, we have a government, and a coalition, because the Prime Minister knew he was going to lose. He knew that everybody was catching on to the misery and chaos he had created, such as increasing crime and victims no longer having rights. Last month we had victims' rights week, and there was not one mention from that side of the House about victims' rights. The government has made sure that criminals have all the rights they need and that they get transferred to medium security without anybody being told. It secretly did that. It transferred Luka Magnotta and did not tell the public. It does not worry about victims or retraumatizing people.

    Because the Prime Minister knew he was going to tank, he got the leader of an opposition party to sign a coalition with him, and then continued to gaslight Canadians in the hope that nobody would catch on. Everybody has caught on. Nobody believes anything the Liberals say. They are frustrated and exhausted. People ask me why, every day in question period, they do not answer anything, but just deflect, not answer the questions and pretend everything is perfect.

    There is no better example of this than child care. The Liberals' whole marketing program was that child care is great. I visited a local child care facility in my riding last week that is run by an amazing woman. She is single mom who decided to bring kids into her home to care for them and help offer flexibility to the parents who need to work. She said that the cost of food is out of control if one wants to feed kids healthy food. We all know that what we put in our gas tank determines our overall productivity and ability to function. She said that the cost of food is just unbelievable.

    I think the most shocking thing for me is that people will write to me and say that they are so embarrassed because they make $100,000 and still cannot pay their mortgage and feed their kids. They are having to cut back on sports. Then their health is compromised. Their mental health is compromised. The health of these kids is compromised.

    I spoke to a grade 10 civics class last week. These kids were very sharp. They were in tune. I said that I thought that social media has caused a lot of problems in the world, especially for young people. They were pretty dialed in and knew a lot of things. They said that they did not think they would ever own a home. They do not even know why they go to school. They do not even know what to do. They do not want to stay in their town because there are no jobs and no housing that is affordable. These kids are 15 years old and are burdened with adult problems. They were genuinely concerned.

     I think there is a real problem with acknowledging the facts, but here are some real facts to change the course we are on.

     If we tax fuel, every single thing goes up. The carbon tax is the demise of an already crushed society that cannot afford to live. It is like punching someone just a little more while they are down. It is wild. If we talk to farmers, especially small business owners who, for the record, are the whole backbone of this country as small businesses make up 98% of this economy, they are being destroyed every single day. When we increase the tax on small businesses, these people, who are not swimming in gobs of money but who are trying to make a living and provide a service to families or themselves, cannot do it. They are shutting down. If we go downtown in any major city in this country, we can see the out-of-business sales and closed restaurants. Why is that? It is because of the Prime Minister, who got into a coalition with that guy for power and control, has doubled down on an ideology that we cannot make our own decisions, that the government knows what is better for us and will do it for us, which is going to cripple us and make it dependent on us. It is baffling and so upsetting because we are here and we are—

    The hon. member's time is up. I have given her some signals. She can add on throughout the questions and comments period.

     Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, it is interesting to have the contrast between the Conservatives and the Liberals.

    I made reference to the Prime Minister being in the city of Winnipeg. We talked about a national food program and making sure children are eating. The Conservatives stick to spin after spin. There are concerns, and we are very much aware of those concerns.

    There is a CTV report that I googled while the member was speaking. It says that, in comparison to other nations, Canada is ranked the second-lowest nation. It is referring to inflation rates. Canada is not an island. We continue to fight inflation, which is at 2.7% today. We continue to fight it. In comparison to the rest of the world, Canada is doing reasonably well.

    There is room for improvement but, news flash for the Conservative Party of Canada, Canada is not broken. Canada is doing exceptionally well, especially in comparison to other nations. Will the member get real and be more honest and straightforward with Canadians on the facts?

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out the significant contrast between Liberals and Conservatives.

    After nine years of the Prime Minister, housing prices have doubled, the use of food banks is at record high levels, opioid deaths are at a record high, criminal activity is through the roof and domestic violence is through the roof. This is a great example of gaslighting.

    Maybe the member should just go outside, knock on a door and talk to his constituents to see that they are not okay. This is because of Liberal policies and their lack of leadership.

    Madam Speaker, it is fascinating to hear Conservatives talk about children going hungry and that Canadians cannot afford to feed their families. I hear this from the Conservatives all the time.

    However, that member stood up and voted against a national school food program for children. Canada is the only country in the G7 without a school lunch program, a food program. This would be a solution, but Conservatives do not believe in solutions. Conservatives believe in trying to gaslight the entire nation on this.

     I would like to ask the hon. member why she voted against it, and why she supports a leader whose chief of staff has set up a shell company for lobbying, six of whose employees are lobbying for Loblaw, the people who are making record profits while our families cannot afford to eat.

    Madam Speaker, I am really curious about that NDP member, who has decided not to run again because his constituents have told him enough, and also his leader, who signed an agreement to prop up the Liberal government, and whose brother is a lobbyist for Metro. I find that very interesting.

    To the member's point about why we would not vote in favour of that, why would we vote in favour of more bureaucracy? Under the Prime Minister, bureaucracy has increased 40% and customer service has decreased. That school food program is $2.50 a kid, and there is no food in it. It is pure bureaucracy.

     If the government does not fix this carbon tax and quit driving up the cost of food, people will not be able to feed their families. I ask members to do the right thing, make sense and stop doing these nonsense marketing schemes that would not feed anyone.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

     I want to remind members that, if they have anything to contribute, if they want to ask additional questions or if they have additional comments, to please wait until the appropriate time.

    Madam Speaker, Canada's GDP per capita is now the worst in the G7. These Liberals keep talking about how we have never had it so good.

     What is more accurate? When the member talks to her constituents, are they talking about the fact that we are suffering economically or that Canadians have never had it so good?

    Madam Speaker, my colleague is precisely right. That is why it is just so baffling. The Liberals should go outside and talk to someone, actually talk to the people.

    This is not rocket science. They should go to the grocery stores and the food banks to see these working families that cannot afford to pay for groceries, which have skyrocketed under the leadership of the Prime Minister, propped up by the NDP leader.

     That is what it is all about, power and control, and driving up the cost to make Canadians dependent upon them.

    Madam Speaker, I do not think it has ever been said in the House of Commons that this place is lacking hypocrisy. There is usually enough hypocrisy in this place to go around, but the motion brought to us by the NDP is just abounding. It is even overflowing. It is even too much hypocrisy for the House of Commons, which has certainly seen enough of it in our history.

    The NDP is talking about corporate greed and grocery prices. Meanwhile, the leader of the NDP's brother, Mr. Singh, is a lobbyist for Metro. I could not believe that the NDP member who rose with respect to the motion actually mentioned the fact. He gave away the story when he said that the most profitable large grocery chain in Canada was Metro. This is the firm that for which the brother of NDP leader lobbies. Therefore, no one is making more money. No one is profiting more from a grocery perspective than Metro, the company for which the brother of the leader of the NDP, Mr. Singh, lobbies. It is unbelievable, the hypocrisy and the chutzpah to bring this into the House, to go forward with the fact that somehow they do not have any responsibility.

    Meanwhile, as the member for Peterborough—Kawartha just said, the current government is the longest surviving minority government in Canadian history. The NDP-Liberal government has continued to prop this up, so we have seen this record profit under the NDP-Liberal government. It is not a Conservative government in power. We are seeing these record profits of these grocers under the NDP-Liberal government. Therefore, we have more hypocrisy.

    However, let me back up and explain why this might be happening.

    The reality is that socialism fails every time it is tried. Of course, we are all aware of the tremendous failures, the suffering and the millions who died during the Soviet Union. We have seen the suffering in Cuba and Venezuela. However, I want to bring three concrete examples of where socialism has failed.

    One is the U.K. After World War II, it embraced socialism. It went full hog into socialism. It nationalized nearly every major industry. What happened? Initially it was not that bad, but then Margaret Thatcher's old adage came into being, “eventually you run out of other peoples' money.” That is the problem with socialism. The United Kingdom became known as the sick man of Europe, because its economy was so behind, which brought the standard of living down further and further until Margaret Thatcher came to office, brought free economics, and brought the U.K. back on the economic road map.

    The second example is an interesting one, Israel. Israel also embraced socialist policies shortly after World War II. It embraced very socialist collectivized farming. Some members might be familiar with the term “kibbutz”. These were socialist farming agricultural places. Initially, it was not bad, because they were carrying this money that had come from before. They were initially spending their money, so they grew debt.

    However, what happened was that Israel's economy began to shrink and shrink badly. In fact, it was not until around 1980 or so that eventually it adopted free market policies and went from one of the lower economic growth countries to leading the developed world, from 2000 on, in economic growth.

    Once again, we see socialism fail.

    A third example is the world's biggest democracy, India. India initially, after World War II, also embraced socialist policies and once again found it to be an unmitigated disaster, lowering the standard of living. Then, it embraced a free market economy and, lo and behold, the market increased.

     This is repeated all over again. What is happening in Canada is not new news. We had the Liberal government take power in 2015. The Liberals were coming off a great legacy of the Harper government, when housing was affordable, when Canada was a world leader in GDP per capita and when Canada was strong on the map. Then time went by and the debt, the leveraging and socialist policies had their corrosive effect on the economy over and over again, bringing down our economy.

     Then a realization happened. I do not know whether it happens for all the members; maybe some of them live in blissful ignorance or just deny the truth. However, the reality is that eventually it comes to the effect that these policies do not work. We are seeing that now in Canada, just like we did in the U.K., Israel and India. Wherever there are these socialist policies, a legacy always follows. First is high unemployment; we are now creeping up to 6.1%. Second is a lack of prosperity. Third is an increase in inequality ironically enough, given all the talk of equality in the House. Fourth is incredibly slow economic growth, which drives down the economy and economic life.

     For the folks who are in government, the challenge then becomes this. They see that their policies have created nothing but failure. What do they have to do? They have to create a bogeyman. They have a straw-man argument and they have to place the blame on something else. They divide, as they did during COVID, and they distract. They will do everything possible to not look at their record. That is what is going on here.

    We have seen the NDP leader, whose brother is a lobbyist for Metro, the large chain with the largest profit margin of all Canadian grocers, out there blaming big grocers. I am not saying Metro is innocent; it is certainly not. However, the hypocrisy of that party to go after grocery chains when the leader's brother is a lobbyist for Metro, the most profitable large grocery chain in Canada, is unbelievable.

    With that, I would like to bring an amendment to the motion. I move:

    The amendment is in order.

     Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader.

    Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, the government fully understands and is aware of the importance of food security. It is one of the reasons we made changes to the Competition Act and it is one of the reasons we brought in things such as the grocery rebate. We have brought in a number of measures.

     One of the interesting things in the federal budget is the national food program to provide food for children going to school. Approximately 400,000 children would benefit by this. Could the member explain why the Conservative Party will be voting against that program?

     Madam Speaker, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the carbon tax is responsible for 0.8% of inflation, or about one-third of inflation. We could dramatically reduce the cost of food today for children, for seniors and for everyone who is going hungry. Food banks have never been so busy; they have never had such a stretched demand. Why do we not cut the carbon tax today and let people eat?

    Madam Speaker, the member talked about the leader of the NDP and his brother who is with Metro. We always wonder why we do not hear about Metro in here. We hear about Loblaws all the time. However, the government is equally as complicit in grocery prices.

    Last October, the minister of innovation stated that grocery prices would come down in a matter of weeks or months. The government passed and received royal assent, on December 15, 2023, on the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. The government has an act called “affordable groceries”, which was passed on December 15.

     I wonder if the member would comment on this. Have grocery prices gone down? Has the government done anything at all to lower grocery prices?

    Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the answer to that is no.

    Often when I am talking to constituents, they will tell me they cannot believe how much one bag of groceries costs. They will go to grab a couple things for dinner or grab a couple things for the weekend, and have one bag. That one bag used to be $20. Now it is $50, $75 or even $100 just to fill one bag of groceries. It is incredible and there is a way to fix it right away. We can eliminate a third of inflation today by getting rid of the carbon tax.

    Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the gross domestic product.

    We sometimes take for granted that we are a well-developed country, yet we do not have a very good track record when it comes to the latest announcements about our gross domestic product, particularly in the G7, never mind the G20.

     Madam Speaker, it really is quite sad where our GDP is per capita. The GDP per capita actually puts us dead last amongst G7 countries. Why is that important? Because it is not just a number. GDP per capita is a measure of what Canadians make and what they deliver in terms of services. The more products we make and the more services we deliver means the more goods, the more bounty, the more prosperity across this nation. The real nub of the issue is the fact that when prosperity shrinks, as it has over the last 10 years, which is Canada's very own lost decade here, it hurts the most vulnerable the most.

     The folks who have big trust funds, like the Prime Minister, will be okay. It is the people who are going to the food banks in Otonabee, in Cobourg or in Port Hope who are suffering because of these socialist policies that are failing Canadians.

     Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you might find unanimous consent to allow for the debate to be adjourned so that we can continue on with Routine Proceedings.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

     moved:

    He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today on an important debate that is coming from the industry committee. Right now, we are studying what seems to be the unending study of Bill C-27, which is privacy legislation.

    I have risen in this House before at least one other time on this matter, as have other members of the Conservative Party and other parties, including the NDP. We are rising today to request that this bill be split into two parts. One would be the privacy legislation replacing PIPEDA in the tribunal, and the second one would be AIDA, or the AI portion of this bill.

    The reason for that is twofold. It is taking a long time to pass this bill mainly because of the government. The government produced a bill that was flawed, and because of this flawed bill, when it presented the bill, it presented 55 amendments to the bill. We have been going through them at committee, and we are now just getting through the definitions part of clause-by-clause on the first part, which is PIPEDA. We are finding there has been 16 table-drops to this bill for amendments.

    This bill was not ready to come to the floor. We are looking at the need for privacy legislation, which we do agree with. Conservatives have stood in this House and said we believed that privacy should be considered a fundamental right for Canadians. When we look at that aspect of the bill, and it is very important, the second part of this bill, the AI, the AIDA, portion of this bill, is so flawed that it is holding up the first part of the bill.

    The parts never should have been put together; they should have been separate. There were some fundamental reasons why the government wanted to put them together. With 55 amendments and 16 subamendments to the main part of the bill, this bill is so flawed we cannot even get through the first part. We are worried if the bill is not separated into two votes, and we do not have AIDA separated and perhaps have it come back as a whole new legislation, we are not going to get the first part of the bill through, which is privacy legislation that Canadians are desperately asking for.

    After nine years, Canadians have never had less privacy. We look at the fact that we have Alexa, or AI of any form, and when our children are on their iPads, that data is being scraped off the Internet and collected. None of it is private. We do not have any privacy with our data.

    This week, we are looking at privacy, and we are trying to discern the difference between normal privacy and sensitive data. Sensitive data would be looked at under the act, but would be a bit more heightened. It would be looked at with greater penalties for those who breach it. We are certainly looking at everyone's privacy in the coming years with AI and the advancement of computers.

    The one that we are specifically looking at is financial data. All of the transactions that we do through Interac, our banking system as a whole, our bank accounts, and the interactions that we have online, like with Apple Pay or on our cellphones, are all held by the banks. Many Canadians would be surprised to know they do not own their financial data.

    A bank has someone's data, and that can mean anything from their credit history, where they spend their money, how they get their income or where they are paying their taxes. All of that data right now is not held as sensitive, and more importantly, it is not held under that person's consent. Financial data across Canada needs to be regarded as sensitive.

    Perhaps the biggest breach of that within the last two years was when the government enacted the Emergencies Act and bank accounts were frozen under the act. The government has the ability to freeze bank accounts because that data is not sensitive. Through the government, when it took away the rights of Canadians, that data was then held by those banks against consumers' will.

    In this country, we want to be able to have open banking. The idea with open banking is to have Canadians control who owns their data, and, with their consent, who can have their data. That is really the crux of this bill. When we talk about sensitive financial data, it is the ability for someone, as a consumer, to control where their data is and where it goes.

     Open banking, of course, brings competition to our banking sector, which allows not only the six big banks to have our business, but also hundreds of other financial tech organizations that want to have our business and right now are only able to get it through screen scraping. This is taking data off screens or having their clients take screenshots of their financial history in order to get it to a financial tech organization so it can compete for their business. However, financial data should be sensitive information, and when we look at how that relates to AI, well, it is a whole different component of the bill. Also, when we look at location data, and the ability for someone to know from a person's phone where that person is right now, that is also sensitive data. However, the advancement of AI has allowed all of that information to be out in the open and to be emulated.

    When we look at the AI bill, the most important part that we are going to be standing up for, as Conservatives, is to ensure that computers cannot emulate human beings without their express consent. However, when we look at privacy as a fundamental right, AI allows the ability of one's image, likeness and voice to be replicated and used all over this planet, which, of course, is bad when we talk about fraud. We have all the heard stories of parents who thought that their children were calling them for help and to ask for money. It sounded like them, they laughed like they did, but at the end of the day, it was an AI program that emulated an individual to cause an act of fraud.

     Right now, Scarlett Johansson is in the news. If anyone has used ChatGBT lately, version 4, which is the new version, they would find that Sky apparently uses Scarlett Johansson's voice without her permission. AI does this right now. It can scrape images and likenesses off the internet, and there is no recourse to ensure that it is taken care of. However, having this AI bill attached to Bill C-27, the privacy act, is slowing this process down and, because of that, Canada is falling further and further behind. It should be a separate bill, and we are asking that the bill before us, of course, be put into two separate votes, as we have before.

    I am splitting my time today, because I have some knowledge, but we have greater expertise coming from the member from South Shore—St. Margarets.

    I will end with where we are with AI in general. It was announced last week on the budget bill, Bill C-69, that the government is going to put money into AI, figuring that, finally, Canada should have been a leader and should be a leader on this. However, another article, just released yesterday, effectively said, “Ah, too late”, and that the money the government wants to put into AI and infrastructure, Meta Llama 3 has just made obsolete. Of course, Meta, Microsoft, Google and so many other companies have already put money and resources into AI, and Canada is falling further and further behind because, after nine years, Canada has lost almost all of its IP in AI to the rest of the world. China had 13,000 patents in AI just last year, which was more than all patents filed in all sectors in Canada. The U.S. had close to 20,000 patents. So, now, when we put money into IP for AI in Canada, it is not Canadian IP. Once again, we are just investing in American and international companies in Canada. Canada is becoming a branch-plant state. We take our taxpayers' hard-earned money and we put it into intellectual property and multinational corporations that do not provide the GDP that Canada needs but just jobs, which is what we are left with.

    We have a bill that was not properly done. It has 55 amendments from the government side and 16 subamendments. I could not believe that, the other day, the government was filibustering its own bill. We were in committee, and the government was talking it out. It did not like that we were talking about financial data as sensitive information. I had never seen this before. However, the bill is flawed and it needs to be split in two. We are happy to make sure that happens and that we get the bill right. Do not worry, a Conservative government will get it right.

    Madam Speaker, it is interesting seeing a Conservative stand up and talk about AI. The only time I am aware of the Conservatives actually utilizing AI was when they came up with the idea of using AI to create amendments that they could bring to filibuster legislation. They came up with 20,000-plus amendments in order to prevent legislation from being able to pass the committee. Now, they have another idea, which is to try to divide the legislation into two pieces and, if they are successful, they will have two pieces of legislation they can filibuster instead of one.

    The member talks about the government amendments. Is he not aware that governments do that, whether it is this government or even Stephen Harper's government, which made amendments at committee stage for bills? Because a government makes an amendment at committee stage does not mean that the legislation is flawed and should not be ultimately passing. Would the member not agree?

    Madam Speaker, the government brought 55 amendments to its own legislation. When has that happened before? The member talks about Stephen Harper. I do not think Stephen Harper brought 55 amendments to his own bill, followed by 16 subamendments and then filibustered his own bill for four meetings in committee.

    The government's role is to present a piece of legislation, ensure there is proper debate in the House and in committee and then ensure the bill passes in the House. One does not do that by bringing 55 amendments and 16 subamendments. The government has failed to present a proper bill. We have identified that it needs to be split, or it may never get passed.

    Madam Speaker, one of the great things Canada had in terms of fighting for privacy rights was the role of the Privacy Commissioner. We know it was the Privacy Commissioner, following a letter of complaint I actually sent in, who identified that what Clearview AI was doing was illegal. The taking of people's images in public spaces and selling those images was such a breach of privacy rights, yet when the Liberals brought forward their privacy legislation, the Privacy Commissioner told us that his ability to take on bad actors like Clearview AI would actually be undermined.

    Knowing the power AI has to scrape data and knowing how wide open our data, including facial images, personal information and geo-tracking, is being taken, I would like to ask the member about the importance of having fundamental principles in privacy, including the right not to be tracked, not to be followed and not to have our faces taken by corporate interests.

     Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I am saying this, but we agree with the member. We are fighting for privacy as a fundamental right and ensuring that those things can happen. We are the only party, and actually the NDP is with us, fighting for that data to be deemed sensitive. This is data such as one's location, biometrics and gender. Even with driver's licences, massive fraud is going up. Violent crime is going up. All those things are extremely important.

    I would hope the Privacy Commissioner gets more money and more funding. We are asking for more power to that commissioner. I hope this member does not go down the same road as what has happened with the Information Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner, who are seeing their funding cut. I do not think that the funding of those two commissions needs to be cut or that the commissioners' wages need to be cut.

    We need the Privacy Commissioner to probably see more autonomy, but also get the power they need to make sure they enforce those rules.

    Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague mentions flawed legislation coming to committee. I was on a committee where the Liberals brought over 100 amendments to a piece of their legislation. This speaks to their having a problem writing legislation to begin with. Maybe this member would like to talk about how challenging it is to deal with legislation that is flawed to begin with and many amendments having come from the government.

    Madam Speaker, yes, going to committee one expects to do the work. This is an important topic for every single Canadian, and the fact is that we have to deal with filibustering and amendments from a government that just cannot get it together or present good legislation to begin with. It would help all Canadians and all the government if it could just get its act together and present some good legislation in the first place

     Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this motion today. To remind everyone what it is about, we have a massive bill, as my colleague from Bay of Quinte said, that would, one, replace the entire Privacy Act with a brand new one for Canadians; two, create a new judicial tribunal to appeal decisions; and three, create something totally unrelated, the artificial intelligence and data act, the first such act.

    Way back in October 2022, the House leader for the New Democratic Party moved a motion to split the vote, to have two separate votes on this bill, which we had at second reading: one vote on parts 1 and 2, the privacy and tribunal parts, and then a separate vote on the artificial intelligence part. In November, the Speaker ruled in favour of that and we were pleased to support that motion.

    What we are asking for now is to go a step further and split the bill, because we had 21 meetings in committee with witnesses, we are in meeting nine or 10 of clause-by-clause, and we have had almost unanimous witness testimony asking for the bill to be split, and not only because it is a totally separate subject area. To remind everyone, the purpose section in part 1 of the bill, regarding the Privacy Act, says:

     However, the purpose section of part 3, the artificial intelligence and data act, says the following:

     It is a very different piece of legislation bolted onto privacy legislation. I think that is why the Speaker rightly ruled that they are separate pieces of legislation and, therefore, should have separate votes.

    Conservatives are proposing, after all this study, that the bills should be separated, and we are not alone in that. I will quote what some members in this House have said about separating the bills. The New Democratic Party member for Windsor West, who has been very active and proposed many valuable amendments to this bill in committee, said, “this is really three pieces of legislation that have been bundled up into one.... The first two parts of the act, concerning the consumer privacy protection act and the personal information and data protection tribunal act, do have enough common themes”, but he still thinks they should be separated. He went on to say, as he has said on many occasions, that the New Democrats agree with having the bill in committee, but they want separate voting, as the AI act is the first time that topic has been debated in the House “and it should be done differently.”

    The member from the Bloc Québécois who has spoken on this, the member for Laurentides—Labelle, said, “this bill is important, but I would like to know if we should refer it to a committee to study it properly because it is really two bills in one. The first is on artificial intelligence, and the second on privacy protection.” I could go on. For example, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said in response to the Speaker's ruling, “The Speaker has now given a ruling that says we will be able to vote separately on the AI piece of the bill, but I do not think that is good enough. I do not know if the committee will be able to set aside witnesses and only look at the AI piece”.

    The minister claimed he has done all the consultation and the artificial intelligence bill is a great bill. It turns out he did not have a single meeting on it before he tabled it in June 2022. He did not have a single meeting with any group, but then he bragged afterwards, because he had to put the toothpaste back in the tube, that he had 300 meetings after the bill was tabled. Let me tell members whom he had meetings with.

     He said he had 300 meetings. He had five meetings with the AI advisory council; four with the Alliance for Privacy and Innovation in Canada; eight with Amazon; four with the Business Council of Canada; 12 with the Canadian Bankers Association, and maybe that is why we are hearing a big lobby on the filibuster right now on behalf of the Canadian Bankers Association in committee, four meetings where the Liberals have been speaking on behalf of big banks; five with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; and 12 with the Canadian Marketing Association, the people who send all that irritating stuff. I could go on. The list is here. There were 15 meetings with Microsoft. These are companies that are obviously very interested in protecting people's data and the use of artificial intelligence. It seems that for big businesses, after a bill is introduced, they can get time with the minister.

     Now, not to be outdone, the committee has had a request that the bill be separated, signed by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, Digital Public, the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Open Media, the Privacy and Access Council of Canada, Tech Reset Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, the Centre for Digital Rights, the Centre for Free Expression, the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, and then another 18 individuals.

    The letter was sent to the chair of the industry committee, a very fine chair, by the way. It said:

    We have done this. It goes on to refer to the Speaker's ruling, saying:

    It goes on to ask for the bill to be split up. I do not have the time to read the whole letter, but it was interesting that when the minister led off the discussion in the committee, he said, essentially, that it is a flawed bill. He admitted it. His whole opening statement was about amending eight areas, or saying he was going to amend eight areas. It was very specific.

    Then, when I and my other colleagues asked him to table those amendments, he refused. We actually had to fight, for four meetings, to get him to agree to table those amendments. We were about to embark on hearing from witnesses who were going to discuss a bill that was already out of date, and the minister was refusing to share what parts he thought were out of date and how he was going to amend it. He finally relented and put in eight draft amendments.

    We held 21 meetings. Then, as my colleague from Bay of Quinte said, the Liberals proposed 55 amendments in clause-by-clause to their own bill. None of the witnesses in the 21 meetings that we had had a chance to comment on those 55 amendments. Thirty-eight of them are on artificial intelligence. The Liberals have made 38 amendments to the artificial intelligence bill that they introduced, when they said they were only going to make three or four. They hid all of those from the public, and now the public and the people in the industry have no ability to comment on them, because we are in clause-by-clause.

    The minister's admission from the beginning that he had drafted a flawed bill, his admission that he had met with people only after the bill was tabled, his admission that he had basically met only with big business about the bill and his tabling of 55 amendments after we had heard from witnesses all speak to the fact that these are two separate bills on a flawed bill and need to be separated.

     Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed. I came here believing that we would be debating budgetary measures on Bill C-69, something that Canadians are very much concerned about and would ultimately like to see passed.

    I am wondering why it is that the Conservatives have now made the decision to try to have a discussion on an issue that we have already had a debate on. It is in the committee. Why not allow the committee to do the work and continue to do the work that it has been doing? There is nothing the member has said that previous governments have not done.

     Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the budget has been widely panned by just about everybody in the country. I am surprised that the government wants to get on to debating it, since it has not actually tabled parts of the budget that it has talked about.

    This is perhaps even more important to what happens to Canadians in the future than this flawed budget. It is about what is going to happen, how we regulate artificial intelligence, how it uses people's data and how we interact with it in the future. It is probably one of the most fundamental things. That is why Canadians want the bill separated. That is why it is vitally important that we do that now.

    Madam Speaker, I remember that in 2018-19 the ethics committee, working across party lines, was attempting to bring forward to the House language to protect privacy rights in light of the Cambridge Analytica breach. One of the key elements that we had was the right not to be tracked. When my daughter goes on the Internet, why are they tracking her? Why is that phone tracking us? The ability to say no, to limit the amount of information, did not happen.

    Then we had Clearview AI stealing people's images and selling them. The Privacy Commissioner stepped into the breach at that point, and yet he said that the Liberal government's privacy legislation at the time would undermine his ability to hold companies like Clearview to account.

    Now we have AI. What we were dealing with in 2018 is like dealing with stagecoach robberies, given the speed of the ability to take information, to take our lives and to move them in ways we could not even conceive of, yet the Liberals are still puttering along with legislation. They have put it into what should be two separate bills that are really thought through. We are trying to just deal with one single bill.

     I want to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks the danger to Canadian privacy is, with regard to the failure of the government to address the privacy rights of citizens and the right to privacy as a fundamental right.

    Madam Speaker, that is a question on which our side and the NDP have been in total agreement. We have worked hard in committee with the member for Windsor West to ensure that the bill has the fundamental right recognized up front. We have moved the preamble, which had no legal meaning, into the bill and changed it to make that part of it, as well as to define what a minor is and make the best interest of the child part of that. We have not gotten to the purpose section yet, where we will probably do that.

    I know that the member spoke earlier about the Privacy Commissioner. In the committee, the Privacy Commissioner said that, to oversee this legislation, he would need a doubling of his budget. I see that, in this budget, there is not a penny more for the Privacy Commissioner. I guess the Liberals do not intend to have enforcement of the bill that they are trying to push through.

     Madam Speaker, with the challenge of dealing with a piece of legislation that is too complicated, and with two purposes, how do we deal in committee with legislation written this wrong?

     Madam Speaker, that is a great question. We struggled with it in committee. We took the privacy part first, the first part of the bill, and had it organized by subject areas, so some witnesses would come twice.

    The problem we had was that by the time we got through that, the government decided that it wanted to limit the discussion on artificial intelligence, perhaps the most consequential part, and we ended up with only about eight meetings on artificial intelligence, which is wholly inadequate to deal with all the issues that have been raised. Of course, it makes it even more difficult when the minister does not share his amendments to that bill before we actually hear from those witnesses so that they can have input on the changes that the government wishes to make.

    Madam Speaker, I move:

    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.

    Madam Speaker, we would request a vote.

     Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     moved:

    Mr. Speaker, I am very encouraged by the budget implementation bill. There are many aspects of it that one could talk about.

    I want to highlight something the Prime Minister highlighted just last week in Winnipeg North. We gathered at Elwick school and had a great elevation of an important issue, the national school food program. It is going to feed literally hundreds of thousands of children and ensure they have food in their stomachs while they are learning in the classroom.

    Could the minister provide her thoughts on how such important budgetary measures are going to affect the lives of Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the national school food program, which we estimate is going to lift 400,000 children out of poverty across this country. It is something we will work on with the provinces, territories and, of course, indigenous communities.

    We know that developing brains need good nutrition, and Canada needs everyone to be able to reach their full potential. That is why it is important that we work in partnership with communities, school boards, provinces and territories to make sure that every child, no matter their income level, has a fair chance to get a good head start that day and be able to nourish their brains as they nourish their minds.

    Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely disappointing to be sitting here and have the government decide, once again, to use the blunt force object that is time allocation rather than allowing a fulsome debate on the bill.

    This is an implementation bill on a budget for which we have had countless constituent emails come to my office from people with very serious concerns. However, here the government is ramming this through again. It is very clear that it is afraid to hear what Canadians have to say on this.

    Is the government concerned about the further inflationary spending that is being brought forward through the budget and what the impacts will be on Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague opposite speak about their concerns around the budget. In fact, the Conservative leader, without a second thought, said he would vote against the budget to support fairness for every generation. It includes many measures that the Conservative Party has been calling for, indeed, for example, more aggression on getting houses built across our country. The Canada housing plan would see 3.87 million new homes unlocked by 2031 and would ensure that the dream of home ownership is in reach for young Canadians, something that I know she and many members of the party opposite have spoken about in the House.

     I would urge her to move this bill quickly to study. That is where we will be able to hear a variety of perspectives on this bill. We will be able to move more quickly to ensure that Canadians have what they need to have a fairness in their lives.

    Mr. Speaker, it is really important to be able to move legislation so that we can actually get something done. Canadians expect us to get something done here.

    One of my concerns is that, in dealing with the issue of a national food program, a school nutrition program, if this passes, it is going to rob the Conservatives of their ability to stand up in the House. This morning, we heard the member for Peterborough going on about how concerned she was that children were not eating, although we have offered a national school program. She said that that it was just bureaucracy. That is what they think of feeding children; they called it “bureaucracy”.

     I would like to ask the hon. member, the minister, about this. We are the only G7 country without a national nutrition program for school children, yet we have the Conservatives trying to block this. They are gaslighting people, and they actually claim that children are going hungry, while they will not let a program to feed children go ahead.

     Mr. Speaker. the hon. member noted that, in fact, we have a gap here in Canada, and that is feeding hungry children in school. We know that brains actually need that nourishment to develop and that Canada needs every ounce of potential if we are going to meet the challenging conditions of today and tomorrow.

     We hear the members opposite in the Conservative Party speak about the need, on one hand, to take care of children and to take care of communities, but on the other hand, to not move forward quickly to ensure that programs are in place so that, no matter a person's income, they can access food, with dignity and with pride, in school, the way it should be.

     Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise on behalf of the constituents of the riding of Waterloo. They have brought many items to my attention and have raised many concerns. They want different levels of government to work together.

    Within this budget implementation act, I understand there would be increased health care funding. There would be the national school food program that we have heard about. There would be funding for nearly four million homes. The region of Waterloo, within the riding of Waterloo, has received really good support through the housing accelerator fund. There would also be support for renters to ensure that they are able to understand their tenant rights so that they will not be put out of their homes.

    Some constituents have also been raising the issue of free contraceptives. I know it is a hard conversation in this place, especially as the official opposition does not recognize that a woman should be able to have full control and decision-making over her body. It is unfortunate that we are still having that debate, but we know where Liberals stand.

    I also know that this is about affordable dental care and much more.

    I would like to hear from the minister as to what this budget implementation act would do when it comes to affordability and when it comes to making lives better for Canadians, especially for constituents within the riding of Waterloo.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for her elocution of her constituents' concerns and of their thoughts. In fact, this entire budget is wrapped around the concept of fairness for every generation.

    There are many exciting measures in the budget that would actually bring down the costs for Canadians, that would support Canadians, no matter what stage of life they are in, and, in fact, that would get us to a place where we have everybody reaching their full potential. There are things like expanding the Canada student loan forgiveness program so that pharmacists, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, early childhood educators, teachers, social workers, personal support workers, physiotherapists and psychologists who choose to work in rural and remote communities could have any Canada student loan forgiven. That takes it a step beyond what we have already done, which is to remove interest on student loans, because the government is focused on making sure people reach their full potential.

    The member opposite also spoke about contraceptives. In fact, we know that many people struggle with access to medication. That is why we are taking those next important steps on pharmacare, including the provision of diabetes medication and, importantly, contraceptive medication. We do believe, on this side of the House, that women should have the right to full autonomy over their bodies.

     Mr. Speaker, the budget and the BIA are increasing taxes on Canadians who cannot afford any more and on parents who cannot afford to put food on their tables to feed their children because taxes keep going up, in particular, the carbon tax. The reason we do not support the budget is that the NDP-Liberal government keeps increasing taxes on Canadians. Why is the government so bad at managing the calendar that it needs to limit debate on every single piece of legislation at every single stage?

    Mr. Speaker, I would propose this question: Why are Conservatives so much in the way of actually making life more affordable for Canadians?

     In the budget measures that we have proposed, there are many things the Conservatives themselves have called for that would make it more affordable for Canadians. In fact, we see a highlight of, yet again, misinformation that is being shared around the carbon tax when, in fact, eight out of 10 families get back more than they pay, and it is part of reducing emissions. I happened to overhear a conversation in this place earlier this morning. People were talking about the fear of the fires out west. We know we have to do more to protect the climate and to protect Canadians. The budget has measures for that, and we need to move quickly because Canadians are expecting us to work together on their behalf.

    Mr. Speaker, I am going to just repeat that last question in a bit of a different way because, in this place, we should have a government and we should have a strong opposition who holds that government to account. Unfortunately, what we have is an official opposition who only gets in the way.

    Every single time that we are trying to do something and actually get results, what do we hear from the Conservatives? We hear Conservatives yelling because they cannot handle hearing a woman ask a question, and then actually listen quietly. When the Conservatives want the floor, they want to be able to speak and to be listened to, but when it is their turn to listen, they do not want to listen. That is what is always really interesting about the Conservative way.

    Why is it that every single time—

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Bardish Chagger: If the member wants the floor, Mr. Speaker, you can give it to him. However, I believe I have the floor, so you might want to remind him who has the floor, Mr. Speaker.

     I would like to hear from the minister—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I do not know where all this disorder is coming from, but let us get the hon. member for Waterloo to finish up the question.

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

     I would like to hear from the minister why it is that whenever we are trying to respond to the very challenging times and to the needs of Canadians, we always have to use these kinds of tools to actually get the work done.

    Mr. Speaker, the loyal opposition has a very important job, and that is to work with all members of Parliament to make sure that the laws that we pass and the spending that we undertake actually benefit Canadians.

     The Conservatives have an opportunity today. We can get this bill to committee. The questions that their constituents have, the comments that they have themselves, the experts that they've consulted with and those kinds of things can be fleshed out at committee, as members know. In fact, that is an important part of studying the bill.

    Therefore, I would urge members not to stand in the way of fairness for every generation. We are talking about those who need the support. We are talking about measures that would make life more affordable for Canadians. That is all the Conservatives seem to want to talk about, but when the rubber hits the road, they do not want to do anything.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why her party hates democracy so much. The fact is that we have not had a single hour of debate on Bill C-69, a 657-page piece of legislation, and the Liberals are already limiting debate. I know that the Liberals' leader once said that he most admires China, and I know that they find the opposition's questions and perhaps having a different perspective gets in the way. The member for Waterloo said that she thinks it is terrible that the opposition would actually have a different perspective. Why do the minister and the government think that debate on government bills is something that should not happen?

    Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to be standing in this place talking about democracy with a member of the loyal opposition who voted against the support that Ukraine needed to defend democracy. It is ironic that as we talk about whether Liberals defend democracy, it is actually this side of the House that works with other countries that are working so hard and, in fact, that are losing lives to defend democracy, yet the Conservatives are going to attack our record of democracy—

    I just want to make sure that we keep our noise down to a minimum.

    Questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

     Mr. Speaker, in the House, we have seen the Conservatives blocking the dental care legislation.

    Six thousand seniors, on average, in each of the Conservative MPs' ridings, have actually signed up for dental care so far, and we know that millions more are joining as we speak. Tens of thousands of Canadian seniors have benefited from dental care.

     We have seen the Conservatives opposing the pharmacare legislation, even though 17,000 of their constituents, on average, would benefit from the diabetes medication components, and 25,000 people in their ridings, on average, would benefit from contraceptive coverage.

    We now have the Conservatives blocking Bill C-69 as well. We are talking about affordable housing. These are all things that the NDP has forced the government to put forward in a minority Parliament. This is important.

     My question to my colleague is simply this. Why are the Conservatives systematically opposing measures that would help people in their ridings?

     Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his hard work on many of the measures that he outlined and that are, in fact, featured in this budget.

    I cannot answer why it is that Conservatives oppose measures that help their own constituents, but it is a good question for their constituents. I think that is why it is important that we get this bill to committee because we will hear a variety of perspectives on what is in that bill and how it will help Canadians.

    The member opposite talked about dental care. I just want to share that I have someone in my family who will actually benefit from the Canada dental care plan. I am very excited to say that there are so many seniors in my riding getting care for severe dental caries who had no coverage anywhere else in this country. This is life-changing. It is about alleviating pain. It is about increasing dignity. I know we can do better as a country. I hope the Conservatives will help.

    Mr. Speaker, in budget after budget, the government has allocated more funding towards indigenous services. However, we have seen various reports by the PBO and by others outside indicating that the dollars being spent by the Liberal government are not leading to an equivalent increase in the ability of ISC and its programs to achieve the goals it has set for itself. In other words, it is more spending, but it is not improving the lives of first nations and indigenous peoples to the measure that it should.

    Are there any specific, tangible steps that the minister could provide to assure members of the House and Canadians that the new spending being brought forward in this budget would actually go to the grassroots, to the first nations leaders and to the people who need this funding?

     Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the member opposite does not realize that, in fact, after a decade of not spending anything in indigenous services equity, including, for example, keeping indigenous education suppressed below the provincial average, meaning that children in indigenous communities did not have the same fair chances to graduate and that graduation rates were abysmally lower than non-indigenous students, we changed that. In fact, we created equity within education systems.

     We are excited that, in this budget, there will be increased amounts of money available for post-secondary education so that anybody who is ready, willing and wants to go to post-secondary, whether it is trades, college or university, will be able to have the supports to be able to succeed, increasing the capacity of every community.

    These are the kinds of investments we are proud of. Over 25% of the new spend in this budget is dedicated to indigenous priorities. I would challenge the member to speak with the national chief and others about how he could be an advocate for ensuring that communities have the autonomy they have the right to.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister this question. Does she see a pattern of behaviour here where the Conservatives constantly want to roadblock programs Canadians desperately need, whether it be dental care, pharmacare or the hot lunch program, the food program for Canadians?

    I am also seeing a pattern of behaviour by the Conservatives of blocking the passage of important legislation at committee. We experienced that at the immigration committee when we tried to address the lost Canadian issue; the Conservatives took away the right of second-generation-born Canadians to pass on their citizenship to their children if they were born abroad.

    From that perspective, I would like to ask the minister if she could comment. In order to move things forward, to get things done for Canadians, what options does the government have?

     Mr. Speaker, earlier we were talking about a national food program. We cannot starve our way to prosperity, but that is what the Conservatives seem to want to try yet again. They want to starve their way to prosperity, and that is not how we get ahead as a country. We get ahead as a country by taking care of each other, and this budget is about that. It is about fairness for every generation.

    I think everyone in the House would say that we appreciate and welcome constructive debate among each other. That is what we do. We are members of Parliament. We are always ready to work with each other, with our opposition colleagues, to make life better for Canadians. When see that pattern of obstruction, the Conservatives are not obstructing the government, they are obstructing Canadians who are waiting for this bill to pass so they can see improvements in their lives.

    Mr. Speaker, talking about pattern of behaviour, we see in the House a party, the New Democratic Party, not acting as the opposition party it was elected as, but as the government's lapdog. It is absolutely pathetic. When we talk about Canadians and what—

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This has been a recurring incidence of very poor unparliamentary language, so I would ask the member to withdraw.

    I just remind folks to be judicious in the words they use in explaining things.

    The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster has the floor.

     Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced in this place on May 6. There has only been four sitting days since that time and we are seeing, again, time allocation on a bill at a stage. I will go back to my first question I asked not long ago, which I did not receive an answer from the minister.

     Why is the government so terrible at managing the government calendar that it needs to limit debate on every stage and every piece of legislation?

     Mr. Speaker, we hear two parties in the House talk about the obstruction of the Conservatives in the House. Therefore, it is a little rich as the members opposite get up and name-call and yell at members of the opposition, who are just doing their job as well.

    We all have a job here, and I would encourage us all to stay focused on what that job is, which is to ensure that we work for Canadians, that we work on programs that will support Canadians, and that we work on law and policy that will support Canadians to reach their full potential. There are no shortages of problems in the world and we can be part of that solution if we actually work together.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister's comments addressed parts of Bill C-69, but unfortunately, as we know, it is an omnibus bill. As an omnibus bill, it includes other parts that are not intended to help Canadians who are most in need or help indigenous communities, but to push through, without proper study, quick and dirty amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

    I intend to move a motion later today to ask that the impact assessment portions of this omnibus bill be removed so they can be properly studied, not by the Standing Committee on Finance but by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I wonder if the minister has any thoughts on that.

    Mr. Speaker, every item in this legislation appears in the text of this year's budget, either in its chapters or in the legislative annex. We look forward to the robust debate that will happen through this debate and certainly at committee. It is important we ensure we work together. As I said, Canadians are expecting us to work quickly together to ensure they have the measures they need.

    Mr. Speaker, I made reference to the national food program. There are all sorts of other aspects of the budget that are so important, such as the red dress alert. I know the minister is familiar with the program. Ottawa is working with the province on the very important issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and others. Through co-operation with stakeholders and different levels of governments, this has become a reality.

     I am wondering if the minister can provide her thoughts on this important initiative, as well as the importance of working with stakeholders and governments.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member of Parliament for highlighting the importance of the parts of the budget implementation act that address indigenous priorities. Indeed, the red dress alert is an indigenous priority. It is something indigenous families have been calling to have for a very long time. It is a pleasure to work with members in the House to ensure we can get that alert up and running.

    I was very proud to be one of the ministers who launched the inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women after a decade of Stephen Harper refusing to do that, saying it was not on his radar. Indigenous women and girls know they have an ally. This government will continue to work with partners across the country.

     Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the government is so scared to have an actual fulsome debate on the budget, if it is so proud of the budget. It spent weeks going out selling the budget to Canadians before putting it into the House of Commons, yet, as my colleague has stated, we have had four sitting days to have conversation on this.

    The government is absolutely atrocious when it comes to managing its own schedule. It expects everyone else to pick up the slack when it fails to deliver results for Canadians. We are here, holding the government accountable. It is shameful that the New Democrats continue to prop up the government, allowing it to get by with something that they would have previously rolled over to prevent any kind of time allocation. What we see over and over again is them supporting time allocation and curtailing debate.

    Why is the government so afraid to have a debate on the budget? If it is as good as the Liberals say it is, why will they not just let us have this conversation and debate?

    Mr. Speaker, I think what Canadians expect is for parties to work together in the House, to find compromises to ensure that things can move forward that will benefit them and their families. That is why the NDP works closely with the Liberals to ensure that there are measures in the budget that actually meet the needs of constituents in their ridings. The Conservatives have an opportunity to do that as well.

    That member talks about being scared. When they are calling members opposite names and when they are trying to drown people out by yelling at them, that is when they are scared. We see a pattern of obstruction by the Conservatives, while the other parties are willing to roll up their sleeves and work hard for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The minister opposite is implying that somehow we are calling people names or yelling, neither of which is accurate.

    I appreciate the debate that we are having today, but that is falling into debate.

    With questions and comments, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives oppose every measure that can actually help people. The NDP is bringing a lot to this minority Parliament.

    There is one thing I do not understand. Why are the Conservatives blocking all these bills that address affordable housing, dental care, pharmacare? There is even a measure about lunches for school children. All these measures are being blocked by the Conservatives. They do not want it to pass through Parliament. It is a bit like the tiranny of a minority party—they want to block all the bills that will help people.

    I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why do the Conservatives oppose every measure that helps people, including their own constituents?

    Mr. Speaker, I agree. The Conservative Party's obstruction in the House is sad to watch.

    We have to work together. Canadians are waiting for us to implement many of the measures in the budget. In fact, the Conservatives have called for many of those same measures.

    Let us talk about housing for a moment. The Conservatives have talked about the need for ambition on housing. This budget proposes a lot of ambition in partnership, something I believe the members opposite are forgetting about, with provinces, territories and municipalities. Canadians cannot wait for that kind of action. In fact, what they want to see is that kind of collaboration.

    Of course, let us have debate and let us talk about what we need to achieve on behalf of Canada, but there are many ways to do that in a way that is not obstructionist. We see the Conservative Party continuing to obstruct the House and committees. We hope we will see a change of heart very soon.

    Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that every single member who has been elected to this place has a really important role to play, whether in government or in opposition. When it comes to a minority Parliament, one of the ways of advancing important legislation and programs for Canadians to respond to their needs is to work together.

    What I am finding challenging in the conversation today is that I hear some constructive feedback from some members, saying this is a way we could move forward. Then I see an official opposition that never had to play nicely in the sandbox and does not remember the primary principles of kindergarten, where we can work together to deliver for our constituents across the country.

    I will always fight for the constituents of the riding of Waterloo and I will try to work with whomever I can to ensure they have the programs and services they need.

    When it comes to legislation like this, what is the value and importance of members remembering why we are elected and how do we deliver for constituents? Do we do better by working together or do we just blindly oppose and not get anything done?

     Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite mentioned kindergarten, because it reminds me of a time when I was a lunchroom monitor. It was a lowly position, but a very important one. I went to the school every day to help ensure that students were safe in the playground and safe in the lunchroom. One of the hardest things to see as a lunchroom monitor were the number of children who did not have enough to eat. I will remind members this was 15 or 20 years ago.

    My colleague from the NDP mentioned that Canada was the only G7 country without a school food program. This kind of suffering can be alleviated, and alleviated quickly, because we have provinces, territories and school boards that are eagerly awaiting the implementation of a national food program. Many allies and advocates have worked very hard to propose to the government how best to do this to ensure that no child is in school hungry and that every child has an opportunity to succeed.

    We will continue to work with the majority of MPs in the House who want to see this budget pass.

    Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the minister's own portfolio. The government's indigenous procurement policy obliges that when indigenous companies are hired under the policy, a certain proportion of those subcontractors be indigenous. However, documents shared with the government operations committee show that there is absolutely no tracking of subcontractors.

    Does the minister think it is acceptable that adherence to the requirements on indigenous subcontracting are not being tracked by the government?

    Mr. Speaker, one thing that I am very excited about in Bill C-69 is that 25% of the new spending is proposed for indigenous priorities, including a major loan guarantee for which indigenous partners have been calling for economic reconciliation, to ensure that when natural resource projects or other major projects in the country go forward, indigenous people also prosper, stopping what I would say is a pattern of exclusion. This is going to enrich all of us. I look forward to the member's support.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Respectfully, there may have been an issue with the translation because the minister did not seem to hear the question. What she said had nothing to do with the question.

    We are out of time.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

    The question is on the motion.

    May I dispense?

    Some hon. members: No.

    [Chair read text of motion to House]

    The Deputy Speaker: 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.

    Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, I suspect would find unanimous consent to allow the 17 statements by members before question period.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, many reports are setting off alarm bells about the state of the Canadian economy, but perhaps none is more shocking than the Fraser Institute's report out last week that showed that Canada's GDP per capita had dropped 3% in four years while the American GDP per capita had grown by 8%.

    Canada's economy is now underperforming that of the U.S. by the widest margin since 1965, and has had the worst per capita income drop in the G7 in the last five years. These are the consequences of inflationary spending, taxes and deficits from the Liberal-NDP government.

    Sadly, none of this is a surprise to the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook, because they are living it every day. What angers them even more is that it does not have to be this way in Canada. Generations have sought Canada for opportunity, hope and freedom, and yet the Prime Minister has destroyed that. He is definitely not worth the cost. Only common-sense Conservatives will fix the budget and axe the tax so Canadians can bring home powerful paycheques.

     Mr. Speaker, music is an essential part of the human experience. It fills our lives with joy and comfort. Fundamentally, music unites us.

    Today I make this overture to congratulate Symphony Nova Scotia on its 40th anniversary. Throughout the years, Symphony Nova Scotia has embraced the full spectrum of genres from classical to baroque, pop, jazz and spectacular collaborations with some of Canada's biggest stars. The symphony also plays a vital role in nurturing creativity through educational initiatives, mentorship and community programs. Its diverse and versatile repertoire and the skill with which it performs it has captivated our hearts for generations.

     Today, for its long-standing commitment to the cultural traditions that have shaped Nova Scotia over the last 40 years, we applaud Symphony Nova Scotia not from the music hall seats back home but right here from the benches of the Parliament of Canada. Happy anniversary to Symphony Nova Scotia, and may the next 40 years reprise the accomplishments and excitement of the last 40 years.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to the Hon. James Scott Peterson, my extraordinary predecessor as the member of Parliament for Willowdale, who, sadly, passed away on May 10.

     Jim Peterson was a distinguished lawyer, philanthropist, parliamentarian and minister who won six federal elections and served as the member of Parliament for Willowdale for 23 years. What made him so incredibly memorable was not only his enviable number of years as a tireless parliamentarian but also his immense intellect and his exceptionally big heart. A larger-than-life personality, Jim was an inspiration to me and to many of the most discerning individuals who follow Canadian politics.

    On behalf of the many residents of Willowdale, I would like to offer my condolences to Jim's wife, Heather; his family; and his many, many friends.

    Mr. Speaker, in a country, when statutory holidays are not celebrated throughout the land for the same reasons, that tells us something.

    Yesterday, in Quebec, we honoured the memory of the Patriots, who laid down their lives while fighting the British Empire to protect our freedom. Meanwhile, in Canada, people celebrated the monarch of the same British Empire that hanged the Patriots and has yet to apologize for this act of colonial violence.

     Chevalier de Lorimier and his brothers in arms were, however, on the right side of history. What happened since proved it. One of their demands was a responsible government, accountable to the people of this land.

    While Quebec honours the memory of its martyrs, Canada continues to celebrate their executioners. When such division exists in a country, it is because that country is in fact two countries. Although the memory of the Patriots was trampled on this past weekend, we have to remember that the best way to honour their sacrifice is to win.

    The Patriots' fight is our fight. Our victory will be their victory.

    Mr. Speaker, it is with pride and a sense of accomplishment that I inform the House that on May 2, the Minister of Official Languages travelled to Orléans to announce that the federal government would be investing $36 million to build the new Mouvement d'implication francophone d'Orléans, or MIFO, community centre.

     Since 1979, MIFO, a pillar of the French-speaking community, has touched the lives of over 100,000 francophones. The revitalization of the MIFO community centre as a net-zero carbon building at the heart of an official language minority community will help the francophone and francophile community of Orléans, Ottawa and eastern Ontario provide services and community spaces to all generations.

    I want to thank local leaders and my national capital region colleagues for their support. We got our new MIFO.

    Mr. Speaker, May is Skin Cancer Awareness Month, and with summer under way, the Save Your Skin Foundation is using this time to increase awareness and promote the treatment and prevention of skin cancer.

    My wife, Kelly, is a melanoma skin cancer survivor. Unfortunately, too many people have lost their lives to the disease, while others continue to fight. It was projected that in 2023, 9,700 Canadians would be diagnosed with melanoma and 1,250 would die from it. Sadly, the numbers continue to rise year after year.

    Skin cancer is caused by overexposure to UV radiation from the sun and the use of artificial tanning equipment. In the past, I tabled a private member's bill that strengthened warning labels on artificial tanning equipment, which was enacted by our previous Conservative government.

    This summer I encourage all Canadians to enjoy the great outdoors and be skin-safe. The good news is that prevention is easy: wear sunscreen, cover up when outside, seek shade and avoid tanning beds. Of course, have lots of fun.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of Port Credit Secondary School.

    As one of the oldest educational institutions in Ontario, the school has a rich history. It has survived the Great Depression, the Second World War, a devastating fire and even a visit from our friend, Prime Minister Chrétien.

    The school's alumni have gone on to successful careers, raising families and making significant contributions to our country. With academic excellence as its central mission, Port Credit Secondary continues to inspire the minds of the next generation. The school is a beacon of learning, helping to guide our young leaders in the pursuit of wisdom.

     I congratulate the school on its historic achievement. Here is to another 100 years, and as its motto goes, “May the light never fail.”

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian sports broadcasting world has lost a giant. Born and raised in Porcupine Plain, Saskatchewan, Darren Dutchyshen was a mainstay on TSN's Sportscentre for close to 30 years. He was in many ways the heartbeat of TSN.

    Dutchy loved sports, loved Canada and loved his job at TSN. No one was more passionate about bringing the sports highlights to Canadians every single night, and he always did it with a giant smile, his massive personality and often inappropriate humour. Rod Smith, Jennifer Hedger and countless other Canadian broadcasting legends have shared moments that exemplified Dutchy's unforgettable personality and remarkable talent. It has been a tough time, but those memories have been very touching.

    Confident and kind, larger than life and always smiling, Darren Dutchyshen was a beauty. To his kids, Tyler, Brett and Paige; his partner, Kate; his TSN family and all of his fans, I want to extend deepest condolences and express our sincerest gratitude for all the amazing stories told by Dutchy, all the laughs and all the highlights. He left an indelible mark on the Canadian sports narrative, and we will never forget him.

    Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the Liberal government is not worth the cost or corruption. While Canadians struggle with the cost of living crisis, the Liberals dish out billions to government contractors for their arrive scam.

    Last week revealed more corruption: another lavish dinner between GC Strategies, the two-person IT company that was paid $20 million for doing no work, and government officials. The head of this two-person operation had his house raided by the RCMP in its investigation into the arrive scam.

     On top of this Liberal mismanagement and waste, we learn that the former CBSA chief John Ossowski was given a one-day contract for $500 so he could access documents to prepare him for a committee appearance. All the while, he was working for a consulting firm that does business with the Government of Canada. This is another glaring conflict of interest and waste of taxpayer money.

     The incompetent Liberal government is a burden Canadians cannot afford. Conservatives will use every measure possible to bring home accountability for Canadian tax dollars and put a stop to corruption.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the rich heritage, diversity and resilience of the African continent, ahead of Africa Day on May 25. As a member of this vibrant community, I understand the importance of fostering strong ties between Canada and Africa. Africa Day serves as a reminder of our shared history and the ongoing journey towards unity, progress and prosperity for all African nations, as well as the African diaspora, including the 1.3 million African Canadians.

     It is a day to honour the struggles and the sacrifices of those who fought for liberation, justice and equality, both in Africa and in communities across our country. Canada's relationship with Africa is essential for promoting peace, sustainable development and mutual prosperity. Through collaboration areas such as trade, diplomacy and life-saving health care investments, including Gavi and IDA, Canada and African nations can work together to address common challenges and seize the opportunities for growth and innovation.

    Together, we can build bridges of understanding and co-operation that benefit both of our nations and contribute to a brighter future for all.

    Mr. Speaker, our nation is gripped in an opioid crisis, with over 42,000 Canadians dying from overdose since 2016, yet the Prime Minister still allowed hard drugs like cocaine, meth and heroin to be used in public spaces in my province of British Columbia. Our once-safe hospitals are being destroyed by these radical drug policies. The B.C. Nurses' Union is ringing the alarm bell, saying that vulnerable patients and staff are being exposed to illegal drugs, harmful weapons and increased violence.

     Common-sense Conservatives will not allow this catastrophic experiment to come to the rest of Canada. Our safe hospitals bill would put the brakes on the insanity, punishing criminals who bring dangerous weapons, violence and illicit drugs into our hospitals. We would immediately pass my common sense Bill C-321, which would protect first responders and health care workers from the increased violence they face while serving our communities. A common-sense Conservative government would ban hard drugs and taxpayer-funded opioid handouts. Instead, we would invest in compassionate treatment and recovery for our loved ones.

    Mr. Speaker, many Quebec families are being forced to cancel their summer vacation plans because the Liberals' taxes and spending, backed by the Bloc Québécois, have made life unaffordable. Some people can barely afford food, so going on vacation is out of the question. While the Prime Minister treats himself to $230,000 luxury vacations on the taxpayers' dime, most Quebeckers are being forced to scale back their holiday plans or cancel them altogether.

     The Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to give Quebeckers a break this summer by axing the carbon tax, the gas tax and the GST on fuel from now until Labour Day to help families simply take a summer vacation. This measure would allow families to save hundreds of dollars and enable Quebeckers to discover places like the Maritimes or Ontario.

     The Conservatives will axe the tax for everyone as of the next election, but in the meantime, the Prime Minister should adopt this common-sense proposal to lend a hand to Quebec families this summer.

    Mr. Speaker, last week I joined the health committee during its two days in Vancouver as a part of its study into the toxic drug crisis. We met with people on the front lines: supervised consumption sites, overdose prevention, low-barrier housing, health care and recovery providers, law enforcement and the community court. We also met directly with people who use drugs, the very same people who are bearing the terrible and lethal impact of toxic street drugs. I learned a lot over those two days, especially about harm reduction and safe supply as necessary parts of a continuum of care with treatment and recovery.

     Unfortunately and shamefully, not one single Conservative MP showed up in Vancouver. Rather than learn and bear witness to evidence-informed policies on the toxic drug crisis, the Conservatives would rather embrace bumper-sticker politics and false narratives, and scapegoat the most vulnerable. The Liberal government has failed to meet the crisis with the urgency it demands, and the Conservatives are playing politics. All the while, people die.

    Mr. Speaker, I cannot count how many times I have told my colleagues from Jonquière and Lac-Saint-Jean that we should ask Claude. I am of course talking about biologist Claude Villeneuve, a giant in the field of science and a giant of a human being, who left us Sunday evening.

     He was a scientist and an academic for whom ideology was no substitute for science and universities should teach facts, not fairy tales. His idea of scholarship was to engage in research, create knowledge and then put that knowledge in service of the common good.

     Claude would always play down his talents in such fields as biology, chemistry, physics and energy. He was very quick to launch into some topic or other, but luckily for us, he took his sweet time finishing.

     He taught at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, he founded the Chair in Eco-consulting in 2003, he was the driving force behind the Carbone boréal project, and those are just a few of his accomplishments. His passing is even being mourned internationally, because the UN adopted some of his research tools.

     A few months before leaving us, Claude paid me and my colleagues the greatest of compliments by saying that he was happy to be handing over his project to us, because he knew that with us, it would get done. What a compliment from Claude, but he is gone too soon.

    Mr. Speaker, a fun fact is that the Liberal-NDP minority government is now the longest-serving minority government in this country's history. A not so fun fact is that Canadians have never been poorer. With the worst standard of living crisis in 40 years, and in the middle of this historic cost of living crisis, the government decided to hike the carbon tax by 23%, ruining Canadians' vacations.