Skip to main content
Start of content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 208

CONTENTS

Wednesday, June 7, 2023




Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 151
No. 208
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota

    The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayer


[Statements by Members]

  (1405)  

[English]

    The singing of O Canada will be done by the pages today.
    [Pages sang the national anthem]

Business of the House

    Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
     That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, the recorded divisions on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health; the second reading of Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care; the second reading of Bill S-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate); and the third reading of Bill C-281, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (Sergei Magnitsky Law), the Broadcasting Act and the Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, be held before the other recorded divisions deferred today.
    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
    The House has agreed to the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    (Motion agreed to)


STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

[Statements by Members]

[English]

Mississauga Halal Food Festival

    Mr. Speaker, next week, on June 16 and 17, the Mississauga Halal Food Festival will be held at Mississauga Celebration Square. More than 20,000 members of the Muslim community come together from Brampton and the greater Toronto area to attend this traditional event every year. This beautiful festival is a celebration of halal food and Muslim-owned small businesses. It brings together a wide range of cuisines, entertainment and cultures, representing the diversity of nearly two million Canadian Muslims. This year, the Mississauga Halal Food Festival celebrates its 10th anniversary.
     I applaud all the organizers, volunteers, small businesses and sponsors that make this event a success year after year. If people are in the GTA next weekend, they should check it out.

Canada-Wide Science Fair Finalists

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to recognize some well-deserving students from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound who earned the right to participate in the Canada-Wide Science Fair in Edmonton just a few weeks ago. Nearly 400 student finalists from across the country took part in this national science fair, where they vied for over $2 million in scholarships and prizes. The six students from Bluewater District School Board did not disappoint. Proudly representing my riding were Lily Kennedy and Karis Curry of St. Mary's in Owen Sound, with their project "Harmonizing Your Coffee Senses", and Blake and Madelyn Howes of John Diefenbaker Senior School in Hanover, with their project "The Science of Smiles”, which earned them a silver excellence award medal, a University of Alberta scholarship worth $1,500 and a Western University scholarship worth an additional $2,000.
    As someone with a science degree, I am optimistic about what our youth have in store for the future of scientific discovery in Canada. Again, I send my congratulations to all those who participated in the Canada-Wide Science Fair.

2SLGBTQI+ Community

     Mr. Speaker, my intention today is to celebrate love in honour of pride season and to share my appreciation for the 2SLGBTQI+ community and allies for their fight for human rights, for charter rights and for who we are as a nation.
    Unfortunately, rights for queer and gender-diverse people are under attack in communities across Canada, including in my home province of New Brunswick. Misinformed and homophobic comments are pervasive. We are seeing a disturbing and dangerous rise in harassment, discrimination and oppression, which have profound, life-threatening consequences. Nonsensical boycotts and demonstrations of hate threaten the very ability of gender-diverse people to exist freely and without fear in public. There are real risks of setbacks and risks for queer kids internalizing what they are hearing and seeing, who might believe they cannot live as their true selves and love and be loved for who they are. It is harmful and it is wrong.
    The hate is loud, but there are more of us who know that love will overcome. I ask that all members of the House stand up for Canada and stand up for pride.

  (1410)  

[Translation]

École secondaire de l'Érablière in Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois

    Mr. Speaker, before I became the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I taught high school for 25 wonderful years. During that time, I endeavoured to teach economics, geography and history, but most important of all, civics.
    I tried hard to help my students learn about democracy and the vital role they must play in it. Every year, I organized a field trip to Quebec's true Parliament, the National Assembly.
    I am sure my colleagues can understand the emotion I feel today as I greet the first group of students visiting from my school, École secondaire de l'Érablière, in Saint‑Félix‑de‑Valois. I wish these young people a warm welcome, and I salute Martin Lambert, Gilles Giguère and Annie Gadoury as they perform the honourable task of accompanying and training our youth.
    Who knows, the future president of Quebec could be among us today. I welcome them to Parliament Hill and I hope they enjoy their visit.

Toxic Drug and Overdose Crisis

    Mr. Speaker, every day, we lose more loved ones to the toxic drug and overdose crisis. This week, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is in Washington to attend the Trilateral North American Drug Dialogue Public Health Summit, where she will discuss continued collaboration with the United States and Mexico to address the toxic drug and overdose crisis, the importance of trilateral and international co-operation, and the growing public health and security challenges posed by synthetic drugs.
    In order to save more lives and reduce the risk of substance use, we have shared all our tools, systems and experiences. Our government has also announced new regulatory changes to limit the illegal import and distribution of the precursor chemicals used in the illegal production of fentanyl.
    We are committed to advancing the four internationally recognized drug policy pillars, namely prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement, in order to stem this ongoing tragedy and save lives.

[English]

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, a Liberal walks into a bar and says, “Drinks are on me.” Who is paying? Well, Canadians are paying: Canadians who are already paying double for mortgage and rent payments, Canadians who own businesses and farms who are struggling to keep their heads above water, and Canadians who, today, are seeing another quarter-point interest rate hike because of the Liberal government's misspending, a 4.5% increase in only a year and a half.
    According to the IMF, Canada now runs the highest risk among advanced economies of missing mortgage payments. Do members remember when the Prime Minister said the government would take on debt so Canadians would not have to? The solution seems to be simple, but the government just does not get it. It must stop the inflationary spending, balance the budget and lower taxes.
    It is closing time. The tab with the speNDP is past due, and Canadians need a new prime minister, a prime minister with common sense who will look after the common cents of the common people.

[Translation]

Sainte‑Geneviève Parish in Ottawa South

    Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to mark the 60th anniversary of Sainte‑Geneviève parish in the riding of Ottawa South.
    The parish dates back to May 28, 1963, when Father Gaston Croteau was appointed as the founding pastor. At the time, the parishioners would gather for Sunday mass in the chapel of Mazenod Seminary on Smyth Road.
    In late July 1963, the parish purchased a piece of land to build the church that we know and love at the corner of Arch Street and Canterbury Avenue.
    On this very joyous occasion, I want to thank past and present administrators, clergy and volunteers for their efforts and dedication as we gather to mark 60 years of faith, community and friendship in the parish of Sainte‑Geneviève.

  (1415)  

[English]

2SLGBTQI+ Rights

    Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate pride in Canada, Uganda passed one of the toughest draconian laws in the world, making it the 12th country to enact the death penalty against LGBTQI persons.
    Today, Canada is honoured to welcome Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Frank Mugisha, executive director of SMUG and one of the leading human rights defenders in Uganda. He is with five parliamentarians who have bravely opposed this law. He is also joined by Dr. Kimahli Powell, CEO of Rainbow Railroad, an international organization providing solutions for LGBTQI refugees.
    2SLGBTQI+ rights are human rights. Regardless of whom one loves or who one is, no one should live in fear. Love is love is love. Canada will continue to stand up with the community for its rights here at home and abroad.
    I wish everyone a happy Pride Month.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government’s out-of-control spending leaves Canadians with the grim reality that money is tighter in their households every month. People in Cumberland—Colchester have contacted me almost daily to express hopelessness and dismay as they watch prices and interest rates climb. Today’s interest rate hike and its effect on mortgages will be disastrous.
    The hard work by Nova Scotians for the betterment of the country has been rewarded with eight years of ridiculous inflationary spending, culminating, sadly, in the terrible budget we see before the House now. The Liberals have now approved $60 billion in new inflationary spending, more weight on the backs of Canadian families and businesses. These are people with hopes and dreams that cannot be achieved because of the Liberals' out-of-control spending.
    The madness needs to stop now. The Liberals must give us a plan to end the inflationary deficits and spending in order to bring down inflation and interest rates so Canadians can thrive in this country again.

Women in Politics

    Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak on a matter that impacts women’s participation in politics.
    In a few moments, we will begin question period, and it is likely the Speaker will need to remind members repeatedly not to shout across the aisle while another member is speaking. The culture of heckling and disruption within this chamber continues to undermine the meaningful participation of women in politics. It is time for us to acknowledge this concern and take necessary measures to build more gender-sensitive parliaments. Yesterday, I met with the first group of the Equal Voice Campaign School program, which is helping women build the skills they need to run for office.
    Equal Voice calls upon the House to end gender-based heckling and personal attacks in the chamber. Today, let us set an example and build an environment that encourages everyone to participate in politics without fear or intimidation.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, 46% of Canadians say they are in worse shape financially than they were last June, according to a new Angus Reid poll, and three in 10 people are struggling to get by. Meanwhile, 54% of renters and 45% of mortgage holders say they are finding their monthly payments for housing either tough or very difficult to manage.
    This morning, the Bank of Canada raised interest rates again in an attempt to slow Liberal made-in-Canada inflation, yet the Liberal budget will continue to cause high inflation, keeping interest rates high and squeezing families with several tax increases. It has no plan to balance in the years to come and adds more than $60 billion in new spending, which will cost $4,200 per family.
    Canadians cannot afford the Liberals' inflationary deficits; food, housing and personal debt have all hit record highs. The Prime Minister must give Canadians a plan to end inflationary deficits to bring down inflation and interest rates. However, if he will not, a Conservative government will.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, for months, the Conservative opposition has called on the government to demonstrate even a modicum of financial management capacity and address the rampant government spending. Our calls continue to fall on the willfully deaf ears of the government. Steeped in a culture of complacency, its members continue to dodge accountability, even as news comes out about interest rates going up again today.
    Higher deficits mean higher inflation, which means higher interest rates. This means that Canadians cannot afford to pay their bills. We are continuing to block the Liberal budget until the government ends inflationary deficits and spending to bring down inflation and interest rates. Today, we are putting the “Tory” in dilatory.

  (1420)  

HCLTech

    Mr. Speaker, today I stand to recognize and celebrate the remarkable journey of HCLTech in Canada.
    Over the past 14 years, HCLTech has made significant contributions to Canada's technology sector, and it has become one of the leading global technology firms operating in our country. HCLTech's mission to bring together the best of technology and people has helped it prove itself as a socially responsible company committed to driving innovation and creating employment opportunities for Canadians. I am proud of our Liberal government, which wholeheartedly supports and values the contributions of companies like HCLTech, which is why we have created the Canadian Innovation Corporation to drive economic growth and investments in Canada.
    HCLTech's presence reinforces Canada's position as a global hub for innovation and excellence. Its dedication to technology, people and corporate social responsibility serves as an inspiration to us all.

Hotel Workers

    Mr. Speaker, the hotel workers of Radisson Blu, formerly Pacific Gateway, held a rally on the two-year anniversary of the beginning of their strike, the longest strike ever in this industry. The employer used COVID-19 as an excuse and terminated 143 racialized women, or 70% of its workers. Some had worked there for over 40 years. They are the backbone of the hotel.
    Let us not kid ourselves. The employer wanted new workers because those workers would be at the bottom of the wage grid. The owner wanted to turn a bigger profit at the expense of the workers. This is the same owner who received $33 million in federal contracts for a COVID quarantine facility. It is shameful.
    The Canadian Labour Congress and the BC Federation of Labour have issued a boycott of the hotel. I ask all members of the House to stand with the Unite Here Local 40 workers and their call to hire back the workers and agree to a fair contract.

[Translation]

Quebec Remparts

     Mr. Speaker, Quebec City once again reigns as the hockey champion of Quebec, Canada and a good portion of the northern United States.
    Congratulations to the Quebec Remparts, who beat all expectations to win the Memorial Cup on Sunday with a final score of 5-0. The “red devils” finished out the season at the top of their league, after dominating in Quebec.
    Well done to the organization and the whole team. As MP for Beloeil—Chambly, I would like to give a special shout-out to my two favourite players: Nathan Gaucher from Richelieu and Mikael Huchette from Beloeil. Their hard work secured them a string of victories and is a source of pride and inspiration for the entire region. I also want to congratulate Patrick Roy, who, after more than 500 wins and two Memorial Cups, can leave the Remparts bench with his head held high if he so wishes. Quebec loves to see Patrick Roy holding up a cup.
    Sooner or later, everyone will have to acknowledge the truth: The best junior hockey in North America, nay, the world, is currently being played in the arenas that host our Quebec league.
    Congratulations to the Remparts, the team from our nation's only capital!

[English]

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, Liberals go woke; Canadians go broke. Out-of-control spending over eight years has led to a nation of high inflation, high interest rates and higher taxes. One in five Canadians is skipping meals. Nine in 10 young people have given up on the dream of home ownership.
    Liberals threw $60 billion of fuel on the inflationary fire they started with their recently failed budget. Former Liberal finance minister John Manley said that Liberal spending is like keeping one's foot on the gas while the Bank of Canada keeps its foot on the brake.
    Today, we see the direct result of this never-ending fiscal policy failure, as the Bank of Canada raised its interest rates again, for the ninth time in just over a year. That is 19 times higher, to a level not seen in over 20 years. This is devastating for homeowners and renters already struggling with double mortgages and rent payments.
    Liberals are out of touch, and Canadians are out of money and homes. Conservatives will bring home lower prices, powerful paycheques and homes Canadians can afford. Only Conservatives will restore affordability with common sense for the common people. Let us bring it home.

  (1425)  

Pathways to Parliament

    Mr. Speaker, today in Ottawa, we welcome a group of kids from Parkdale Junior and Senior Public School in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. They have come here as part of a program I started prior to COVID called “Pathways to Parliament”.
    The idea is to bring a set of diverse young people to Ottawa, kids who are newcomers and whose circumstances mean that they might not otherwise have the opportunity to visit these hallowed halls. The idea is to expose these young people to government, to our Parliament and to various parliamentarians. The hope is that they might learn, that they might be impressed or even inspired by seeing that Canada's Parliament in 2023 looks just like they do. It is a diverse assemblage of people of different races, backgrounds, cultures and religions.
    I want to thank their teachers, Hassan and Sandra, as well as Principal Diane Brown, for committing to this important initiative. To these 10 youngsters, I say Shukran, Tuchi che and thanks. I thank them for being here, but, most of all, I thank them for seeing themselves here.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

[Translation]

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, today, we are seeing yet another human tragedy unfold because of the huge, unexpected interest rate hike, which is going to force Canadians to either sell their homes or default on their payments.
    The Prime Minister promised that interest rates would stay low for a long time. However, his spending fuelled inflation, forcing the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates.
     How much will the average family see their monthly mortgage payments go up by over the next three years?
    Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, I have talked to many Canadians who shared with me their concerns about the cost of living, global inflation and the current economic situation.
    Obviously, the Bank of Canada continues to do its job, but we will also continue to do ours with non-inflationary measures that will provide targeted assistance to Canadian families. Whether it is help with dental care for children, help for low-income workers or help with the grocery rebate, we will be there.
    Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said that this government's deficits are driving up inflation. A former Liberal finance minister said this Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are like stepping on the gas pedal of inflation, while the Bank of Canada has its foot on the brake.
    Canada has the highest level of household debt in the G7. Canadians can no longer afford these deficits.
    Can the Prime Minister at least tell us by how much mortgage payments will go up over the next three years?
    Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are going through tough times. That is why our government is there to invest to help Canadians in a targeted, non-inflationary way.
    The Conservative Party wants us to provide less assistance to low-income Canadians, less help for dental care for families who need it, and less help for day care for families with young children.
    We will continue to be there to help people through these tough times, because that is our job.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, a sucker punch is what Canadians received from the Prime Minister. He promised them low interest rates for a long time. He said that debt was without consequence and that the budget would balance itself. None of those things came true, and interest rates are now 19 times higher than they were a year ago.
    The Governor of the Bank of Canada, the former Liberal finance minister and countless other experts agree that the Prime Minister's deficits are ballooning inflation and, therefore, interest rates.
    Families have to plan their finances. Will the Prime Minister indicate by how much the average family will see monthly mortgage payments go up over the next three years?

  (1430)  

    Mr. Speaker, while the Bank of Canada continues to do its job to drive down inflation, which is going down, we will continue to do our job to be there to support Canadians who need it. We are making investments in things like dental care, a grocery rebate and supports for low-income renters. These are the kinds of things that Conservatives would be cutting instead.
    Canadians are hurting, and the Conservatives' answer is cuts to programs, cuts to supports for families and cuts to Canadians at a time when they need it. Austerity is not the answer, and a responsible fiscal approach is. That is exactly what we are doing by supporting Canadians who need it.
    Mr. Speaker, austerity is exactly what Canadians are feeling in their household budgets today, while the government budgets overflow with abundance. There has already been a 16% year over year increase in the number of Canadians missing their mortgage payments.
    After eight years under the Prime Minister, we have the highest household debt in the entire G7. Household debt is now 7% higher than our entire GDP. Now the Prime Minister's inflationary deficits are shooting up interest rates.
    How much more will the average family have to plan to pay in mortgage payments per month?
    Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the lowest deficit in the G7, but the Leader of the Opposition wants us to do far less to support Canadians who need it right now. That is exactly backwards. His pursuit of ideological gains is hurting Canadians.
    We are going to continue to be there in responsible, targeted ways, keeping our fiscal responsibility at the centre of what we do, while we support Canadians in targeted, noninflationary ways. That is what Canadians need right now.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not just me anymore pointing out that deficits drive inflation. It is Liberals. It is former Liberal finance minister John Manley, who said that the Liberal deficits are “a bit like driving your car with one foot on the gas and the other on the brake generally, especially if there's slushy conditions under your tires.” He is pointing out that the Prime Minister presses his foot on the inflationary gas pedal while the Bank of Canada has to press on the brakes. The engine is eventually going to blow.
    We know Canadians cannot pay their bills. Will the Prime Minister be honest today and tell Canadians how much their mortgage payments will go up because of these rate hikes?
    Mr. Speaker, let us use a specific example of what the Leader of the Opposition calls inflationary spending. We made a decision that kids under 12 in this country should not have to pay for dental care. Their families should be able to send them to the dentist. Conservative politicians, who all have access to dental care through the House of Commons supports for their kids, do not think that Canadians who cannot afford to send their kids to the dentist should be doing that, and they say that is inflationary. That approach around cuts and austerity is not what Canadians need.

[Translation]

Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the Prime Minister's sense of statesmanship.
    Yesterday, his hand-picked special rapporteur had to admit to a parliamentary committee that his report contradicts the testimony of a parliamentarian who was the victim of Chinese interference and intimidation. The best excuse he could come up with was that he had drafted the report based on what he knew at the time.
    He also had to admit that this means his report is incomplete. This is a report that is critical to keeping this country's citizens and parliamentarians safe, yet the author admits that it is incomplete. The House has stated several times that, worse yet, this report is potentially biased.
    Will the Prime Minister agree to end Mr. Johnston's mandate?
    Mr. Speaker, we all know that the leader of the Bloc Québécois is not going to accept my answer as an answer to his question.
    However, he has the opportunity to see the answers for himself. He has the opportunity to accept a briefing from our security and intelligence agencies, who will clarify the basis of the findings in the former governor general's report.
    Like the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Bloc refuses to accept these top secret briefings that would allow him to understand the underpinnings of our concerns.

  (1435)  

    Mr. Speaker, I refuse to see in secret what should be seen by everyone. What I am proposing to the Prime Minister is a type of truce.
    If Parliament would appoint an independent commissioner who would decide what should or should not be public, we could move on to other things.
    Otherwise, we will have to ask and keep asking repeatedly how the Prime Minister can retain a rapporteur who is his friend and who admitted that his report, which was crucial to the security of his nation and mine, is incomplete and biased. He admitted that he did not speak to the Chief Electoral Officer or the Chinese nationals he is responsible for—
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc just said that he refuses to see in secret what should be public.
    I completely understand that he is committed to his role in opposition and that he never expects to govern. However, as a leader and parliamentarian, he should understand that his responsibility to serve Canadians well comes with the opportunity, and even the duty, to dig deeper into the facts, something the public cannot do.
    When it comes to national security, there are reasons why we must be discrete with the facts. He can be apprised of them.

Climate Change

    Mr. Speaker, ironically, as Canada is burning, today is Clean Air Day. Wildfires have made air quality hazardous for children, pregnant women and anyone with respiratory problems. We know that global warming will cause more and more wildfires.
    What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that now is the time to act to save our environment?
    Mr. Speaker, I agree completely. The irony is not lost on me that today is Clean Air Day in our country. These forest fires are worse than the ones in previous years, but they are not the worst we will ever see. In the years to come, the situation will only deteriorate.
    Here in this House, however, the Conservative Party is still debating whether we should fight climate change at all instead of debating how we will fight climate change.
    Our government is going to keep fighting climate change and protecting Canadians.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government has not taken the climate crisis seriously. Its actions show that very clearly.
    Today is supposed to be Clean Air Day, and at the same time our country is burning. We can even smell the smoke in this chamber. Our country is literally on fire and the Liberal government thinks that business as usual is fine. We have a Conservative Party that is in full denial mode.
    When will the Prime Minister realize we have to take this crisis seriously, we have to protect our environment and we have to protect the air for our kids and for our future?
    Mr. Speaker, not only are we the government that has done more to fight climate change than any previous government in history, but independent expert evaluators judged our environmental plan in the last election as being significantly stronger than even the NDP's environmental plan. Unfortunately, we are caught in a debate where Conservatives are still arguing about whether or not we should be fighting climate change, instead of contributing to a debate around how best to fight climate change.
    We have put forward a price on pollution that is changing corporate behaviour and driving down emissions. The Conservatives stand against it, but they do not have anything to offer.

Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, David Johnston, the loyal rapporteur of the Prime Minister, his ski buddy, his cottage neighbour, his dinner companion and member of the Trudeau Foundation, was incapable of seeing any conflict of interest. I can understand why our ethically challenged Prime Minister would be oblivious to this, but for a lawyer, law professor and dean of a law school, this is nothing but wilful blindness.
    David Johnston has lost the trust of Parliament and Canadians. It is time to end the sham. When will the Prime Minister show Mr. Johnston the door and call for a public inquiry?

  (1440)  

    Mr. Speaker, let me quote what was said of the former governor general:
    I think we're dealing with a very credible individual, and I think that that distant history bears little relevance to the fact that he has a very distinguished career. If we're suggesting just because at some point in history he was appointed by a former Conservative prime minister that he should be disqualified from participating in public life, I think that is a little bit extreme. This is a very qualified individual, and frankly, I haven't heard anybody question his integrity, and I have no reason to do so.
    That was the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton.
    Mr. Speaker, the special rapporteur's mandate is all about Beijing's interference in our electoral process. In Canada, we have only one federal electoral process; we have only one democratic institution, and that is the election of members to this House of Commons. Three times in the past three months, this House has voted for an independent public inquiry, yet the special rapporteur and the Prime Minister alone have rejected an inquiry.
    How can confidence and trust be restored in our democracy if the Prime Minister and government continue to defy the democratic will of this House?
    Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with the member opposite that this is a very serious situation we are facing. Unfortunately, the leader of the Conservative Party is not taking this seriously. The Conservatives are looking for occasions to make personal attacks and toxic partisan attacks instead of actually looking at the question of foreign interference at the level of responsibility necessary. If the Leader of the Opposition were serious about that, he would accept the top secret briefings from our intelligence agencies that explain the underpinnings of the conclusions in the Johnston report, and he would be able to weigh in responsibly.
    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister's loyal rapporteur was asked to reconcile his conclusion that the spreading of disinformation in the 2021 election could not be attributed to the Beijing regime with the CSIS briefing to the former leader of the Conservative Party that said the opposite. The rapporteur said that he based his conclusion on evidence that he had at the time, evidence that was provided by the government.
    Did the rapporteur ignore material evidence, or did the government withhold it from him? Which one is it?
    Mr. Speaker, that evidence is available to the Leader of the Opposition if only he were to accept a top secret briefing. He prefers to refuse it so he can continue his baseless personal attacks against an eminent Canadian.
    Further than that, it is a panel of expert public service officials who determined, both in 2019 and in 2021, that election integrity held, a mechanism that this government put in place that previous governments never bothered with. That is how we know the integrity of the elections in 2019 and 2021 held.
    Mr. Speaker, a report of the government's rapid response mechanism identified that Beijing-controlled social media accounts were spreading disinformation in the 2021 election targeting the Conservative Party, including an account with 26 million followers, yet incredibly the rapporteur concluded otherwise. He ignored the report, ignored the evidence and instead whitewashed Beijing's interference.
    The conclusions of the rapporteur have no credibility. Will the Prime Minister fire him and finally call an independent public inquiry?
    Mr. Speaker, these are the conclusions of the top public officials who had the task, during the 2021 and 2019 elections, to monitor the foreign interference that has been going on in this country for years and years, against which the former minister of elections for the Conservatives, the current leader, did nothing.
    We established a protocol whereby the integrity of those elections was evaluated and reported on. That integrity held. If the Conservatives think the integrity of the elections did not hold in 2019 or 2021, let them say so.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, like his good friend the Prime Minister, the loyal rapporteur turned a blind eye to important information in order to avoid recommending an independent public inquiry into the Beijing regime.
    He did not see fit to question the Chief Electoral Officer. He did not question the member for Don Valley East. He did not consult the CSIS reports that were forwarded to the member for Durham. He did not read the CSIS reports that directly link Global Times, a disinformation newspaper, to the Chinese Communist Party. There was not a word about the police stations run by Beijing or the Trudeau Foundation.
    Following this highly partisan demonstration, will the Prime Minister now announce an independent public inquiry?

  (1445)  

    Mr. Speaker, all the Conservative Party wants to do is make personal attacks against the former governor general, who was chosen by Stephen Harper himself.
    The Conservatives want to make partisan and political attacks to try and score points. However, the reality is that if they wanted to take the issue of interference seriously, which everyone should, they would agree to the top secret briefing that was offered to the Leader of the Opposition so that he could get to the bottom of what happened and understand why the former governor general reached these conclusions.
    Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister were serious, he would listen to the majority of members of the House.
    Yesterday, David Johnston had one thing to do to convince Canadians, just one. He had to demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that there is no conflict of interest between him and the Prime Minister. He failed miserably in that task by confirming, one after another, all of the perceived conflicts of interest that make it impossible for the House and Canadians to put their confidence in him.
    When will the Prime Minister finally do the honourable thing? When will he put his friend, the former governor general, out of his misery and dismiss him from his position as independent special rapporteur?
    Mr. Speaker, as the newspapers recently explained, the best way to disrupt an investigation is to discredit the investigators. That is what the opposition party is trying to do.
    The Conservatives did not write that playbook. They took it straight from Donald Trump. They are attacking the investigators because they do not want to talk about the serious findings of this report and investigation.
    We should all expect the opposition party to take this seriously.
    Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister does more to protect Liberal government secrets and the Trudeau Foundation, he is not protecting the people with family still living under the Chinese regime, being oppressed by China as an intimidation tactic. These people have the right to security on Canadian and Quebec soil. He is not protecting them.
    This morning, representatives from Taiwan, the Uyghur Autonomous Region, Hong Kong, Tibet and the Solomon Islands asked the Prime Minister for a public inquiry.
    Will the Prime Minister act like a head of state and allow this public inquiry?
    Mr. Speaker, we all know that the primary targets of Chinese interference are always the communities of the diaspora. That is why we are so adamant in our defence of these communities and we are including them in the decisions we are making.
    I look forward to the former governor general doing his tour this summer to speak with these communities and to make recommendations to the government on the best way to continue to protect them.
    Unfortunately, we have seen a rise in intolerance and racism since the pandemic. That is why we will continue to be there for these vulnerable persons.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not a diaspora, these people have been or are being conquered. I propose that he place the very dangerous file for Canada, democracy, the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister himself in the hands of a true independent commissioner.
    I refuse to be part of any manoeuvre that will keep his secret, that will not make available to the entire population all possible information, that will make those who have a right to security in Canada and Quebec fearful and unsafe, that abandons entire peoples to Beijing's oppression and that does not protect democracy in Quebec and in Canada.
    Will the Prime Minister accept my proposal?
    Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that there are elements of national security that cannot be shared with the public. That is the reality of the world we live in. There are people, members of our armed forces and CSIS, who put their lives in danger to uncover the secrets of other countries and countries that wish us harm.
    We offered top secret information to the leader of the Bloc Québécois so he could better understand what we cannot share in public, and he has refused and is choosing ignorance rather than the facts.

  (1450)  

    I would remind the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean that if he shouts in the direction of the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly, he will not be able to hear the answer.
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[English]

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, asked by my associate, the finance shadow minister, if deficits had been smaller would inflation have been lower, the Bank of Canada governor answered yes. He also said inflation in Canada is increasingly reflecting what is happening in Canada. Former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia said that, on the inflation side, if governments both nationally and subnationally continue to spend beyond their means, spending to pay the credit card of the government of today, they are going to continue to have inflation that continues to increase.
    If the Prime Minister will not believe me, will he at least believe his officials and his Liberal friends?
    Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first time we have heard the Leader of the Opposition even indirectly criticize provincial governments that are racking up significant spending, which is inflationary. On the federal side, we have been very cautious about targeting the measures so they are not contributing to inflation, even as we continue to support Canadians, families, seniors and workers with measures that, on top of that, the Leader of the Opposition is excited about filibustering and blocking tonight.
    We are going to be there to help low-income workers, despite the Conservatives' political games.
    Mr. Speaker, it is not just the Governor of the Bank of Canada who says deficits contribute to inflation. It is not just the former Liberal deputy prime minister and finance minister John Manley saying that deficits contribute to inflation. It is his own finance minister and deputy prime minister. She said that deficits pour fuel on the inflationary fire. That is exactly what she did with this budget with $60 billion in additional inflation. That is $4,200 per family, which has now led to higher interest rates.
    Will the Prime Minister announce a plan and a deadline to balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates?
    Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada is acting to bring down inflation, and it is working. Our inflation is coming down. At the same time, our job as a government is to be there to support Canadians, supports for families and supports for kids who need dental care. We will be there for supports for Canadians who are struggling right now. The Conservative approach is to cut programs, to cut supports for Canadians. At the same time, we are standing up to help Canadians through this difficult time and out the other side.
    Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Prime Minister's staff handed him a stale briefing note because inflation is actually rising. It was up in the most recent reported month. It just so happens that that month followed the introduction of the $60 billion of brand new, above and beyond, inflationary spending by the minister. We now know that deficits contribute to inflation, which raise interest rates. He is right. The Bank of Canada is trying to bring down that inflation while he continues to pour the gas on the fire.
    Will he stop that irresponsible practice and deliver a balanced budget to bring down inflation and interest rates?
    Mr. Speaker, at least the Leader of the Opposition is consistent in not letting facts get in the way of a good political argument. Whether it is on climate change, foreign interference or the Bank of Canada and inflation, he is continuing to fearmonger. He is continuing to amplify erroneous fears that Canadians have while we are delivering supports in a targeted way.
    We have the lowest deficit of any G7 country. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any G7 country. We are continuing to be there for Canadians in a non-inflationary way that is targeted and right.
    Mr. Speaker, did the Prime Minister say, “erroneous fears”?
    Tonight families will sit down with their kids at the dining room table to say, “Sorry, we have to sell the house because mortgage payments are going to go up by as much as $1,500 per month”. That is not from me. That is according to the Bank of Canada, which predicts a 40% increase in mortgage payments. People cannot pay $1,500 more in mortgage payments. They have only $200 left in the bank at the end of the month.
    Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that these are real fears by real people and stand on their side?

  (1455)  

    Mr. Speaker, where the Leader of the Opposition falls down is that his solution for those families is to do less for them, to take away their child care, to take away their dental care, and to take away the programs that are helping them, such as the Canada workers benefit.
    We are bringing forward payments for the Canada workers benefit so that low-income workers can get more help right now, and that leader is going to stand up for hours tonight to block that measure. There is help for Canadians on the way, and those Conservatives are standing in the way with silly procedural games.
    Mr. Speaker, today marks the ninth rate increase since March—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    It is starting to get noisy again. I am going to ask everyone to take a deep breath and quiet down.
    I will ask the hon. member for Burnaby South to start from the top.
    Mr. Speaker, today marks the ninth interest rate increase since March 2022. For families on a stretched budget, this means a lot more pain. However, more and more economists are coming to the consensus, something that neither Conservatives nor the Liberals are willing to talk about, that the greed of CEOs exploiting this inflationary crisis to jack up profits is the major cause of inflation.
    Will the Prime Minister finally take greedflation seriously and stop greedy CEOs from gouging Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, the global inflation crisis that faces Canadians and people around the world has global roots, whether it is the war in Ukraine, which Putin is responsible for, or coming out of the pandemic.
    We can say that Canada's economic recovery has been much faster than it was during the much shallower recession in 2008 under the previous government and that employment is up higher than it has ever been. At the same time, too many Canadians are hurting, and that is why we have been stepping up with targeted supports, which are not increasing inflation, but are responding to the reality of Canadians who are struggling.
    Mr. Speaker, my question was about greedflation. Again, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have the courage to talk about it.

[Translation]

    In these tough times, economists have warned that interest rate hikes will lead Canada into a recession. With another hike, people are going to find it even harder to make ends meet every month. Meanwhile, multinationals and grocery giants like Metro are making record profits.
    Will the Prime Minister finally tax the excess profits of his billionaire friends?
    Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that Canadians are having trouble paying their bills. That is why we are taking action. We are taking action to support Canadians with investments like the grocery rebate, with support for low-income workers, with support for low-income renters, with dental care for families who cannot afford to send their kids to the dentist.
    We are there with targeted, non-inflationary assistance that works, while the Conservatives are proposing austerity once again.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as Canada continues to recover from the pandemic, it is important to make sure that no one is left behind. That is why our government has introduced programs such as the Canada child benefit, $10-a-day child care, the Canada dental benefit and the grocery rebate.
    With us today in Ottawa are a group of single moms and their daughters from my riding of Mississauga—Lakeshore. They are some of the millions of Canadians who have benefited from these programs. I am proud that our government has delivered real action for families in my community. Unfortunately, the official opposition refuses to support these measures, which help Canadians get ahead.
    Can the Prime Minister remind the House why it is important to help make life more affordable for—
    The right hon. Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga—Lakeshore for his dedication to his constituents. We are all extremely proud of the accomplishments we have made since 2015, but we know there is a lot more to do. That is why our budget aims to make life more affordable for the middle class, while creating great middle-class jobs in a clean economy.
    However, Conservative politicians continue to block us from delivering these important measures. We hope they will end their partisan games and help us send the BIA to the Senate this week.

  (1500)  

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, he has not only doubled the national debt, adding more debt than all prime ministers combined, but he has overseen a doubling in the average cost of rent, the average mortgage payment and the average necessary down payment.
    Household debt in Canada is now the worst of any country in the G7. In fact, our household debt in total is 7% bigger than the entire GDP of the country. The IMF reports that we have the largest risk of mass defaults of all leading economies.
    Will the Prime Minister stop heaping on inflation and interest-rate hikes now?
    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has the lowest deficit in the G7 and the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, yet Canadians are struggling. We propose to send them more direct help, including an ability to get a tax refund on tools for tradespeople, help with the Canada workers benefit, and other measures to help homebuyers.
    Conservatives say no, we should be cutting programs and sending less help to Canadians during this time. It is completely illogical and irresponsible, yet they are standing up to block our budget.
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not sending any help. Everything he spends he has to take. It reminds us of when he said he was going to take on government debt so that Canadians would not have to. The Liberals are now stuck with twice the national government debt and the biggest household debt of any country in the G7.
    At the time, the Prime Minister flooded the economy with cheap cash, which increased housing prices and therefore mortgage debt. Canadians now have more debt than at anytime in our history, more debt than the size of our entire economy, and they are being hit with a 19-fold increase in interest rates.
    How will they ever pay their bills?
    Mr. Speaker, every now and then, the Conservative leader reminds us all that he would not have been there to help Canadians through the depths of the pandemic. He would not have been there to support families or small businesses, or to get our economy rolling again.
    He was part of the Stephen Harper government that let the 2008 recession linger for nine years before we recovered jobs, yet this deeper recession took two years to bounce back to full employment. We are going to continue to be there for Canadians to support them, while he is proposing cuts and less support for Canadians when they need it most.
    Mr. Speaker, we were the last to go in and the first to come out of the great global recession. We left the country with a balanced budget. Housing costs were half of what they are today, not to mention that food price inflation never went above 4%. That is a far superior record to what the Prime Minister has delivered.
    He has doubled housing prices, doubled the cost of a mortgage, doubled rent costs and sent 1.5 million people running to the food bank. He now proposes another $60 billion of inflationary deficits, or $4,200 in extra costs to Canadians.
    Will he do what he promised to do just six months ago and give a date for a balanced budget?
    Mr. Speaker, 2.7 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015 because of the supports and investments this government made. At the same time, we have seen millions of jobs created and the lowest unemployment in generations.
    We are going to continue to be there in targeted, non-inflationary ways to help Canadians while the Conservatives continue to stand in the way of more help to Canadian families that need it right now. We have an approach that is growing the economy, creating great jobs and supporting Canadians at the same time.
    Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. He is totally out of touch. He says Canadians have never had it so good. Those nine in 10 young people who have given up on ever owning a home have never had it so good, says the Prime Minister. The 1.5 million who are going to food banks or skipping meals have never had it so good. Those going to The Mississauga Food Bank and seeking help with medical assistance in dying, not because they are sick but because they are hungry, have never had it so good.
    What they are experiencing is the unavoidable mathematics of an inflationary government, which has spilled $500 billion of inflation on their backs. When will he balance the budget to bring down those costs?

  (1505)  

    Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is we all, in this House, representing constituents across the country, know that Canadians are hurting. The difference between our two approaches is that we continue to be there in targeted, non-inflationary ways to help Canadians while Conservatives are proposing program cuts, support cuts, cuts to child care, cuts to investments in dental care, cuts to the kinds of things that are helping Canadians through these difficult times.
    That is the choice Canadians are going to be making in a few years: between cuts and further responsible growth for the economy.

[Translation]

Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the committee on Chinese interference, David Johnston confirmed that he based his report on incomplete information. He did not even take the time to talk to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada or the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
    He did not do the necessary work, yet he concluded that there is no need for a public inquiry.
    Mr. Johnston himself demonstrated that his report lacks rigour and that his conclusions on the public inquiry must be called into question. He himself discredited his report and disqualified himself from any involvement as a result of that work.
    Will the Prime Minister finally thank him and ask him to step aside?
    Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question. The Bloc Québécois continues its personal and partisan attacks.
    Let us take a moment to recognize all the firefighters and volunteers who are fighting forest fires in Quebec and across the country. We are currently in the worst year for forest fires, which are affecting communities and people across the country.
    We will continue to be there on this Clean Air Day, ironically enough, to fight climate change and protect Canadians in every way necessary.
    Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to find out the truth about interference because the Prime Minister refuses to reveal it.
    He is trying to lure the opposition leaders into keeping his forced secrets. In a dramatic turn of events, David Johnston admitted that he also did not have access to the whole truth before he determined that a public inquiry was not needed.
    The Prime Minister has two choices. He either needs to fire David Johnston and seriously consider a public inquiry or he needs to confirm that this whole process was an attempt to hide the truth.
    Which will it be?
    Mr. Speaker, I already answered that.
    This weekend, I spoke to Premier Legault and the mayors of a number of municipalities and indigenous communities affected by the wildfires in Quebec. I want to reassure them that the Canadian Armed Forces will continue to be there for Quebeckers who are afraid for their homes, their lives, their communities and their outfitting operations.
    We will be there to continue working hand in hand with the provincial government on the priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians who are watching their country burn. We are fighting climate change and we are talking about real issues.

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, our families' level of household debt is the highest in the G7.
    According to the International Monetary Fund, Canada runs the highest risk of mortgage defaults among all of the world's advanced economies. The Prime Minister is increasing interest rates with his inflationary policies that are forcing the Bank of Canada to raise its rates.
    What is he going to do to reverse his inflationary policies and lower the interest rates before Canadians lose their homes?
    Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is in a responsible tax situation, but Canadians are suffering.
    What the Conservative Party is proposing is austerity and cuts to programs that serve and help Canadians who are suffering in order to preserve the federal government's fiscal capacity, but preserve it for when?
    Canadians need help now. That is why we are investing in helping families, helping seniors and helping workers.
    We will continue to be there for people in a responsible way, not an inflationary way.

  (1510)  

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, we do not need another drama performance, because at the end of the day, when theatrics collide with mathematics, the math always wins. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canadians have a stock of combined debt that is bigger than our entire GDP. In fact, we are the most indebted families of any country in the G7. The IMF says that Canada is the number one at-risk country for mass mortgage defaults.
    Will he reverse his inflationary and high interest rate policies before people go broke?
    Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question a few times, but the Leader of the Opposition continues to ask it because he refuses to go outside and see what is actually happening in Canada.
    Forest fires are raging. It is the worst year on record for forest fires already. The fact is they are going to get worse in the coming years because climate change is real, and yet the Conservative Party continues to stand against the climate action we have been taking and stand against the investments we are making to support families and to support first responders. They continue to stand against help for Canadians who are losing their homes, losing their families, losing their—
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, has he really sunk to the low of exploiting these fires for political gain to distract from his inflationary and high interest rate policies? Is that what it has come to? Is he so ashamed of his economic policy and record—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    I am going to have to interrupt this, because I am getting noise from both sides.
    I know the member can handle it, and he does it well, but I want to hear what is being said and I am sure both sides want to hear what is being said.
    I ask him to start from the top, please.
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has just lowered himself to the worst depths. To try to distract from his disastrous economic record, he is now using the forest fires to change the channel. This is even lower than I would have expected from him.
    Canadians are going to sit down tonight to discuss how they are going to move into a small apartment because they are going to have to give up their homes after his inflationary policies have driven up interest rates on Canadian mortgage holders, who have record debt.
    Will the Prime Minister keep the promise he made six months ago to balance the budget and bring down inflation and interest rates before folks go broke?
    Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question a dozen times. For the Leader of the Opposition to consider the forest fires that are taking people from their communities and destroying their homes are a mere distraction and not top of mind for people from coast to coast to coast is shameful. The fact of the matter is he does not have anything to say about that because he refuses to put forward any real plan to fight against climate change and he does nothing but fight against our plan to fight climate change. If he has a better plan, let him say it, because we have been waiting a long time for it. He has no plan to fight climate change. He still questions whether it exists while Canada is burning.

[Translation]

The Environment

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is known for its rich biodiversity. However, both here at home and around the world, climate change crises are jeopardizing global biodiversity.
    It is Canadian Environment Week, so could the Prime Minister tell us what our government is doing to protect Canadian fauna, flora and biodiversity?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for his important question and his hard work.
    Canada is committed to the goal of conserving 25% of our land and oceans by 2025 and is working to conserve 30% by 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is a major victory for the planet and for all humanity.
    Since 2015, our government has been working tirelessly to conserve approximately 300,000 additional square kilometres of land. Protecting species at risk is a job that has only just begun.

  (1515)  

[English]

Housing

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has caused the mortgage crisis we now face. Back in 2021-22, he flooded the economy with cheap and excessive cash that went into the mortgage system. It bid up the price of housing. House prices had doubled under his leadership and then Canadians were forced to take on massive, and in some cases, million-dollar, mortgages in order to buy a home.
    He promised them that rates would be low for long but then his deficits juiced inflation, which pushed up interest rates and now, over the next three years, many of those same families will face 40% increases in their mortgage payments.
    How is he going to save their homes now that he put them in peril?
    Mr. Speaker, 2021-22: what was happening around then? What was happening in 2020-21?
    It was the investments we made to help Canadians get through the pandemic, investments we made to support small businesses, to support our frontline health workers, to ensure that we got through this extraordinarily difficult time in one of the best situations with some of the fewest deaths of all of our peer countries, and the Conservative Party continues to say it would have done far different.
    It would have allowed people to be more vulnerable. It would not have been there to support Canadians—
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Speaker, 2021-22: I will tell us what was happening. I will tell us what he was doing. He was trying to stuff a half-billion dollars into the WE Charity to help a group that had paid off his family.
    We know that he gave money to Frank Baylis's company. We know that 40% of all of the deficits he added had nothing to do with COVID, according to the PBO. We know that he added $100 billion of debt before COVID ever happened and now he is adding hundreds of billions more now that COVID is done.
    He has got to stop using the COVID excuse and start answering the question. People do not know how they are going to pay their mortgages. That is why I have had to ask 20 times about that question.
    Will he finally answer it?
    How will they pay their mortgages?
    Mr. Speaker, over the past years, we have been investing in Canadians, in targeted, non-inflationary ways, with things like the doubling of the GST credit, with dental supports for families with children under 12, with investments that have cut child care fees in half.
    These are all things that the Conservative Party stands against and, indeed, says it would cut.
    I ask us: how would cutting programs for Canadians help them in this difficult time?
    Mr. Speaker, let me break it down. I have been trying with 20 questions to get him to understand.
    Here is the domino effect. His spending causes deficits, which cause inflation, which causes interest rates to go up, which causes defaults. How do we reverse that?
    We stop the deficits, which stops the inflation, which stops the interest rates from going up, which stops the defaults.
    What part of that does he not understand?
    Mr. Speaker, once again, never letting the facts get in the way of a good political argument is the Leader of the Opposition's modus operandi.
    He says that if we were to raise child care fees in Canada instead of cutting them in half, if we were to not deliver dental care for young kids across this country, then, suddenly, inflation, which is impacting the world all over, would drop, that Canada is so important in the world that our lowest deficits in the GDP are contributing massively to this global inflation context.
    It is complete garbage from the Leader of the Opposition.

  (1520)  

Regional Economic Development

    Mr. Speaker, our government believes that close collaboration with our provincial and territorial counterparts is essential. When we put partisan differences aside and the interests of Canadians first, anything is possible.
    I understand that the Minister of Rural Economic Development was in Newfoundland and Labrador last week hosting a federal-provincial-territorial meeting on rural economic development.
    Can the Prime Minister share with the House the significance of this meeting and what it means for rural Canadians?
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for St. John's East for her question and her hard work.
    Last week in Newfoundland, we hosted the first-ever FPT meeting dedicated to building strong and thriving rural communities. Indigenous leaders and rural experts discussed how to continue building a collaborative and coordinated approach to helping rural communities succeed. Whether it be on connectivity, workforce issues or climate resilience, we owe it to Canadians to work together. When we do, we can make transformational changes to all communities, and that is what we will continue to do.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

    Mr. Speaker, Punjabi international students who placed their trust in unscrupulous consultants in India have been defrauded and are now facing the devastating consequence of deportation.
    I will be asking for a unanimous consent motion later on to support these students, but my question is for the Prime Minister: Will he stay the deportation of all these students who are impacted and provide a pathway to permanent residency for them?
    Mr. Speaker, we are deeply aware of cases of international students facing removal orders over fraudulent college acceptance letters.
    To be clear, our focus is on identifying the culprits, not penalizing the victims. Victims of fraud will have an opportunity to demonstrate their situations and present evidence to support their cases.
    We recognize the immense contributions international students bring to our country and we remain committed to supporting victims of fraud as we evaluate each case.

Climate Change

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right about one thing, which is that climate change is real, but the policies of the current government do not meet the requirements of the moment.
     We are in a climate emergency. Our eyes are burning in this place. The Ottawa parliamentary bubble has been pierced by the forest fires across this country, yet in this place the debates are inane.
    Please, will the Prime Minister commit to cancelling the Trans Mountain pipeline and protecting the Northeast Newfoundland Slope Closure from oil and gas development now?
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that it is unfortunate that in this House we continue to have to debate whether or not climate change is real. It is unfortunate that the Conservative opposition still stands against any climate action.
    We should be discussing the best way to protect future generations from the impacts of climate change. We should be talking about completing ambitious plans to do even more to build strong economies, to create great jobs and fight climate change. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to debate whether it is happening at all.

Presence in Gallery

    I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Anne Kang, Minister of Municipal Affairs for the Province of British Columbia.
    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
     I also wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Honourable Don McMorris, Minister of Government Relations for the Province of Saskatchewan.
    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
    Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: Given that a group of Punjabi international students has been defrauded and is now facing devastating consequences of potential deportation, I move that the House call on the government to immediately stay the deportation of all affected students, waive inadmissibility on the basis of misrepresentation and provide a pathway to permanent residency to the defrauded Punjabi international students currently facing deportation.

  (1525)  

    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
    Some hon. members: Nay.

[Translation]

    The Speaker: The hon. member for La Prairie on a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker, on Wednesdays, the Prime Minister is here to answer questions. We appreciate having him here to field all the questions, but unfortunately, he does not answer them. He cannot keep dodging questions like this. He was asked two questions about interference, but his answers were about forest fires.
    I wish this noble assembly would be more serious and that questions would actually be answered.
    That is a comment rather than a point of order.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

[Translation]

Committees of the House

Health 

    The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion.
    It being 3:26 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning an extension to consider Bill C-293.

[English]

    Call in the members.

  (1550)  

[Translation]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 352)

YEAS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vuong
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 207


NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 114


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion carried.

Private Members' Business

[Private Members' Business]

  (1555)  

[English]

National Strategy for Eye Care Act

    The House resumed from May 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-284 under Private Members' Business.

[Translation]

    The question is on the motion.

  (1605)  

[English]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 353)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi

Total: -- 324


NAYS

Nil

PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

    (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Translation]

Parliament of Canada Act

    The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
    Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill S‑202, under Private Members' Business.
    The question is on the motion.

  (1615)  

[English]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 354)

YEAS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vuong
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 209


NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 114


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

    (Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Translation]

International Human Rights Act

    Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑281 under Private Members' Business.

  (1630)  

[English]

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 355)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi

Total: -- 322


NAYS

Nil

PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion carried.

    (Bill read the third time and passed)

    Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Infrastructure.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

[Translation]

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

    The House resumed from June 6 consideration of Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
    Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑47.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 2.

  (1640)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 356)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 208


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 2 defeated.
    The question is on Motion No. 3.

[Translation]

    A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 4 to 14.

  (1655)  

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 357)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 115


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 209


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 3 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 4 to 14 defeated.
    The member for Mississauga—Lakeshore has a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote.
    I just want to clarify that because the vote has already been announced, we have to ask for unanimous consent.
    Do we have unanimous consent?
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    How does the member vote?
    Mr. Speaker, I vote nay.

  (1700)  

    The question is on Motion No. 15. A vote on this motion will also apply to Motions Nos. 16 to 111.

  (1705)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 358)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 114


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 16 to 111 defeated.
    The next question is on Motion No. 112. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 113 to 121.

  (1720)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 112, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 359)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 114


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 112 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 113 to 121 defeated as well.
    The question is on Motion No. 122. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 123 to 125.

  (1730)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 122, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 360)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 115


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 207


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 122 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 123 to 125 defeated.
    The question is on Motion No. 126.

[Translation]

     A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 127 to 232.

  (1745)  

[English]

     (The House divided on Motion No. 126, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 361)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 112


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 208


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 127 to 232 defeated.
    The question is on Motion No. 233. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 234 to 440.

  (1805)  

    (The House divided on Motion No. 233, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 362)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 114


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 208


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 233 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 234 to 440 defeated.
    We have a point of order from the hon. government whip.
    Mr. Speaker, I am sure it has not been lost on the Chair that this sudden technological difficulty outbreak has been limited to one party in this House. I would just ask, as we are voting on the budget, that we show a bit of respect for this place.
    Manifestly, these people are outside in the lobby—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    I would just remind the member that we cannot say whether somebody is in the chamber or outside the chamber.
    We have a point of order from the hon. member for La Prairie.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, there is no interpretation. There is nothing but silence on the French channel. I am not sure why.
    I think a phone was ringing while the member was talking.
    The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, this is the second time we have had technical problems that have only impacted one party. I believe it is showing profound disrespect for the interpreters, who do an excellent job each and every day on our behalf. They deserve more respect than that.
    Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to undertake an investigation. This is the second time the Conservatives have turned votes into a circus. I would ask you to undertake a thorough investigation of this misuse of parliamentary time.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. I am going to make two comments on this.
    I will refer people to chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”, under “Decorum During the Taking of a Vote”. We did see a lot of people get up and move during the vote, and I do not want that happening, because it creates a lot of confusion for the table officers. It reads:
    During the taking of a vote, no Member is permitted to enter, leave or walk across the Chamber or to make any noise or disturbance from the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced. Members must be in their seats to vote and must remain seated until the result of the vote is announced.
    I want to quote what the Speaker ruled on June 5, which was Monday morning after the Friday incident. He said:
    The Chair has the utmost respect for the voting process. The success of the voting application depends on the good faith of members. All members are to treat their right to vote in this place with the sanctity and respect it deserves.
    This applies especially to a budget vote.
    Let us see how we get through the next vote. I will remind folks that if they are voting online, have trouble with it and join us by Zoom, I need a “yea” or “nay”. I do not need to know anything else. Please stick to that.

  (1810)  

[Translation]

    The question is on Motion No. 441. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 442, 445, 684 to 689 and 691 to 729.

  (1830)  

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 441, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 363)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 112


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 208


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 441 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 442 to 455, 684 to 689 and 691 to 729 defeated.
    The next question is on Motion No. 730.

[Translation]

    A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904.

  (1845)  

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 730, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 364)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 113


NAYS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 207


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 730 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 731 to 749 and 751 to 904 defeated.
Hon. Helena Jaczek (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance)  
     moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.
    If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
    Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

  (1900)  

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 365)

YEAS

Members

Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Noormohamed
O'Connell
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 178


NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
O'Toole
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 145


PAIRED

Members

Bergeron
Sorbara

Total: -- 2


    I declare the motion carried.

Points of Order

Technical Issues Raised During the Taking of Recorded Division  

[Points of Order]
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to bring to your attention a possible incident of coercion of a member of Parliament during the vote previous to this one. The member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke was captured on the screen speaking into her microphone and asking if she had voted slowly enough. We wish to know who was coaching, who was pulling the puppet strings on this member, what kind of coercion was being exerted upon her and whether this is something that the Speaker should investigate.
    Mr. Speaker, one cannot do directly what one can do indirectly.
    What I would offer is that our colleague is struggling with the smoke, had a mask on and was struggling to actually speak. What she was merely trying to clarify was that the Speaker had heard her and that she had enunciated clearly with the technical issues we have been having with this act.
    Mr. Speaker, anyone who knows me knows that no one coaches me on how to vote.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to reiterate the request for a full investigation into the circus we saw this evening, with only Conservatives being unable to master the technical capabilities of the app. I would ask for confirmation that the Speaker will investigate fully.
    We will go back and review to see who had challenges.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising.
    Mr. Speaker, in your consideration of the point of order from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, I would like to add that I too believe it is important that the Speaker look into this, that we investigate why Conservatives seem to be having a tough time with technology. Maybe it is just the old archaic ways that surround them, but nonetheless, we need to look into this. We need to get to the bottom of this.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to raise a point of order for the first time. I was scheduled to speak to my private member's bill tonight. It is a bill that I believe everybody in the House favours, and it is to declare November as Lebanese heritage month.
    I would like to second the motion from the member for New Westminster—Burnaby to investigate these ridiculous tactics, which are wasting resources and impeding important legislation from going forward.

  (1905)  

    Mr. Speaker, on the third to last vote, I believe, I stepped out for a moment, and the member for Mississauga East—Cooksville referred to me as a rat.
    I think the member is an hon. member, and I would ask him to kindly retract his comment.
    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to support the New Democratic House leader, I would like to read a quote that I think should be taken into consideration in investigating this matter.
    The Leader of the Conservative Party said that they have announced they are going to use every parliamentary tool in their tool kit to block this risky and inflationary budget from passing until the PM makes the commitment to balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates. He then said, “I will keep speaking and keep speaking and keep blocking...until the Prime Minister rises with a plan”.
    I would suggest that we have witnessed something that is being orchestrated out of the Conservative leadership's office. I think it is worthy for us to investigate it. It is a very serious matter. One could say the behaviour we have seen from the Conservative Party, both on Friday and today, is in borderline contempt of our rules.
    I do believe I have as much information as I need for that point of order.
    I see the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has his hand up.
    Mr. Speaker, I did want to weigh in on this. I have no opinion on whether the hon. Conservative is a rat or not. That is not something I want to speak to.
    However, I do feel that we are watching tactics by the Conservative leader, who lives in Stornoway. I am very concerned that this is undermining confidence, and it is very important that we have confidence, particularly when my region is burning and people are being evacuated.
    I am asking the Speaker to look into this because Canadians expect us to do our jobs and not to interfere and act like we are juveniles. I am asking if the Speaker would agree to look into this—
    Let us get to the end of the list of folks who want to speak.
    The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
    Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I find it tragically ironic that they want an investigation into voting, but they refuse to allow an investigation into votes by the Communist dictatorship in Beijing. What a shameful—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    I will just remind members that, when we are talking to points of order, a Standing Order request might be good as well.
    The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.
    Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would recommend that, if there is any investigation that really needs to be done, they should ask the same special rapporteur to investigate.
    We will review what happened today because we do try to provide the application for the use of members when they are travelling and when they are going to committees. We want to make sure it works correctly so that we do not have these kinds of problems.
    Do not forget, if a member has trouble voting, when the member's hand goes up on the screen, a team of individuals will be trying to call them to make sure the app and the phone are working correctly. There is a number of resources that get activated the second a member's hand goes up.
     We will review to see how the system worked. We will go back to see the statements that were brought forward, and we will try to report that back to the House as soon as possible.

Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

[English]

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

  (1910)  

Public Sector Integrity Commissioner

    Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 111(1) and section 39(1) of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the biographical notes and the certificate of nomination for the appointment of Harriet Solloway as Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 111(1), I request that the certificate of nomination and biographical notes be referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
    I wish to inform the House that, because of the delay, pursuant to Standing Order 37, there will be no Private Members' Business hour today.

[Translation]

    Accordingly, the item will be rescheduled for another sitting.

[English]

Committees of the House

Procedure and House Affairs  

    Madam Speaker, I know constituents in the riding of Waterloo, and all constituents in Ontario, will be happy to know that I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Report on the Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario, 2022”.
    As the procedure and House affairs chair, I would just also state that committee members have been looking at how we make this place function, and I do want to say thanks to the NDP today for raising the concern to interpreters. I know that during votes, interpretation does not take place, but I do notice that their headsets are on because they never know when they might need to interpret.
    I would say that their health and safety is of the utmost importance. People applaud and say it often, but sometimes their actions do not demonstrate that, and that is a concern for me. I really hope that we rectify the matter.
    With that, here is our report.
    Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Conservative members of the procedure and House affairs committee to table a Conservative dissenting report to the main report of the committee, in respect of the boundary redistribution for the Province of Ontario.
    Conservatives support and respect the work of the commission and therefore do not support most of the boundary objections. However, we do respectfully request that commission favourably consider the targeted boundary objections of the member for Don Valley West, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the member for King—Vaughan.
    We also respectfully ask the commission to favourably consider proposed boundary name changes put forward by the member for Niagara Falls, the member for Thornhill and the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

Justice and Human Rights  

    Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, entitled “Reforming Canada’s Extradition System”.
    Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities  

     moved that the 5th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities presented on Thursday, June 2, 2022, be concurred in.
    He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this concurrence debate regarding the 5th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Railway Safety and the Effects of Railway Operations on the Surrounding Communities in Which They Operate”.
    This is an issue and a topic that is close to the hearts of many people on northwest B.C. in the riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley, which I am so proud to represent. At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to a couple of people.
     First is to a wonderful woman named Dawn Remington, who lived in the community of Smithers, where I live. She was deeply committed to the environment and to the safety of her community. She was concerned about the topic of rail safety. During the course of the committee's study, Dawn appeared before the committee to present the concerns of residents. Sadly, she passed away before the report was tabled. Tonight, I will be speaking in her memory.
     Second, I want to pay tribute to another incredible community leader in northwest B.C., a woman named Alice Maitland. Alice is one of the longest-serving mayors in all of Canada. She served as the mayor for the village of Hazelton for over 40 years, and today is her 90th birthday. I want to wish her a very happy birthday. Alice has passed the torch onto her daughter Julie, who is now her worship in the village of Hazelton and is doing a wonderful job. What Alice taught me about politics was the importance of bringing heart, of defending the places that we love and fighting every day for the people who live in our communities. I wish a happy birthday to Alice.
    Tonight, I will talk about the report from the standing committee. I am very proud of the committee's work. This is a report based on a study that we, the NDP, initiated. I also want to situate this around our experience in northwest B.C. The railroad is such a big part of our history, our economy and of people's daily lives in our region.
    I want to talk about workers. I want to talk about the people who work on the trains, like the conductors, the engineers and others who are so vital to our supply chains. They do dangerous work in all kinds of conditions, in Canadian weather on steep mountain grades, up and down the line.
    I want to talk about communities. The railway in Canada bisects so many communities and runs through so many communities. In the region I represent, the railroad was really the founding reason for many of the non-indigenous communities, including Smithers. It is a community named after Sir Alfred Smithers, who was the superintendent of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. It is a big part of who we are, yet at the same time, we have a lot of work to do to ensure that rail transport in our country is done safely and that the people who work in that sector are protected when they go to work.
    The concerns of workers was something that the committee heard quite a bit about in the testimony. We heard from Teamsters and other unions representing workers. In my job as a member of Parliament, I have talked to dozens of railroad workers who have brought forward their concerns.
    Their concerns are really about the safety of the job. I think that is the biggest thing. At the top of the list are concerns about fatigue, the scheduling of the rail companies and the way that impacts workers. These folks work under some pretty strenuous conditions.
    The railroads run 24-7, and the way the shifts are scheduled often puts a strain on these workers' lives. They have to be on call. They have to be able to jump at a moment's notice, get on a train and drive it somewhere. Certainly, many workers have expressed to me the challenges of fatigue and the challenges of getting enough rest.
    At the committee, we also heard about the condition of some rest facilities the railway companies utilize to ensure that rail workers are getting rest. Many of them are located directly next to the train tracks. Of course, when there are trains going by every hour, we can imagine how difficult it is to get the necessary rest. We need to ensure that those facilities are kept up to a standard where these important workers are able to get the rest they need so they can perform their work in a safe way.

  (1915)  

    When we talk about workers, I am reminded of the tragedies in this country that have taken rail workers' lives. Most recently, there was a horrible tragedy in my home province of British Columbia. In February 2019, a Canadian Pacific grain train was parked on a steep mountain grade just outside the community of Field. It was very cold, and the brakes were set on the train. They were set overnight, and in the morning, a crew had to replace the previous crew, so a new crew was brought in. These three men climbed on board the locomotive. The parking brakes on the train failed because of the cold weather. The train ran away, and minutes later, all three were killed in a horrible derailment.
    Their names were Andrew Dockrell, the engineer; Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer, the trainee; and Dylan Paradis, the conductor on that train.
    I had a chance to speak with some of the family members of these three men, and they described just how horrific and painful this incident was. They described for me their determination to ensure that no other families of rail workers go through what they went through. I am continually inspired by the work that they are doing in the memory—

  (1920)  

    I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

[Translation]

    The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle on a point of order.
    Madam Speaker, we lost interpretation a few moments ago.
    The interpretation is not working.

[English]

    Is the interpretation now working from English to French? It is working.
    The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley may continue.
    Madam Speaker, I was talking about the three rail workers who lost their lives near Field and how inspiring it has been to work with their family members to create a legacy of safety for other railroad families.
    There are a number of recommendations in the report we are debating this evening that relate specifically to this. Before, I mentioned fatigue and rest facilities; these points are reflected in the report. However, specific to the incident near Field, there is a recommendation in this report calling on the federal government to address the profound conflict of interest that exists when rail companies are able to employ private corporate police forces to investigate their own accidents.
    In the case of the Canadian Pacific incident, the first people on the scene were employees of the company. Their first call was to corporate risk management. This is not how potentially criminal investigations should be conducted. The families of these men deserved an objective and transparent investigation. I am pleased that the RCMP eventually undertook an investigation, which is ongoing, but we need to ensure for any future accidents that, when tragedy strikes, these companies are not able to use their own private police forces to investigate. This report leads us in that direction. Time is certainly of the essence.
    I want to talk a bit about the concerns of communities, particularly around emergency response. In northwest B.C., we have seen a tremendous increase in the transport of dangerous goods by rail, particularly liquid propane. This is a result of port development in Prince Rupert, which has really been welcomed by the region and has brought a tremendous number of economic benefits. However, the reality is that this development has also increased rail traffic, and in particular, the transport of dangerous goods. When communities look at the tragedy that happened in Lac-Mégantic or the recent tragedy in East Palestine, Ohio, they are very concerned about what the worst-case scenario could look like. This report from the Standing Committee on Transport includes recommendations that speak specifically to emergency response.
    Many of the small communities the railroad passes through in northwest B.C. are protected by volunteer fire departments. These are fire departments staffed by community members, who dedicate their time out of an ethos of community service. They have limited budgets, limited equipment and limited ability to fight the large industrial fires that could result from the transport of dangerous goods.
    I will actually mention that, on March 21, there was a rail fire in my home community involving a single car of a relatively innocuous substance that caught fire. It took two fire departments, both Smithers and Telkwa, to put it out. They responded with 17 members from Smithers, five members from Telkwa and five pieces of firefighting apparatus. They put over 20,000 litres of water on this car to put it out. It was quite an effort. I was reflecting on the words of the deputy fire chief, Alle Jan de Vries from Smithers. He said that they were able to deal with that size of an emergency, but a larger situation involving several railcars would quickly outstrip their capacity as a fire department.
    This, of course, comes back to the federal government's responsibility to protect communities. My concern, and the concern of many people across Canada, is that in this era of self-regulation and the hands-off approach of the federal government, these companies are able to rely on a municipal fire response that cannot deal with the worst-case scenarios that we are talking about.
    In this report from the committee, we have recommendations related to maximum response times. This is something that community members deserve to know. They deserve to know when help is going to show up. Is it going to take one hour, two hours or five hours? What resources will the help show up with? In our region, we understand that there are specialized caches of equipment and personnel, but they are several hours away. Of course, we know that, in a fire involving dangerous goods, a lot can happen in a couple of hours. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the federal government do a review and ensure that communities are properly protected for these larger events.

  (1925)  

    I want to recognize the work of the Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako, which is completing a gap analysis on rail safety. This is being done to better understand in detail where those vulnerabilities exist, so that, as communities, we can clearly communicate our needs to the federal government and ensure that people are protected.
    Of course, there are numerous indigenous communities along the railroad as well. In many cases, Indigenous people in western Canada have a difficult history with the railroad. I think of the elders in Gitsegukla, whom I spoke with. They described how the railroad came through their village and right through their graveyard. They also described how their land was taken, but they were never compensated for it. There are still outstanding concerns about the impact of the construction of the railroad over 100 years ago on their community, and today, they share many of the concerns with respect to emergency response and the transport of dangerous goods. I want to give special recognition to the Kitselas First Nation, which also presented before the committee and provided testimony on its work to evaluate the risk to its community of from rail transport.
    Finally, I want to talk a bit about the environment. The other big risk from rail transport relates to potential environmental impacts. I just spoke about the Kitselas, who are people of the Skeena River. The railroad in northwest B.C. runs right along the Skeena, which is British Columbia's second-largest wild salmon system. All five species of wild salmon swim up the Skeena, so the communities are very concerned about what would happen if there were a derailment that resulted in dangerous goods, especially persistent fuels like diesel, spilling into the river. They are concerned about what the response would be, how effective it would be and how long it would take.
    I want to talk a bit about some of the safety systems that are currently in place and the concerns around them. If we think about safety management systems, these are the tools the federal government really leans on most heavily in ensuring some semblance of safety in the rail sector. I want to recognize the work of Bruce Campbell, who has done a lot of thinking about safety management systems and their place in the management regime related to rail. Bruce wrote a book about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and has travelled to northwest B.C. to help communities understand what the risks are.
    The Auditor General has expressed serious concerns about safety management in the rail sector, particularly the federal government's lack of effectiveness monitoring. Rail companies are required to have these safety management systems, but as of the Auditor General's last report, there had not been enough done to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems. If we do not evaluate whether these systems create better safety, how do we know that they are effective? That is the question we have to ask.
    Of course, safety management systems were never meant to replace conventional regulations, monitoring and enforcement. However, what we see today is really a regime of self-regulation by the rail companies. We see far too few inspections by a federal department, Transport Canada, which simply does not have the resources to do the job that is required. The report from the committee speaks to this. We need more unannounced inspections to ensure that companies are following the rules, that materials are being transported safely and that the conditions that workers are working under are safe. One of the themes in this report is ensuring that the federal government has resources commensurate with the challenge of managing this important industry.
    Earlier, when I spoke about East Palestine, I was noting a remark in the media from the chair of the Transportation Safety Board, shortly after that incident happened. She said that, in her opinion, she could not clearly state that such an incident would not be possible in Canada. Part of the reason for that remark was that she has seen how slowly the federal government addresses the recommendations that come from the Transportation Safety Board. We need the government to be much more responsive to those kinds of recommendations, and I think some of the actions the government could take are in this report.

  (1930)  

    This report is being debated at a very timely point, because, in the very near future, we will be resuming debate on Bill C-33, which is the government's proposed legislation related to ports and the supply chain, including rail safety. It includes a couple of amendments to the Railway Safety Act that stem from the Railway Safety Act review in 2017. Notably, however, this legislation is silent on almost all the recommendations in the committee's report that we are debating tonight.
     That is a real missed opportunity, because what this report represents are the concerns of rail workers, communities, several first nations and others who are impacted by the transport of goods by rail. Therefore, I would hope that the government would take these concerns seriously. I have spoken to the minister, particularly about the rail police concern and the emergency response concern in communities, and we expect the government will table additional legislation specifically related to rail safety so we can address these long-standing concerns.
    I started by talking a bit about the importance of the railroad, not just in the region I represent but right across Canada. I do not think any of that importance takes away from the need for us to ensure the safety of the people who work on our railroads, to ensure the safety of the communities through which the railroad passes and to ensure the safety of our environment, which, of course, is so very precious. As we continue this debate and think about how we can make the rail sector safer for all Canadians, I want us to remember the people this is about: people like Andrew Dockrell, Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer and Dylan Paradis, people who have been affected by the government's lack of oversight and lack of regulation in the rail sector.
    I hope that, through this debate, we can reflect on the 30 recommendations in this report and that we can really think about what actions are needed; summon the resolve, as Parliament; and put pressure on the government to finally take those actions.
    Again, the reality is that none of us wants to think about the worst-case scenarios. In my conversations with people around the region and within the federal government about rail safety, people rarely want to talk about what happens when the unthinkable occurs. They say that they are making the trains go slower so it is less likely they catch on fire. They say that the tank cars the trains are carrying have thicker walls and they are less likely to be punctured. However, it behooves us to think about what those worst-case scenarios are and to ensure that we have plans in place, that we have regulations, that we have monitoring and that we have enforcement that protects the people who matter the most.

  (1935)  

    On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Seniors.
    Madam Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1420 to 1434.
    While I am on my feet, I move:
    That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
    Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, November 15, 2022, the motion is deemed adopted.

    (Motion deemed adopted)


Government Orders

[Government Orders]

[English]

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

Hon. Kamal Khera (for the Minister of Finance)  
     moved that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to participate in this evening's debate on Bill C‑47, which implements our government's 2023 budget.
    The budget sets out a host of measures for supporting Canadians and growing the Canadian economy of the future. That is our government's priority.
    This week, the Conservative leader let us know what his priority is. On Monday, he said his priority is to use all procedural tools at his disposal to block the budget from passing. This morning, he doubled down by saying that he intended to speak all night to filibuster this debate. After witnessing the cheap tricks that the Conservatives have been pulling since last week to sabotage the work of this House, it is obvious that all of our Conservative colleagues are following their leader's example.
    Of course, this is not a serious attempt to prevent the budget from passing. If it were, they would be trying to rally support from a majority of House members. The Conservatives are not trying to persuade anyone. They just want to block the bill. Not only is this approach an insult to our democratic institution and to the spirit of co-operation that we must strive to maintain, it is slowing the delivery of vital programs and benefits to Canadians.

[English]

    We are finally at third reading of the budget implementation act, a critical piece of legislation. It is a bill that would enact our economic plan for Canadians. It is about creating more good-paying jobs. It is about growing our GDP, and it is about Canada staying competitive in the global market. This is important to me. It is important to every single member of the government. When I am asked in my riding what my priority is, or when a journalist wants to know what our government’s priority is, the answer is clear: It is the economy.
     The Conservative leader, however, has made no secret of what his priority is. He stated it so very clearly. His priority is to “use all procedural tools at our disposal to block the budget from passing including 900 amendments, lengthy speeches, and other procedural tools”. This, I must emphasize, is not how Parliament is supposed to function. These 904 amendments are fake amendments. They are 904 motions calling on the government to delete the 904 clauses of the budget implementation act. It took hours of the Speaker's time just to read out those amendments and four hours to vote on them earlier today. This was after 40 hours of Conservative filibusters on the budget implementation act.
    This is not even a serious attempt at preventing the passage of the budget. If that were the case, the Conservative leader would be trying to rally a majority of MPs in the House, but that is not what the Conservatives are doing; they are not trying to convince other parties or other members. These are simply stunts, ones that serve only to undermine the work of Parliament and to obstruct the democratic will of the House. Similar to those stunts, more of the same can be expected tonight. The leader of the Conservative Party said earlier today that he will keep speaking and keep blocking.
    While the Conservatives are clapping, they perhaps would like to explain to Canadians why they want to block important benefits and programs: benefits for low-income workers and benefits for families, consumers and homebuyers. The Conservatives are blocking assistance for Ukraine, which is included in this bill before the House. The Conservatives are blocking an anti-flipping tax, when we know that speculation in the housing market is causing pain for Canadians. The Conservatives are stalling the next steps in our dental care plan, when we know that seniors would like to access this important support. The Conservatives are preventing low-income workers in this country from getting the support they need. The list goes on and on. Why are the Conservatives doing this? Why has this minority of members in the House of Commons decided to delay important benefits and programs for Canadians who need them?

  (1940)  

    It is simply because Conservatives do not believe that climate change exists or that we should take climate action in this country. That is the only logical conclusion, given the debates in the House. They do not believe the 99.9% of climate scientists when they tell us we need to substantially cut emissions if we hope to safeguard our environment for our children and our grandchildren.
    As we all know, major economies around the world are moving at an unprecedented pace to fight climate change and build the net-zero industries the world needs now. As a country, we must seize this opportunity. The International Energy Agency estimates that the global market for clean-tech manufacturing alone will triple by 2030, to $650 billion U.S. per year. We cannot let that opportunity pass us by. Budget 2023 is the government's plan to seize that opportunity today and to lead the way in rapidly expanding global industries that will ensure that Canada can and will be a leader in that global economy.

[Translation]

    I have to say that, in that race, the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act represents a major challenge to our ability to compete in industries that will drive the economy of tomorrow. If we do not act quickly, the magnitude of U.S. incentives will compromise Canada's ability to attract the investments necessary to make our country a leader in the clean global economy.
    If Canada does not keep pace, it will fall behind. If we fall behind, that will mean fewer investments in our communities and fewer jobs for a whole generation of Canadians.
    As we can see, economic imperatives are leading us toward the development of the green economy. However, that is not all.

  (1945)  

[English]

    It is also critical that we consider the devastating impacts that climate change is having on Canadians. Earlier this year, we witnessed this when an ice storm swept across much of Canada, including my community in Montreal, elsewhere in Quebec, and in Ontario. The damage was significant. Unfortunately, we know these storms will become more frequent due to climate change. Sadly, lives were lost. Now, as we all know, wildfires are ravaging communities across the country, leaving a path of destruction behind and literally making it difficult to breathe.
    Today is actually Clean Air Day in Canada, a day meant to recognize how important good air quality is to our health, to our environment and, yes, to our economy. Today, in Ottawa, the air quality is rated at 10 plus, on a scale of 10, which means maxing out the scale entirely. This is the worst level on Environment Canada's Air Quality Health Index, and it indicates a very high risk to human health. If this does not serve to finally wake up the climate deniers in the House, I genuinely do not know what will. These natural disasters serve as yet another reminder of the urgent need to take action against climate change, to get our economy to make the green transition we all need, and to turn this into a real economic opportunity for Canadians as we create the economy of tomorrow. The time for action is now.
    The transition to the clean economy will require massive investments, both public and private. For Canada to remain competitive, we must continue to build a framework that supports these types of investments in Canada, and that is what we are doing with this budget.

[Translation]

    By making significant investments so that Canada does not fall behind in this period of tremendous change and opportunity, budget 2023 ensures that our clean Canadian economy will create prosperity, jobs for the middle class and stronger communities across the country.
    The measures set out in Bill C-47 give us the means to match our ambitions, the means to chart a path to net zero and to good jobs for years to come.

[English]

    Growing a clean economy, both here in Canada and around the world, will depend on our supply of clean electricity.
    The good news is that Canada already has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world. In fact, roughly 83% of our electricity comes from non-emitting sources, such as hydroelectricity, wind, solar and nuclear.

[Translation]

     In budget 2023, the federal government is proposing significant investments to accelerate the supply and transmission of clean electricity. We will expand Canada's electricity grid, connect it from coast-to-coast-to-coast, and ensure that Canadians and Canadian businesses have access to cleaner and cheaper energy into the next century.

[English]

    By way of example, budget 2023 proposes to introduce a 15% refundable tax credit for eligible investments in non-emitting electricity generation systems such as wind and solar; abated natural gas-fired electricity generation; stationary electricity storage systems that do not use fossil fuels in their operation, such as batteries, pumped hydroelectric storage and compressed air storage; and equipment for the transmission of electricity between provinces and territories. Both new projects and the refurbishment of existing facilities will be eligible.
    This made-in-Canada plan follows the federal tiered structure to incent the development of Canada’s clean economy and provide additional support for projects that need it. With this plan we are introducing the necessary tools to put Canada’s electricity sector on the path to reducing its emissions to net-zero from the 56-megatonne CO2 equivalent in 2020, and to meeting our commitment to achieve a net-zero electricity grid by 2035.
    We know that as we look to seize the opportunities presented to us in growing the clean economy of the future and building the opportunities of tomorrow, we must continue to support Canadians today. Since our election in 2015, our government's main focus has been on investing in the middle class, growing the economy, strengthening Canada’s social safety net and making life more affordable.
    We have introduced the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, including more than 15,000 in my riding alone. We have been giving millions of families a head start in giving their children the best start in life possible. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement for single seniors, increased old age security and enhanced the Canada pension plan with our provincial partners, because we know that those who have contributed and given to this country for their entire working lives deserve to enjoy a secure and dignified retirement.
     We know that without the involvement of women in our workforce, we will never succeed in building the economy we want. Because of that, in 2021 we made a historic investment in a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. That investment has already delivered a 50% average reduction in fees for regulated child care in this country. It has also brought down fees to just $10 a day in six provinces and territories in this country, with the rest on track to meeting this milestone in just a few years' time.
    The statistics speak for themselves.
    We have increased our employment by over 900,000 jobs since prepandemic levels. Our unemployment rate sits at just 5%, which is lower than prepandemic levels. Our labour force participation rate is at 65.6%, well above that of the United States, and our labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years is at a record high of 85.2 %. We have also had the fastest year-over-year growth of any country in the G7. That is right. It is right here in Canada.
    We have made a lot of progress over the years in supporting Canadians, but we also know that millions still find it difficult to make ends meet. Budget 2023 was developed with a dual purpose in mind: supporting Canadians who need the help and need the government to step in to help them make ends meet today, while laying the foundations to build the economy that Canadians need tomorrow, with good-paying jobs. We cannot have one without the other. We cannot build an economy for the future without supporting the most vulnerable in our society today, and that is a challenge our government is ready to meet.

  (1950)  

    Predatory lenders often take advantage of some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, including many low-income Canadians, newcomers and seniors, often by extending very high interest rate loans. That is why in our budget implementation bill, we proposed that the federal government lower the criminal rate of interest under the Criminal Code from 47% to just 35% and launch consultations on whether that rate should be further reduced. Today’s legislation also proposes to adjust the Criminal Code's payday lending exemption to impose a cap on the cost of borrowing charged by payday lenders.
    Another topic is supporting our young people. Supporting post-secondary education not only is one of the best ways to continue to make life more affordable, but also prepares the next generation of Canadians with the skills they need to succeed. The cost of getting a post-secondary education has risen in recent years for many Canadians. RESPs are an important part of saving for that education. In a typical year, about 500,000 students withdraw funds from their RESPs to support their education. However, the withdrawal limits have not increased in 25 years.
    That is why, in the legislation before this House today, we are proposing to increase limits on those withdrawals from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students and from $2,500 to $4,000 for part-time students. We are also proposing to allow divorced or separated parents to open a joint RESP for their children, which would ensure more young Canadians have the opportunities they wish.

[Translation]

    I would also like to quickly address another aspect of the bill before us this evening. The changes that this bill makes to the Canada Elections Act confirm that Parliament has always intended that the Canada Elections Act should regulate uniformly, exclusively and comprehensively the federal political parties with respect to privacy.
    Parliament has already established a set of exclusive, comprehensive and uniform rules for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by federal political parties, requiring political parties to establish and comply with privacy policies governed by the Canada Elections Act.
    Some provincial privacy commissioners have questioned this interpretation, and this piece of legislation before us confirms that the intention of the Canada Elections Act has always been that voters across Canada benefit from that same set of privacy rules during federal elections.
    Communication with voters is at the very heart of politics, and the collection, use and disclosure of information is essential to that communication. This legislative measure will provide important certainty. MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers will be subject to a single, comprehensive and uniform set of federal rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, and no province will be able to separately regulate or restrict the ability of MPs, federal political parties, candidates, campaigns, party officials and volunteers to communicate with voters or to collect and use their information.
    I would like to conclude by saying that, thanks to the measures in Bill C-47 and others in budget 2023, we have the opportunity to build a clean, prosperous and sustainable economy right here in Canada. This will benefit not just ourselves and our children, but also our grandchildren in every part of this magnificent country. The time has come to seize this opportunity and to move forward.

  (1955)  

[English]

    Madam Speaker, the Liberal approach to this debate has been completely unserious. We listened to the member, just like other members before her, talk about the wildfire situation. The government has been in power for eight years and somehow the wildfire situation we are facing is everybody else's fault. It has been in power for eight years.
    The Liberals talk about cuts and fearmonger about potential cuts. Do members know when we had the worst cuts in Canadian history to health, social services and education? In 1996-97, the Liberal government of the day cut 20% from transfers for health, social services and education, and then the next year cut another 12%. It cut 32% over two years because of the absolutely disastrous economic policies of the last Trudeau government, the Trudeau government of the seventies and eighties, with 14 deficits in 15 years.
    I wonder if the hon. member and her friends, who have scrambled around to be in the background of her shot, will promise to stick around and will be open to being persuaded by the Leader of the Opposition's speech tonight.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. There is no time for debate here unless the member is being recognized.
    The hon. member for Outremont.
    Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I believe, if I understood it correctly, he is talking about getting serious. I could not agree more.
    It is time to get serious. The member pretends that he does not know who is to blame for these wildfires. I will tell him. It is climate change. Climate change is to blame for these wildfires.
    What we have done is put forward a concrete plan. It is called climate action. Over the course of the last several months that the new Conservative leader has been in the chamber, he has consistently asked us to stop that climate action, to stop fighting climate change. We will not stop fighting climate change.
    I want to remind members that they have had an opportunity to ask a question. It is a not a free-for-all here. They have to wait to be asked. They have to wait for me to say “questions and comments” before they are recognized. I just want to let them know that they cannot continue to heckle or try to answer questions while someone else has the floor.
    Questions and Comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. She talked about the clean economy. That is great. That resonates with me.
    The government is going to create the Canada growth fund with a $15-billion capital investment. However, the Canada pension plan is the organization that is going to manage this fund. Wait a minute. The Canada pension plan is responsible for its own performance, its own investments. It is not really concerned with environmental issues. For instance, a large part of its portfolio is invested in oil stocks.
    We are told that the Canada growth fund will be used for hydrogen projects created from fossil fuels and for carbon capture and storage projects, which are the scam of the century. The government has fallen for it.
    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Our government is proposing to give an organization the mandate to create the clean economy of tomorrow. This mandate will have very clear instructions attached. We are in government and we have the power to do it. We will do this not only in Quebec, but across Canada. This will benefit all Quebeckers.

  (2000)  

[English]

    Madam Speaker, the planet is on fire. I can smell the burning of the planet from my window in northern Ontario. It has been burning for days and days. We had an emergency debate the other night on fires, and not a single Conservative showed up. Obviously they do not care.
    My question is for the government. Over the last year, the environment minister proposed an increase of 109 million barrels of oil a day. The government has put over $30 billion into the TMX boondoggle to ship unrefined bitumen to other destinations.
    If the government is serious about climate change, when is it going to stop promoting the expansion of bitumen projects with the highest carbon intensities on the planet? As our planet burns, if we are going to be serious about a climate future, we have to stop the expansion of the oil lobby. When is the government going to stop working for the oil lobby and actually start working for Canadians?
    Madam Speaker, indeed, here in this House we can also smell the smoke from the wildfires. It comes right into this chamber. I hear my colleague when he says he can smell it where he is in northern Ontario.
    I, too, found it deplorable that not a single Conservative participated in the emergency debate on wildfires. Communities right across the country are being evacuated. Seven thousand Quebeckers were recently evacuated in Chibougamau.
    This is a very serious issue, and I believe that as elected officials, as parliamentarians, every single one of us should be concerned and every single one of us should have to speak to it.
    We have a point of order from the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
    Madam Speaker, I found it very troubling that the previous two speakers referenced Conservatives not participating in a debate that we did, very clearly—
    Mr. Speaker, what I found deplorable was that when the member for Timmins—James Bay was asking his question and talking about how he could literally smell forest fires from where he was sitting in his community, Conservatives were just laughing.
    Somehow, Conservatives think that climate change is a partisan issue, but even their buddies in the Bloc do not agree with them on that. They take it seriously.
    I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could comment on whether it is time to put partisanship aside when it comes to climate change. We can have debates about whether or not a policy is right or whether a different policy is the way to go, but what we should not be debating are the actual facts, the fact that climate change is real.
    Would the parliamentary secretary like to comment on that?
    Madam Speaker, I do agree that this is a not a partisan issue and I regret very much that it has become one in the House.
    There was a time when Brian Mulroney, a friend of mine, was a leader, the then-prime minister of Canada, a Conservative prime minister. He brought forward important life-changing reforms in order to make our planet greener, in order to fight climate change.
    The Conservatives have changed since then. This new Conservative leader does not believe that climate change is something that we should act on. He does not believe that climate action is important.
    We disagree, and we will continue to fight climate change.
    Madam Speaker, there is one aspect of the budget on which I want to get clarification.
    In the fall economic statement, in the 2027-28 business year, the fall economic statement projected a $4.5-billion surplus. Only 140 days later, on March 28, the budget introduced a table for the same year that showed a $14-billion deficit, an $18.5-billion swing.
    I wonder if the member could give us some details as to why there was the change.
    Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague opposite. I know him to be a learned member of the House.
    The simple fact is that a majority of Conservative Party members voted against climate action in the House. We know that the global environment has changed. There are challenges at the moment, but what the Conservatives are proposing are simply cuts.
    What the Conservatives are proposing are austerity measures, and as I mentioned in the speech—

  (2005)  

    The hon. member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin is rising on a point of order.
    Madam Speaker, I believe the rules of the House dictate that when a question is asked, the hon. member answering the question should at least attempt to refer, in some way, to—
    This is a point of debate.
    The hon. parliamentary secretary.
    Madam Speaker, I find it ironic that the Conservatives are talking about answering questions.
    Several times, we have asked the Conservatives what they are proposing by way of economic policy or what they are proposing by way of climate policy, and the answer has been silence. It has been silence on the other side. They have no plan for the economy. They have no plan for our planet. They have no plan for our future.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I will be very brief.
    This whole charade is impressive. Everything that has happened since Friday has been things I did not want to see or hear, and I can say that because the Bloc is not looking to form government. It has been about partisanship, foreign interference, climate change and forest fires come early. However, when I go back to my riding, I see that seniors are being abandoned.
    Come on, what is going on? It is going to be a real show here tonight, right up until midnight.
    I want to talk about seniors exclusively. I want my colleague to explain why they were abandoned.
    Madam Speaker, I also deplore what is happening in the House. I would have liked to have a debate on the issues, including how we could help our seniors.
    We have already done a lot to support our seniors. We have increased old age security. There are other policies we could put in place, but we spend our time dealing with the Conservatives' partisan games, which is unfortunate.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak, and to speak and to speak, for the people who have no voice, the people who have been silenced for too long, the quiet ones, the ones who toil away to pay their bills but have no means to pay any longer.
    They are the ones who cannot hire lobbyists to make their voices heard in the halls of power and they have no connections to get their concerns into the headlines of the newspapers, but they are the quiet ones who do the nation's work, who carry the country on their back. They are the ones who rise when it is still dark and work until it is dark again, but lately, for them, it has felt like nothing but darkness.
    In this period of difficulty, everything feels broken, and the government is broke. These are the people who skip meals because they cannot afford the price of food. These are the people who quietly go to food banks because they know it is the only way they will have a chance to feed their children. These are the 33-year-old men and women who did everything we asked them to do, worked hard, paid off their bills, had a job or two or three right through university, and yet still cannot afford a home and have calculated that they will never be able to afford a home, because prices are too high and rates are too burdensome for them ever to do so.
    When the Prime Minister rose today to complain that I would be on my feet for hours and hours at a time to block his latest assault on the paycheques of these quiet, patriotic working people, let me inform him that I was not deterred. I will speak for those people who cannot speak for themselves because they are too busy carrying the nation on their backs.

  (2010)  

[Translation]

    I am rising in the House today to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves because they are carrying the weight of the nation on their backs. I am speaking on behalf of single mothers who are skipping meals because that is the only way they can afford to buy groceries for their children.
    I am rising in the House today to speak on behalf of truckers who work seven days a week and do not even see their children anymore because that is what it takes for them to pay the bills. I am rising for the nine out of 10 Canadians who say that they will never be able to afford a house after eight years under this Prime Minister.
    I am rising in the House to speak for taxpayers who cannot afford to pay the carbon tax that the government wants to increase to 61¢ a litre. I am speaking for all those who cannot afford to pay any more and who need a voice in the House of Commons, who need us to take action so that they can earn a decent living, have a home and have financial security, which security is threatened day after day because of this inflationary deficit budget.
    We will work and fight to prevent this budget from being passed.

[English]

    In order to understand where we go from here, we have to understand how we arrived here in the first place. To understand the future, we have to understand the past. To know tomorrow, we have to know yesterday. This is not a unique concept. In fact, I learned it from the great Winston Churchill.
    Winston Churchill was probably the most prescient statesman of the 20th century. We know that he predicted the ravages of the evil Hitlerian regime in the early 1930s, before many of his own countrymen had realized the risk that was gathering. In a 1931 essay that he wrote in Maclean's magazine, “Fifty Years Hence”, he predicted the iPad, which he described as a device that one would hold in one's hand and use to talk to a friend on the other side of the world as though they were just sticking their head out the window to talk to a neighbour.
    He predicted that we would have wireless modems in houses. He used other words to describe them, but he described them with incredible precision. He described the fierce power of the atom. He even wrote back then, at the beginning of the 1930s, about how we would one day unlock the force of hydrogen as a fuel source, which is something that the government is celebrating as being a completely new concept, almost a century later.
    He said, at Westminster College in Missouri, that an iron curtain was descending across Europe, and at that moment described what would become known as the Cold War before anyone else was able to predict such a thing.
    How was he able to see so far into the future? Of course, he was able to because he had been so capable of seeing into the past.
     I see there has been an improvement on the government side, by the way. It is a big improvement, if only the cameras could see the very impressive people sitting there.
    He predicted all of these matters into the future because he had so completely understood the past. He wrote 58 volumes of Nobel prize-winning literature, almost all of it historical in nature. Because he understood history, he could tell where the future was going. He understood that our imagination is really just fragments of memory put together and that we can have no imagination of what is to come without those fragments from the past, and that is how he was able to see forward.
    Today I will use the methodology that he gave in kind of an IKEA instruction manual on how to tell the future. It would be like a pocketbook for every fortune teller.
    What he said is that there are two ways you can predict the future. One is to look at where you are and where you were, and you can project to where you will be. It is obvious that this method is based on trajectory. The second way is that there is something called the “cycle of history”: The things that have gone around and around again will come around and around in the future. I am going to use both of these methods to foretell where we are headed and, unfortunately, to deliver some dark warnings about the perils that accumulate in front of our eyes if we do not change course and do so very quickly.
    Let us start with where we were, where we are and where we are headed.
    I start by pointing out that only eight years ago, the average cost for a house in Canada was $450,000. The average mortgage payment was a mere $1,300 or $1,400. The average rent was $900. Unfortunately, because the government has unleashed a torrent of government spending, it has doubled the national debt, increased the size and cost of government and delivered to us 40-year high inflation, all of which have doubled housing prices, doubled rent, doubled monthly mortgage payments and doubled the necessary down payment needed to buy a home. How did we get here?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, I know that the members across the way would like to continue to talk me down and to silence my voice because they do not want—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

  (2015)  

    I seem to have one of the official opposition members heckling him as well.
    I would ask members to please not interrupt. I want to remind members that while someone has the floor, it is not very respectful for others to be speaking. If they wish to have conversations, they should take them outside and allow the hon. member to have the floor to be able to do his speech, because I know they will have questions and comments.
    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not respectful to leave no one in the room on the government side when the Leader of the Opposition—
    There are individuals in the room, and that is not a point of order at this point. I do not think that the hon. member could even call for quorum. There is quorum, so I will recognize the hon. leader of the official opposition.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): It is still happening. I think we can have it quiet as a mouse. Is that possible?
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Order. If hon. members want their own members to speak, I think they should be quiet.
    The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
    Madam Speaker, I have been in the House many years and I have always enjoyed the leader of Stornoway's stunts.
    Are we actually saying that there is going to be historical precedence and they are upset that nobody bothers to listen to him? Is that literally a point—
    That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.
    The hon. leader of the official opposition.
    Madam Speaker, it was good to hear from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. He does make a lot of noise, but that is because an empty wagon rattles the loudest. The people of Timmins keep telling me, as I have been there four times in a year, that they have seen more of me in the last year than they have seen of him in the last decade, and they are happy about that.
    Over the last eight years, we have seen a massive, possibly unprecedented, mounting of both public and private debt. We have to understand where we were and where we are in order to understand where we are going. In the last four years, the government has doubled our national debt. That is more than half a trillion dollars of new debt. The Prime Minister has added more debt than all previous prime ministers combined.
    He will be quick to point to many different excuses that have caused this run-up in our national debt. I will point out that while there was a COVID pandemic, this is not the first crisis we have ever seen in the history of the world. While there has been a war between Russia and Ukraine, this is not the first war ever fought in the history of the world.
    We had the great global recession under the previous Conservative government. We had two wars: one in Afghanistan, and another in Iraq and Syria. We managed to do so while keeping the debt the lowest in the G7 and balancing the budget. Other countries faced similar challenges without adding as much debt.
    For example, the Swiss, who are right in the centre of Europe, closer to the conflict in Ukraine, and more dependent on global supply chains than we are because they are a landlocked nation surrounded by the European Union, were able to balance their budget, pay down their deficit, pay down their debt and keep interest rates, inflation and unemployment lower than all of the other OECD countries. That proves that just because there is a pandemic or a war in one part of the world, it does not force a government to completely bankrupt itself.
    Let us recall that the Prime Minister added $100 billion of debt before there was a single case of COVID. He has added roughly $100 billion since COVID came to an end. During the COVID pandemic, 40%, or $200 billion of the new debt that he added, had nothing to do with COVID whatsoever according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The idea that we can blame all of this new debt on factors out of his control is provably false.
    The Prime Minister had a choice and his decision was to spend without any thought for future generations or for the financial viability of the country. In order to enable his spending, he unleashed nearly unprecedented printing of cash. This was done through something called quantitative easing where the central bank purchased government debt at exceptionally high prices, driving down yields on that debt, and ultimately pumping $400 billion of new cash into the economy in less than two years.
    Many will say the Liberals had no choice. There was a pandemic after all. Let us review that excuse. The pandemic did not bring a liquidity crunch. In fact, the economic phenomenon of the pandemic was that people had more cash than ever before, but they were banned from spending it. The problem was not the lack of cash, as had been the case in the previous great global recession.
    The problem was that people and businesses had bank accounts that were overflowing with cash with nowhere they were allowed to spend it. In that kind of environment, the worst possible thing one could do is to print more cash and further overflow bank accounts with that money, which, in the end, we knew would ultimately have led to inflation.

  (2020)  

     During that run-up of the size of our monetary base that kept money printing, the Minister of Finance, always looking for the trendiest new slogan that would win her applause in Davos or Brussels or at some other international symposium, said that all this cash that was filling up bank accounts was like a “pre-loaded stimulus”, something that could be unleashed to revive a dead economy. Of course the economy was only dead because governments had shut it down, not because there was a lack of cash with which to facilitate commerce. When the economy opened, all of that excess cash was unleashed, and the goods we buy and the interest we pay were automatically and predictably bid up.
     We do not fault the government for having created programs to pay people's bills while governments locked them down and prevented them from paying their own. Where we did object was with the government giving out $2,000-a-month payments to prisoners, to dead people, to teenagers who did not have that kind of money before the crisis occurred, and in many cases had no jobs at all.
    We objected to the government continuing to pay out these benefits well after there were more than a million vacant jobs. In other words, we were paying people not to work while there were a million vacant jobs they could have been filling. Simultaneously driving up unemployment and job vacancies, an unusual coincidence of achievement or, in reality, negative achievement in the use of this policy.
    The reality is that we warned the Liberals at the time that if they did not restrain themselves this would lead to a crisis. It would start with inflation and be followed up by an interest rate increase. This was not based on some invention—

  (2025)  

    Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. The members on the other side are speaking even louder than he is. I would ask that they show us—
    I do want to remind members, if they want to have conversations, to please take them out to allow the speaker to be heard, so that MPs could be ready for questions and comments.
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Madam Speaker, I know that the Liberals across the way would love to silence my voice. They want to silence Canadians by censoring the Internet. They want to bring their woke censorship ideology to university campuses—
    Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary knows full well that he should be a role model to other members and should not be making any disturbance while someone else has the floor.
    I would ask him to put his eyeglass piece away as well.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order, order, order. I am sure we can get through this evening. It would be beautiful if we could run through this evening smoothly. I have a feeling that is not quite going to happen, but I am going to try.
    Again, I want to remind all members, if they want to have conversations, to take them out.
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. Even when I am speaking, I think I deserve the respect of this House.
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Madam Speaker, I think we can all agree that if the member from Kingston is our role model, that is a good reason why we are in so much trouble today.
    This spending that has led to the inflation was utterly predictable, but its consequences have been utterly devastating. It is obvious by looking at the lineups at food banks across the country, which, in many cases, actually go many blocks down the street and around the corner. There are the cases of the young people who now estimate that they will be in their fifties before they will be able to move out of their parents' homes. These are not anecdotes.
    Just the other day, one prominent financial institution estimated that if a family was earning a quarter of a million dollars, it would take them 25 years in Toronto to save up for a down payment. It used to be that 25 years was the term it took to pay down a mortgage, now it takes that long just to get a mortgage, which illustrates the immense contortion that our economy has suffered. This is not without notice around the world. The IMF now says that Canada has the economy that is most at risk of default crisis out of all the countries in the advanced and developed world. Right now, household debt is 107% of GDP, which is to say that the combined debt of Canadian families is 7% bigger than the entire GDP of our country, and we have the worst household debt of any G7 country.
    This debt was not an accident. When governments create cash, they are sloppy about it. They do not simply print the money and hand it over to the Prime Minister to spend, although I think he might prefer that kind of efficiency, rather they have a central bank purchase government bonds on what is called the “secondary market”. In other words, the government sells the bonds to the financial institutions and the central bank buys them back.
    This creates an artificial private-sector demand for government debt, which makes it very easy for government to borrow money. After all, if I say to members that I will sell them a bond today for $1.00 and buy it back tomorrow for a $1.10, it is pretty easy to imagine that members would accept that transaction so that they could arbitrage the 10¢ profit on the back and forth. This allows government to spend cash very easily and it also increases the money supply. It balloons government and the financial industries. It is why, when the Federal Reserve is engaged in this practice of so-called quantitative easing, it has been wildly popular in both Washington and on Wall Street among Democrats who like big government and among Republicans who like big banks, because both of them actually profit when government creates cash to inflate financial assets and to inflate the spending capacity of itself.
     Therefore, what ends up happening is that those who benefit off government expenditures profit, those who benefit off the financial sector profit—

  (2030)  

    I will interrupt for a second.
    I am made aware that there is someone who is taking pictures from the lobby into the chamber. I will ask one of the clerks to go over there and ask anybody who has been taking pictures from the lobby into the chamber here to delete those pictures.
    I would remind members that they are not to be taking pictures in the House whether they are in the House or in the lobby looking into the House. If they want to take pictures, they can take pictures from the TV.
    I am hoping someone will take care of it.
    The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on a point of order.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, we just heard a government member say that she took a picture in the House. I would ask her to delete the photo from her device, since everyone saw it happen.
    If members have taken pictures, I would ask them to make sure they delete those pictures. Members know that taking pictures in the House is not permitted. If they cannot help but take pictures, I would ask them to leave their phones in the lobby.

[English]

    I will also remind members not to be talking across the chamber. They can take their conversations into the lobby.
    Madam Speaker, as I was pointing out, this practice of so-called quantitative easing was not invented in Canada. In fact, it started long ago in Japan, which caused a massive gap to appear between the rich and the poor, because the Japanese government printed cash, inflated asset values, left the working class behind and inflated the wealth of the super-rich. This led to a long-standing slump in Japanese economic growth, because investors no longer had to invest in productive assets that would generate wealth for the Japanese economy. Rather, they could just sit on their property, their stocks or their bonds and allow the Japanese central bank to inflate the values. The Americans then replicated this idea of quantitative easing in the U.S. financial crisis. The result was a disaster. It was a decade of very slow economic growth.
    Furthermore, there was a major expansion in the gap between rich and poor. While the working class in America was losing its jobs to automation and outsourcing, it was not enjoying any of the lower prices that those competitive forces should have provided because the central bank was neutralizing cost savings by inflating the cost of living by printing cash. We saw a massive explosion in the wealth of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, while the working poor in industrial states, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and others, found themselves more and more disenfranchised. Their wages were going down, yet their prices were going up. They looked around and saw incompetent CEOs and other financial sector insiders, the same ones who had caused the U.S. financial crisis, not going to jail where they belonged. Rather, they were getting richer and richer. Therefore, the working poor came to believe that the system had ultimately been rigged against them.
    Now I bring this to the present, because the government claims that because all central banks were engaging in quantitative easing, we had to do it as well. The American federal reserve is our big, friendly neighbour to the south. The argument goes that if it does something, we have to do it too. However, that is provably false. In the 2008-09 financial crisis, the American government printed cash to buy government debt. They did something called quantitative easing. In Canada, we did not do that. Our government signalled to the central bank that it would not be authorized to participate in fiscal policy by printing cash to buy government bonds. Yes, we ran small, temporary deficits to get through that financial crisis, but we did it by borrowing real money, not by printing cash. That is why we rebounded faster than the Americans did. We had lower unemployment. We were the last in and the first out of the recession, and we never had inflation above 4%. We were back to our inflation target in a year. This proves that we did not need to do what the Americans did, just as our mothers taught us. Just because our friends are jumping off a bridge, does not mean we should do the same.
    We know that the Swiss did not print cash during the COVID crisis. Rather, they used real money; when they ran deficits, they borrowed real money. They quickly returned to a balanced budget, and the result was the lowest unemployment, the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation. This was despite the fact that their European neighbours all had massive inflation crises because their central bank on that continent had behaved differently.
    All these experiences were laboratories to demonstrate the folly of the government's actions. I called this folly out on the floor of the House of Commons as early as the fall of 2020, when all that cash was moving into our economy and already beginning to inflate the cost of living. Core inflation was already rising and starting to break above the 2% target, yet they continued when it was clear that there was—

  (2035)  

    I have a point of order.
    The hon. Minister of Seniors.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

Bill C-33—Notice of Time Allocation Motion  

    Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
    Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

    The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the third time and passed.
    Madam Speaker, now that we know what worked and what did not work, we have to understand the consequences of the fact that the government took the wrong path. I do not need to go on at any length about the ravages of inflation. We have all heard the stories. We can all tell heartbreaking stories.
    I see a member right now looking at emails on his phone from people who cannot pay their bills. I see a member across the way saying that our member for Barrie—Innisfil is in trouble for looking at an email from a constituent. He should be looking at those emails. Maybe that member would benefit if she looked at emails from her constituents as well. I understand that, if she were to do so, it would be a great burden on her personal guilt to learn of the single mothers who are skipping meals, the families who are now defaulting on their loans from a 16% year over year increase and the number of Canadians who are missing their mortgage payments. She could take a moment to look into the eyes of the 37-year-old who has been working all his adult life and still cannot afford a home. She could talk to the farmer who borrowed so he could expand his farming operation under the government's promise that the interest rates would be low for long. If she looked at their emails, then maybe she would be less arrogant in supporting the very inflationary policies that have caused all this misery. Maybe, if the Liberals would listen to the people who pay the bills in this country, just for once, we would not be in the mess we are in right now.
    This was all so predictable. The great Nobel Prize laureate and economist Milton Friedman said, “Inflation is taxation without legislation.” He also said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” In Friedman's view, central bankers try to avoid their last big mistake. Every time there is a threat that the economy will contract, they overstimulate it by printing too much money. This results in a rising roller coaster of inflation, with each high and low being higher than the preceding one. Rapid increases in the quantity of money produce inflation. So said the greatest expert on monetary economics in the history of the world, as recognized by the Nobel Committee.
    Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economists ever, said that “inflation is a way to take people's wealth from them without having to openly raise taxes. It is the most universal tax of all.” He said that the first lesson of economics is scarcity. That is, “there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. Meanwhile, the first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
    The great Hayek said, “With government in control of monetary policy, the chief threat in this field has become inflation. Governments everywhere and at all times have been the chief cause of the depreciation of the currency. Though there have been occasional prolonged falls in the value of metallic money, the major inflations of the past have been the result of governments either diminishing the coin or issuing excessive quantities of paper money.” He also said, “A great many of the activities which governments have universally undertaken in this field and which fall within the limits described, are those which facilitate the acquisition of reliable knowledge about the facts of general significance. The most important function of this kind is the provision of a reliable and efficient monetary system.” That is something the government has failed to provide.
    Furthermore, the great French philosopher Frédéric Bastiat said, “Money serves only to facilitate the transmission of these useful things from one to another.... When legislators, having ruined men by war and taxes, persevere in their idea, they say to themselves, ‘If the people suffer, it is because there is not enough money. We must make [more].’”
    The tactic the Prime Minister deployed was nothing creative or new. It has been the tactic of emperors, kings, presidents, prime ministers, and incompetent and self-indulgent leaders. When they run out of other people's money, they create more cash.

  (2040)  

    I think of the story of Henry VIII, who spent lavishly and without restraint on himself, spoiled his court and, of course, ran out of money. However, there was a difficulty in creating cash in his time. That was because the British pound was actually a pound of silver. When people ran out of silver, they ran out of the ability to make money. Henry VIII had a silver coin. How could he create cash when he had no more silver left? He had already spent it all. What did he do? He had his smelters melt it down and remint it with copper on the inside and a tiny layer of silver on the outside. Then he could multiply the number of coins almost without limit.
    I know members are anxious to hear the rest of the story.
    I know members may be very interested, but I do not think they should be chatting at this point or trying to answer some of the questions that the Leader of the Opposition is asking during his speech. It is not quite time. I would remind members to afford the speaker the respect he deserves.
    Aside from the person who has the floor, I would ask members to please be quiet. If they are having a hard time doing that because they are sitting together, I can do what teachers do and separate them.
    The hon. leader of the official opposition.

  (2045)  

    Madam Speaker, I know they are just excited to hear the rest of the story and that is why they are having troubling containing themselves.
    What was Henry VIII to do? He used copper on the inside of his coins and silver on the outside to multiply the coins without limit. There was only one problem, and that is that he put his big, ugly, fat mug on the front of the coin facing outward. He wanted everyone to see him straight on. That meant his nose protruded. His nose would rub on the inside of pockets, and that silver would rub off and then everyone would see the red nose. Every time an Englishman pulled out a coin and saw a silver coin with a big, ugly red nose in the middle of it, they knew they had been robbed of the real purchasing power of their money and that Old Coppernose had stolen from them again.
    By the way, the money supply in that period increased by 80%. Guess how much prices went up in the same time period: They went up 80%, but he was not the most creative.
    An hon. member: He knows.
    Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, the House leader knows. He is the most ambitious student in the lecture hall today. In fact, he knows he could give the lecture. He knows more about it than I do. The great House leader of the Conservative Party is here today.
    Henry VIII, despite the creativity of his copper coins, was not the most creative at all. I would say that Dionysius was even more creative in generating new cash. Let me tell members about Dionysius, and then that member can tell me about Diocletian afterward.
    Dionysius was a Greek ruler of the island of Sicily. Yes, the Greeks at one time ruled Sicily. I know it is now Italian. Members do not need to tell me that, but back then it was Greek. Dionysius could not control his spending either, just like Henry VIII. He would run out of money, so he sent his men out to take all of the jewellery off the statues of the gods so he could sell them off, saying that they were merely loans that had come from the gods above.
    When those riches ran out as well, Dionysius had to resort to other tactics. This is what he did. He took all of the coins he had collected, which were called drachmas. That is the Greek word for what we would call a dollar. Every coin was one drachma. He said he had a simple answer and just marked a “two” in place of the “one”. All of a sudden they could have twice as many drachmas.
    I hesitate to share this story in front of the Prime Minister, because I do worry he might simply turn every loonie into a toonie and every toonie into four. If we run out of money, we can always create more. To the Liberal friends across the way, please do not tell this story to the Prime Minister. I thank them very much. We have a bargain. This is a strict secret. By the way, those listening out there are sworn to secrecy as well. Do not tell the Prime Minister. We do not want to give him any ideas.
    The result of course was that all of the working people on the island effectively had a real cut in their purchasing power of 50%. Yes, they had the same number of drachmas but half as many coins, so each drachma would buy half of what it did. He literally cut the wages of the people in half, but he was able to spend those coins before the inflation set in. In other words, he was able to enjoy the newly created riches for the brief instant in time they lasted before inflation melted them away, and then it was the people who lost the purchasing power.
    So it is with so-called quantitative easing. It is always the bankers and the government insiders who touch the new money first and, therefore, enjoy the riches most splendidly. The working class only get those dollars when they trickle down from the top and they no longer have their purchasing power. That is why we must, and when I am Prime Minister we will, once and for all put an end to trickle-down economics. It does not work. It never works. I will never allow it.
    We know the creation of cash has caused the inflation that exists, the massive poverty, the misery and the feeling of brokenness across the land. The tent cities, all of that, are the result of what the government has caused through the creation of cash, but I am here today to warn of a much graver and insidious risk still ahead of us.

  (2050)  

    This is where I rely on Churchill's second method of foretelling the future, and that is the cyclical method: Look at what has happened in the past to predict the cycles of the future. We know that this is not the first time governments have created cash or run up massive debts. We need to understand where it leads after the inflation cycle is gone, and what can often come next.
    Here, today, I rely on the wisdom of the Stoics. The author of Stoicism, the modern author of Stoicism, Ryan Holiday, wrote of the “premeditation of evils”, a Stoic exercise of imagining things that could go wrong or be taken away from us. As Seneca would say, the unexpected blows of fortune fall heaviest and most painfully, which is why the wise man thinks about them in advance.
    I regret that I have to think about these unfortunate and possible blows of fortune that are coming our way.
    I have a question for us. If someone had a time bomb ticking away under their home, what would they do about it? Well, if the person did not know it was there, they would not do anything at all because they would have no reason to respond. Assuming that the person survived its detonation, they would have to scramble to rebuild their life.
    We know what it is like to be struck by unexpected blows. We have seen them: the attacks of 9/11, the COVID pandemic, of course the U.S. financial crisis, all things that were little foreseen and little foretold. As a result, we all had to scramble to respond to what we did not prepare for.
    Why is it that western nations have such difficulty foretelling the dangers that are coming? In recent decades, we have been breathtakingly unprepared for terrorist attacks, natural disasters, mortgage crises and al Qaeda. All of these things were words that were unknown until, all of a sudden, they struck.
    I quote again from Ryan Holiday that it is impossible to prepare for or prevent something you're unaware of, yet in each of these recent crises, the warning signs were there if we had looked for them. If we only listened to the ticking time bomb, we could have found that bomb and defused it before it detonated, saving the world untold misery.
    Now a new danger gathers in this country. It is the growing probability of a debt crisis. Here is the simple math. When governments and their people amass a total stock of debt that is three times bigger than the size of their economy, they become predisposed to experiencing massive debt crises. I regret to report to the House of Commons—
    There is some feedback from the government's side. I would ask them to please be respectful and to be quiet.
    The hon. leader of the official opposition.
    Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the House that, while history shows that countries where the debt is more than three times the size of the economy have a strong propensity toward debt crises, according to S&P, Canada's total public and private debt is now 474% of GDP. That includes government debt, household debt, business debt and financial sector debt combined. This makes us the second most indebted country, relative to GDP, of any country in the G7, with only Japan being worse.
    I spent a lot of time when I was the shadow minister of finance studying debt crises, and there is a phenomenal book called Big Debt Crises, written by Ray Dalio, the single most successful hedge fund manager in the history of the world. In it, he quantifies the precursors to debt crises. He put together the 48 biggest debt crises that have happened in modern world history, and he put together a chart of the debt-to-GDP ratios of all of those countries. I will list off some of the crises that might come to mind.
    There was the Greek debt crisis that happened roughly just over a decade ago in Europe. That crisis then spread to Spain, Portugal and other European countries. There was the U.S. financial crisis, which was ultimately a mortgage debt crisis. There are the examples of the Argentinian debt crises of 1998 and 2001. I could go on.
    In putting together all 48 of these biggest debt crises, he recreated the debt-to-GDP ratios that all of these countries had, public and private debt as a share of GDP, and I took the liberty of taking Canada's current debt-to-GDP ratio and putting it in that list. What did I find? Our current debt-to-GDP ratio is bigger than all of those other crisis countries except for two. In other words, there were 46 countries on this earth that had massive financial meltdowns with significantly smaller debt levels relative to the size of their economy than we have here today.
    The question is why we have, up until now, not had a full-scale meltdown. The answer is obvious. It is because we have had such inordinately and artificially low interest rates. Even today, as rates rise, much of the debt that is in the current stock of the country is still locked in at lower rates, but that is not a permanent phenomenon. In other words, every passing day, somebody's mortgage comes up for renewal, and the artificially low rate they had up until then renews at a much higher rate. This is the fundamental risk we have. The same goes for government debt. Some of it is locked in at lower earlier rates, but governments have mortgages.
    Bonds are just mortgages. They are just varied terms. Some of these mortgages are 90 days. Some of them are 30 years. Most of them are somewhere in between, but all of them at some point come up to renewal, and when they renew they do so at the rates that are present when the renewal occurs. Slowly but surely, that is happening already.
    Where do we manifest the higher rates? Ironically, it is in the Bank of Canada itself, because the bank purchased government debts and government bonds when rates were low, and is therefore collecting a small yield on those debts. The bank purchased those debts by depositing money in the central bank's accounts of financial institutions, which sold the bonds back to the bank.
    Those deposits are receiving the policy rate of interest that the central bank pays out, which is now 4.75%. In other words, the Bank of Canada has bought government bonds that pay out 0.6% and paid for them with deposits that it now has to pay out 4.75% on, so our central bank is losing money every single day. In fact, the central bank, were it not backed up by the government, would be bankrupt today, because its liabilities are worth so much more than its assets. This is a very unusual situation, but it is a precursor for what everyone else is facing.

  (2055)  

    I ask this: What happens in the year 2026 when all of the mega mortgages that people took out five years before at artificially low rates with artificially high home prices all come up for renewal, and the rates are three or four times higher than the families had been paying up until that time? All of a sudden, we are going to have hundreds of thousands of people renewing their mortgages at the same time at an increase of interest rates of 3% or 4%. That is not a three or four percentage point increase. That is a 300% increase, because four is actually 300% higher than one. The artificially low rates then create a multiplying effect when they collide with new and real higher rates.
    Imagine then that there are hundreds of thousands of people who can no longer afford their monthly payments because they have gone up by $1,600 a month, and the average family only has $200 extra in their bank accounts. They are now paying $15,000 or $16,000 more per year in interest on their mortgages, all at the same time. What will they all think to do? They will sell. What else are they going to do? They cannot afford their homes anymore, and they cannot pay for them, so what will they do? They will sell when everyone else is selling and then, all of a sudden, there is a fire sale.
    Furthermore, who is going to be around to buy? Are other people going to be able to pay 5% or 6% mortgages on million-dollar homes? Of course not. Therefore, there will be a preponderance of sellers without buyers to match then. Then what happens? House prices—

  (2100)  

    It is a huge assumption. There is no guarantee—
    There is no guarantee.
    I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to hold off until it is time for questions and comments. There is still a little while until then, so I would ask him to be patient.
    The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
    Madam Speaker, that was an unusually helpful comment from the member across the way. He says that there is no guarantee that interest rates will be that high when people are up for renewal. There is no guarantee that I will get into a car accident, so why should I wear a seat belt? There is no guarantee that the plane cannot land itself, so why could the pilot not just have a nap while the flight is in course? There is no guarantee that I will die if the parachute does not open, so why do I not just forget to pull the cord? That is the kind of logic we get from the other side. It is so ridiculous, and we wonder why we are in such a mess.
    There is no guarantee that the house will get robbed, so why bother locking the doors, right? There is no guarantee I will get into a car accident, so why buy insurance, right? Why would we mitigate against any risk because there is no guarantee that risk will manifest itself into any mal, right? That is exactly the kind of mentality that is getting us into this trouble. He is saying that because there is no guarantee that things will go wrong, we should do nothing to protect against it going wrong.
    An hon. member: What would you do?
    Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, what would I do? Well, I have been telling them what to do for the last three years, and if they had listened, they would not be in the mess they are in today.
    What can be done? Obviously, we have to find a way to bring rates down before those mortgages come up for renewal. As I said earlier, why did the rates go up in the first place? Government deficits led to higher inflation, which led to higher interest rates, which will lead to higher defaults. How do we reverse that? We bring down the government deficits so we can bring down the inflation, which allows the Bank of Canada to bring down interest rates, and this will allow us to bring down the defaults. That is my IKEA instruction manual for the hon. member today. That is obviously what we need to do to avoid the crisis that is ahead of us.
    However, make no mistake, this is a crisis, and it is one that is coming quicker and quicker. It is like a train that is coming down the track, and if we do nothing to prepare ourselves to get off the track now, we will face that very real threat. Now, the member across the way might say “Oh, the debt crisis, who cares? That's something accountants and economists will fray about. They'll wring their hands and it will be discussions on business channels about what that means. Why should anybody really care?”
    Well, let me tell members that a debt crisis is a massive humanitarian crisis. The human toll of debt crises is staggering. They produce massive unemployment, which leads to increased depression, suicide, alcohol and opioid addiction, overdoses and other miseries that we are already beginning to see.
    Two Harvard economists who studied over 800 years of debt crises, Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart, found that debt crises typically bring a 35% decline in house prices, leaving people with mortgages that are worth more than their homes. On average, GDP falls 9%, roughly twice the GDP drop during the COVID recession of 2020. Unemployment rises, on average, 7%, which lasts, on average, four years. That means not just a loss of livelihoods but also a loss of lives.
    A University of Calgary study found that a 1% increase in unemployment increases the suicide rate by 2.1%. A paper by the British Journal of Psychiatry estimated that, in Europe and North America, the great recession is associated with at least 10,000 additional economic suicides between 2008 and 2010. There were 10,000 people who killed themselves. More people killed themselves during the great global recession in the United States than would otherwise have done so absent that financial crisis.
    The same thing happened in Asia. According to researchers in the British Medical Journal, it is estimated that the 1997 economic crisis in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong resulted in over 10,000 excess suicides.
    The long-term job loss from a financial crisis would be at least as bad as what we experienced during the COVID lockdown with the devastating personal consequences. Unemployed men and women would have no job to go to in the mornings and nowhere they could afford to go in the evenings for recreation.

  (2105)  

    As a result, they end up isolated and alone. Many turn to alcohol and drugs. We are already seeing these pernicious mals exacting themselves on our people today.
     Calls to one national suicide prevention line rose 200% over the period of COVID, according to CBC. That prompted one of our members, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, to introduce a bill creating the 988 suicide prevention line. Make no mistake, the forced unemployment that happened during COVID led to more suicides, and if we do have the kind of financial crisis I am trying to avoid, I am afraid to report to the House, then there will be similar desperation.
    The number of overdose deaths in B.C. alone in 2021 was by far the highest on record, and more than twice as high as it was in 2019. In Ontario and Alberta, opioid deaths spiked almost 50% during the lockdown periods. All of this could be associated with unemployment. Researchers have found that, when unemployment in a country rises one percentage point, the opioid death rate jumps 3.6% and opioid overdose emergency room visits jump 7%.
    When the Greek debt crisis happened, there were problems with wages, pensions and social programs, and desperate people flooded into the psychiatric units across the country. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe wrote in a report, “Most patients admitted under this regime are unemployed persons, bankrupt businessmen, or parents who have no means of taking care of or feeding their children. Most are reported to be over 40 years old and have never shown previous signs of mental illness.”
    Then there are the painful government policies that follow debt crises. Some of the harshest austerity measures, of which we have been warned by the Prime Minister, happened in Greece under a Marxist government. It was led by something called the coalition of the radical left, an alliance of communist, eco-socialists and anti-capitalists.
    Why would a party, that has an ideology that believes in boundless government programs, slash public spending so dramatically in Greece? It is for the same reason that the federal Liberal government slashed health care and 45,000 public servant jobs in the 1990s. It is the same reason that the Saskatchewan NDP, a party that credits itself with inventing Canada's medicare program, shut down 52 hospitals in Saskatchewan in the 1990s.
    Why? They ran out of money. That is what real austerity is, it is when we run out of money. That is the result of major debt crises like the one I am trying to warn against right now, which proves that debt crises actually do not care about ideology. Numbers are not partisan. Merciless mathematics trump political philosophy in a debt crisis.
    When the money is gone and no one will lend more, where the funds have been exhausted, how do we pay the wages of the public servants, the pensions of the retired, the hospital bills, the schools, the food and other essentials? As Pythagoras said, “numbers rule the universe”. Austerity is almost never a choice. It happens when irresponsible governments, like that one over there, make it mathematically unavoidable.
     Harvard economists, Reinhart and Rogoff, also found that financial meltdowns cause government debt to further explode. It is an explosion within an explosion, and a crisis on top of a crisis. That is why it is always most humane to protect the country's finances in advance to avoid the need for austerity. That is what we, as Conservatives, do. We protect the finances, not just so that an accountant can be happy with the balance sheet, but because we care about health care, education and the social safety nets that we desperately need.
    That is why we want to protect our finances. That is why we want to avoid the nasty and ruthless cuts that the Prime Minister has in store for this country if he succeeds in bankrupting the nation's finances. We have seen these ruthless mathematics under his father, who gave us not just inflation, but also stagflation. He was successful at delivering both record highs in inflation and unemployment at exactly the same time.

  (2110)  

    Look at the years of 1980 and 1983. During those years of the Trudeau debt crisis, unemployment and inflation both hit 12% at the same time. That means we had a misery index of 24. Inflation plus unemployment is the misery index. That drove interest rates up to an almost unimaginable 19% a year. I remember those days. In fact, some of my earliest memories—
    An hon. member: You would have been in diapers.
    Mr. Pierre Poilievre: Madam Speaker, that is pretty close, actually. A member says I would have been in diapers. I was born in 1979. I just turned 44.
    My earliest memories started to appear around 1982-83. I remember the horrible strain and stress my parents faced. There was actually the national energy program, whereby the Trudeau government demolished the Alberta economy, where I was growing up. We were largely protected from that because my folks were teachers, so they did not lose their jobs, unlike many of the unfortunate but greatly patriotic and courageous Albertans and Saskatchewanians who were hit directly. However, my folks had a few little rental properties that my mother had scrounged and saved to make possible, and we were all hit with the higher interest rates, rates that could not be paid with the rent the tenants were paying. We could not pay our mortgage, so we had to move to a smaller house.
    That period was very stressful. There was massive dislocation. It is no wonder that the misery index reached its highest level, because misery is the best way to describe it. Some people cannot take the misery. During that time period, the suicide rate reached a record high. In 1983, when I would have been four years old, the suicide rate hit 14.8 per 100,000 people, an 8% increase from 1980. Seven of the eight worst years for suicide rates in Canada happened when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was prime minister. That is because people's lives were coming apart.
    Members can just imagine. It is not just money. It is not just the desire to have more stuff. It is the shame of coming home to one's kids and saying, “You can't go on that little camping trip. I'm cancelling your hockey. We have to leave this house and move into a tiny, little apartment.” That is the real, human anxiety, the guilt, the pain and the frustration that literally break families apart and cause divorce and suicide. People lose hope, and everything falls apart.
    When I talk about the possibility of a very real debt crisis, with all of these mortgages that were locked in at low rates three years ago, two years ago, even one year ago, I am not talking about an accounting phenomenon. I am talking about a human phenomenon, one that we have a duty to avoid. We have a duty now to foretell the dangers that are coming and to protect our country against the ravages they would mean for our population. We know how to do that. We know there are simple, common-sense decisions that we can make in order to avoid such an eventuality here in our country, as we have seen all around the world and that we could replicate if we do not change course now.
    We know what the necessary steps are today. It is about spending less and creating more. The member across the way will instantly assume that if something costs less, it must be of less value. This is a fundamental breakdown in his understanding. The Prime Minister is the worst for this. He thinks that if something costs more, it must be worth more, as though the half-billion dollars he wanted to give to WE Charity was worth more than, for example, just having a passport actually delivered to people on time. Just because something costs more does not mean it is better.
     For example, the government has a housing program. It has spent $89 billion on it. In fact, the number one bragging point it has is that its housing plan is really expensive. One can almost imagine a restaurant running an advertisement: “Come dine with us. We have terrible ambiance; the service is garbage; the food is rotten. It might even make you sick, but guess what? It costs 1,000 bucks a plate. Therefore, it must be the best, because it is the most expensive.”

  (2115)  

    Let us take this back into the government realm. When I was employment minister, we had a program, which I believe is still in place today, to help visually impaired Canadians read books by sending them CDs with the books on them. They could then put them in their computers, hit play and listen to them. One of my constituents was actually capable of listening to books at four times the speed, because she had trained herself. To the rest of us, it would sound like gibberish, but she had trained herself to speed read using audio players. It was a wonderful program.
    However, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind said there was one problem, which was that it did not use CDs anymore, so we did not have to pay Canada Post to ship these CDs to people's homes. It had come up with a technology that would allow the Canadian government to simply pay the cost of having radio personalities go into an audio room and record the book, and then it could be sent as an audio file, a particle of light through cyberspace, and people could read the book without having to have a cassette.
    It turned out that this reduced the cost of the program by about 80%. Furthermore, we signed a deal with the other countries that had the same English-speaking and French-speaking books as we had. We said we would waive copyright on all of our recordings, and all the authors would agree to waive copyright if the other countries did the same. That way, the other countries could give all the books they had to us and we could give all the books we had to them. Therefore, everyone would have more books, and because there was no longer a physical copy of any of these books, we were going to massively increase the number of books by something like 500,000, all of a sudden.
    The cost of the program went down by 80%. Using Liberal logic, Liberals would say that was a savage cut and ask how we could do such a thing, even though it meant more convenience, more books and a faster turnaround in customer service for people. Just because it cost less did not mean it was not worth more. This is common sense.
    Let us think about it this way. We have had these arguments with the Prime Minister. He says that my time as housing minister was no good because I did not spend $89 billion on housing, but housing cost half as much. When I was housing minister, the average mortgage payment was $1,400 and the average rent was $900 for a single-bedroom apartment. The average down payment needed for a house was $22,000. Now it is double, double and double.
     However, the Prime Minister would say that his is a success, because even though nine in 10 young people believe they will never be able to afford a home, he has the most expensive housing program in Canadian history; therefore, it must be the best. He thinks that the price is equal to the value. There is a difference between value and cost, a distinction that the government never makes. That is why it has spent so much to achieve so little.
    How can we organically impose discipline on government to ensure that it gets more for less? One way is to impose the simple law of nature, called scarcity. Every creature in the universe, every bird in the trees, every fish in the sea, must live with the law of scarcity: maximum use of scarce resources. They can have this or that, not this and that, or they can find a bargain on this and that. The single mother who wants to build a new porch might pass up on the vacation, or she might go to the local lumber yard to see if she can get a bargain on the lumber to build the porch for a lower price and maybe get a bargain on kids' camp so that she can do both. That is the common-sense budgeting that families do every single day.
    Politicians are the only creatures in the universe that do not have to live by the universal law of scarcity, because by using inflation, taxes and debt, they externalize the scarcity on everyone else. They push austerity out of government and into the living rooms of the people, into the small businesses and onto the farm gate, where someone else has to deal with more scarcity because government is pushing its costs onto everyone else.
    What if we internalized that scarcity? What if we required that government make the same trade-offs, the same common-sense bargains that the single mom, small business person or farmer makes every single day? What if we passed a common-sense law, called the “dollar for dollar law”, that required a politician to find a dollar of savings for each new dollar of spending?

  (2120)  

    I promise, by the way, to be conservative in my remarks, if members promise to be liberal in their applause. That is my idea of a bipartisan speech: Conservative content and Liberal applause.