//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersWinter Recreation PlanInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, community leaders throughout my riding are alarmed by the lack of genuine consultation around caribou and other closures. The recent release of the province’s draft winter motorized recreation management plan in South Peace is a direct result of the caribou partnership agreement signed by the current Liberal government in 2020. The B.C. Snowmobile Federation, the Concerned Citizens for Caribou Recovery, and the municipality of Chetwynd have come out strongly against this proposed plan. It became clear that their recommendations to maintain public access to vitally important areas while conserving caribou habitat were flatly ignored. What did the Liberals do with all this sound advice from outdoor experts? They threw it out the window.It is time for the government to recognize its failings with arbitrary land and marine closures. It must ensure decisions made are based on science and sound advice from our communities. These decisions will have a direct impact on the local economy and the way of life. It looks like more closures are on the way, with 30 by 30 and other initiatives supported blindly by the government. It is time for the government to stop ramming through its agenda and start listening. CaribouHabitat conservationPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesRecreational games and activitiesSnowmobilesStatements by MembersAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersRobert AlexanderInterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Robert Alexander, a Canadian hero and a lifelong Owen Sound resident who recently passed away at 91 years of age.Bob loved his community and country. In 1949, he joined the Canadian Army. In 1950, he deployed for a year-long deployment to Korea with the 25th Infantry Brigade, where he served with the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. After his return from Korea, Bob was a Master Warrant Officer, MWO, with the Grey and Simcoe Foresters and a proud member of the Royal Canadian Legion. Bob worked for the Department of Public Highways of Ontario and the Ministry of Transportation for nearly 35 years. He volunteered with the Grey Roots Museum and received the Lieutenant Governor's Ontario Heritage Award for Lifetime Achievement in 2016.Bob has been a cornerstone in the community, specifically in the antique vehicle, military and museum circles. Many will remember him from Remembrance Day parades in his 1953 army Jeep. I would like to commend Bob for his service to Canada and his community. I offer my deepest condolences to the Alexander family. Bob will certainly be missed by many. Pro patria. Lest we forget.Alexander, RobertDeaths and funeralsOwen SoundStatements by MembersAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkHelenaJaczekMarkham—Stouffville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63908BernardGénéreuxBernard-GénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GénéreuxBernard_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersMental HealthInterventionMr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to address the Chair, my colleagues and all Canadians who are watching at home.My deepest sympathies are with the grieving families, friends and colleagues of Jérôme, Vincent, Yannick and Benjamin.I learned earlier this week that a third young man in the Montmagny region took his own life. He was the fourth member of the same group of friends who committed suicide in just two months. Now that the lockdown is finally over and students and graduates are getting ready for summer, these young men in their early 20s took their own lives.Asking for help is a sign of strength, not weakness. I want to tell all those who are hurting inside, those who are in the dark and who feel alone, to call someone, talk to someone and open their hearts so they can get help.We do not know what people are hiding behind their smiles, but we are there for them. There is hope and they are loved. Sometimes we might be awkward, but we are there. Until an emergency line is set up, the best thing to do in Quebec is to call the telephone help line at 1-866-APPELLE in times of need.Help line servicesMontmagnyStatements by MembersSuicidesJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the many struggling businesses, particularly those in the tourism sector, that have been impacted by the lack of communication and non-existent border opening strategy in this country.Trix Star Productions, one of 133 tourism and hospitality businesses in my riding, is heavily reliant on cross-border revenue to operate and will not see a light at the end of the tunnel until this government implements a concrete plan with benchmarks and measurables to reopen the U.S.-Canadian border safely and effectively.This government has refused to listen to recommendations of its own public health advisers, who argued that maintenance of supply chains and services was one of the reasons against a rapid border closure. The tourism and travel industry accounts for $43 billion of our GDP. U.S. visitors contribute $1.9 billion. We cannot deploy a full economic recovery until we safely and strategically execute a plan on a border reopening. We need a plan and we need it now, or our economy and the people of the country will continue to suffer the consequences.BordersCOVID-19PandemicStatements by MembersTourismTravel restrictionsSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaBobSaroyaMarkham—Unionville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersNational Day of Remembrance for Victims of TerrorismInterventionMr. Bob Saroya (Markham—Unionville, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, on this day 36 years ago, June 23, 1985, a bomb exploded on Air India Flight 182 connecting Toronto to New Delhi. The mid-air explosion killed all 329 passengers. The majority of the victims were Canadians, including 82 children under the age of 13. Two of the victims, Kulbir Kaur Minhas and Balwinder Kaur Minhas, were my relatives.The bombing was the single worst terrorist act in the history of Canada. A judicial inquiry determined that the bombing was a Canadian tragedy and the largest mass murder in Canadian history. To acknowledge the tragedy, June 23 was declared a National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism.Sadly, every year the list of victims grows larger. Terrorists continue to target innocent people to further their causes. The recent attack in London was a horrific reminder that Canada must continue to stamp out terrorism in all its forms.Air accidentsAir IndiaBombings and suicide bombingsNational Day of Remembrance for Victims of TerrorismStatements by MembersTerrorism and terroristsVictims of terrorist actsJamesCummingEdmonton CentreHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLiberal GovernmentInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, 25 new Liberal MPs were elected in October 2019, and I do not think they quite knew what they were getting into. In the last 20 months, they have stood right alongside the corruption of a tired Prime Minister plagued by scandal, with no plan to secure the future of Canada. They said nothing as their Prime Minister ignored four parliamentary orders to hand over documents related to the level 4 lab in Winnipeg. They seemed unconcerned that their government was found in contempt of Parliament. They said nothing when their government tried to give half a billion dollars to the WE charity, which paid the Trudeau family half a million dollars. They stood by a defence minister who has absolutely failed to send a clear message to the most powerful men in our military that the status quo is no longer acceptable. That is the record of the new Liberal MPs. Conservatives will do whatever we can to replace the corrupt government with one that will put the needs of Canadian families first and secure our future.Ethics and ethical issuesStatements by MembersYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyChurenceRogersBonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, for five years the Canadian Armed Forces has struggled with Operation Honour, trying to address sexual misconduct and a culture of covering it up. Two chiefs of defence staff have been terminated. There has been a cover-up in the Prime Minister's office that we have asked questions about. Now I have a troubling question for the Prime Minister.Can he confirm to the House that the Minister of National Defence has never hired someone who was previously dismissed by an employer for sexual misconduct?Canadian ForcesConduct at workDismissal from employmentMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourChurenceRogersBonavista—Burin—TrinityJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, if one is going to change the culture of a workplace with respect to sexual harassment, one has to show zero tolerance. I will ask the Prime Minister again, because he avoided answering my question.Did the Minister of National Defence hire someone who had been previously dismissed by an employer for sexual misconduct? It is a simple question. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve a response from the Prime Minister.Canadian ForcesConduct at workDismissal from employmentMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform deserve an answer. They deserve the truth.I will repeat my question for the third time, this time in French. Did the Minister of Defence hire a man who had been dismissed for sexual misconduct, yes or no?Canadian ForcesConduct at workDismissal from employmentMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see that the cover-up of sexual misconduct, investigations and allegations continues with the Prime Minister's response today. The other cover-up of the Prime Minister goes to helping his friends and making sure Liberal insiders get ahead at the expense of everyday Canadians. Recently the Liberal Party had to confirm that the Prime Minister's Office had given contracts of at least $100,000 to his close friend, Mr. Tom Pitfield. This is from a Prime Minister who promised sunny ways and transparency. Let me ask the Prime Minister another simple question and see if I can get a response. Has the government ever given any additional taxpayer money to his friend Tom Pitfield?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.ExpensesOffice of the Prime MinisterOral questionsPitfield, ThomasJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, he says unfounded attacks, but I have two additional contracts from the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Indigenous Services, who are close friends with Tom Pitfield themselves. All were in the Prime Minister's wedding party. There is only one rule with the Prime Minister: advancing the interests of lobbyists and friends connected to the Prime Minister and having another lineup for everyone else.The Conservatives are proposing transparency and anti-corruption laws, which are needed after countless scandals by the government.My question to the Prime Minister is simple. Will he commit to Canadians that he and his cabinet will never break another law?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.ExpensesOral questionsPitfield, ThomasJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canada is supposed to be a prosperous country.However, according to the Macdonald-Laurier Institute's recently updated COVID misery index, Canada is suffering far more than comparable countries from self-inflicted and disproportionate economic damage due to the pandemic. Retail sales plunged by 5.7% from March to April, which is the sharpest month-over-month drop.When will the government admit that it caused these economic woes?COVID-19Economic conditionsOral questionsPandemicJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is neglecting the heart and soul of our economy.Small businesses have been suffering for months. They have racked up hundreds of billions of dollars in dept, and thousands of them have been forced to close up shop.Canadians can no longer wait on Liberal promises of an economic recovery that is not coming. They need help now.Why is the government refusing to act?COVID-19Economic conditionsOral questionsPandemicJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate is 3.6%, the highest level in the past decade.The Liberals also promised to create one million jobs, but the only thing going up is the size of the debt.The Liberals' 2019 slogan was “choose forward”. Today, it might be more apt to say “choose backward”, because we are currently heading back to the inflation rates and recession of the 1970s. When will the Liberals realize that something must be done?COVID-19Economic conditionsOral questionsPandemicJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, the inflation rate in Canada is at a 10-year high, which means the cost of everything is going up, like food, groceries, gas and services. However, Canadian paycheques are stagnant and, worse yet, unemployment is still climbing, despite the government's massive deficit spending. Over three million Canadians are collecting unemployment benefits from the government, with young people, women and new Canadians facing the worst of it.This is the Prime Minister's economic record, and he has presented no real plan to get Canadians back to work. Why is there no real plan?Economic recoveryJob creationOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's budget promised to create one million jobs by the end of this month. How is that going? Has he followed through on that commitment? No. In fact, we are losing jobs, and all employment gains made by women in my lifetime have been completely wiped out. That really is the Prime Minister's record on women and employment in this country.It is clear the government cannot be trusted to fix this economy no matter how much money it spends, so I will ask him this again. Where is the plan to secure the future for Canadians?Economic recoveryJob creationOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has still failed on his commitment to create a million jobs by this month, and it is important that he remember that. Really, after a year of absolute devastation in our economy, our personal freedoms and of course in the health of Canadians, Canadians are falling further and further behind. However, again, we have seen no real plan to get our country back to work in all sectors of our economy and all demographics. Rather, the Prime Minister seems busy with scandals, corruption and picking winners and losers. He has no real plan to secure the future of Canadians, and they deserve to know this. Why is the Prime Minister bungling our economy and its recovery so badly and leaving so many Canadians behind?Economic recoveryJob creationOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, when a significant Ebola outbreak happened in Africa, a Conservative government took decisive action and closed Canada's borders to keep us safe, in spite of protests from the Liberals. We did not send vital PPE away when we needed it, say that border measures do not work or have a WE Charity scandal.When the Prime Minister said this morning that Canada would have reacted very differently if a Conservative government had been in charge during the pandemic, he was probably right. Instead of deflecting blame in this way, would the Prime Minister take a little accountability for some of the major policy errors that he has made over the last 18 months?COVID-19Economic recoveryGovernment performanceOral questionsPandemicJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, he is right. We would not have let vaccine manufacturing capacity atrophy. We would not have raided vaccines from the COVAX fund. We would not have sent PPE abroad, putting our doctors and nurses at risk. We would not have given contracts to cronies while Canadians suffered.Now, while our tourism and airline industries suffer, the Prime Minister is still pretending like everything is okay. He is subjecting Canadians to the unsafe quarantine hotel program, and he has not provided benchmarks for lifting federal COVID-19 restrictions. Why?COVID-19Economic recoveryGovernment performanceOral questionsPandemicJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1445)[English] Mr. Speaker, to inform the Prime Minister, on behalf of the tourism industry, the airline industry and families who are separated across borders, the hotel quarantine program, which is unsafe and unscientific, still remains.Instead of staying at one of them, the Prime Minister went to his own special place. It is this sort of double standard and lack of accountability that is putting Canadian businesses at risk, and it is costing Canadians their mental health.No, the Liberals have not provided benchmarks for lifting federal COVID-19 restrictions, and it is their responsibility to do so. They have recommendations from an expert panel. When will the Prime MinisterCOVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is easy for the Prime Minister to take personal shots at people. It is a lot harder for him to have empathy for Canadians who need jobs that are dependent on the tourism sector or for families who are separated across the border. He kind of flaunted that lack of empathy when he was taking pictures with Stella McCartney. We need benchmarks for lifting COVID-19 restrictions, not snarky comments from the Prime Minister.In the best interests of Canadians, when will he be providing benchmarks for lifting COVID-19 restrictions within federal jurisdictions, including border measures?BordersCOVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicTravel restrictionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, six years ago when the Liberals formed government, the Prime Minister promised sunny ways and ethical governance. Instead, Canadians got cover-ups and the most corrupt government in our country's history. What is worse is that the Prime Minister is so arrogant that he thinks he can fool Canadians. His record speaks for itself, but let us give the Prime Minister a chance here.Can he look Canadians straight in the eye and tell them he has been the Prime Minister of good, ethical governance?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, what Canadians need is an ethical Prime Minister, and they do not have one right now. He has been the Prime Minister of corruption and cover-ups, twice found guilty of breaking ethics laws. He took illegal vacations to billionaire island. He interfered in the criminal prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin and did everything he could to give money to his friends at the WE organization, all for his own political gain. Under the government there have been two sets of rules: one for the Liberals and Liberal insiders, and one for the rest of Canadians. Will the Prime Minister admit that his corruption has failed Canadians and disgraced the office of Prime Minister?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians could do with the Prime Minister spewing something. Facts would be a good place to start. Under the current Prime Minister, Ottawa has become a backdrop to his ethical breaches. Under the current Prime Minister, Ottawa has become an ATM for Liberal insiders. While Canadians are struggling and being left behind, the circle of insiders close to the Prime Minister line their pockets and are laughing all the way to the bank.These Liberals will always help their friends to jump the queue and to get the inside track. When will the Prime Minister put the needs of Canadians first, instead of the needs of Liberal insiders?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I note how far he has fallen. In 2015 he said Conservatives were his neighbours and friends. In 2019 more Canadians voted for the Conservative Party than anyone else, but of course nobody is listening to the Conservatives. It sounds like the Prime Minister is not listening to Canadians, but if there is an ethics law that has been broken, the Prime Minister probably had his hand in it, and if there was a contract to be had, he gave it to a Liberal. If Liberal insiders need a bailout, members had better believe they are going to get it from the Prime Minister.Conservatives are ready to clean up Ottawa and bring back good, ethical governance. Will the Prime Minister get out of the way and let Conservatives finally secure accountability in Ottawa?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, there is another major development in the Winnipeg lab story, once again about the individual who was fired and escorted out by the RCMP. This morning, the National Post reported that this person had collaborated with the Chinese government on two inventions, noting that her name was listed as an inventor on two patents. Canadian law states that an individual collaborating with a foreign country must directly inform the government and seek authorization.My question for the Prime Minister is very simple. Did his government authorize this researcher to collaborate with China, yes or no?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInformation disseminationInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaScientific research and scientistsSecurity checksJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be a good sport and acknowledge that the government finally did the right thing. Does the Prime Minister not realize that, in doing so, he is clearly acknowledging that what happened in Winnipeg is outrageous and that Canadians who, like him, read the National Post this morning found this whole thing unacceptable? Appropriately enough, 38 million Canadians think what happened is unacceptable.The best way to get to the bottom of things is for the government to produce the documents that the House of Commons ordered it to produce.Why did he violate the order from the House of Commons?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we also look forward to this being resolved.The problem is that the government is not listening. The Prime Minister struck that committee, and he is the one who has the final say on what is and is not made public. That is not what I would call real parliamentary work.Real parliamentary work involves respecting the orders that are issued here in the House, which the Prime Minister has failed to do four times.Why should Canadians obey the laws passed in this House when the Prime Minister ignores the orders issued in this House? Has the Prime Minister thought of that?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have had an illegal trip to a billionaire's island, the SNC-Lavalin scandal, a million dollars to friends at the WE charity, a three-year cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces, and now stories about hundreds of thousands of dollars of contracts to one of the Prime Minister's closest personal friends. Under his leadership, ethics investigations have to be numbered. The day the Prime Minister's third judgment came out, Bill Morneau's second came out. Leadership starts at the top, so I want to ask, leader to leader: Does the Prime Minister feel that his personal ethical conduct sets a bad example for the members of Parliament on his team?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, personal attacks? All I am asking is for the Prime Minister of Canada to follow the law. Is it too much now, after six years, that I ask the leader of this country to simply obey the laws of this country? The only backs he has had consistently as Prime Minister are those of friends of his family, close insiders and connected lobbyists. There is one lineup for the friends of the Prime Minister on the Liberalist and there is another lineup for everyday Canadians who are struggling.It is time to restore accountability. Will the Prime Minister commit to never again break the law?Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is sad when the Prime Minister refers to three reports, investigations issued by the Ethics Commissioner of this country, as throwing mud. Those were investigations into the conduct of the Prime Minister. He has failed time after time on an ethical standard. Canadians want leadership; they want accountability. He is now forcing his MPs to pay his friend's company. He is now putting his unethical conduct at the core of the Liberal government. Canadians deserve accountability, transparency and ethics. That is what they will get from a Conservative government.Ethics and ethical issuesOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPoints of Order [Status of Questions of Privilege]InterventionMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching the end of our session for the summer, I note that there are four outstanding questions of privilege.There is a question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay, in relation to the government ignoring a House order regarding taking indigenous children to court.There is a question of privilege from the member for Carleton, regarding the government's inflation tax; and from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, regarding the ethics committee and the fact that the government has ordered staff there to disobey the order to appear.Then, of course, there was a question of privilege from our opposition House leader as well, related to the documents related to the Winnipeg lab, after the appearance at the bar by the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada on Monday.While I appreciate that obviously you, Mr. Speaker, have to have some deliberations on some of them, and that is understandable, in particular the one from the opposition House leader, I would note, first of all, that there is some new information that has come to light, which is that the government has now filed an order in Federal Court with you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, where the government is seeking to have those records and those documents sealed so that they can be hidden from Canadians. That obviously adds a very significant element of timeliness to this. When we have that being done by the government and the government has gone to that length to actually go to the Federal Court against you, Mr. Speaker, to try to see those documents sealed so that they cannot be seen by Canadians, that would add a very important element of timeliness to this.I do believe that, on that question of privilege in particular, it does seem like there is a pretty clear set of facts there. You brought the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar and you admonished him. The documents were supposed to come with him. They did not. That is very clear. That is a very clear set of facts and very well established. We now have the government going to court to try to seal those documents, and that is shameful. I would think that there is very clear evidence there that we do have a prima facie case, so I would have expected us to see a ruling from you prior to the summer adjournment of Parliament.Therefore, I just want to ask a three-part question so that we can get some clarity on where things are at with these questions of privilege.Will you, Mr. Speaker, be delivering a ruling now, particularly on that question of privilege, given the timeliness of that matter, and on the other questions of privilege as well that I have raised here? If not, can you tell the House why not? In addition, what would happen with those questions of privilege should the government, as has been very widely speculated, go ahead and dissolve Parliament for an election? What would happen then to those questions of privilege?I certainly hope, given that the government has now gone to Federal Court against you as the defendant, Mr. Speaker, trying to seal documents, that you will deliver a ruling prior to the summer. Could you answer those questions, please?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentDissolutionInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPoints of Order [Status of Questions of Privilege]InterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last question I had, I have more of a point of clarification than anything.First, what would happen with those points of privilege should the government choose to dissolve this Parliament and go to an election? Would those points of privilege carry forward into the next Parliament? Second, what bearing does the fact that the government has applied to the Federal Court to have those documents sealed have on this? Does that change anything about this point of privilege and about your ruling? Are you concerned about the fact that the government has applied to have those documents sealed and the effect that would have on this place and its ability to follow through on its orders? It is a very serious matter when a government is taking the Speaker of the House of Commons to Federal Court in order to try to seal documents so that it can avoid being held accountable to Canadians. That is something that we all must take incredibly seriously in this place, because the very heart of democracy is at stake.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentDissolutionInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I could not believe it when I learned a few minutes ago that the government is preventing the House of Commons from enforcing an order that it itself gave. That is what is happening here.We can understand that people have different views on some things, which is all part of public debate. However, an order of the House always remains an order of the House. It boggles the mind that the Government of Canada is challenging an order in court.Mr. Speaker, you are a member of Parliament and our representative in this court case the government has filed against the House of Commons. Can you tell us what your position will be? Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we sometimes agree with your rulings and we sometimes disagree. That is perfectly fine. We have full confidence in your rulings, which are based on the facts, on jurisprudence and on past events.However, my question was not about the Chair's ruling on our request. My question was about the legal proceedings filed by the Liberal government. The Speaker is named in the court order and is to testify on Monday about a matter involving the Government of Canada versus the House of Commons. As far as I know, this is the first time this has ever happened. On a side note, I must say that this is reminiscent of what happened in the United States in 1974 at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We could even go so far as to say that this is a conflict of interest because, to my knowledge, the government is also part of the House of Commons and yet it is applying to the court to have the documents sealed when an order of the House requires that they be made public and tabled in the House.I clearly believe that the House of Commons must defend this institution. The House of Commons must respect the work of parliamentarians. The House of Commons must act in accordance with the orders that it voted on. As a result, I would ask the Chair to clearly defend the rights of parliamentarians and the House of Commons in the case involving the government versus the House of Commons. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened. As a parliamentarian, I think it is very strange and dangerous that the government would dare to seek a court remedy against an order of the House of Commons. It is completely unacceptable.The question remains the same: If the government does not obey the orders of the House of Commons, why would Canadians obey the laws passed by the House of Commons?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a very short intervention on this point. I believe that the issue in front of us regarding privilege and regarding your ruling earlier this week in finding a prima facie case of privilege with respect to the government's failure to obey the June 2 order of the House as well as the new information that has come to light today that the federal government has gone to court to seal the documents ordered by the House on June 2 and last week is a matter of public interest.This is a matter of serious public interest and a matter of consequential public interest. This matter concerns the rights and privileges of the House guaranteed under our Constitution. As we move forward to adjournment today, as per the House schedule, and we go into the summer, I ask that you keep that in mind, Mr. Speaker, as this situation unfolds, that this is a matter of urgent and serious public interest.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the defender of all our rights and privileges here, I know it is not an easy task. However, part of the way this institution works is that if members experience where their privileges have been violated, it is incumbent upon those members to immediately raise it with the Speaker at the earliest opportunity. Obviously with the clock being what it is, it is a principle that the Speaker should prioritize, that by the order being defied by the government by not bringing those documents, immediately all our rights and privileges have been violated. I believe it is up to you, as Speaker, to immediately respond.The fact that the government has now moved to an outside court rather than dealing with us here indicates to me that the government is attempting to stall by going to another tactic.I would ask sincerely that you, Mr. Speaker, please defend the House, please defend the order that has been given by the House, and please report back to the House as soon as possible. In the same way that you would encourage us to bring it to your attention, we are asking you to bring your ruling to us, not at just some indeterminate time in the future. I would appreciate it if you would bring it today.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment about this whole issue that has been before the House. I was so pleased with your actions on it, as were my constituents. I know this is a great blow to the sense, again, of credibility of the place in which I am so proud to sit. I would ask that you, please, do everything you can to expedite this response that we need for the people of Canada to know this place has the authority with which it has been invested, and that your response would be coming forward very quickly to them to let them know that what we do in this place actually matters.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are still reeling from the shock of the recent announcement about how the government is going to court against the House of Commons. As such, we would like some time to consider the motion the government leader just moved, which we agreed upon initially. However, that was before the events that just transpired. We will get back to you shortly.AdjournmentHouse deemed to have satMotionsNational Day for Truth and ReconciliationPoints of orderReturns and reports deposited with the ClerkAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAlleged Non-compliance with an Order of the HouseInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, my constituents have great concern about the ruling you have made, or have not made, as far as disclosure events. I would like you to consider more clarity as far as what we tell our constituents back home, which is that the House is under-resourced to respond to the government's actions against it so we cannot respond properly. This is something that we are going to have to bear for some time going forward. I urge you to take urgent action to respond to this as quickly as possible, no matter what it takes from a resource perspective. This is something that demands the House, i.e., you as the House's representative, take care of what the government has put in front of you with all the resources you can muster immediately.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaClassified documentsContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJagmeetSinghBurnaby SouthAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAcknowledgements at the End of the Parliamentary SessionInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has truly been one heck of a crazy year. To all the people who have worked here, I know we have felt every ounce of it some days.I would like to carry on with the words of the House leader. I very much want to thank all the people who have made the job of the House of Commons work. I especially thank the clerks, the women and gentlemen, at the table who have helped us through so many different things. To you, Mr. Speaker, and to all the Deputy Speakers in the House, thank you very much for your commitment to the House and to the democracy we hold in this place.Of course, this job includes pages. For the many pages here today and throughout this session, it has been a very difficult time for them.With respect to the interpreters, we have heard a lot of things from our interpreters. Whether it is “move your boom down” so they can understand what we are saying or whatever it may be, I thank the many interpreters who have helped not only in the chamber but in our committees as well to ensure the work we do is done as well.To all the IT staff, we have probably learned a lot more about Zoom than we ever thought we would have to know, including knowing when to turn the audio off and on. I thank everybody who has been so patient with so many of the members as we have been learning about this.Of course, this place is safe because of the people whom we have here for public safety. Therefore, a special thanks to the PPS. I know I definitely have my favourites, and Norma is in the lobby today. We have some great people working here.With respect to the food services, many of us would not enjoy this job as much if food services were not here. I thank them so much for helping us out and keeping us nourished.To all the staff in the administration and the staff who work in each of our offices on the Hill and in our constituency offices, this is one big place to work in, and I very much thank everybody who makes it work so well.House of Commons staffMembers of Parliament staffParliamentary Protective ServiceSimultaneous interpretation and sound reinforcementStatements by MinistersTributesPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59156KellyBlockKelly-BlockCarlton Trail—Eagle CreekConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlockKelly_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic AccountsInterventionMrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, entitled “Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy”.Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests the government table a comprehensive response to this report.8510-432-197 "Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy"Canada Emergency Wage SubsidyReport 7, Canada Emergency Wage SubsidyStanding Committee on Public AccountsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEffective and Accountable Charities ActInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)(1710)[English]Bill S-222. First reading moved that Bill S-222, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources), be read the first time. He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise today on behalf of Bill S-222, an act to amend the Income Tax Act. What this bill would do is fix a problem due to the archaic legislation in the Income Tax Act that restricts the ability of Canadian charities to do good work around the world. By reducing bureaucracy and redundancy, this bill will seek to provide greater accountability while also giving charities in Canada the ability to do greater work, unfettered by excessive regulation and bureaucracy.Once again, it gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill, and I hope all members will support it. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)Charitable donations and donorsIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsS-222, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (use of resources)Senate billsKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Canada-China Relations]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1715)[English]Motion for concurrence Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, presented to the House on Wednesday, May 26, be concurred in.8510-432-139 "Canada-China Relations" E-tablingChinaConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 9International relationsSpecial Committee on Canada-China RelationsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Canada-China Relations]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1715)[English]Mr. Speaker, first let me say that it is always a pleasure to rise in this august chamber on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I wish it was under different circumstances.To all of the parties that supported the creation of the Canada-China special committee, I thank them. It has opened a door into a world that we often have failed to see. There are a number of things the Communist Chinese government has for its own goals. I am reminded of a phrase that I heard recently: We do not understand a system until it has been exploited. Many systems within this great country have been undermined in many cases by the Communist Chinese government, whether through cyber-espionage or in other fashions. There has also been the unlawful detainment of our citizens in a process that could only be explained as lawful by a dictatorship.I am particularly concerned that as we point a finger at these authoritarian countries, we should always be aware of how we run our own ship of state here at home. I am going to speak briefly about the importance of responsible government.When we talk about the rule of law, it is important that as a rule-of-law country we support it, but responsible government actually predates Canada as a Confederation. In responsible government the executive, fused in the legislative body of the people, must ultimately carry the support of the members of the chamber. When this chamber passed a motion in response to the Public Health Agency of Canada denying information that was requested and passed by the Canada-China relations committee, it violated an order of that committee given a particular purview of the House.The members of that committee, even Liberal members, asked for some accountability from the Public Health Agency and from the minister responsible, and they received none. They brought those concerns to this chamber and, after multiple efforts to bring that agency into alignment, a motion was passed in this chamber requiring a public servant to come to the bar, as we well know, to be admonished.In my mind, there is still the troubling matter of the other half of the order, which was to have those documents submitted to the House. As I rose earlier today, I indicated my displeasure with the government going to the Federal Court. If we are to have responsible government in this country, the government, which is fused at the hip to Parliament and to this House, must recognize that when a lawful order is given, requiring it cannot be circumvented. It cannot be misaligned, and it cannot be diverted away by appealing to another court of law. Parliament, in its own matters, remains supreme. I am sure there will be many arguments made by the government saying all sorts of things, whether in the public space, in Federal Court or in the House, but let me remind the government that responsible government requires it to be subject to something greater than its own authority. It is not the authority outside this chamber that it should ultimately recognize, but the authority granted by the Canadian people to the House. I hope the Speaker will protect those things. I know he said he would and he will do it with due diligence, but I have to again publicly admonish the government for its approach to treating this chamber, the voice of the people, with such contempt.I know there are many things on the minds of many of us as we start to think of the summer and have heard rumours of an election. We need to preserve the underpinnings of our great system, responsible government and the rule of law. We need to always stand up for those things, and we should always bear in mind that we must first emulate those principles. (1720)Last, I would also encourage the Prime Minister to listen to the Leader of the Opposition when he asks questions about ethical government. Those are things that the government would be well served to consider more often.In conclusion and while I am on my feet, I move:MotionThat the House do now adjourn.8510-432-139 "Canada-China Relations" E-tablingAccess to informationBiosafetyChinaConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 9Dilatory motionsInternational relationsMotion to adjourn the HouseNational Microbiology LaboratoryPublic Health Agency of CanadaSpecial Committee on Canada-China RelationsViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Canada-China Relations]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1720)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the motion to be adopted on division.8510-432-139 "Canada-China Relations" E-tablingChinaConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 9Dilatory motionsInternational relationsMotion to adjourn the HouseSpecial Committee on Canada-China RelationsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, in January 2020, Marylène Levesque was killed by a convicted murderer who had killed his wife in 2004 and was out on day parole. Ms. Levesque was failed by the system. She was failed by Correctional Services. She was failed by the Parole Board, and she was failed by the government.The threat to Canadians by dangerous and repeat offenders on parole or after release is experienced by far too many innocent Canadians. The committee's report outlines these failings, but does not go far enough. For that reason, Conservatives are tabling a dissenting report that outlines the severity of the systemic gaps that made the victim vulnerable and allowed the convicted murderer to kill again.Conservatives are presenting multiple recommendations for action in order to do justice for the victim, prevent other tragic crimes like it and protect the safety of all Canadians.8510-432-195 "Parole Board of Canada and the Circumstances that Led to a Young Woman's Death"Conditional releaseDissenting or supplementary opinionsGallese, EustachioHomicideStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify that the motion adopted to give the member special permission to present a supplementary report was to present the report, not to read the entirety of the report.Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPoints of orderAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I understand that you are attempting to give the member some latitude here, but this time is intended to present a dissenting report or supplemental report. There have been attacks on other parties, and there have been all kinds of commentary here. I really do think, Mr. Speaker, it might be time to consider that it has been enough.Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPoints of orderAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1015)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.I seek the unanimous consent of the House, in all fairness, for the member for Lakeland to be able to share a few more comments about the Conservative dissenting report. I am sure she also has more to say. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to do that.8510-432-195 "Parole Board of Canada and the Circumstances that Led to a Young Woman's Death"Conditional releaseDissenting or supplementary opinionsGallese, EustachioHomicideLeave to propose a motionMotionsPoints of orderRecognition to speakStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityPamDamoffOakville North—BurlingtonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMilitary Service MedalInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The petition calls upon the Government of Canada to recognize the service by Canadians in the regular forces, reserve military forces and others who have taken an oath and sworn to defend our nation and who have completed 547 days or 18 months of uninterrupted honourable duty in their service to Canada from September 2, 1945 to the present day, and in perpetuity, by means of creating and issuing a Canadian military service medal to be designated the “Canadian military service medal”. Awards presentationsPetition 432-01203VeteransAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingBobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from over 55,000 individuals. Community leaders throughout Northeast B.C. have expressed grave concern over the lack of consultation with regard to the proposed caribou recovery plans.The petitioners call upon the provincial government to further consult users, stakeholders, businesses and local government, immediately begin economic and socio-economic impact studies on the Northeast Region, and provide baseline data on populations and relevant science-based studies to support closure and recovery plans. Therefore, they call upon the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to work with the province of British Columbia to ensure that the local voices are being considered, including consulting further with community leadership and caribou experts on the ground.British ColumbiaCaribouEndangered speciesPetition 432-01204Public consultationBobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—Chezzetcook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsChemical BanInterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here today.In the first petition, the citizens of my riding are calling on the government to reverse course on their ban on strychnine, which is used to control Richardson's ground squirrel populations as Richardson's ground squirrels can pose a serious threat to the health and well-being of our livestock population and also to our food security.Pest Control Products ActPesticidesPetition 432-01206Research and researchersRichardson ground squirrelsStrychnineDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookJeremyPatzerCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNatural ResourcesInterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition is calling on the Government of Canada to defend the energy sector at any opportunity as presented to them both nationally and internationally, to make sure that they are prioritizing the natural resource sector here in Canada.Employment opportunitiesEnergy and fuelPetition 432-01207JeremyPatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsBryanMayCambridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1030)[English]Madam Speaker, I have several petitions to present today.The first petition was originally brought forward by the late MP Mark Warawa, who was very passionate about protecting the conscience rights of health care professionals. This petition is from Canadians across the country wanting protections for doctors and medical professionals. They are calling on the House of Commons to adopt conscience rights legislation for physicians and health care institutions. They recognize that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.DoctorsFreedom of conscience and religionHospitalsMedical assistance in dyingPetition 432-01211GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFirearmsInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across the country who are calling on the House of Commons to support the health and safety of Canadian firearms owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms, and are concerned about the impacts to hearing loss caused by the damaging noise levels of firearms and the need for noise reduction. The petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally recognized health and safety device that is criminally prohibited in Canada, and that the majority of G7 countries have recognized the health and safety benefits of sound moderators, allowing them for hunting, sport shooting and noise reduction. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase and use sound moderators in all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.Gun controlHearing healthPetition 432-01212ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsRights of the UnbornInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from Canadians across the country who are calling on the government to recognize and safeguard human life at all stages of human development. They are calling for the government to recognize human life from conception to natural death.Health care systemPetition 432-01213ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPornographyInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the impacts of violent and degrading sexually explicit material online and the impacts on public health, especially on the well-being of women and girls. They recognize that we cannot say we believe in preventing in sexual violence toward women while allowing pornography companies to freely expose children to violent, sexually explicit imagery every day. As such, they are calling on the Government of Canada to adopt meaningful age verification on all adult websites.InternetLegal agePetition 432-01214PornographyYoung peopleArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present today is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the equal application of the law. The petitioners are indigenous members in my riding and are concerned that the First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which is supposed to enhance financial accountability and transparency, is not being enforced.The petitioners also point out that the federal government recognizes band membership when allocating funds, yet often off-reserve band members face alienation and are limited in receiving funds and services from their respective bands. They are calling on the Government of Canada to enforce the First Nations Financial Transparency Act to ensure that off-reserve band members are provided levels of funding that are equal to those received by on-reserve band members.First Nations Financial Transparency ActGovernment assistanceIndigenous peoplesOff-reservePetition 432-01215ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the increases to the carbon tax. They are supportive of Bill C-206, which will be voted on soon. The petitioners note that there was no carbon tax increase in the Liberals' election platform, and that increasing the carbon tax severely impacts and penalizes those living in rural and farming communities. They are concerned about the increasing costs of heating and groceries, along with how the government is trying to bring about a one-size-fits-all approach instead of co-operating with the provinces. The petitioners are asking the Liberals to respect their electoral promise and not increase the carbon tax, which disproportionately affects rural and western Canadians. They want co-operation with the provinces and ask for the speedy passage of Bill C-206 so there are exemptions from the carbon tax for certain farm fuels.C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)Carbon taxGreenhouse gasesPetition 432-01216ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow members to finish tabling petitions this morning.Leave to propose a motionMotionsPresentation of petitionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke at length about dysfunctionality and how the opposition parties were creating dysfunction. I wonder if he considers it dysfunctional when Parliament is not debating bills every day, or when there are no opposition day motions, or when there are no emergency debates, or when there are no tabling of reports from committees, or when there are no private members' bills, or when there are no adjournment debates. That is how his government governed for a big part of 2020.Could the member comment on that?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, minority Parliaments are not easy. I spent six years in two minority parliaments in Nova Scotia. We had to actually work with the opposition to ensure we could get the things we needed for our constituents. We went out of our way to ensure that opposition MPs, or MLAs at the time, got what they needed to help their constituents.What I hear from the member is bellyaching about the opposition members and what they do not want to do. The management comes from the Liberal side. The management comes from the House leader and the management team. How much has that member reached out? How much have those ministers reached out to us? I have been waiting for weeks for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reach, and that has not happened.Has there been some introspective that maybe some of these things the member bellyaches about are because of the Liberals mismanagement of many of these files?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1110)[English]Madam Speaker, in my earlier remarks about the budget, I noted that with this budget, the Prime Minister had squandered a historic opportunity to reposition our economy for long-term success. I did, however, acknowledge that the budget contained a number of temporary measures that were critical to sustaining Canadians as we struggled to get past the pandemic. I commended the government for extending the wage and rent subsidy programs and a number of other measures that would continue to support struggling Canadians.That is what a responsible opposition does. We offer helpful suggestions where possible and we call out failure when it happens. Therefore, I wish I could say that we Conservatives will support this budget, because we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. However, the reality is that this budget completely fails to deliver the growth budget that the finance minister had promised. Instead, it represents, as former deputy finance minister Kevin Lynch recently noted, the largest “transfer of debt and risk” that our country has ever seen. The finance minister failed to recognize the enormity of that challenge and in so doing, failed to include in her budget the strong fiscal anchor and debt management plan for which her own mandate letter called.This budget would see our massive national debt swell to $1.4 trillion in the immediate term, with a hint from the government that it plans to borrow even more. The only anchor the minister could point to was a trajectory that would see Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio move slightly below 50%, far above what it was pre-pandemic, with endless debt and deficits for our children and grandchildren to repay.The minister has been asked many times if she ever expects the government to return to balance; in other words to live within its means. She has steadfastly refused to answer, clearly a signal that the answer is no. Is this the growth budget the Prime Minister promised? It is absolutely not. While it would dramatically grow deficits, debt and the size of government, there is little that would position our economy for long-term growth and prosperity.While other G7 countries have invested heavily in things like critical infrastructure, cut taxes, embarked on regulatory reform, harnessed the value of their innovators and reoriented trade away from hostile regimes like China, our Prime Minister has simply sprayed half a trillion dollars at targets intended to secure his re-election. There is no plan to reorient our industrial policy from a tangibles to an intangibles economy, and there is no plan to capture the value of Canadian education, research and development, and innovation to ensure our start-ups commercialize and create jobs in Canada. There is no plan to reverse the dramatic flight of foreign capital from our country and to get nation-building infrastructure built. We now have the dubious distinction of being known as the country where nothing ever gets built. The demise of northern gateway, Keystone XL and energy east, and the potential demise of Line 5 under the current Liberal government, are evidence of that. What is worse is that this budget throws our oil and gas sector under the bus by expressly excluding it from the CCUS tax credit.Again, is this a growth budget? It is not at all. In fact, even the Prime Minister's former policy adviser, Robert Asselin, recently confirmed this when he said that the budget doubles “down on programs that do not address our innovation shortcomings and have yielded few results to date.” He said, “it is hard to find a coherent growth plan.”The finance minister clearly has not been taking the advice of her own Liberal advisers. She has also failed to act on other pressing issues. Her budget fails to properly address the looming threat of inflation and with it, rising interest rates, which could have a profound impact on millions of Canadians with mortgages.(1115)In fact, last week we learned from Stats Canada that the cost of living continues to rise and is the highest it has been in over 10 years, proving that the minister's trillion-dollar debt and endless deficits are actually making life much more expensive for Canadians. One of the reasons for this is that the minister injected massive stimulus into our economy when economists were warning that she risked stoking the fires of inflation, and here we are. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer commented that the Liberal government may have miscalibrated the necessity to spend on stimulus.I will not sugar-coat this. The threat that massive borrowing and spending will lead to runaway inflation is real. I know the government does not want to hear that and is hanging on to the belief that inflationary pressures will be transitory. It says there is nothing to see and do not worry and tells us to be happy. However, Germany's Deutsche Bank is not buying it. It recently warned of a ticking inflation time bomb, a warning our minister refuses to heed.For example, why is the Liberal government spending hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? It is a bank that makes no investments in Canada and instead supports China's efforts to assert its power and influence across Asia. In fact, why is this government collaborating with the communist regime in China on anything while that regime commits genocide against its own Uighur Muslim population, lays waste to democracy in Hong Kong, engages in harvesting organs from persecuted minorities like the Falun Gong and betrays Canada in the CanSino vaccine debacle? Why are the Liberals partnering with China when the Prime Minister cannot even explain why two Chinese scientists were escorted from a high-security virology lab in Winnipeg and fired? Why is Canadian money being invested in a bank controlled by China's communist regime when our two Michaels continue to languish in Chinese prisons? The minister has refused to answer these questions, as more and more taxpayer money is wasted on the Prime Minister's efforts to appease China.This budget also failed to deliver a clear plan to safely reopen our common border with our largest trading partner, the U.S. Some two billion dollars' worth of trade crosses our border every single day, yet the budget scarcely mentions border security and trade facilitation, and makes no mention of whether discussions with the Biden administration are under way to safely reopen our border.We are going to judge the government's budget not on the quantity but on the quality of its spending. Based on that standard, much of this budget remains unsalvageable. We Conservatives are now in a better position to judge the merits of this budget and to determine what it might mean for Canadians in the short, medium and long term. As I said, in the short term there are a number of measures that we can support that will help Canadians through this economic and health crisis, but in the medium and especially the long term, there is very little to get excited about. It is just endless debts and deficits with not even a pretense of the Liberal government ever wanting to return to balance.As a responsible official opposition, we have no choice but to reject the government's attempt to spend the cupboards bare in order to position the Liberals for re-election, leaving future generations of Canadians to pick up the tab. There is one thing Canadians can be absolutely sure of. A Conservative government will implement a true Canada recovery plan that secures our future by getting Canadians back to work, by helping small businesses recover, by restoring Canada's reputation and competitive advantage and by prudently managing the massive financial burden that the government has left us. The Conservatives have done it before and we will do it again.Asian Infrastructure Investment BankBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Budgetary policyC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresChinaCost of livingForeign policyGovernment billsInflationPublic debtThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, it seems that every time that NDP members get up in the House, their only solution to the fiscal challenges and the financial challenges facing Canadians is to increase taxes on this and that.I want to point the member to the fact that the NDP, the Bloc and our Conservatives are working together at the finance committee to find out how the Canadian government can better collect taxes that are owed. We know there is a tremendous amount of tax evasion taking place and an aggressive avoidance of taxes within Canada. Some of the biggest companies and the richest Canadians are finding loopholes for, and other ways around, paying taxes that they should be paying in Canada.I am hopeful that as we continue to study this challenge, with all of this tax revenue falling through the cracks because the federal government cannot properly collect the tax that is owing, we will deliver some of the additional revenues required to bring our country back on track and will find a way to balance the budget, something the Liberal government has refused to tell us it is going to do. Sadly, the government has repeatedly refused to answer when it will return to a balanced budget or if it will ever return—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsIncome taxThird reading and adoptionRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, the short answer is yes. In fact, if the member looks at the pre-budget consultation report that the finance committee came up with, he will see that the dissenting report from the Conservatives contains the recommendation that the government finally engage in comprehensive tax reform. It should find a way to simplify our tax system to make it fairer, making sure that everybody pays their fair share, and should simplify it so that it is easier to collect taxes and it is easier for Canadians to fill out their tax forms every yearBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsTax reformThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, the member knows that I just responded to the question. I am in favour of comprehensive tax reform to bring our tax system back to fairness and balance to make sure those who should be paying taxes are paying taxes.With respect to the FIPA, I would say the member obviously has not read it. I have, and it does not in any way create additional market access. This agreement is called a post-establishment investment protection treaty. In other words, it only protects investments once they have been made in Canada. The decision the federal government makes is whether it is going to allow a foreign investment to be made in Canada if it is above a certain threshold value.The suggestion that somehow this agreement opens up the market for Chinese investment is patently false. In fact, this agreement protects Canadian investors when they make investments in China and are then discriminated against by Chinese governments. This—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsTax reformThird reading and adoptionPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his comments on this year's budget. He mentioned that inflationary pressures are already embedded in the economy. We know that the best way to tackle inflation is to grow the economy to make sure that it is producing all the goods and services that people need.Does the member have comments about what this budget does to grow the economy?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEconomic stimulusGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, inflation does represent a significant threat to our economy and to Canadians right across the country because as inflation grows, interest rates typically follow. That is something every family who has a large mortgage needs to be concerned about.My colleague is also right in that the best way to address a recessionary economy, a large budgetary deficit and a massive, growing debt is to grow the economy. What we can do is cut spending, which I do not believe any of the parties in the House of Commons are talking about; increase taxes on Canadians, which is what the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals always propose; or grow the economy, thereby finding a way to manage the debt and start to return to balanced budgets, at least in the long term.Given the massive debt we have now incurred, growing the economy is the best way forward. One thing the Conservatives will not do is increase taxes on Canadians at such a difficult time.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEconomic stimulusGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergrovePeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's work at the finance committee. I think we work together quite well on that committee.We have repeatedly said that Canadians need to be financially supported by government until such time as all of us have made it through the pandemic. We are not advocating for slashing and burning. We are advocating that once Canadians make it through to the end of the pandemic, they are weaned off of these supports. We do not believe in slashing and burning these programs, because they are absolutely critical for sustaining Canadians through this very difficult time.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Recovery BenefitGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I am curious. From the member's tone, body language and speech, he seemed to be pouring it on pretty thick on the government for all of its failures and its wrongness in its approach, yet the member and his party are supporting it. I would ask him to reconcile the two.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionYvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my fellow British Columbian for the work that he has done in terms of the all-party credit union caucus. He raised the profit-taking by certain companies, particularly the large banks. I would also point out that many small credit unions, unlike the big ones, like Vancity, already do so much. Valley First credit union in my area does Feed the Valley. Interior Savings Credit Union does bursaries for students.Rather than focusing on what we agree on, we are in elected office, so I am going to ask the member a question where we maybe part ways. I agree with the member that the Trans Mountain pipeline should not involve taxpayer funds. In fact, Conservatives believe that pipeline projects should go forward on the basis that they are safe and let the market work from that.NDP members in my riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, support that, specifically in merit, because they believe in supporting jobs. What does the member have to say to his own party members in my section of the province?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsNationalizationOil and gasThird reading and adoptionTrans Mountain pipelinePeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1225)[English]We will go to other questions and comments.The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Essex.Before I get started on the budget, this may be the last time I get to appear in front of you, Mr. Speaker, given that there seems to be a lot of chatter about an election. I want to take this time to thank you for your service to your country and say what a pleasure it has been to be able to serve with you. I wish you the very best in everything that you do into the future.I am standing here again on a budget bill. Although much of this budget was important because it helped families and businesses ensure that they had some kind of income so they could manage through this crisis, it is also important that we talk about how it will potentially burden the future of many families and younger people as we have amassed this enormous debt.This February, I was appointed as the shadow minister for COVID-19 economic recovery. It has been an incredible honour to serve in this role, because it has given me the opportunity to go across the country virtually and look at the economic impacts COVID has had on every sector, every region and every demographic of the country.A strong economic recovery should be inclusive to all demographics, sectors and regions, ensuring that all persons and all areas of the country thrive and that we have specific objectives with measurable strategies for every sector to ensure that nobody gets left behind. It is impossible to implement a cookie-cutter plan, which is pretty much what I see in the Liberal budget. We will not get a full recovery unless we look at every economic sector to make sure it is successful.The budget outlined how the federal Liberals proposed to rebuild the Canadian economy in a way that will bring Canadians along. This is another example of a lot of talk without a clear, precise, strategic and thoughtful action by the government.If the government was actually interested in bringing all Canadians along, it would have laid out outcomes for job creation, growth and prosperity in this country's agricultural sector, maybe the energy sector, the forestry sector and the natural resources sector, just to name a few. There are millions of Canadians who work in these sectors. It is time that the government at least got honest about what it is trying to accomplish. Quite frankly, it seems like we are stuck in this never-ending cycle of spending more to achieve less. It is all talk and no action.I hearken back to when I first had the opportunity to get involved as a contributor to the economy. I was able to buy into a business when I was 21 years old. I look back at those times and how I looked at the world as my oyster, that I would be able to do something, build something, grow something. Sadly, I do not hear that from youth anymore. I do not see that in this budget, which does not necessarily set people up for success.A bunch of stats have come out of this budget, like the largest debt and deficit we have seen in the history of our country, and yet very little to show for it. We are certainly not moving forward. In fact, I often think we are moving backwards. It is important that we look at a few stats. Canada fell out of the top 10 ranking of the most competitive economies. We have fallen near the bottom of our peer group on innovation, ranking 17th, as stated by the World Intellectual Property Organization. Canada ranks 11th among G7 countries, among 29 industrial countries, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 33%, and Canada fell to 25th out of 29 countries. In other words, Canada has the fifth-highest level of total indebtedness. No other country experienced such a pronounced decline in its debt ranking. The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise from 31% last year to 56% this year. The Bank of Canada projects business investments to grow at 0.8% over the next two years, failing to recover to 2019 levels until 2023.Consumption and government spending will represent about 80% of economic growth over the next two years, while investment and exports will be next to zero. An important industry like mineral fuels accounted for 22% of our country's exports, the number one exported product, which is something we should not forget about. We still have the third-largest proven oil reserves in the world and are the third-largest exporter of oil.(1235)Just as the government continued to do since 2015, it has ignored the Canadian natural resource industry. There is virtually no mention of the energy sector, which is Canada's number one export. By ignoring the strength of Canada's resource, forestry and agriculture sectors, among others, the government has failed to recognize the impact these sectors would have on our battered economy. The world wants and needs more of our natural resources, so we should be thinking about expanding our market share, not hastening its decline. At the very least, we should be trying to develop policies that make sure we have an active role in these sectors.There is an entire chapter in the budget dedicated to environmental initiatives aimed at net-zero emissions by 2050, which includes $18 billion in spending, but with dubious assumptions about the impact on economic growth. Rather than supporting a proven catalyst for economic growth like the natural resource sector to accelerate Canadians' recovery and get Canadians back to work, the Prime Minister has decided to continue the abandonment of this industry and hedge our future on uncertain technologies.Conservatives are not opposed to developing and enhancing Canada's environmental-oriented sector. In fact I, along with the Conservative Party, highly encourage Canadian market participants in this sector to continue to grow and create more jobs and revenue while making sufficient contributions to the nation's ecological sustainability. I am proud of our industry. Our industry has been doing fantastic work and is a leader in the world. We should be proud of that and stand up for it. As we continue to combat this pandemic and the economic damage it would cause, we must unleash and utilize the capabilities of all profitable revenue streams. That includes green technologies and natural resources.There are some vague references in the budget to growing green jobs and retraining the workforce for new jobs. It is very vague. Where and in which sectors are these jobs going to be created, and by when? Words are great, but actions speak louder. In the province I come from, people want to know, if they will be trained into a green job, where that job will be, what kind of income they will get and how they are going to be able to support their families in that new role. We have heard lots about retraining for these jobs that do not exist yet, but the need for tradespeople only happens if something is approved and built in this country.What is it going to take? If the economy is going to grow, it has to be private sector-driven. The high cost of doing business in Canada, the red tape and the over-regulation make it almost impossible for small business owners. That has to change. There has been a real and visible impact on Canada's capacity to attract foreign investment. We need to be able to tell people they are welcome in this country and their investments are welcome. The perceived risk around investing in Canada's energy sector has to change.What does the future look like? What is the trajectory? What does the country look like? We see inflation now. The target was 2% and it is running at about 3.6%. It is very concerning for people who are trying to live on a budget. My biggest fear for the country is that this budget will continue to invest massive sums of money into under-tested, under-productive schemes that fit the government's political agenda. The title is “A Recovery Plan for Jobs, Growth and Resilience”, but the federal government's budget contains very few details on specifics and a lack of measurables, and it really does not say how it is going to execute on this plan.I am concerned this budget is far from resilient and far from sustainable. If it were resilience that the government was after, it would be asking itself how this federal spending is going to position the country for post-pandemic success. We need to ensure that any spending helps with productivity in this country and ensures we have long-term sustainability. The well-being of our people and our economy cannot afford to be stuck in this never-ending cycle of the government's scheme of throwing money into the wind and hoping something sticks.The most important focus for our country right now needs to be investment and commitment to ensuring Canadians get back to work. That is why the Conservative Party of Canada would implement the Canada recovery plan, a plan that would recover the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the hardest-hit sectors. Canadians deserve strong leadership, inclusive leadership and a robust plan for not only recovery, but prosperity for many years to come.Adult education and trainingBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresDebt-to-GDP ratioEconomic recoveryEnvironmental protectionForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInternational tradeOil and gasSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyRichardBragdonTobique—Mactaquac//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know that the member comes from a part of our country that has contributed so much to Canada's economy and prosperity for years. If there was ever a time when Canada needed to do all that it can to strengthen our sectors, our producers and those who actually produce our energy, work our fields and grow our food, it is now.I wonder if the hon. member would be willing to comment on the absolute need to have a government with a vision to bring the best out of Canadians. We have so much to offer to the world and those who want to do business with us. We have the most responsibly produced energy in the world. We have the best producers of food and agriculture. We can only increase our manufacturing capacity. We have great opportunities that are missing. Would the hon. member like to comment on that? What are his thoughts?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionJamesCummingEdmonton CentreJamesCummingEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am an incredibly proud Canadian. We have an enormous capacity and potential in this country. It is time we recognized it. It is time we let these sectors grow and prosper.I firmly believe the rest of the world wants more of what Canada produces. We are leaders on the agriculture side, leaders on the forestry side, leaders on the energy side. Let us recognize that. Let us look at our strengths and make sure we emphasize those strengths, get behind those strengths and grow this economy so that kids will have something to look forward to in this country.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionRichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, my position would never change on this. If people earn an income and owe taxes, they should pay. We should use the full force of the law to make sure that we go after those who are trying to take advantage of any kind of scheme that would allow them not to pay their fair share of tax.In the same breath, we should also recognize that wealth creators are good for our country. They are creating wealth. Creating more jobs and more investment in Canada is good for our country. Those who do it by the rules, let us support them and let us cherish them because they are the ones who are going to help us grow this economy.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsTax evasionThird reading and adoptionTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105511MartyMorantzMarty-MorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorantzMarty_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my great colleague from Edmonton on his amazing speech and the great job he is doing in the House in his various roles.In the Financial Post yesterday there was an article that said, “Brace for even higher rates when the Bank of Canada does start raising” and “Interest rates expected to climb above the previous peak for the first time in decades amid robust recovery”.Could the member comment on the threat that higher interest rates will pose to the sustainability of our economy, which he so eloquently spoke about during his speech?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsInterest ratesThird reading and adoptionJamesCummingEdmonton CentreJamesCummingEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a great concern, as we see inflation starting to move to 3.6%. We have issues with supply chains. We have issues with housing costs. We are seeing a lot of things drive up costs. The concern is that we are going to see interest rates do the same thing.The level of debt that we have taken on in this country has to be paid back, and there is going to be interest that has to be paid on that debt, even if it is termed out over a period of time. A lot of the budget is now going to have to go toward debt repayment. That money could be spent on housing. It could be spent on some of the things that we desperately need in this country. That is a big concern.Future generations will be stuck with this burden. That is the thing that is most distressing.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsInterest ratesThird reading and adoptionMartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyChrisLewisEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): (1245)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30. I want to thank the member for Edmonton Centre for his incredibly compelling speech, and he did a fabulous job. As well, to follow up on his comments, all the best to you, Mr. Speaker, in the future.As I was walking up to the House today, I was given to thought. I thought about my family, my staff, my friends and the people of Essex, and the impact that Bill C-30 would have on each and every one of them. Each of us will be affected by the bill. I want to give many thanks to my family, my staff and my constituents of Essex for the opportunity to be in this place to speak to Bill C-30. Fifteen months ago, after the government's failure to heed the early warning signs of the pandemic ravaging Asia, Parliament was shut down for three weeks to flatten the curve. These many months later, the government's record is characterized by bad ethics, poor decision-making, undemocratic measures and huge deficits. The government, propped up by the NDP, Bloc and Green Party, has repeatedly failed Canadians, from its early and repeated power grabs, its failure to shut down international flights in the early stages of the pandemic, its failure to secure PPE and its disastrous vaccine procurement and rollout. On top of that, we had the ill-conceived Canada student support program and the resulting WE scandal that led to the prorogation of Parliament to avoid scrutiny. For 15 months, we have seen the Liberals reward their Liberal buddies with contracts and now judicial appointments. Only the Conservatives, as the official opposition, have stood against the Liberal excesses. The NDP has voted with the Liberals basically at every turn, even joining with them to shut down committees to help the Liberals avoid scrutiny. At a time when Canadians needed true leadership, ideology partisan interests have trumped principle. Why am I mentioning this record in a speech on the budget? Because post-COVID, Canada needs an economic recovery plan and, yet again, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Green Party alliance has failed to offer anything but shiny baubles. The record speaks for itself. The NDP-Liberal budget is a massive letdown for workers in my riding of Essex. This is not a growth budget, and it fails to put forward a plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity. I have three children just entering adulthood, and my first grandchild was born just a few weeks ago. I think of families in my riding, generations that have made their home in Essex County, and I wonder if my children and their children will be able to have the things that previous generations took for granted: a well-paying job, affordable housing and saving for their children's education. I am receiving hundreds of emails from constituents who remember the Canada of my youth. They tell me that they have no heart to celebrate Canada this year. They see the writing on the wall. Rampant corruption, unchecked, has tarnished our hallowed halls. Bill C-10 threatens our Charter of Rights, and deficit spending and high debt always leads to tax increases and program cuts down the road. It is an open question if we will be able to protect our social safety net and our senior's pensions, who should be able to enjoy their retirement worry-free. As the government continues to print money against Canada's GDP, as Conservatives predicted, inflation has risen to 3.6%. The cost of housing has soared and, as I said previously, putting it out of reach for many young families. As the cost of living rises, so does the cost for basics, like food, which hurts the lowest-income Canadians and seniors on fixed incomes the most. The government spending today borrows against our children's future. It is not a cliché; it is a simple reality that everyone who has a personal or household budget to manage understands. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of the Liberal spending in the budget will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth. The Conservatives support getting help to those who have been hit the hardest by the failure of the Liberals to create jobs. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. Canada's Conservatives were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal, that would safely reopen the economy and get Canadians back to work.(1250) It is very clear that the Liberal-NDP budget was more about partisan politics than creating jobs or growing our economy. With their uncontrolled spending, the Liberals made it clear that they had no plan to return to a balanced budget. Throughout the pandemic, the Conservatives have made emergency support programs better for Canadians. Alas, unemployed Canadians are hoping to see a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities for their families. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed are hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy. They were let down.Layoffs at the Fiat Chrysler plant in Windsor mean that expectant mothers will see their maternity benefits cut, with all the money going out the door in income support. What has the government done for them?Small business owners have been devastated by repeat lockdowns. Many have closed their doors permanently. Many are hanging on by the slimmest of margins.Gyms like Xanadu in my riding have petitioned the government for ongoing aid. I have stood in the House for them. It will take months for them to recover, if they do at all.Many hair salons and barbershops, many of them owned and operated by women supporting their families, do not qualify for business support.Travel advisers went 15 months without any revenue. What does this budget do for them? Absolutely nothing.Manufacturers in my riding whose entire business model is based on cross-border transactions have experienced losses of major contracts because the government did not see fit to deem them essential despite repeated appeals to their government. It is a tone-deaf government that cannot not grasp the concept that we cannot export goods without the free movement of the people who make and sell them. The effects of this will be felt for years. It will take many years for manufacturers to get back to where they were.While they brag about the numbers, the Liberals fail to understand that the stuff manufacturers are working on now was negotiated two years ago, before the pandemic. Manufacturing is 13% of Canada's GDP. This sector is the largest contributor of taxable income. In Essex and Windsor, 54,000 jobs are represented in this industry. Eighty-five per cent of those goods produced go to the United States of America.Manufacturers have done a good job. They were mandated to keep open and they did everything required, yet the government did not see fit to recognize their good work. When I first raised this issue with the minister in the House, and other government officials appearing before the special committee on Canada-U.S. economic relations, the government's response revealed its total ignorance and outright indifference.Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the loved ones who have been separated by the Canada-U.S. border closure. Even when changes were made to broaden the definitions, many were left out or could not afford to quarantine for 14 days. To make matters worse, the government then added quarantine hotels and exorbitant costs with unsafe substandard care. The human toll has been deep. Here are but a couple of examples: grandparents unable to meet their grandchildren for the first time; parents looking to be with their son, graduating after 10 years.The simple fact is that this budget does nothing to secure the long-term prosperity for Canadians. It does nothing to help my excellent riding of Essex. Canada's Conservatives got us out of the last recession. Canadians who are worried about their future know that we can and will do it again.Automotive industryBordersBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19ExportsGovernment billsPandemicQuarantine of personsThird reading and adoptionTravel restrictionsUnited States of AmericaJamesCummingEdmonton CentreScottDuvallHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris Lewis: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree that everyone needs help. The budget should be helping everyone; nobody should be left behind. Be it seniors, young adults, our youth or people with disabilities, everyone should be helped, especially, and hopefully, at the end of a pandemic.Yes, we need to look from 100,000 feet down and ensure that everybody is duly taken care of.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOld Age SecurityPersons with disabilitiesSenior citizensThird reading and adoptionScottDuvallHamilton MountainLouiseChabotThérèse-De Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris Lewis: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is so important for the federal government to work with individual provinces, with their leaders and, quite frankly, with their governments. Everyone has to come to the table. It is important that everyone has a voice at the table and whatever works best between the federal government and each specific province is a direction about which we certainly need to talk.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Health TransferGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionLouiseChabotThérèse-De BlainvilleRobertKitchenSouris—Moose Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89095RobertKitchenRobert-KitchenSouris—Moose MountainConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KitchenRobert_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Essex for pointing out that the Liberals love making things up. One of the things that they suffer from is a disease called “dyspocketnesia”. What it means is taking from “this pocket”, which is the taxpayer pocket, and putting it into “that pocket”, which is the government's pocket, and then forgetting about why they did it.One person who does not forget about things that the Liberals do is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who points out the Liberal claim that they would create 315,000 jobs this year, 334,000 in 2022, and 280,000 in 2023. He notes that it is more likely 39,000 jobs this year, 74,000 next year and 94,000 in the year after that.I wonder if my colleague would mind commenting about these job numbers.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsJob creationThird reading and adoptionChrisLewisEssexChrisLewisEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris Lewis: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, there are other people who know about the taking money out of this pocket and putting it into that one. It is everyday taxpayers. It is the young 20 or 21-year-old man and woman who pays taxes and wonders what is left in their bank account at the end of the day.As I mentioned in my speech, 54,000 jobs directly related to manufacturing in Windsor-Essex are coming under the gun if we do not get this ship righted really soon.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsJob creationThird reading and adoptionRobertKitchenSouris—Moose MountainPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Chris Lewis: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, they are directly related. I do appreciate the fact that he brought up tourism. Tourism in my riding of Essex has been devastated beyond belief. One hand will feed the other, but we must have tourism to drive that back up and to drive down the deficit.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the member use his favourite word, according to Open Parliament, which is “Conservatives”, so I want to congratulate him for being able to avoid the rhetoric.I am grateful that he talked about some things of substance in the budget bill, particularly child care. The federal government has a $30-billion plan for it. There has been a lot of interest and a lot of feedback on that in my riding. A lot of people are concerned about the costs that are going to be shared with the provinces. People are looking at the finances of the provinces and asking how on earth the provinces will be able to afford their portions of this.Can the member comment on that?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsSubsidized day careThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me say, and not in a back room in a private conversation, that you are awesome. Thank you for your service.To the member for Kingston and the Islands, the demographics in this country are getting older, and we know that means there will be less of a tax base for governments, both provincial and federal. We also know that there has been criticism, even from the member's own party. Mark Carney has said publicly that this is not a growth-oriented budget and so has David Dodge, both former governors of the Bank of Canada. We need to see more investments for the long term that make us more productive, but unfortunately it seems that the government is only focused on consumption today.I agree that making sure people have supports during the pandemic is important, but why is the government always fixated on giving people money for things that will not build long-term value in the way that we need for growing this economy to help support public services, like health care, that we all depend on?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEconomic prosperityGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. Let me inform you, Mr. Speaker, that you will have a much more enlightened speaker because I plan on sharing my time with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, who, I am sure, will do a fantastic job.From a parliamentary perspective, we live in dangerous times. I say that because I would like to take us all back to 2015 and a comment that this Prime Minister shared with Canadians. “[W]e are committed to delivering real change in the way that government works”, said the Prime Minister. He followed up with, “It means setting a higher bar for openness and transparency, something needed if this House is to regain the confidence and trust of Canadians.”When we look at the actions of this Prime Minister today, it is profoundly obvious that this PM had absolutely zero intention of honouring those words to Canadians. In fact, as is so often the case with this Prime Minister, it is all just words. The actions are always at odds with reality. Look at where we are here with this omnibus budget bill from a Prime Minister who had promised he would not use omnibus budget bills, promised he would not use prorogation, and promised he would deliver a balanced budget, cast in stone, in 2019. He also promised openness by default. I could go on and on, but we are not here today to debate the character of this Prime Minister. We are here to debate the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, a bill that the finance minister has repeatedly stated, if it were not to pass, would be the single greatest threat facing Canadians. Honestly, the finance minister said that multiple times in question period. Here we have a government that tells us we do not need a budget for over two years, and suddenly not having a budget is the greatest economic threat facing Canadians. What unbelievable arrogance that is.In reality, this budget is really about furthering the Liberals' electoral chances. I would submit it that does not do so. It is not in the long-term best interests of Canadians. However, in my view, this is a Prime Minister who will always place his needs and those of his powerful friends and insiders ahead of the needs of everyday Canadians. People should not just take my word for it, but read very carefully the many criticisms of this budget bill. They come from prominent people not accustomed to criticizing Liberal government budget bills: Parliamentary Budget Officer, Yves Giroux; former Bank of Canada governors, both David Dodge and Mark Carney; and even former senior Liberal adviser Robert Asselin. They have all provided well-articulated concerns over this budget. To summarize them, ultimately this bill proposes to spend money that the government does not have to spend and, according to these critics and many other experts, does not need to spend.However, that is what this Prime Minister does. He believes he can spend his way out of any problem or circumstance, but that in itself creates problems. Let us look at our communities' local downtown. If they are anything like the communities in my riding, there are increasingly more help-wanted signs out there. A huge number of small and medium-sized business owners have said they cannot get people to work. I am going to share something with this place. Recently, my Summerland office was contacted by a woman, and we will call her “Nathalie”. Nathalie is very concerned about her brother, whom we will call “Doug”. Doug has a trade. Unlike some trades, Doug got very busy during the pandemic. Last fall, Doug decided to quit his job so he could collect the CERB. Granted the system was not supposed to work that way, but it was, by design, set up so people like Doug absolutely could quit their job and still collect it. At the time, Doug told his family it was just for the winter months and he would go back to work in the spring. Over the winter months, Doug began drinking. His drinking led to the loss of his place. The family now says Doug lives in a recreational vehicle. He collects the Canada recovery benefit and spends most of the time drinking. Doug now refuses to return to the workplace. Doug's position is that he paid the government EI and taxes for years and now he is owed this money, and not working while he is collecting benefits is his way of getting even with the government.(1335)I am not suggesting for a moment that everyone collecting benefits is in Doug's situation, but speaking with many who work with individuals in addiction and recovered, many will share privately just how damaging the CRB has been and how it has derailed many recovering addicts. The problem remains that the Liberal government has absolutely no exit plan that ultimately will help people like Doug return to the workforce.Indeed, according to the Prime Minister, people like Doug do not exist. Some will say if only employers paid more, we would not have this problem. However, in Doug's case, he had a trade that provided net take-home pay of $60,000. Doug can make much more money returning to work, however, the $2,000 a month he collects now is enough money that Doug can choose not to work.I come back to all those help-wanted signs. A local small business owner told me his small business could survive the pandemic, but he was less sure it could survive the government assistance programs like CRB. I am not raising this to be partisan, I am raising this because this budget by design extends all of these benefits into September and it does this by design because the Prime Minister wants to go into an election where everyone is still getting paid those benefits. He wants to use the payment of these benefits as an election issue. That is ultimately what the bill proposes; that and massive amounts of spending that even former Liberals and friendly experts have said is excessive and largely unnecessary.However, when it comes to winning power, we know that the Prime Minister is capable of basically anything. We know from his many promises in 2015, he will say basically anything. We know from his governance, from prorogation to multiple Liberal filibusters, to being found in contempt of Parliament, he is capable of doing anything to remain in power. Indeed, Bill C-30 is just another example of this.Is there seriously a person in this place who does not believe that Canada needs an exit plan to get Canadians back into the workforce? I am starting to think that maybe there are some who believe we can continue on this current path that the Parliamentary Budget Office has repeatedly told us is not sustainable. Do we listen? Bill C-30 suggests we are not listening. Indeed, even raising these issues is rarely done.We all know that there are people like Doug out there who are struggling. This budget fails people like Doug. This budget fails the many small business owners who need Doug back in the workplace. Let us hope that he can rejoin the workforce. His sister Nathalie blames the government programs. She pointed out EI, as one example, never used to work this way. She asked how long can the government continue to pay people benefits that they do not qualify for. It is a fair question, yet I do not hear any member of the Liberal government ask this question.The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised it. Various ministers have promised to address it, but when the opposition has raised it, they never do. We all know that the EI system ultimately has to be sustainable and currently it is not sustainable. The government has no plan to address this. This should trouble all of us because ultimately we need to defend the integrity of the programs that Canadians depend on. We are collectively failing to do that.It is just not responsible. This is ultimately what troubles me so greatly about Bill C-30. It is great for a Prime Minister trying to stay in power, however, it maximizes short-term political gain for long-term pain that will be felt by future generations of Canadians.Somehow in this place, we have drifted away from long-term thinking, of building a foundation for the success and prosperity of future generations of Canada. Worse, we have seen this movie before, as it was the former Liberal governments that made some very difficult and unpopular decisions, but necessary decisions. Many of what I refer to as traditional Liberals, at least in my riding, wonder where the Liberal Party has gone.Before I close, I will leave with one final note. When the finance minister introduced this budget, she told us that we must “build a more resilient Canada; better, more fair, more prosperous, and more innovative”.(1340)We should all ask ourselves who has been governing this country for the past five years to have made Canada so unresilient, so unfair, so unprosperous and so lacking in innovation. We all know the answer to the question. This budget bill, Bill C-30, simply offers more of the same.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Recovery BenefitCOVID-19Government billsPandemicSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, obviously small family wineries, small craft breweries and artisan distillers are hurting. The foot traffic is gone, tourism has dropped, people are not buying from them and they are often going to liquor monopolies, so this is a big issue.My Bill C-260 deals with trying to get around provincial liquor monopolies. I will let the member know that the leader of the official opposition gave a speech to the Penticton and Wine Country Chamber of Commerce where the question was asked: What if this bill dies on the Order Paper? Guess what, we are going to be campaigning on this so that we can bring some resiliency and opportunities to that industry.In 2015, I said that the Liberals would say anything, then disregard what they said, do what is right for them and not the long-term interests of Canadians. They are doing the same thing to the wine industry, and it is wrong.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionWine industryRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayJamesCummingEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is lots of talk in this budget about training for new jobs, green jobs, jobs that are not here yet. Does the member have any idea what specific jobs the government is talking about that people will be retrained for? In my province, people want to know where these new jobs are, how they are going to get started and what these training programs are going to do for them in the near future, not looking out five years.Adult education and trainingBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is one area where the government continually talks a game about innovation and skills. Kevin Page, former parliamentary budget officer, is now heading up the University of Ottawa's Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy. It is a think tank that analyzes these issues. When the government first came to power, it was presented with a report from the think tank that showed that for years it has been funding employment skills training with tens of billions of dollars and it has never been reviewed. When we look through it, and I met with the expert who penned the report, there are no metrics. The government continually adds more rhetoric and more money, but there are never any results. That is the big problem. We are not thinking in terms of the long-term interests of Canadians. With our demographics and the pandemic debt, we have to start asking the tough questions. We cannot let the Liberal government and the Prime Minister slide by with nice words and a quick wave. My community deserves better than the government is offering.Adult education and trainingBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionJamesCummingEdmonton CentreKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, once again, I get to speak to you while you are in the Chair. To anyone who is tuning in right now, I wish all the best to the Speaker in the Chair right now. I know that the next chapter of your life will be very fulsome. It has been wonderful working with you. Hopefully, we will be able to work together again in September.I will continue with some of my thanks. I know so many people are involved in making sure that this chamber can run. I am thinking of all the House staff, the interpreters about whom we have heard so much, making sure we are not popping in the mike, the technical support folks for the hybrid virtual Parliament who have been very busy, and the table staff, especially one of my favourites, André Gagnon. I have always said that he is going to be stuck in my living room forever, because one of my favourite photos is of him and me at my second swearing in. Thanks to all of the great people working in our House and making sure the democracy of Canada continues.It truly has been a great pleasure serving in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, as the deputy House leader for the Conservative Party. There has been a lot of learning to do and a lot of procedural things, as well. All of us are working together to get that done.I thank my colleague who spoke before me, because when we talk about results, that is something we really focus on. I would like to see results. When I first got here in 2015, we would talk about the government. We would talk about what we had done in government for nine and a half years, and some of the positive changes that we saw here in Canada. Some very good legislation was put forward. Every single time I was on a panel, I recall that the words used against me were, “Ms. Vecchio, that's rich.” Those were the words of our Liberal government members, all of the time: “That is rich,” any time we asked for something to be justified or asked for verification on things.The government just does not want to answer. When we see an omnibus bill like this budget implementation bill, we should not be surprised. When we try to have debates, we should not be surprised when we do not get answers. I know that shortly we will be going into Question Period where that will continue.In this Parliament specifically, we have seen things, such as the WE scandal, prorogation and Bill C-19 being done wrong. I want to focus on that. As of yesterday, Bill C-19 was reported back and tabled in the House of Commons. The fear that I have, and the fear that I think so many other Canadians should have, is that we are putting forward bills that have no witnesses coming to talk about these things. When we wanted to discuss Bill C-19, there was a motion to have important organizations representing everyone from seniors to people with disabilities look at this legislation and ask what it means. We were looking to speak to chief electoral officers who were on the ground and could talk about some of the things we needed to do.What would a pandemic election look like in London North Centre or London West? I am looking at the member of Parliament for London West right now. What would it look like for London West? What would it look like for Elgin—Middlesex—London? I am seeing that special member look at me right now. I would like to thank her for all of the work that she has done. It has been great having a person beside me in London West who is part of the government and who has always ensured that when I give her a call, she knows what is happening in Elgin—Middlesex—London.On behalf of all the constituents of Elgin—Middlesex—London, on behalf of my municipalities, I know I can call that member and say that we need an announcement, and the member for London West will ensure that announcement is made. If it is sitting on a minister's table, she is one person I know who can get it done. I really appreciate all of her hard work.Moving on, when I am talking about some important things, I see that we are truly not doing what we should always be doing. We talk about due diligence. Last night, I got to listen to the member for Winnipeg North talk about the Conservatives and how awful they are. Although the word “corrupt” was not being used, he loved to use the word “obstruction.”I will tell Canadians what obstruction looks like. Obstruction looks like 101 days in a filibuster when we are talking about prorogation of the government. That is what obstruction looks like. I love looking at the member, because he is laughing. I think it is because he knows exactly what I am getting at. He knows. He has been in politics for over 30 years. He knows how to wing this. He knows when we are playing these games, and we know that when the member for Winnipeg North is coming to a committee, the plan is to filibuster. When some of the greatest speakers who can speak 700 or 800 times in Parliament are brought in, we know the government is bringing in the big guns to filibuster. I would like to commend my colleague for Winnipeg North because that is exactly the type of work that they are able to do. (1350)We have seen committee reports delayed. As the former chair of the status of women and as the former shadow minister of the status of women, I am really concerned that the defence committee could not table a report. Why it could not table a report, I think, has to do with the obstruction in committee. There has not just been obstruction in the Procedure and House Affairs committee. There has been obstruction in the committees for defence, ethics and any other committee in which the reports and information going forward are not to the liking of the government. That is just the type of thing that I have been seeing.I do a lot of outreach as well in my riding. When reflecting on this budget, what do we see and what is important? I like to go out and speak to my constituents. We do a lot of householders. We do a lot of mailers and get a lot of information back. I would say that we probably got the most information back ever from replies to our last householder. We looked at that data. Do not worry. We were not using Liberalist. We actually looked at this data in our own office to see what my constituents were saying. I did not send it off to somebody to ask them to please look at it analytically and then let us know, while targeting my voters. I actually wanted to hear what they have to say. It is not just about how I am going to get their vote the next time. I want to be sure that I am serving them with a purpose.However, 66% of our respondents believe there should be an increase in health care funding to the provinces. The government can talk about the funding put forward through this pandemic when it comes to health care. It did have to put some forward, but why? It was not prepared for a pandemic. It had taken some of the money and it had taken some of the programs. We know that the system to alert us of a coming pandemic and its impacts was not there. The information we should have been able to receive was not there because of some cuts and things they were doing while thinking that it was not important. Sixty-six percent of our respondents believe there needs to be more money put into this health care system, but in this budget we do not see an increase in health care. We can see some things when it comes to pandemic spending, but as the former speaker talked about, we need to look at long-term plans as well. They cannot just be short-term. They cannot just be about how we get people voting for us today. It is about how we can provide good lives and better opportunities for them.Coming from a farming community, one thing I always talk about is sowing the field. How do we prepare the field so that people can be the best crop possible? How do we encourage great growth? I look at all of these programs coming forward from the government and I am very concerned. What do we see for these people moving forward? I look at my son, who is 27 years old, and know that if he were to try to purchase a house in Elgin—Middlesex—London and put down the $20,000 he has been able to save, it would get him nothing. Why? It is because we have seen a 46% increase in housing prices in my area alone.Those are some of the things that I think the government needs to tackle, along with the fact that we see inflation going higher and higher. That inflation is going to impact us greatly, especially if the interest rates go up.I look at my own children who want to buy houses. The rates for getting a mortgage are awesome, but how can they buy houses when the prices start at almost half a million dollars? How are they ever going to get into the housing market and out of renting? I think that 55% of renters have been paying more in the last six months than they were before. How are people able to move forward and go up the housing ladder? How will they be able to go from being renters to being home owners and into those next homes for retirement? How will they be able to do that? I just do not see the path, unfortunately. I am very concerned with that.We have 73% of respondents who were concerned about Bill C-10, which we voted on last night. At about 1:30 a.m. we saw that some amendments went through. We also saw the bill pass, unfortunately. I can tell colleagues that in my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London this was an issue about which I heard from tons of my constituents. They said they did not want Bill C-10, and that they believed it needed to be amended. The amendments we put forward did not, unfortunately, go through.Finally, 86% of respondents were concerned about the level of debt in this budget. These are the types of things I talk about.BroadcastingBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Health TransferGovernment billsHousingPublic debtThird reading and adoptionDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am actually also looking right now on my screen at the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I am the former chair of the status of women committee. Last July we met on July 7 or July 8, I believe, before prorogation. We had a standing committee that worked really well together. It was a minority Parliament so we had a variety of different views. The member for London—Fanshawe was on the committee and we had members from the Toronto area. It was a really good mix.The report we would have tabled right before prorogation was fantastic, but it has a lot to do with what the interests are. We know in some committees there are topics we really want to work on and then there are committees that are a bit more partisan, so I absolutely agree with the member.It is always a delight to work with the member for Winnipeg North. He keeps us going.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1355)[English]The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London will have three and a half minutes for questions and comments when the House next gets back to debate on the question, should she wish to take them.KarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84882CoreyTochorCorey-TochorSaskatoon—UniversityConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TochorCorey_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersParliament HillInterventionMr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is something rotten on Parliament Hill. We have the Centre Block renovations that have become a big, black hole for Canadian taxpayers, with billions of dollars blown through already, over budget, delayed and literally just a big hole on Parliament Hill, and the Liberals are just getting started. It is now being reported that the once proud national symbol is being “green washed”. The Liberals want to cancel our centennial flame, symbolizing Canadian unity, which has been using Canadian natural gas since the start. The Liberals now want the flame to burn on garbage instead. They would rather truck in garbage dump gases from Montreal than use clean Canadian natural gas.When will the Liberals stop turning our national symbols into garbage? Canada is not a garbage dump, and the Liberals need to stop treating us like one. Biogas systemsCentennial FlameStatements by MembersTerrySheehanSault Ste. MarieMarie-FranceLalondeOrléans//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLabourInterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1405)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as Parliament is about to rise, allow me to thank the Chair, all the staff of the House and all my colleagues. It has been impressive to see how adaptable and resilient we are.This government must now find solutions so that our businesses can emerge from this crisis and share in the economic recovery. The labour shortage is alarming, and this government needs to stop making excuses and put tools in place, such as speeding up and relaxing immigration of workers. Businesses are the backbone of our economy; it would be a shame if they were hit by another crisis in the form of a labour shortage.The inefficiency of this government can be seen in its inability to find solutions. We must value work, not encourage passivity. I am urging this government to give a boost to Canadian businesses, which are threatened with bankruptcy. We simply need to give them access to labour; it is not complicated. Let us not forget that our businesses are what create economic prosperity, not this ethically deficient, centralizing Liberal government. This government needs to act now.Economic recoveryStatements by MembersKarenMcCrimmonKanata—CarletonPeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35886ChrisWarkentinChris-WarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WarkentinChris_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment PoliciesInterventionMr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has failed Canadians. My constituents in Peace Country are fed up with politicians who claim one thing to get elected and then impose an Ottawa-knows-best, one-size-fits-all fantasy solution to real-world problems. Peace Country residents have been hit hard by the Liberals' ongoing attack on Alberta's energy sector and the tripling of the carbon tax, and they cannot afford the hyperinflation the Liberals are currently manufacturing. My constituents want representation that actually cares who they are and what they believe, and the effective solutions they have. It is time for a government that will not pit one group of Canadians against another.Canadians are the solution; they have always been that. Canadians deserve a government that will encourage creativity, innovation, opportunity and prosperity rather than inhibit it through government control and unnecessary regulations. It is time for a government that will respect the people and will be focused on building a future for every Canadian, not just politicians and their friends.Parliamentary democracyStatements by MembersPeterFragiskatosLondon North CentreTerryDuguidWinnipeg South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersReopening of SchoolsInterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, last year, schools across the country received $2 billion in funding to see COVID-19 safety measures implemented before the school year began, including schools within SD38, the district where I once held the honour of serving as a board of education trustee.This year, schools are still facing uncertainty as the pandemic continues. I must bring to the government's attention that vaccines for people 12 years or older alone are not enough. Richmond schools require enhanced sanitization and staff to disinfect high-touch areas. They also need support for essential health and safety supplies and PPE, including child-sized masks and hand sanitizer.As well, with learners having been greatly impacted by the isolation, mental health supports for students and staff are also critical. There is still work to be done to prepare our nation for reopening and to ensure our children and youth have a safe return to school this fall.COVID-19PandemicSchoolsStatements by MembersTerryDuguidWinnipeg SouthJamesCummingEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersFort Edmonton ParkInterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to congratulate Fort Edmonton Management Company for the completion of the Fort Edmonton Park enhancement project, a $160-million project sponsored by the Government of Canada, the Province of Alberta and the City of Edmonton. As both a board member and an Edmontonian, I am proud to have played a small part in seeing this project come to life. Recognized as the largest living history museum in Canada, Fort Edmonton Park will reopen on July 1 with an upgraded utility work, an expanded 1920s midway, a new front entry plaza and, most important, the Indigenous Peoples Experience. This one-of-a-kind transformative experience will immerse our guests in indigenous customs and traditions and highlight the inspirational stories of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples who have resided on these lands for hundreds of thousands of years. The breathtaking and interactive exhibit tells the story of four seasons and the 13 moons, and is designed to be truly diverse and an inclusive representation of Canada's first peoples.I look forward to the impacts it will have on my community, the surrounding area of Edmonton and the rest of Canada.EdmontonInfrastructureStatements by MembersKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond EastMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment PoliciesInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has laid bare the state of our institutions. There is no governor general because of scandal. Eight senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces have resigned or have been forced out. We have military procurement systems that cannot procure, and we have payroll systems that cannot pay. We have a government that thought it appropriate a year ago to introduce legislation that would have suspended the powers of Parliament over taxation and spending until the end of this calendar year. We have a government that prorogued Parliament to shut down committee investigations. We have a government that continues to defy four orders of this House and its committee to hand over documents related to serious breaches at the Winnipeg lab, which is now preventing this Parliament from doing its job.The government is in contempt of Parliament. The government does not deserve another mandate. The government must go.Parliamentary democracyStatements by MembersAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the sexual misconduct scandal within the Canadian Armed Forces and the Minister of National Defence's indifference have gone from a crisis to a tragedy. This morning the ombudsman spoke about political interference, the absence of ministerial responsibility and cover-ups by the Liberals. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his actions?Canadian ForcesConduct at workOral questionsSexual behaviourKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the defence ombudsman said that the sexual misconduct cover-up in our military has gone from a crisis to a tragedy. He said the government's actions and failures have eroded trust in our military. Unlike the Prime Minister, the Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure our future and to restore accountability to Ottawa and institutions like our military. Rather than ask a question to have the Prime Minister read something back to me, I just want to say to Canadians, we will clean up this mess in Ottawa.Canadian ForcesConduct at workOral questionsSexual behaviourJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, the only hard work the Prime Minister has been delivering on is for his friends. Yesterday, we learned the Prime Minister forced almost all Liberal MPs to give taxpayer dollars to his lifetime friend Tom Pitfield. Mr. Pitfield is not just the Prime Minister's buddy; he is also married to the former Liberal Party president. It certainly pays to be a Liberal insider in Ottawa these days.We know of at least 149 contracts given to Mr. Pitfield. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no more government contracts went to him?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Prime Minister keeps track of is how his friends and insiders are doing, from SNC-Lavalin to WE to Mr. Pitfield. Mr. Pitfield is the Prime Minister's lifetime friend. He stood in the Prime Minister's wedding party. They even took an illegal trip to a billionaire's island together. Canadians cannot afford more of this insider dealing and corruption. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he never personally approved a contract with Tom Pitfield or Data Sciences?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, we will see if this sticks.There is a contract from the Prime Minister, in this pandemic, to his good friend Mr. Pitfield. His office also ensured that 148 other members of Parliament gave taxpayer money to the Prime Minister's lifetime friend. In the midst of a pandemic, Mr. Pitfield runs a Liberal list. People need to be on a Liberal list to be a judge in the Liberal government's Canada.Will the Prime Minister apologize today for putting the interests of his friends ahead of the interests of Canadians?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauJustinTrudeauRight Hon.Papineau//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians have come to expect the same thing from the Liberal government: constant scandals and ethical breaches and that Liberal insiders will always get the inside track. Now it has come out that Liberal MPs are funnelling taxpayer dollars to the Prime Minister's close friend Tom Pitfield, and for what? The Liberals do not even know. This could not fit the Liberal MO any better.Who coordinated this scheme for Liberal MPs to cut cheques to the Prime Minister's buddy?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinJustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government House leader holds me in such high esteem that after he shut down Parliament during a pandemic and his members supported the prorogation and filibustered across all kinds of committees, he wants to talk about me instead of talking about the fact that he and his colleagues are funnelling taxpayer dollars to support Liberal Party back office and black ops. As we have seen before, whenever there is a racket to be run in the government, we can be sure that those closest to the Prime Minister are involved.Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians who gave the order for Liberal MPs to funnel taxpayer money to the PM's pal?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is under fire again. This time, the military ombudsman, Gregory Lick, who reports directly to the minister, had this to say about the minister’s failure to act on military sexual misconduct: “When leaders turn a blind eye to our recommendations and concerns in order to advance political interests and their own self-preservation or career advancement, it is the members of the defence community that suffer the consequences”.Will the minister face reality, quit putting his own career ahead of the women and men in uniform, do the right thing and resign? Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know there have been two military ombudsmen who have said the defence minister has failed, and the defence minister refuses to acknowledge the anger of the victims, military members and his own ombudsman. The ombudsman was clear about the defence minister’s role in fanning the flames of the current crisis. He said:…the actions of the Minister of National Defence, senior government and military officials have bitterly proved this point. The erratic behaviour of leadership defies common sense or reason. The concept of Ministerial accountability has been absent. Has the minister finally gotten the message? For the good of the Canadian Armed Forces, will he please, please resign? Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Defence is in hot water again.The military ombudsman, Gregory Lick, who reports directly to the minister, had this to say about his failures to act on sexual misconduct in the Canadian Forces: “When leaders turn a blind eye to our recommendations and concerns in order to advance political interests and their own self-preservation or career advancement, it is the members of the defence community that suffer the consequences.”The minister continues to put his own interests ahead of those of Canadian Forces members. When will he resign?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the defence minister does not seem to grasp the seriousness of the problem. He refuses to even acknowledge the anger of the victims, the military and his own ombudsman.The ombudsman was clear about the minister's role, saying that he is the one who has been fuelling the problem. According to the ombudsman, “The erratic behaviour of leadership defies common sense or reason. The concept of ministerial accountability has been absent.”Does the minister understand that he has failed again? Will he do the right thing and resign?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the government is disobeying four binding orders of the House and its committee. The situation is getting worse by the day. Through its disobedience, the government is verging on defying the rule of law.What hope do we have as a democracy to counter the rise of authoritarianism if our own government undermines our democracy and the rule of law?Access to informationBiosafetyC-322, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (community benefit)ChinaInternational relationsLocal productsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaShop localPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, why do Canadians send 338 of their fellow citizens to this chamber if its decisions are ignored? Why do we spend $400 million a year on Parliament if our votes do not mean anything? Why are we spending billions of dollars on the buildings in this precinct if the processes and procedures here do not amount to anything? Why do we vote to adopt orders if the government is going to ignore them? When will the government show some respect for Parliament and follow the order of this House to produce the documents related to the breaches at its Winnipeg lab?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, wow, that was awkward. The Liberals have a panel of scientists that provided clear advice on benchmarks for lifting federal COVID-19 restrictions. Families who are separated across the border, tourism operators, and hotel, airline and airport employees all need these benchmarks in order to work and have hope. Many countries around the world have already done this. There is anger in the community that the Liberal government has not provided these benchmarks yet. I have a very simple question: When will the Liberals provide benchmarks for lifting federal COVID-19 restrictions?COVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the answer from the parliamentary secretary was really disrespectful to families who are separated across borders and to airline and airport employees, who just want a plan. They want benchmarks, and there is science to support those benchmarks. In fact, the government's own expert panel provided these benchmarks.The hotel quarantine program is not scientific. It is not based in any fact. People need hope. I am asking the parliamentary secretary to take the concerns of these groups really seriously, to resist the urge to provide that partisan response, and just explain to Canadians when the Liberals will provide benchmarks for lifting federal COVID-19 restrictions—COVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmploymentInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1445)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the job market gives us the worst of both worlds. On one hand, there are another half a million workers out of work. On the other hand, there are half a million vacant positions. According to a Statistics Canada report, there are more unfilled positions now than before the pandemic.Why did the government implement policies that prevent the unemployed from working?Labour policyOral questionsMaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmploymentInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member's heart bursts with so much generosity that he had no problem with the original CERB, which kicked people off benefits the second they dared earn more than $1,000. That is not compassion.Our people want paycheques, but what we are learning today is that we have the worst of both worlds. Not only are there half a million more people without jobs, but there are half a million jobs without workers. The Liberals, of course, have mismanaged the labour market policy to block Canadians from job opportunities. Why are they preventing Canadians who want a paycheque from getting one?Labour policyOral questionsSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment ProgramsInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada is still playing catch-up with the rest of the world because of the government's hapless vaccine procurement. Small businesses still do not know if they are going to lose a second summer season, and the government has not produced a pathway to normalcy, especially for small businesses that depend on an open border for tourism. I do not know how many times we have had to ask, and maybe today is going to be the day: Will this government finally table a real plan for a safe, permanent reopening?COVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicSeanFraserCentral NovaAnitaAnandHon.Oakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104653RichardLehouxRichard-LehouxBeauceConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LehouxRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPensionsInterventionMr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government promised seniors an increase in their pensions, and rightly so, since many of them struggled during the pandemic.However, to everyone’s surprise, it decided to give it only to those 75 years of age and older. Through its lack of logic, the government is creating two classes of seniors.What does the government have to say to Colette in Saint-Georges, who is 68, and to many other Beauce residents who are struggling financially? When will the Liberals do the right thing and make 65-year-olds eligible for the same increase? Old Age SecurityOral questionsSenior citizensAnitaAnandHon.OakvilleStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInternational DevelopmentInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, on August 3, 2014, the Prime Minister publicly committed that he would support a humanitarian initiative led by Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish named Heal100Kids, to get 100 Palestinian children from Gaza to Canada for medical treatment. Since then, the Liberal government has ignored repeated requests for follow-up and help. This type of inaction and broken promises, saying one thing to get elected and then not following through afterward, is something that Canadians have seen time and time again from the current Liberal government.When will the government stop ignoring Dr. Abuelaish's request for help and follow through on the Prime Minister's own commitment to provide these children with the assistance they need?ChildrenHealth care systemOral questionsPalestineRefugeesCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaKarinaGouldHon.Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, in a June 2020 industry committee meeting, a witness from CSIS highlighted how today's spies wear “lab coats, not just trench coats”. The Liberal government is withholding documents concerning two federal scientists connected to the Chinese military, one of whom oversaw virus transfers to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Canadians deserve answers.Will the Liberals finally release documents this House has demanded and ordered four times, or will the cover-up continue?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaKarinaGouldHon.BurlingtonJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63908BernardGénéreuxBernard-GénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GénéreuxBernard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is continuing its cover-up by preventing us, the parliamentarians, from getting all the facts about the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg.Yesterday, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons even insulted the law clerk and parliamentary counsel by stating that he did not have the necessary training or expertise to assess the documents we requested.Will the Liberals respect the will of the House, or will they brandish the threat of a hasty election in the hope that this will all blow over?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgePabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the issue of gun violence, after the tragic Etobicoke shooting that seriously injured an 11-year-old, a five-year-old and a one-year-old, the minister of public safety stated that his government's approach to banning firearms owned by law-abiding citizens would curb such violence, yet his government introduced Bill C-22, which weakens penalties for gun crimes by eliminating mandatory minimum sentences.Can the minister of public safety please explain how weakening penalties for gun crimes somehow reduces gun crime?C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances ActOral questionsSentencingCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I represent a border community, I hear daily from families and business owners who need to cross the border. This requires a 14-day quarantine, a three-day lockdown and substandard fare, all at their own expense. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister enjoys 12 hours in a posh hotel of his choosing at the taxpayers' expense. There is one set of rules for regular Canadians and another for him and his entourage.When will the Prime Minister present a plan to safely reopen the borders?BordersCOVID-19Oral questionsPandemicQuarantine of personsTravel restrictionsBillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, my riding of Red Deer—Mountain View is now almost fully open, despite the Liberal government's total failure to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We have succeeded because we are Albertans. Not only is Alberta now leading the way when it comes to vaccinations and reopening our economy, but we are poised to lead the way for an economic recovery across Canada providing the Liberal government gets out of the way.Why does the Liberal government ignore Alberta's leadership role and continually punish it with draconian measures like Bill C-69?AlbertaEnvironmental assessmentOil and gasOral questionsJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeAnitaAnandHon.Oakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week I hosted a parliamentary press conference on the censorship of Canadian doctors and medical experts. Their testimony was truly shocking. Unfortunately, Facebook stopped my livestream in mid-conference. Despite this, the full press conference is now the most-viewed video in history on CPAC's YouTube channel, with over 500,000 views. However, Facebook and Twitter are still restricting the sharing of this video on their platforms. Given the importance to democracy of Canadians seeing official parliamentary functions, does the minister denounce this censorship by big tech?CensorshipNews conferencesOral questionsSocial networking sitesJonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I mentioned in my question, I had a parliamentary press conference that was censored by Facebook. People have reached out to me to say that they are unable to share it. That is problematic. Anything that goes on in the House should be able to be shared freely by Canadians. I would like to seek unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that the House of Commons itself and the Parliament of Canada are a bastion of democracy and free speech; that members of Parliament enjoy special parliamentary privileges overseeing their ability to speak freely in Parliament, to discharge their duties freely and without constraint; that any Canadian seeking to share digital content of parliamentary functions should be able to do so freely and without constraint; that the government must strongly defend the rights of parliamentarians against the outside interference of social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter; and I call on the government to recognize that any potential suppression of information or censorship of parliamentary events, such as official press conferences, must not be allowed to happen and to officially sanction Facebook and Twitter for their actions.CensorshipLeave to propose a motionMotionsPoints of orderSocial networking sitesAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of International Development may want to correct her comments. She said some things that were misleading to the House. She suggested that I had not ever previously raised the plight of Palestinian people from a humanitarian perspective. I will draw her attention to my intervention at committee on June 3 of this year as well as a speech I gave in the House on June 12 of—Members' remarksAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersEthics Commissioner Report in Relation to Member for Don Valley EastInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Ind.): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the recently released report of the Ethics Commissioner. My intention is not to comment on his conclusion and recommendations, but rather to help put the situation in context. The past many months have been difficult, to say the least, for me and my family. They have indeed been a struggle, and I am grateful to family, friends, colleagues and individual Canadians who have supported me through this ordeal. I would like to thank the thousands of supporters who have believed in me and encouraged me to stay strong. I would also like to thank the various multi-faith groups and ecumenical groups that I have worked with, the constituents of Don Valley East and the numerous well-wishers for their support. As well, I would like to thank the senators and MPs who have stood by me and guided me.As I read through the report, something very obvious jumped out at me. It gave me reason to pause. With the encouragement of many Muslim scholars and ecumenical friends, I have decided to speak in the House. The Ethics Commissioner's report states, “Ms. Khatri was not considered a family member for the purposes of the Code.” He says the evidence gathered is that “Ms. Khatri is in fact her foster sister", and that Ms. Khatri is neither my biological nor adopted sister.He further goes on to state:Ms. Ratansi did not appear to have furthered her own private interests or those of a member of her family since the Code does not include siblings in its definition of “family members.”She submits that the documentary evidence provided shows that there is no legal bond between her and Ms. Khatri, including for the purposes of the By-law...[and the] relationship falls outside the applicable definitions in the Code and the By-law as presently worded.Further on he states that the code is ambiguous and that “as a principle of natural justice, the applicable provisions should be given their narrow meaning.” He also states:...if the provisions defining ‘immediate family’ are not clear and unequivocal, then any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the person who is the subject of the inquiry.I accept Ms. Ratansi’s...claim, as well as her argument that Ms. Khatri, as her foster sister, may not legally be considered as her sister or, by the same token, qualify as a member of her “immediate family” within the meaning of the By-law.However, since I refer to Ms. Khatri as a sister in keeping with Islamic cultural practices and my father's personal wishes, he concludes that, despite all evidence to the contrary, she is a sister. Many Muslim scholars, my interfaith community and members of the Muslim community have called me and asked me to provide some reference to Islamic practices. What does Islam teach about the treatment of orphans? Calling someone a “brother” or “sister” is a dignified way of referring to other Muslims who are not related, especially when dealing with orphans. My moral and ethical conduct is underpinned by these Islamic values and practices, and as such, I believe that when we house an orphan or a guest of any denomination, that human being is accorded the same dignity and treatment as that of a brother or sister and is addressed as such. This is particularly important in the case of orphans. It maintains their dignity and avoids social taboos. Anyone who has interacted with Muslims knows that one is referred to as a sister or a brother as part of Islamic ethos. Therefore, my supporters felt that, within the current context of Islamophobia and a misunderstanding of Islam, I should provide some insight into Islamic norms. (1535)The community members have also proposed that decision-makers at different levels of Parliament be sensitized to the culture, traditions and ethos of Islam, which, as an Abrahamic faith, is not well understood. I hope the information I impart will enable people to make informed decisions in the future. To help understand how important it was for my father to inculcate the Islamic ethos, I will quote some Hadiths, or sayings, of the holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He said, “The best house among the Muslims is one which contains an orphan who is well treated. The worst house among the Muslims is one which contains an orphan who is badly treated.” The prophet goes on to say, “One who looks after the orphan, whether he is his relative or not, he and I would be together in paradise like this”, and he brought his index finger and middle fingers together. I found similar sentiments being expressed in the Old Testament and the New Testament saying that God has mandated that caring for the orphan be an important act of charity and a holy duty.In Islam, an orphaned child has a very important place. There are multiple verses of the noble Quran where the almighty Allah talks about treating orphans. One has to look at chapter 2, Surah Al-Baqarah; chapter 4, Surah An-Nisa; and chapter 17, Surah Al-Isra, where Allah enjoins upon believers to be kind to the orphan and look after them as their own children, to be a merciful father toward the orphan, and to be good to orphans and never treat them harshly.In societies in which the values of the Quran are not observed, this concept may be foreign. It is therefore important to appreciate how Muslims view the treatment of orphans. Believers take the issue of the treatment of orphans very seriously as Allah prohibits subjecting orphans to harsh treatment and condemns those who mistreat them.My late father instilled in us these very important Islamic values, including treating every human being as a brother or sister in faith or in humanity, showing compassion, always maintaining the dignity of another human being, and ensuring that we strive to improve the situation in life of orphans and bring them up as decent individuals. This is who I am. I will not demean anyone's dignity.Calling Ms. Khatri a sister is a privilege that I cherish and that Islam has taught me. I would never give these Islamic principles up, no matter the misinformation, the slander and the media circus. Despite Ms. Khatri's agreeing to provide the Ethics Commissioner with proof of her relationship to me, I would like to personally apologize to her for the indignity this particular incident has caused her. As for those who slander, there are many verses in the Quran and in all Abrahamic traditions that say that, for those who slander and throw ridicule, God will throw it back to them.A further lesson provided is that of the eagle and raven. The raven is the only bird that dares to peck at the eagle's neck. However, the eagle does not react. It does not fight back. It does not spend time and energy with the raven. Instead, it opens up its wings and begins to fly higher in the sky. The higher the flight, the harder it is for the raven to breathe, and the raven eventually falls to the ground due to lack of oxygen.(1540)We as parliamentarians face many ravens, internal and external. As we try to do our jobs to better the lives of our constituents and Canadians, let us be like the eagles and fly high and avoid the temptation of the slanderous ravens. I encourage members to stop wasting time with the ravens. Just take them to our height, and they will fade away. I have personally taken this advice very seriously. As I continue to serve my constituents, I know that the ravens will lose oxygen and fade away.My sincere hope is that this short exposé to Islamic practices and cultures will enable us to be better parliamentarians and put our words into practice. We as Canadians claim diversity is our strength, but when faced with diversity, we have yet to learn how to incorporate it into our decision-making process. I hope that my speaking here today may in some small way contribute to changing this, and, in the future, that if anyone is ever in the same position as I was, they will be judged differently.Conflict of interestConflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of CommonsFamilies and childrenIslam and MuslimsKhatri, PoonamMembers of Parliament staffOrphans and orphanagesAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, the budget references rural and remote communities. I have a very large rural riding and so does the member. I am wondering if he wants to comment further about what this budget would do or, in my opinion, would not do for rural and remote communities. Maybe he has something he would like to share with the House that will benefit rural and remote Canadians.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsRemote communitiesRural communitiesThird reading and adoptionLarryBagnellHon.YukonLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister thinks he has discovered a cornucopia of cash. In the last fiscal year he ran a deficit of $354 billion. From February 2020 until February 2021, the Bank of Canada increased the money supply by, guess what, $354 billion. The Prime Minister thinks this is great: It is easy money. He is starting to get addicted to this idea of cash flying out of printing machines and new coins being machine-gunned off the top floor of the Bank of Canada building, only a few minutes from where we stand. I raise this today because there is a very interesting debate that is not happening, for which the deadline is quickly approaching, about the Bank of Canada's inflation target. Starting in 1991, the bank and the government signed a deal that inflation would be targeted between 1% and 3%. They called it the “monetary policy framework”: These are sleepy, boring words that may impact the financial health of Canadians more than anything else that happens here in Parliament. That deal to target inflation renews every five years. It comes up for renewal on October 24 of this year. The Prime Minister has made it clear he is going to call an early election during the summer, meaning that if he were to win he would be able to impose a brand new rule about inflation without Canadians having anything to say about it. I suspect that 99% of Canadians do not even realize this is up for debate, but here is why it matters.If the Prime Minister were to change the bank's mandate this coming October, he could begin to permanently fund larger shares of government spending with printed Bank of Canada cash even if it leads to above 3% inflation, as we have right now. That would have been impossible prior to the pandemic. Based on agreements with the bank, we as Canadians were protected from undue price increases and unacceptable and unjustifiable money creation, but with the renewal of this agreement, about which there has been absolutely no debate in the House of Commons or at the finance committee, the Prime Minister may be able to carry out the biggest unapproved tax increase in Canadian history: the inflation tax.What is the inflation tax? It is very simple. When the Bank of Canada creates cash to fund the government, it provides the government with a new revenue source. Last year, cash newly created by the Bank of Canada was the single-greatest source of revenue for the government. It was not income tax, the GST, tariffs or even borrowing from private sector lenders, but new cash creation that constituted a $303 billion source of revenue for the current government. The Prime Minister might like to see this go on into the future. The problem is that, like all taxes, it increases costs for Canadians. This tax would be paid in the form of higher prices. The price of housing went up by 30%. The prices of food, lumber, automobiles and transportation have all broken recent records. That is naturally what we can expect when the government floods the marketplace with cheap money. When money is cheap, everything else suddenly gets expensive.We might ask if it is viewed as a tax by the experts. Let me quote the experts. I will go through them one at a time.In a 1978 lecture, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman stated:There has never been in history an inflation that was not accompanied by an extremely rapid increase in the quantity of money. There has never in history been an extremely rapid increase in the quantity of money without inflation....(1615) This is why Dr. Friedman wrote, in his exhaustive study entitled “A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960”, that “inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon”. He also said that “inflation is taxation without legislation”, thereby violating the basic principle that Parliament should approve every single tax before government is able to apply it.Some might say that this is just a classical economist view. Let us take a look at John Maynard Keynes, who is obviously not a classical economist. He said:By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some.This has been demonstrably proven. Inflation does benefit the extremely wealthy. That is why, in the last year of inflationary money printing, we saw a large increase in economic disparity between the rich and the poor. In the first six months of the central bank's money-printing bonanza, the 28 richest Canadians got 32% richer. That happened while our economy was tumbling by $120 billion.Where did they get all the money from? The bank created cash, which inflated the assets of the super-rich while devaluing the wages of the working poor. This is one of the reasons we have the principle of no taxation without representation: It is not simply to approve the quantity of taxes, but the composition of taxes. Quantity refers to the dollar value. Of course, that was gargantuan last year, but composition refers to who pays it.We know that the poor overwhelmingly pay the inflation tax. In fact, the governor of the Bank of Canada conceded that point to me when he came before the finance committee. He said the poor pay more in inflation because they deal more in cash. They are not able to hold their limited wealth in inflation-proof assets, like gold, land, stocks, bonds, etc. Therefore, the very small amount of money they have gets nibbled away by this silent thief we call inflation.No one in this chamber would be able to get re-elected if they stood in their place and voted for an increase in taxes on the working poor and used the money disproportionately to inflate the wealth of the super-rich. That is why no such vote was held. The government simply passed that process on to the Bank of Canada to let money creation do the dirty deed on its behalf.I will return to Dr. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Laureate, who said, “Inflation is the only form of taxation that can be levied without any legislation.” He was, of course, speaking as an economist. I will show the deliberate choice that the inflation tax has made and that has done so without the parliamentary approval of Canadians. I will show it by referring to the undeniable empirical evidence that Dr. Friedman produced.He showed that, in the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany and Brazil, there was a perfect correlation between the rise in the consumer price index and the increase in the money supply for each unit of economic output. In other words, in all five of those countries on four continents, inflation rose almost perfectly in line with the growth in the money supply. That is empirical evidence proving beyond a doubt that when we create cash, we raise prices to the benefit of the rich and at the expense of the poor. Modern financial sector experts say the same. HSBC's senior economic adviser, Stephen King, wrote in The Financial Times last year that “inflation and taxes are, in many ways, simply two sides of the same coin”. He further said that this is because “higher-than-anticipated inflation serves to redistribute wealth away from private creditors, pensioners for example, to public debtors. At this point, we come full circle: the distinction between the printing press and taxes begins to break down.” (1620)Warren Buffett, the greatest investor of all time, said: The arithmetic makes it plain that inflation is a far more devastating tax than anything that has been enacted by our legislature. The inflation tax has a fantastic ability to simply consume capital. It makes no difference to a widow with her savings in a 5 percent passbook account whether she pays 100 percent income tax on her interest income during a period of zero inflation, or pays no income taxes during years of 5 percent inflation. Either way, she is “taxed” in a manner that leaves her no real income whatsoever. Any money she spends comes right out of capital. She would find outrageous a 120 percent income tax, but doesn't seem to notice that 5 percent inflation is the economic equivalent. Let us say that a widow has $100,000 of savings. If she earns 5% on that, and if inflation is 5%, then she gains nothing. All of her savings income is vaporized by inflation. That would be the equivalent of the Parliament of Canada passing a bill effectively taxing her at a rate of 100% on all of her savings income, something we would never do but yet something that ultimately happens because the central bank does it without politicians being held accountable. Mr. Buffett's business partner, the famous Charlie Munger, said:I think democracies are prone to inflation because politicians will naturally spend excessively, they have the power to print money and will use money to get votes. If you look at inflation under the Roman Empire, with absolute rulers, they had much greater inflation, so we don't set the record. It happens over the long-term under any form of government.Onward to John Kenneth Galbraith, a famous Canadian economist on the left, who said, “Nothing so weakens government as persistent inflation.”Other international economists, Nouriel Roubini and David Backus, wrote, “Note that since the government, by printing money, acquires real goods and services, seigniorage is effectively a tax imposed by the government on private agents. Such a seigniorage tax is also called the inflation tax.” They go on to explain what impact that tax has, particularly on the poorest people.This is not simply an opinion. This is a mathematical fact backed up by some of the most renowned economists on planet earth, many of them winning the Nobel Prize for their work, many of them having done hundreds of years of empirical research that proves the taxation effect of inflation. These are the insights of some of the world's best-ever investors. They all concur that inflation, when created by central bank money creation, is nothing more than a tax.This kind of a tax has been mostly done by the worst possible leaders. We think of Henry VIII, for example. They used to call Henry VIII “Old Coppernose”, and that is because, despite the fact that he inherited a monstrous fortune from his father, and I do not know if that reminds members of anybody, he spent the cupboard bare. He kept running out of money, and the British pound, which was literally a pound of silver, was becoming more and more scarce to him. He needed more coins, but he did not have enough silver to make them all, so what he did was melt down the existing coins and reconstitute them by making them of copper but putting a tiny, thin layer of silver around the outside. He had his face, of course, on the coin because he was an egomaniac, and his face pointed outward from the coin; it was not a profile picture. Because his nose protruded on the coin, it would rub against the inside of pockets and money sacks and the silver would rub away, leaving nothing but a red copper nose. Everybody would know that King Henry had given them a fraudulent, fake silver coin by virtue of the fact that his nose was red. We often say politicians' fibs can be exposed through the length of their nose. In the case of Henry VIII, it was the colour of his nose. (1625)In fact, he did undergo the mass debasement of the currency. Originally, when he took reign, the British pound was 92% silver. It dropped to 75%, then 50%, then 33% and finally to 25% by 1551. His successor brought it down further. The result was, ultimately, that the amount of silver in each coin dropped by about 87%, and guess what happened to the prices. They rose by about 75%. Things got more and more expensive. Life got better for him. Of course, he was known for having the king's disease, gout, which people get from massive self-indulgence, orgies of food and drink. Therefore, life was very good in the king's court because he had created all of this fake cash that enriched him and his friends, but it was terrible for the peasants and the common people who actually did the work of the land. They got poorer and poorer as their money got more and more worthless. That is the inflation tax, so this Prime Minister of ours teaches us nothing new. This is not a new concept. In fact, if we look throughout history on these matters of economics, we see that leaders make the same mistakes over and over again. As Kipling would say: That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire—Therefore, we get burned again and again by making the same mistakes of our predecessors. That brings me back to the Bank of Canada. The bank recently has been talking about all kinds of different things that have nothing to do with its mandate. For example, the former governor Stephen Poloz regularly commented on things that were completely out of his domain, inappropriately commenting on social policy when he proposed government takeover of child care. That is well out of the realm of the Bank of Canada's mandate. We have seen recent comments by governors and deputy governors of the Bank of Canada on everything from fiscal policy to environmental policy to a whole plethora of things that find their place nowhere within the bank's mandate. Even on the bank's website, Paul Beaudry, a deputy governor, talks about, in his words, “the great reset”, whatever that means. He believes this is part of the Bank of Canada's mandate, and of course it is not. The worry is that the bank will simply become a political instrument for the agenda of a left-wing government, trying to do undemocratically what it could never convince Canadians to support democratically. Canadians would never support a massive tax increase on the poor in order to fund the ideological fantasies and the enrichment of the super rich and the super elite. That is why we in Parliament have to reclaim our powers, the powers that have been invested in this chamber and in its predecessor chambers in the mother Parliament for 800 years: that governments, including central banks, cannot tax what the commoners have not approved; that the principle of responsible government remains; that Parliament reigns supreme; that citizen goes before state and commoner ahead of Crown.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsInflationMonetary policyTaxationThird reading and adoptionLarryBagnellHon.YukonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, once again, we have an example of a Liberal judging his success by how expensive he can be. If we look at the other countries that responded to COVID, they managed to deliver better results. They managed to deliver better COVID outcomes and lower unemployment with significantly smaller deficits. In fact, we have the largest deficit, as a share of GDP, anywhere in the G20. In fact, we had a bigger deficit last year, as a share of GDP adjusted for inflation, than we did in World War I, in the Great Depression and in the great global recession.What the government is building us toward is a debt crisis. It has massively inflated the housing market by flooding the mortgage system with printed cash. It is now creating consumer price inflation, and our $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and government debt will “debtonate” if interest rates rise before our debt ratios come down.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1630)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.The problem is that all of the other parties measure success as a function of how much it costs. Personally, I measure results based on people’s quality of life. For example, Taiwan, Singapore and Australia spent far less than Canada and had far fewer COVID-related deaths. Moreover, their unemployment rates are far lower than Canada's.It is true that the Liberals’ approach is the most expensive among all the G7 countries, but that does not mean that we received the best product. If someone pays more for a car, that does not mean that it is a better car. Personally, I want value for our taxpayers; I want the best outcome for the lowest price. That is the Conservatives’ approach.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, we do support going after people who do not pay what they owe, especially the richest. The member is quite right: The richest are making off like bandits when it comes to tax evasion in this country, despite the rhetoric from the other side. However, I would point out that it is actually not profits that are most enriching the wealthy; it is capital gains. It is the monstrous increases in capital gains that have resulted from flooding the economy with $350 billion of new Monopoly money. That money has gone into asset price inflation, making the rich vastly richer and creating a kind of aristocratic feudal economy, as opposed to a free market, bottom-up economy.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsTax evasionTax loopholesThird reading and adoptionMatthewGreenHamilton CentreTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative and well-researched intervention on inflation. From meeting with manufacturers, importers and retailers, I have heard a lot about a number of new regulatory burdens that have either just come into effect or are about to come into effect and concerns about pricing, product availability and Canada's competitiveness.I am wondering if the member could speak to how regulatory burdens may affect inflation.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCompetitionGovernment billsInflationRegulationThird reading and adoptionPierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, they can affect it very drastically. For example, I think the member has been looking into new appliance regulations that would make the appliances that Canadians buy far more expensive than the same appliances that are available south of the border, even though we live in an integrated market for those same products.By the way, big corporations do not pay the cost of regulations; they pass it all on to their workers in reduced wages and on to consumers in higher prices. In fact, many of the biggest companies love regulation, because they can use it to shut out their competition by making it more and more difficult and more and more expensive for other entrepreneurs to get into the field.What does that mean? Less competition always means higher prices for consumers and lower wages and fewer career opportunities for workers.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCompetitionGovernment billsInflationRegulationThird reading and adoptionTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountrySébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1635)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the member did not use my name. He simply mentioned the official name of the currency that I am going to create in the future. If the Bloc Québécois opposes that currency, then I will be able to say that it was a Bloc member who suggested that the Conservatives create a currency bearing my last name. It would be a currency that maintains its value, that workers would appreciate and that would enable them to buy more. That is the best idea I have ever heard here in the House.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsInflationMonetary policyTaxationThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya (Markham—Unionville, CPC): (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about Bill C-30, the budget implementation act. I realize this will probably be my last speech before an election. Before I get to the budget, I would like to acknowledge that it is an honour to represent the people of Markham—Unionville in Parliament. When I first came to this country over 45 years ago, I barely spoke English and never imagined representing my community on the town council, let alone in Parliament. I want to thank my community for its continued support. COVID-19 will be an event people will talk about for generations. A virus ground the whole world to a halt and killed millions. No government was truly prepared, and politicians were put in a position where they needed to make important calls quickly instead of waiting years to address the problem. In come countries, politicians rose to the occasion and worked with one another to help their country overcome the pandemic. In other countries, governments kept people in the dark about the pandemic, denied there was a problem and turned every decision into political showmanship. It is clear that Canada was in the second category.In this budget, the Liberal government is planning to double down on many of its terrible ideas. Instead of focusing on what Canadians need to get back on their feet, the Liberals are looking for ways to spend on their priorities. Of course, those priorities always include making Liberal insiders a boatload of money. So far, the consultant and lobbyist business has never been better for people with a connection to the Prime Minister. The Liberals' priorities are adding billions of dollars to the debt that we cannot afford. We know that when Liberal MPs defend their Prime Minister's spending spree, they like to slip into technical terms that make it hard to follow. I am going to try to do the opposite and make my points easy to follow.When I came to this country, I pinched every penny. I was an Indian teen with almost no English, and finding a job was not easy. Every dollar I spent mattered. I made a lot of tough decisions in those days about what I could go without. That meant a lot of cheese sandwiches. When I started my family, I had to continue making tough decisions. We could not spend more money than we earned. I remember sitting down with my wife Roopa multiple times and deciding to save for the children's education or for rainy days rather than taking a vacation. For us, education was the most important thing. That education included teaching my children about budgeting. I believe that the hard decisions I made with Roopa at the kitchen table paid off. My eldest child, Rohin, is a physician now, and I could not be more proud of his success. The savings I put aside when he was still a baby helped him afford his medical education. His wife Preoli is a dentist with a very similar story. My other son, Tarun, went to university and now works in the provincial government. He also used what he learned in school in business. My daughter Shalin was recently accepted into a law program. All of these events proved to my wife and me that saving had been the right choice. We had gone without many of the things we wanted, but we had the money we needed when tuition was due for our children. (1645)I know that Liberals hate it when Conservatives compare balancing the budget with balancing the household. The Liberals say that it is much more complicated than that. While the federal budget is more complicated, the basic facts remain the same. When money is borrowed, someone is on the hook for it. That may come as a shock to some members of this House. Every time there is a vote in this House to spend money, I think about who pays. Years ago when people talked about the budget, they would say that the government should overspend in the bad years to stimulate the economy, and in the good years the government should pay off the debts. That way, the next time things took a turn for the worse, there would be money ready to stimulate the economy again.The Liberal government has abandoned that way of thinking. It wants Canadians to believe that no government has to pay anything back, that through careful planning the government could juggle the debts forever and have all the benefits of overspending with none of the drawbacks. It is a terrible plan.COVID-19 proved that governments need to have room to spend. Without government support, many Canadians would have been bankrupted by COVID-19. I know that even with some government support, many small businesses did not make it. The pandemic has raised our debt to new heights. When we vote on spending money in Parliament, we need to remember that we must be ready for the next crisis. That means not spending more than we can afford now.The Minister of Finance has said:Canada is a young, vast country, with a tremendous capacity for growth. This budget would fuel that. These are investments in our future and they will yield great dividends. In fact, in today's low-interest rate environment, not only can we afford these investments, it would be shortsighted of us not to make them.That it would be “short-sighted of us not to make them” is an interesting statement. I wonder if the Minister of Finance can name a time when spending more than we have was short-sighted. The Liberal government seems to believe that more spending is always necessary. Just look at the promise the Prime Minister made in 2015: that the budget would be balanced in no time, with just a couple of small deficits and then smooth sailing. The promises of responsible spending have been nothing more than hollow words. I am going to get back to who pays. Most Canadians probably do not realize how much Canada is paying for its borrowing. Even with low interest rates, it is well over $20 billion. The Prime Minister's plan to add more to our national debt than all previous prime ministers combined will grow the interest payments to new heights.The Prime Minister told everyone that budgets balance themselves. If he is still under this belief, let me assure him that this is not the case. When we do nothing to tackle the debt and spending, things get worse. People are told to avoid these sorts of debt traps in their personal life. The Liberals think adding historically high debt is responsible. Their plan requires Canadians to think that debt is a problem far into the future, that Canadians will be okay with giving debt to the next generation. For me, that is unacceptable.I came to this country for a better life. I knew this was a place where people could raise a family and have their children succeed. The last thing I would want to do is hand them a debt bomb that they and their children will need to deal with. When I talk to Markham residents, I hear the same thing. People work very hard so that their children will have a better life than they have. They do not want to set up their children for hard times.(1650)A debt crisis always ends in hard times with either tax hikes or cuts to services, or both. The new taxes in the budget are puny compared to the spending. To raise the money needed to put a dent in the debt, the Liberals would need to double some of these taxes every year. Liberal tax hikes make it more unaffordable to support a family. Canadians cannot afford to pay more. Some people think inflation is a solution, but that is a mistake. It is a tax on everything, and it will make it even harder to borrow money.The other option of cutting services has been done before. In the nineties, the Liberal government, in the middle of a debt crisis, went to the bank to borrow money, but no one was interested in lending it to them. To get their books in order, the Liberals took a chainsaw to government spending. One of the things they cut was the health care spending. The effects of those cuts are still felt to this day. Does anyone think health care in Canada can take another cut? I do not. I was shocked, like many Canadians, that health care was not a huge part of this budget. Emergency rooms across the country were stretched to their limit over the past two years. Essential surgeries were put off because hospitals were COVID-19 hot spots. It takes a long time to deal with the backlog of the procedures. The provinces need help from the federal government to address health care, but the Liberals do not seem to care. This mess can be fixed. The way to get ahead of the debt problem is to get the spending under control now. The government cannot kick this problem down the road.This budget and plan for the future will create more problems and make life more difficult for Canadians in the future. That is why I will be voting against this budget.Balanced budgetBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsHealth care systemInflationPublic debtThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, let me say to the member for Markham—Unionville that I have heard his story. He came to this country. He has been everything from a labourer, to a salesperson, to an entrepreneur. He is also a husband and a dad, and his values are Canadian values. When this gentleman stands to talk about what value for money is, folks in my area would agree with this member. We cannot always be spending more than we have, and if we are, we have to think of the next generation.Could the member point out one thing that the government needs to do better on in regard to its budgeting?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionBobSaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleBobSaroyaMarkham—Unionville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, it is simple, and it is the borrowing. Borrowing in our personal life is no different than that of the government spending. It is just like anybody bringing in $200,000 a year who keeps spending $300,000 a year, year over year. How long will it be until the bank comes to knock at the door?Yes, we do need to spend money. Yes, we do look into the small and medium-sized businesses. Yes, we have to make sure they are taken care of, but in the meantime, we must keep in mind balancing the books at the end of day. We want to make sure that government spends what it needs to spend and balances the books at the end of the day.Balanced budgetBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaScottAitchisonParry Sound—Muskoka//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, I really did enjoy my hon. colleague's comments. He spoke about the importance of government spending when necessary and having the ability to pay off the debt so it can, in fact, spend. I am wondering if he could talk to us about good debt versus bad debt.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionBobSaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleBobSaroyaMarkham—Unionville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, there is good spending versus bad spending. In the beginning of the pandemic, the Liberals were announcing 10% for the small and medium-sized businesses. We fought with them to make sure we allowed them 70% of their wages on rent and other things. That was good spending and those were good debts.I read in the newspaper that they are creating $446 billion in debt and, on their priorities, 87% of the debt money is not going toward the right priorities, which are small and medium-sized businesses.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, it is the same thing. A debt is a debt, even if borrowing against Canada. Every Canadian household is on the hook for this $446 billion. The money needs to be paid back. The money the government is printing is on the people. Every family will owe $78,000, as the government borrowed that kind of money.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my friend on the other side. He absolutely makes sense. There is that good debt when we were fighting to pay $1,500 to students and many other things.However, we are more concerned with the 87% of the total debt created. Where did that money go? It was to the government's own priorities, but we will probably find out when we get to be government next year.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicPublic debtThird reading and adoptionSukhDhaliwalSurrey—NewtonDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's interventions in this debate. As a country, we are facing a number of things. Obviously, we are dealing with a pandemic, but we also need to be thinking about our aging demographics and the fact that so many people are going to need things such as health care, which puts more pressure on our tax base to be able to pay for all the spending that is going on now. It is more important than ever that we build productive infrastructure and make investments for the long term. Would the member agree with that?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsHealth care systemThird reading and adoptionBobSaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleBobSaroyaMarkham—Unionville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, there is not much in this budget for the future. We know the population is aging, and we need much more money. As we have seen in the last 18 months, the hospitals were COVID hot spots. Surgeries were delayed and, in some cases, are still delayed. When Stephen Harper was in the government, we increased the health care sector year over year, but from these Liberals there is nothing in the budget for health care.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsHealth care systemThird reading and adoptionDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaJamesCummingEdmonton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, the member should be incredibly proud of that intervention, his family, and all he has done and brought to this country.I have a simple question for you. How concerned are you for those kids of yours, with the massive amount of debt the government is accumulating?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionBobSaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58878BobSaroyaBob-SaroyaMarkham—UnionvilleConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SaroyaBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Bob Saroya: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not only concerned about my kids, I am also concerned about all Canadians throughout the country. The debt created by the government is $446 billion and another $437 billion from the last 149 years. All our future generations are on the hook. I really feel sorry for them, and the government should look into balancing the books.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I am terribly disappointed with the conduct of the government, and Canadians should be as well. The Liberals rushed their Bill C-12 through to committee. The committee decided that it did not want to hear from Canadians and ignored the majority of the briefs. The MP for Saanich—Gulf Islands, as well as members of the environment committee, were quite frankly ashamed to see Canadians ignored. Now, the government, because of its absolute mismanagement of the House calendar, is coming and invoking closure.I cannot believe the New Democratic Party is going to be supporting this, but I wanted to ask how the government can justify using closure on a bill of this magnitude and denying the ability of parliamentarians on both sides of the House to hold the government to account.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050ClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1715)[English]Madam Speaker, we are here debating closure on a very important topic. It is top of mind for all Canadians. As we have already heard other members say, the bill was rammed through committee and the government did not consider all the reports at committee. I am on the natural resources committee. We have been hearing from numerous witnesses across multiple studies that the government does not even have complete data on the amount of carbon that we sequester here, and there does not appear to be any commitment to make sure we are getting that data.What is going to be done to make sure this will be achieved as we move toward the path that the government is ramming through on Canadians?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050ClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateJonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister said in the House at second reading of Bill C-12 that he was willing to work with all considerations from other parties. We asked for industry representation on the advisory board and he said he was open to that. Then he said that the Liberals were open to working with all parties regarding amendments. He also said that the Liberals supported a Bloc motion to have parliamentary review, which was not true. It was not something that happened. The Liberals voted against it. Today in the House, he said that there was an NDP milestone amendment, but the Green Party representative said this was not factual either.Why are the minister and his party constantly in contradiction with the actual truth? Are we are having closure right now because they want to evade all accountability and pretend they are taking action on climate? Why does the minister always have to correct himself when he is found out?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050ClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateJonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister continues the myth that this has been about Conservatives filibustering this bill. There was barely six hours of debate when they jammed this through to committee, and then the committee decided to accelerate it, so 70 plus briefs were not even considered before amendments. The minister favours an approach of not listening. Now he is putting down closure. He is actually stopping members of his own caucus from being able to talk about an important piece of legislation.Why does the minister have such contempt for the voices, other than those of his own government, in this chamber?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050ClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesParliamentary democracyRules of debateJonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill S-205 and to affirm the importance of the arts for our national life and indeed for all people throughout all time in history. The appreciation of beautiful things and the enjoyment of them is fundamental to the human condition. It is part of what elevates our minds and develops our thoughts and creates space for our greater understanding of goodness and of truth, in unity with beauty.I was thinking of jumping-off points for talking about this issue. I was reminded that in the Catholic tradition, today is the feast of St. Thomas More. St. Thomas More is known better for some things than for others, although he was a composite figure known for his many different contributions to politics as well as to literature. He is best known for how his career ended: He was executed for refusing to endorse the king's marriage. He did so on a point of principle and a point of conscience. Regardless of whether members agree with the particular stand he took, we can all admire the courage of a politician who takes a stand on a principle and understands that the things they believe in are more important than their career or even their life.St. Thomas More was also a great humanist. He talked about justice. He talked about human dignity and spoke explicitly about the connection between the ill treatment of people and crime. His writings and comments on those subjects have been sources of inspiration and content for people across the political spectrum. Particularly on the artistic side, he was someone who was able to develop ideas and present political points, indirectly perhaps, in the form of beautiful literary compositions. If members have not read it, I encourage all to read Utopia. This is where we get the concept of utopia as sort of a political construct. He wrote this relatively short book, Utopia, in which he imagined a voyage to a faraway country called Utopia, and he describes in detail the characteristics, the modes of interaction and the beliefs of this fictitious people. Of course, he was living at a time when it was difficult to make certain kinds of political points directly. As his later career demonstrated, if one believed in certain things and expressed those opinions, there could be very dire consequences, not just in today's sense of people being cancelled but of actually being cancelled.He spoke about certain ideas and raised certain questions through this description of an imaginary society that operated according to different norms and different rules. There were many questions at the time, and there still are, about what he really meant in many aspects of this book. Was he describing an ideal society? On the other hand, there were things about that society that seemed to be different from things that he defended and advocated as a politician. Maybe he was not describing an ideal society; maybe he was simply trying to expand the creative imagination. He was trying to give flower to possibilities by creating a space in which it was acceptable to think about things that would have been seen as maybe too subversive if he had been commenting directly on norms or policies in his own country.I think what Utopia demonstrates is the beginning of the tradition of trying to subvert established ideas through the subtlety that is possible through art when it is maybe harder to present those alternative concepts directly. There has since been this whole genre of utopian or dystopian literature, with dystopia, obviously, being the inverse of a utopia. There are many great modern works that pick up on this tradition and use this device of imagining another place, another time, another context to subtly comment on our current realities. Some of the works of Margaret Atwood, of course, are famous in this regard, such as The Handmaid's Tale. The Children of Men is another great dystopian novel that I have read recently, and I think it has a great deal of value in it.(1835)The point I am trying to make is that art has value in and of itself. It is also a vehicle by which questions can be raised and thoughts can be provoked that are not as obvious, not as directly accessible through explicit political speech, and, indeed, possibilities can be opened that are unexamined otherwise or harder to argue for directly. That can be the case perhaps because of direct repercussions for those who propose contrary ideas, but that can also be the case simply because certain concepts are so out of the mould that it is hard to envision what they would imply unless they are actually described in a more literary format. Thomas Moore is one example of someone who successfully provoked the creative imagination through art and literature. We can see the value in Parliament creating this position of a visual artist laureate as appreciating our artists, as affirming the value of arts as a mechanism by which Parliament uses its position, its leadership role within the country to affirm the importance of the arts. However, it is also an opportunity to recognize, in our national life, so many of the conversations we have about the big challenging issues facing our country. Questions of justice, questions of human rights and questions of how we behave and respond to certain challenges can be proposed and shaped through art.With that in mind, I am very supportive of the bill. It is one of many private members' bills before the House, some of which have come from the Senate, that do have great value and that Conservatives are pleased to support. From what I understand, Bill S-205, like Bill S-204, which we were speaking to last week, had the unanimous support of all senators. Like Bill S-204, it also has a great deal of support in the House. By all indication, I think all members will be supportive of the valuable provisions contained in that bill. It is one of those things hopefully parliamentarians can work together on across different important private members' bills as well as across different chambers to move these things forward.In the context of the legislative timeline we have in front of us, unfortunately it looks like the Prime Minister is trying to malign the work of Parliament to create the impression that Parliament is not working. The reality is that this Parliament has worked substantially to move certain important issues forward; it just has not always worked in a way the government has liked.One example the sponsor of this bill will be familiar with is the work being done at the Canada-China committee, a committee that was created even though the government did not want it created, a committee that undertook important studies, did important work on the situation in Hong Kong, a committee that has been part of discussions that have happened at other committees as well on recognizing the Uighur genocide, something that happened through the leadership of Parliament and not through the leadership of the government. Now we have a situation of Parliament asserting its rights to access documents. These are important cases of the leadership of this Parliament.If the Prime Minister is critiquing Parliament, it has less to do with the fact Parliament is not working and more to do with the fact that, from his perspective, Parliament is working too well. Parliament is doing things the government may not like, but nonetheless Parliament has been able to lead, oftentimes through the collaboration of opposition parties and sometimes working with individual members of the government as well.Nonetheless, we are in the situation now as we approach the end of the spring session where it looks very much like the Prime Minister, in trying to malign the work of Parliament, is trying to position himself to justify calling an election. If that happens, of course, it will put important legislative initiatives that have not yet passed in jeopardy. We should reflect on the fact that as we possibly come to the end of the spring session, in some cases, we have bills that have been passed in the Senate and are now in the House. If the House could find a way of dealing with them, it would allow us to move forward ahead of the spring session so those bills could become law.(1840)As I have described, this is important legislation. It recognizes the profound role that arts play in our national life, the profound role of beauty in the human experience and also the role arts can play in provoking questions and ideas that might not get discussed otherwise.Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-205, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Second readingSenate billsVisual artsLenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1910)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I must admit, I need to thank the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. We are members of the heritage committee together, and he asked me if I would speak to this bill, which we support. He asked me if I would speak to it a bit earlier today. Without a lot of time to prepare, I thought it would give me a great opportunity to speak to what we have heard a lot about already today in this chamber, which is the importance and the power of the visual arts to inform, educate and heal. Many members have said that so eloquently already.What I find interesting is that so far I have not heard, including from the other Conservative member who spoke on this topic already, about how the arts are important for telling our story as Canadians. They are important for living a full, self-actualized life. They are part of our growth and healing. As a Conservative, I also think it is crucially important we point out the importance of the economic impact of the arts.I can give members all kinds of examples in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka. Parry Sound—Muskoka is a beautiful place with many beautiful vistas. It is visited by many thousands of tourists and cottagers every year. One of the things that is unique to Muskoka is the fact that we have so many artists who live in and around the beautiful lakes and trees that make up our landscape.In fact, the Muskoka Autumn Studio Tour was one of the very first studio tours established in Canada back in 1979. There are dozens of artists, such as Catherine O'Mara; Janice Feist; Stan Tait, who makes jewellery; Miranda Britton, who makes jewellery; and Marni Martin, who makes beautiful tapestries. These people do such incredible work, and they create such beautiful items, but they also created careers for themselves. They all work in this field, and they have had tremendous success. The Muskoka Autumn Studio Tour is a great example of why supporting the arts is also a really smart economic move. I point out that one example for my colleague from B.C.I would like to point out as well that Senator Bovey from the other place presented this motion in the first place, and it has since been brought here. She pointed out the importance and impact of the arts sector on the economy. She reported that the GDP of cultural industries in Canada in 2017 was $58.9 billion, or $1,611 per capita, which is about 2.8% of national GDP. Those numbers are from 2017. It is a significant contributor to our economy.I also think about the local artists in my region when I think about the importance of telling our story. I think back to one of the founding members of that Muskoka Autumn Studio Tour, Brenda Wainman Goulet, who sadly died suddenly a few years ago. I was the mayor of Huntsville at the time, and when I was asked by the family to speak at the memorial service, I thought long and hard about the work that Brenda Wainman Goulet did. She took the rugged granite of Muskoka and blended that with metals and created some of the most beautiful sculptures I have ever seen.When it came time to beautify the front of a new theatre that was constructed in Huntsville, the Algonquin Theatre, we looked for an artist to create something special, a special statue in front of the theatre. Brenda Wainman Goulet created a bronze sculpture of Tom Thomson, the famous pre-Group of Seven artist who was famous for painting striking Canadian landscapes of the Canadian Shield. I have seen more people have their photo taken with that bronze statue in downtown Huntsville than anything else in town.(1915)At the time of her memorial, I was thinking a lot about the importance of beauty. It brought me to thinking about something I had read years before called Italian Journey, which I am sure Mr. Speaker is familiar with. It is actually an edited version of the diary of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who was a very accomplished young man in the 1700s. He had been appointed to Duke Karl August's privy council at the age of 25. He was very accomplished. He oversaw the expansion of silver mining in the Duchy of Saxe-Weimar. He implemented reforms to the university there. He sat as a member of the war and highway commissions, all at the age of 25. He was a very accomplished young man. He was also instrumental in the planning of the botanical gardens and the reconstruction of the ducal palace, which is a UNESCO world heritage site today in Italy.At the age of 37, though, Goethe was frustrated and feeling like something was lacking in his life. To recharge, he decided he would travel through Italy, and from 1786 to 1788 he travelled through Italy. He chronicled his experience, of course, in his diary. He really yearned to understand what possible conditions there were in Italy that made it such a paradise. Italy was obviously well known at the time to be a beautiful place. He concluded that, with what seemed to be a limitless expression of art absolutely everywhere in Italy, beauty was not a momentary reprieve from the dreariness of everyday life. It was everyday life, and it filled his soul.Art is good for the economy, and it is good for the soul. It is important for us to share and understand our stories, for generations to come to understand our stories, and to certainly understand in a meaningful way what we do around here. For these reasons, I think it is very important that we all in this House support this bill and the concept of a visual arts laureate for Parliament.ArtistsCanadian identityCultural industryMuskokaParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-205, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Sculpture and sculptorsSecond readingSenate billsVisual artsSoniaSidhuBrampton SouthPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1915)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight the fact that, despite the great importance we place on arts and culture, I find it unfortunate that we are debating Bill S-205, which seeks to create the position of parliamentary visual artist laureate.At a time when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons are going around telling the media and anyone who will listen that the Conservative Party is filibustering and blocking important legislation, here we are at 7:20 p.m. debating a bill to create an artist laureate position. Is this bill critically important to moving our country forward? We know that the Prime Minister probably wants to call an election this summer. I just wanted to put on the record that, notwithstanding the importance we place on arts and culture, which are so important to society, I find it very odd that we are debating this matter today when the government is falsely accusing us of filibustering on all the other bills.That said, I want everyone to have access to the arts. It is very important. Despite what some may think of us Conservatives, we are educated people, we travel and we visit cathedrals, monuments and museums. We are not totally stupid, far from it. However, we do not like being told that we are holding up critically important parliamentary business. With only 24 hours left in the parliamentary session, we are currently debating a bill to create an artist laureate position.Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-205, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Second readingSenate billsVisual artsScottAitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1920)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. There seems to be a bit of a sense of electoral urgency in the air, so let me just say that I have always appreciated the honour to be their representative, and I will always keep fighting for their interests. I am thankful also to my family, who allow me to continue that work.If we hearken back just to the Government Business No. 9 debate when it originally opened up, we had the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and me. I was interrupted part way through for the proceedings of this place. It happens all the time, so I do ask those watching at home to know I am continuing my speech. In essence, I was giving a litany of concerns raised by the committee process, which was hastened by the Liberals literally steamrolling through along with the NDP. It was a process whereby people who wrote in to the committee were not heard. There were no indigenous witnesses. In fact, even the Assembly of First Nations' brief, along with over 70 other briefs, was not translated and sent to the committee until after the period of amendment. This is something that has been raised by a number of people as being a concern, telling people they did not matter.Returning back to my comments, I was speaking specifically about the need for different aspects to be included in the bill. I will just start where I left off.[Translation]What we wanted to do was to include in the assessment report a summary of the measures undertaken by the provincial governments to achieve the national emissions targets. Once again, that seems obvious. However, once again without any debate, the Liberals and the NDP rejected it. There were no reasons given. They just voted against it. Their changes would be to include only the key measures that the federal government was implementing together with the provinces. However, since the provinces will be doing many great things on their own, should there not at least be a record of them?The Liberals truly believe that the provinces are subordinate to the federal government and that unless something is done by Ottawa, it is not important. That is not what we believe. A Conservative government would work with the provinces to reach our climate objectives. We believe that the provinces are partners, not punching bags. There is another problem that I am hearing a lot about, and that is how the big push towards transportation electrification is affecting our electric grid. Now, I support electric vehicles. Our party included an electric vehicle mandate in our “secure the environment” plan. We are not against electric vehicles, but Canadians are questioning whether the grid can handle this change. That is why we proposed that the assessment report in the bill include an assessment of the grid's ability to deal with increased demand.We cannot move forward if we do not have the full picture. This was another reasonable proposal that was rejected by the Liberals and the NDP. We persevered nevertheless.(1925)[English]A lot of concern about the bill, including from me earlier on, has been about the formation of the advisory group. A significant number of briefs, witness testimony and amendments from other parties were about this very topic. We came up with what we believed was a reasonable approach: Instead of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change appointing all 15 members, he would simply appoint six. Then the Minister of Finance would appoint three, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry would appoint three and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations would appoint three.This would allow a more whole-of-government approach and for different ministers to put forward the priorities from their ministries into the advisory body. Conservatives believed this was the best way to ensure a wide variety of voices, not a body that includes people devoted to destroying a way of life for many Canadians, yet, sadly, the Liberals and NDP rejected it. Why did I list all these changes and talk about why the Liberals and the NDP rejected them without even debating them? It is because I wanted to show how much of a farce this process was. Everything I mentioned was thoughtful and reasonable. We did not come in with a “Liberals admit they are terrible and should resign” amendment designed to be defeated, no. We came in with good ideas that the Liberals and NDP refused to even debate or consider, all of this after the minister said he was willing to work with all parties. Yes, sure. It was not just the Conservatives affected by this bad-faith deal between the Liberals and the NDP. I have already mentioned how an identical Green Party amendment was defeated. By the end of the process, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands had started to withdraw her own amendments because it was clear the Liberal and NDP members were not even interested in listening. The Bloc Québécois put forward many great amendments, not ones that Conservatives generally supported, but thoughtful and productive. The Liberals and the NDP opposed them all without debate, except for one at the very end and the NDP decided to support adding a five-year parliamentary review. No one could have watched that process in committee and not be sickened by what they saw. The Liberals and the NDP not only rejected any suggestion that was not their own, but a great deal of witness testimony to boot. Indeed, the few amendments the Liberals proposed and supported did not do anything. Many were just spelling out that the minister must do things that the minister could already do. The biggest joke of them all was an amendment that the target of net zero by 2050 did not mean net zero could not be achieved earlier, which zero people thought was the case, yet before we were called just as bitter as the Liberals, we voted for a couple of government amendments we thought were good. We came in willing to work in good faith. Unfortunately, the government and the NDP did not.What did the NDP get for seemingly selling out to the government and agreeing to be its coalition partner in all of this? It was not much, as it happens. Basically, every environmental witness and brief stated there needed to be a 2025 target in the bill, a milestone target. In fact New Democrats themselves said that over and over in debate on the bill, but did they get that by making a deal with the government? No. Instead, they got a 2026 interim objective, which is not actually a thing in the bill and only exists in the NDP amendments as a topic that must be reported on. In the bill, targets have teeth. They must have plans and reports. The interim objective does nothing. That is what New Democrats got for their undying allegiance in this. They also say that they got the advisory group to be more independent. What that really means is they simply added the word “independent” to the name. Seriously, that is all they did, just added a word. The minister still appoints all of them and decides what they will do unilaterally, but the word is in the title, so it must be true. It would be funny seeing what little the NDP members gave up in exchange for their loyalty if it was not so sad.I am sure the NDP member will rise after me and proclaim New Democrats made the bill better, that they got the Liberals to make these nothing changes and that means they are doing really good work. The reality is that the Liberal government pulled one over on the New Democrats, gave them almost nothing and got their dignity in return. They will have to answer to their friends in the environmental movement for this sellout. I expect some of those meetings will not be pleasant. (1930)That is how we got to where we are. The Liberals and NDP rushed the process, refused to listen to witnesses or briefs, refused to debate anything and refused to consider any ideas not their own, and that is just disgraceful. While we, the Bloc and the Greens were trying to debate, trying to do the thing we have all been elected to do, the minister accused us of filibustering the bill.There were over 150 amendments and they were moving through at less than 10 minutes each. We were not filibustering, we were asking questions and debating, the kind of thing one would expect to do at committee scrutiny. To the Liberals, I guess daring to ask questions is tantamount to heresy. We saw what they did to Bill C-10, stopping debate and passing laws in secret. That is how they want this place to run: a rubber-stamp for their Liberal ideas. I reject that. My constituents sent me here to represent them and to try to make the country better, and yes, to debate.Therefore, I did ask questions during debate, and it is not my fault the Liberals and NDP refused to. In the Liberal world, even asking questions is apparently now a filibuster, because how dare we question the member for Papineau, whose ideas are perfect as they are and should never be challenged no matter who someone is. Well, I will because that is what I was sent here to do. I will ask those questions.Since I wrote my speech, we had a closure motion pass today. As I said, the process the government chose was to put forward a bill and let it drag along and drag along. I would have constituents ask about Bill C-12 and I would tell them the government just really has not decided to move it forward. Suddenly Liberals get to the end of the session and they start remembering there is a bill they have to do. They rush it through committee, a process I have explained, as well as how difficult it was on the witnesses, and even for members. I am sure there are lots of things Liberals would have wanted to ask more questions on so they could do their job as backbenchers holding the government to account, but they could not. They agreed to a strategy and they stuck with the NDP faithfully.Since then, this very night, the minister tried to say Liberals supported the Bloc Québécois in their parliamentary review. That was fundamentally out of synch with any sort of reality. It contradicts exactly the testimony we heard earlier. The closure motion did not just cut off debate for me but for all members, including those backbench Liberal MPs who maybe thought their constituents deserved to see their members of Parliament in action, asking questions, showing up to debate and putting forward their own ideas. Let us be mindful, the House leader actually called the Conservatives out for filibustering a bill. We were asking questions, and he had the gall to say that we were holding things up. In fact, the Minister of the Environment a week ago Wednesday, wrote to different parties and asked us to finish the bill, which we were almost finished anyway. We finished it Wednesday night, waited to see what happened Thursday and nothing. Eventually, our chair for the environment tabled it Friday and then Liberals said that they wanted to debate it as early as Monday, so we expected it. Then we found out that Government Business No. 9 suddenly springs out of nowhere. It sounded like they did not even want to debate Bill C-12, they just wanted to have something on the Order Paper, maybe because they knew it would not be ready in time.What I am saying is the Liberals are in control of the agenda. One of the few things the government largely still has control of is the agenda on this place. Despite all their talk about us filibustering, they did not bring the bill forward. In fact, we did not even debate debating the bill, as in this motion, Government Business No. 9, until yesterday, a full week and a half after the bill was tabled.(1935)I hope I have impressed upon members tonight that the government has slowly tabled a bill that many witnesses did not support, and then decided to let it languish on the Order Paper. When the Liberals finally realized they had to get the engines hopping, they jammed it through with only six hours of debate. Then they jammed it through again at committee. Now they are jamming it through today, so that even Liberal members do not get the ability to hold their own government to account, let alone all other members in this place.I am deeply dissatisfied with the government. Canadians should see that the Liberals, by their own actions, have used a process whereby Canadians do not feel heard and their representatives do not feel needed. This is a minority Parliament. No political party was given an absolute majority in deciding the views of all Canadians. This is where we are supposed to debate ideas and to force compromise. Instead, the Liberals and the NDP have linked up and said that they do not need to hear from anyone else. During a minority, that is a shame. Shame on the government House leader and the Minister of Environment for doing so. On this side of the House, we will call out what we see. On this side of the House, we will fight for ideas that help our environment and help us meet our targets on climate change, not simply talk about them and talk a good game. After an election, a Conservative government will do what is right on the environment and do right by Canadians.Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Electric vehiclesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1935)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think it is important to say that the Liberals and the NDP rejected a lot of ideas. The Bloc Québécois, the Green Party and the Conservative Party proposed many improvements to Bill C‑12.This bill was not perfect, no matter what the government believed. The opposition members from the Bloc, the Conservative Party and the Green Party are the ones who had a lot of positive ideas to protect the environment and to meaningfully address climate change.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my fellow British Columbian. I know why he is so uptight and upset. My speech has revealed the true face of the NDP in this Parliament. It has enabled the Liberal government and its rhetoric instead of taking real action.I was in favour of this bill very early on, to the surprise of the member and I am sure of many in his caucus. However, the minister worked in bad faith with us, and the member worked with the minister to basically push through a process that pushed Canadians and expertise out.As he is pointing a finger at me, he should be mindful that when he points his finger at someone, three fingers are pointing back. That is why the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is upset. It is because he was part of a bad process and he enabled it.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know the member is disappointed, and I know that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was extremely disappointed, not just with the product but with the process. When in government, no party will win everyone over, but for goodness' sake, we should at least have a clean process. More than anything, that is where members, like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, can find some common cause to hold the Liberal government to account.It is really sad when we see a minister so hell-bent on getting his way that he is willing to push aside even his own caucus members. That is not accountability. That is not how the system is supposed to work. I have heard the expression that with good people, a bad system can work, but unfortunately when we do not have the right people, even a good system will not work.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debatePaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithChrisLewisEssex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. His constituency name is not as easy as Essex, but it is a heck of a great name.The hon. member spoke of putting teeth into bills and teeth into reports, and of Conservatives fighting for great fresh ideas. Could the member give us an example of what he and Conservatives would have liked to see in the report and ultimately in the bill?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased that the member for Essex listened to my speech. Had he listened to the whole thing, he probably never would have wanted to talk to me again. However, I will speak specifically to the one part of it.The Conservatives believe in a whole-of-government approach. We need an all-hands-on-deck approach to climate change. That is the only way we are going to be able to do this. We need to work with the provinces. As I said, the provinces should be partners not punching bags, something the government continues to forget.What did we want to see? Instead of the minister being the sole person to decide who is on the advisory board and the plans that go to cabinet being made on the recommendation of the minister, we wanted a whole-of-government approach. Instead of one person being responsible, multiple ministers should be. Then cabinet itself would be able to argue, break down the silos and come out with a united plan.Climate change is very real. It is a challenge. If we cannot get the right governance structures in place and do not get rid of the silos of government and work with the provinces, we will get no further. We need all hands on deck for this, and the Liberal bill puts it all on one minister.How can one minister change everything, unless it is the Prime Minister in that government? I do not know. These guys seem to think there is a way to do it. We will see how it works in reality.Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Federal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateChrisLewisEssexBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of sitting on the environment committee with my colleague, and I did notice all of the collusion that happened between the NDP and the Liberals on this issue.My question to him is simple. How will all of the collusion in the way the NDP has worked to support the Liberals be portrayed in the next election? Can Canadians trust NDP members to have their own thoughts, or are they just here to prop up the Liberal government?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, we live in a democracy, so it is up to citizens to decide who will champion their cause. If we look at Bill C-10, for example, the Liberals have sided with the Bloc, the NDP and the Greens to jam a bill through that quite honestly most Canadians do not understand. When they find out that their right to freedom of expression, as laid out under subsection 2(b) of the charter, is at risk, they will not like it.It is up to the NDP to decide: Are they here to carry water for the government, or are they here to stand up for their constituents? Unfortunately, in this case, they do not seem to be doing much of anything. If I were a constituent of the NDP and I asked what they got, they would say they got an interim objective assessment in 2026 that the official from the Department of Environment and Climate Change said does not amount to a lot.The government does not stand up to scrutiny. When will the NDP?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateBradRedekoppSaskatoon WestMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 9—Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division. AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC)(2035)[English]Motion No. 2 moved: That Bill C-12, in Clause 22, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 12 to line 9 on page 13 with the following: “(2) The Minister must make the annual report available to the public within 30 days after receiving it and then, within 120 days after receiving the report, the Minister must publicly respond to the advice that the advisory body includes in it with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs 20(1)(a) to (c), including any national greenhouse gas emissions target that is recommended by the advisory body if the Minister has set a target that is different from it.”C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesReport stageReport stage motionsJonathanWilkinsonHon.North VancouverJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): (2050)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to speak tonight to this important bill. I am going to take a bit of a different slant on this.As members know, I was first elected in 2019, so I am a relatively new member of this House. This period of time just before the session ends for the summer is a very busy time, as I understand. This is my first experience with it. It is the first time I have gotten to see the government trying to complete its agenda, which is kind of lagging. What I have been expecting is the very best the government has to offer to get its agenda through before the House rises for the summer.My background, really briefly, is that I come from the accounting world, and specifically the management accounting area. Efficiency was one of the things I really focused on. I worked in a manufacturing plant and I helped people figure out the easiest way to do their job so that it required the least amount of labour and we could produce the best product, most efficiently, at the best price. Essentially, it is where I learned one of my mottoes, which is “Work smarter, not harder.”As I have watched what has gone on here in the last couple of weeks from my lens, a relatively new lens, I have witnessed the exact opposite of efficiency. It has been quite fascinating. In fact, I imagine that when our Prime Minister was on his way back from his vacation trip to Europe a couple of weeks ago, he had to stop in a quarantine hotel like all other Canadians, except that he of course stayed in a special hotel that was close to his house and was only there for a few hours—but I digress. He probably would have called his government House leader to ask how things were going and how the legislation was coming along. Unfortunately, the government House leader would have had to give him the sad news that nothing had happened, that in fact everything had stalled out because of the many mistakes made by the government. In fact, everything was in chaos, as he could see if he looked at Bill C-30 or Bill C-10 or anything else.As we look at this bill, the government House leader has denied many times that the Liberals are going to call an election shortly, saying it is the event that just is not going to happen. However, in April, on this bill, the Liberals seemed to suddenly realize that they needed to pass something, and that is where Bill C-12 came into the picture. They needed to pass something just in case the event that is not going to happen happens.After months of inaction on this bill, suddenly there was a big panic. Why is the government willing to ram through a flawed bill just before the summer? It is just in case that event that is not going to happen happens. Of course, the Liberals could wait until September, but here we are instead. It is the last panic time before the event that is not going to happen happens. This is hypocritical, and it is very disrespectful to our democracy.I want to look at Bill C-12 through my new eyes. I had a front-row seat to this bill because I am on the environment committee. I have been able to see this first-hand. One of the questions I was asking myself was, “How do we have success when creating a new law?” Of course, the first step is to write a good bill. When the minister came to our committee, the first thing he said was that he was open to amendments. I am assuming he said that because he knew that the bill was not well written and that it had many flaws.He just opened the floodgates, because there were 114 amendments that came to committee, and 17 of those came from the government itself. The bill was only 10 pages long at that point. That is over 11 amendments per page, or four per clause. That is a lot of amendments. Those numbers alone should prove that this bill was flawed.Every morning we are led in a prayer by the Speaker, and one of the lines in that prayer is “Grant us wisdom....to make good laws....” I cannot sit back and watch this law come into force. It is a bad law. The number of amendments also showed that this was true.The second way that we could have success when creating a new law is to get feedback. There was a lot of feedback. There were 75 briefs received by the environment committee, which is great. A lot of Canadians put in a lot of hard work to write reports and provide information to the committee. The bad news is that only eight of those briefs were received before we started our study. That was because the study was jammed in. It was rushed into committee with a very short deadline.That means that 67 briefs were received after we did our study. It means that the work of many Canadians was ignored, and the government was happy to ignore it. It was not particularly interested in listening to the views of people who submitted the briefs. It had a plan, an idea of what it wanted to accomplish, and that is what it was going to do.The third way we could make sure to have success in creating a new bill is to let the committee do its work. The first thing the government did was make a deal with the NDP. It did not want the committee to get bogged down in any details of actually providing useful information. It wanted to be able to ram things through.The Liberal-NDP coalition did exactly that. It rammed this bill through the committee. Almost every single vote at the committee was marked by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Liberals and the NDP made no bones about their coalition.(2055)The NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley posted to his Twitter before the clause by clause started, “[T]he NDP will be proposing amendments that the government has agreed to support.... We have also jointly agreed to a number of other amendments.”What was the practical result of this? The New Democrats and the Liberals fell silent. They did not ask questions. I am not even sure they read many of the amendments or even understood what they were. They had a plan. They just knew to vote for this and not vote for that. Therefore, it fell to the Conservatives and the Bloc MPs to scrutinize these amendments. As for me, I asked reasoned and thoughtful questions of the departmental experts as to the consequences of certain amendments, but the problem was that there were 114 amendments, as I said. As I also mentioned, the government put forward 17 of its own amendments. That means that on 17 separate occasions, the minister messed up drafting the bill and he needed his MPs to fix it. That is like us buying a new car, driving it off the lot and just as we are leaving, the salesman says he has scheduled 17 appointments for us to come back for maintenance because the dealer messed up and there are a bunch of problems with the car. Therefore, we drive it off the lot, go back tomorrow and the dealer starts fixing it. It makes no sense.The Liberals and the New Democrats on the committee were only interested in their amendments. They refused to engage with us on our amendments. To prove my point, there was kind of a funny example. Subsection 7(4) of the original bill required that the minister would set national targets five years in advance. The government and NDP wanted to change that to 10 years in advance. The problem was the Greens put forward an identical amendment and because they got there first, we dealt with their amendment first. As was the practice of the government and the NDP members, they did not want to support anyone else's amendments and certainly not the Greens'. Therefore, the Green amendment was voted on and was rejected. Next up was the government amendment that was literally identical. The chair, rightly so, ruled that it was inadmissible because we had just dealt with this at committee and we had decided not to proceed with it. That was a big problem. Everybody wanted to vote for that second one because the members actually wanted the amendment. However, I do not think they read the first one from the Greens, which was the same, and they did not realize they had just voted down, essentially, their own amendment.In the end, after a very long discussion and a lot of time wasted, the government members finally realized that instead of saying 10 years, they could say “9 years 366 days”, which was different enough to get it passed. I found that quite humorous, that the government members were not able to accomplish this.I have an amendment that was read tonight, and it is in a section of the bill referring to the work of the advisory body, specifically the annual report that it has to submit. My amendment would require that the minister make the annual report public and, further, that the minister publicly respond to this report. It would require the government to actually take action, which is something we all know the Liberals are quite allergic to. The Liberals tried to make an amendment on this section at committee, but theirs was sloppy and it left the legislation in very bad shape. Essentially, the Liberal-NDP amendment added words but it did not remove redundant words, so the bill as it is written right now makes no sense in that section. It still includes a long sentence that should not be there and it starts with a partial word. It just does not make a whole lot of sense. My amendment allows that wording to make sense again.The Green Party put forward some really good amendments. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was quite frustrated at committee. I want to quote her because it is quite telling. She said:I have to say that this is the most dispiriting process of clause-by-clause that I've experienced in many years. Usually amendments are actually considered, people actually debate them and there is a good-faith process....I condemn this government for what it has done: for telling people like me, who believed in good faith that there would be an actual appetite for change to improve the bill and who accepted it and prepared amendments, only to show up here and watch Liberals stay mute, the NDP stay mute and march through their amendments, passing them in force, and not listening and not caring about the possibility that other amendments might work.What happens when there is a flawed committee process? Flawed legislation results. Bill C-12 is flawed legislation.Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government accountabilityGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesReport stagePatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (2100)[English]Mr. Speaker, what we have to understand is that right in the numbers she provided there will be oil and gas used in the world for many years to come. I want to ensure that Canada is the country producing and supplying that oil and gas to the world.We have some of the toughest rules when it comes to human rights, labour policies and environmental legislation. We do not want oil that will be produced in the world to come from jurisdictions where they do not have the tight and very difficult rules we have. That is clearly what we want, and Canada can lead the world in that way.We also have to remember that our oil and gas producers are very good with technology, and they are developing new technology all the time, which reduces the carbon footprint of our own gas production. Through technology and good legislation, we can be leaders in the world and we can produce the oil and gas that the world will need for many decades to come.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesOil and gasReport stageKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaPeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (2100)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, global warming is real and yes, we need to do something about it. It is not other politicians that need to be convinced of this, it is people. Where people struggle sometimes with this, is the fact that many of the proposed solutions to this point will affect them deeply. They are going to take away their jobs. They are going to take away their livelihood. They are going to take away things that they are used to. That is why we have to be smart in how we do this. We cannot simply outlaw things without proper solutions to replace them with.It is incumbent upon us as leaders to ensure that we have the tools in place to reduce our greenhouse footprint, absolutely, but we need to do it in a way that does not get rid of jobs, does not throw people into poverty, that allows people to live their lives, but do it in a better and more environmentally friendly way.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesReport stagePeterFragiskatosLondon North CentreCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (2100)[English]Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of Bill C-12, the government indicated it would collaborate with all parties to ensure an agreed-upon makeup of the advisory board, which is fairly central to the effectiveness of this net-zero legislation. However, during initial debate on the bill, I asked the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for more details about the potential make up and powers of the advisory board, at which point he proudly shared that the advisory board members had already been appointed.I would like the member to elaborate on the fact that, again, this shows the lack of true commitment to working within the House with all members of Parliament to bring forward the best bill and the best results to the advisory board.Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesPolitical appointmentsReport stageBradRedekoppSaskatoon WestBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (2100)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is a core issue of one of the flaws in the bill. The government says one thing and does another. The Liberals said they were going to have an advisory committee that would be made up a variety of different people, yet they created the committee even before the bill was passed. We are still talking about it here, yet the committee already exists.The membership of that committee is definitely skewed in one direction and it is lacking the ability to represent all different aspects. In my view, there is not enough business representation on that committee. We need to ensure the committee is proper because it is a very important part of this process, that we have an independent body of experts and experts across the board who can help us deal with all the complicated issues that will come from this. Not only—Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesPolitical appointmentsReport stageCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2105)[English]Resuming debate, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2115)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution tonight. Obviously, she saw much of what we saw during the committee process when a number of witnesses come forward who were unhappy with the government's bill. Could she point out what she believes is fundamentally missing from the government's legislation? Does the environmental community she has heard from feel this is the best bill that could possibly go forward? What is missing? What are the main flaws in the bill?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesReport stageKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (2115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her frank and honest views on the environment issue. We can see that she really cares about effecting change.I can understand her disappointment at having believed that the Liberal government would bring in the changes it had announced during the 2015 election campaign. In the end, on this file and several others, the Liberals did not keep their promises. Personally, I am not surprised because that is very on-brand for the Liberals.At the beginning of her speech, my colleague mentioned that the Conservatives proposed some valid amendments to Bill C‑12 at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.In her opinion, which Conservative amendments on the environment could have been adopted to improve the bill?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesReport stageKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2130)[Translation]It being 9:33 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.[English]The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion applies also to Motion No. 4.If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would ask them to stand and indicate so to the Chair.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2130)[English]Division on Motion No. 1 deferredThe recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred, which will also apply to Motion No. 4.[Translation]The question is on Motion No. 2. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motion No. 3. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?Some hon. members: No.[Chair read text of motion to House](2135)The Deputy Speaker: If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2135)[Translation]Division on Motion No. 2 deferredAccordingly, the recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred.The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of this bill.Call in the members.And the bells having rung:DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2150)[English]The question is on Motion No. 1.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2200)[English]Motion No. 1 agreed toI declare Motion No. 1 carried. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 4 carried as well.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesReport stageReport stage motionsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2215)[English]Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2240)[English]Madam Speaker, what we have seen on this bill is a lack of respect for the basic processes that should be followed. The government said it was going to create an advisory panel, but then it announced who was going to be on that advisory panel before the bill had even proceeded to committee. The government is presenting this as some kind of an environmental plan, but the reality is that it is not a plan; it is just a bill that puts in place further targets. The other reality is that the government has not taken any action with respect to companies outside of the country that are releasing greenhouse gas emissions and selling their products in Canada.I want to ask the member a question specifically about the issue of border adjustments. Does he support the Conservative proposal to have border adjustments so that outside companies exporting to Canada are operating under the same rules as companies inside of Canada?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Customs tariff and customs dutiesGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC): (2245)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to rise again in the House as the member for Calgary Centre and speak for perhaps the last time in this Parliament, if we hear what the government is saying correctly, which is that the Liberals are probably going to the polls at the end of this summer, but that is for another night.I would like to speak tonight about Bill C-12, an act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050.I remember when the bill first came before Parliament. We did our jobs as parliamentarians. We read the bill and we looked at the bill, and a lot of us supported the bill because of what it represented, but we did our job as opposition parliamentarians, not just as parliamentarians on the government side. We looked at it and said that we have to pick our spots here about what we criticize, what we work with the government on and how we move these advances forward.When the bill was introduced, I looked at its words and what it seemed to indicate as its intent: to hold governments accountable for reaching assigned climate change targets. All things considered, how could I not support government accountability? Frankly, it is the absolute greatest failure of the government for the past six years. “Accountability” is not a word that seems to be understood by this weak government.Let us talk about accountability in this debate on the environment. In the Liberals' six years in government, we have seen six increases in greenhouse emissions. We have seen more and more failed experiments through misguided interventions, and I note the excess spending in the department and in contracts with so many self-interested non-governmental organizations. Billions of excess spending went out the door to unaccountable, connected organizations that are accomplishing nothing but are being very well paid in the process.Let us look at another example of virtue over objectives and results. Let us talk about two billion trees. How long ago did the government promise two billion trees? This year it is saying that this year it will actually plant 30 million trees. That is pretty good, but if we think about how many trees Canada actually has, we realize that it is hundreds of billions. This is a very small measurement, and it is accomplishing next to nothing. This is something that is more virtue over results. We actually need some results on the environment, and we need to get there as quickly as possible with some real programs.At first reading, I stood and supported the bill because it provided an accountability mechanism for a misleading, unaccomplished government. The veil came off that pretty quickly. The bill allows the Minister of Environment to appoint 14 representatives to a net-zero advisory board. They were already appointed prior to this legislation even being passed by the House, and it still has another House to go. The minister already has all his people picked out and put there, but it is also quite a power amassment by the Minister of Environment. Let us look at what he has done with his last power grab. Under the Impact Assessment Act, effectively he is the decider of every project that happens in Canada right now, whether or not it is provincial or federal jurisdiction.This is something that is continuous. It is very clear that the minister is trying to get more and more decision-makers involved with his department and that he wants to make all the decisions for the government unilaterally. This is not the way Canada has been governed.This board was constituted before the legislation even existed. It is a good thing that we took a good look at who is on the board. I will just go through one of the people, and I fully confess that I know two of the members on the board. I worked with them before, and they are actually pretty good members. However, I do not think two out of 14 are necessarily going to be holding the boat. There are some who seem to be quite obstructionist, so to speak, and the result is going to speak for itself at some point in time when the board comes to a conflict.The executive director, Catherine Abreu of the Climate Action Network, is one of the appointees. What is her skill? She is an award-winning campaigner. That is fantastic. A campaigner is on a government-appointed board now. Ms. Abreu believes we need to manage the swift decline of Canada's oil and gas industry, which is Canada's biggest industry, Canada's biggest contributor to taxes and Canada's biggest employer. That is great. We are just going to manage the swift decline of that industry rather than work with it to find out how we actually reduce carbon emissions. That is a good move.(2250)What is this organization the Climate Action Network? It is a coalition of more than 100 organizations, including Clean Energy Canada, which all these others seem to collect around, and for some reason they need to fund an organization that oversees them. Who are they funded by? They are funded by each of the non-governmental organizations that is also funded by the government. It is a big circle of money pooling around, and eventually the taxpayer pays for it all, but let us follow the money. Environment and Climate Change Canada is the funder of many of these organizations. For a government department to spend tens of millions of dollars over budget and tens of millions of dollars more on external contracts for consultants is an embarrassment. This is where the money is going. It is all connected friends who are being paid in this process.This reminds me of last summer and the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery: that bold environmental initiative from summer 2020. Of course, we cannot find a record of what it did or why it recommended what it did, but quite famously 15 individuals from 15 government-funded organizations came together quickly in the midst of a pandemic to not let this opportunity pass. “This opportunity” was the pandemic and people dying, because thousands of people died to allow them to move their agenda forward.Those are scary comments. Parliament was shut down. Canadians were locked down. Were there meetings with these 15 organizations and these 15 individuals? Was external input sought? Did the Canadian economy or Canadian society participate in this report or these meetings? What about health care workers, teachers, businessmen, engineers, farmers, processors, technologists, workers, legalists and indigenous organizations? There was no input whatsoever. It was actually a whitewash of one professor's academic pursuit.Stewart Elgie, of the Smart Prosperity Institute, drove it forward with one document. Who were some of the other partners in this? I will read them off: the International Institute for Sustainable Development, Efficiency Canada, the Transition Accelerator, the Institute for Sustainable Finance, Clean Energy Canada, Environmental Defence Canada, Corporate Knights, the Stockholm Environment Institute, Environment and Climate Change Canada, again funding itself, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation and the Broadbent Institute. As well, a number of other institutes that are all funded by government come together here under the helm of none other than Gerald Butts: that beacon of transparent, democratic government.If we look closely enough at all these organizations we will see significant overlap in boards, management and mandate. They love government money. Therefore, another circle of government-funded organizations gathered together to recommend more government spending on their initiatives. Members should not look for the report. It is not available, but we can see its recommendations, sometimes word for word and billion dollars for billion dollars, in the last throne speech and in this year's budget. It is government policy by a highly paid, self-interested Star Chamber. This is democracy under the current Liberal government. Are conflicts disclosed? They are not at all.Bill C-12 proposes to ensconce this unaccountable, self-interested, conflicted decision-making body as an instrument in Canada's environmental decision-making. Indeed, some members of this board were involved in the Task Force for a Resilient Recovery. “Thanks for the deceitful work,” says the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, “Canadians will thank you with an endless stream of unaccountable funds.”Bill C-12, supposedly about accountability of government, is in fact a removal of accountability of government. Members should follow the money. The government's friends are getting more expensive.Abreu, CatherineAdvisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Climate Action Network CanadaGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesPolitical appointmentsThird reading and adoptionTree plantingAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (2255)[English]Madam Speaker, that was a strange question. This is not fun. I did not pick her name out of a hat. I am only reporting what was said in the paper about the person's qualifications and why she stood to be on this board. I do not know where she is coming from on that. I know there was a reason she was picked to be on the board. I know what she said in public, as far as the Canadian economy goes, and I know she has been involved very much in trying to end one of the economic engines of the Canadian economy without accountability. That is what is wrong with the government, frankly. It is the lack of accountability.Abreu, CatherineAdvisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Climate Action Network CanadaGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionLenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (2255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia for her question. It is a good question. I am still looking for the bill's raison d'être and trying to understand why it is before Parliament now. Given its contents, I do not know why it is before Parliament, because it does nothing for the environment. I think we need to do better for the environment. We need to do something better for our future.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government accountabilityGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Greg McLean: (2300)[English]Madam Speaker, accountability is about the whole country being accountable, including the oil and gas industry, so I do appreciate the member's question, particularly as it relates to the Minister of Natural Resources on that side of the House.We need to set targets here. We need to force targets and regulatory targets about how we will reduce carbonization in our economy going forward, which applies to all industries.The thing about our natural resource industry is that it has been the most successful at decarbonizing so far. We need to continue on that trend. One company in my riding reduced its carbon footprint by 18% over the past four years. That is significant progress. Show me another company or another industry in the country where we are reducing our carbon footprint by 4.5% a year and we will all be successful in this effort.C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesOil and gasThird reading and adoptionMatthewGreenHamilton CentreMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2315)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her support for a Conservative amendment to Bill C-12, which would deal with issues around electrification and transport. I know the member cares deeply about that. In fact, she was able to get an electric vehicle study from which I learned quite a lot.Both the Liberals and NDP made a number of amendments, but most of the amendments already fell within the scope of the bill. It just prescribed exactly how the minister would do something. Most of them offer very little. For example, the NDP talks about the interim objective assessment in 2026. Even the minister tried to pass it off as a milestone.Would the member give us her thoughts on whether these amendments would do anything further? What does she think of the government's attempts at transparency and accountability in the legislation?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government accountabilityGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionMoniquePauzéRepentignyMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2325)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member, being a fellow British Columbian, and I know that he is quite passionate about this issue and cares deeply about his constituents. I also appreciate his efforts on the environment committee to reach out, as he said.One of the things that the member spoke about earlier was carbon budgets. The reason I raise carbon budgets is that this is a subject that was raised at committee for amendments by the Green Party. However, the member did not propose carbon budgets at committee, nor did he support the Green Party's amendments to even hit the floor to have a discussion about it. It was also something we heard about from multiple witnesses. I would just like an explanation from the member. He says he supports carbon budgets, yet when the opportunity came up for him to support even the discussion of this idea at committee, he did not do that. Could he please give the House his rationale?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2340)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's intervention, being a fellow British Columbian. In the amended Bill C-12 after committee, there was a clause put forward by the NDP on basically using the term “independent” to make the advisory body independent. Does he think that is the case?The minister said tonight that there was a milestone for 2025-26 included because of the co-operation between the Liberals and the NDP. In my understanding, that was an interim emissions objective assessment. Can the member comment on whether, in his view, those things do anything to strengthen the bill from a Green perspective?Advisory bodiesC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGreenhouse gasesThird reading and adoptionPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful Monday morning. After listening to the earlier speeches, I would like to offer my thanks. My thanks to the Liberal Party member, who I just heard speak about the importance of this bill. Then there was my friend from Saint-Jean, and I did not know that she grew up on a farm, so we have a few more things in common. My thanks as well to the member for Hamilton Centre.This is something that we have to recognize, as it is so important to our farmers. They are the ones who produce our food. They are the ones who, throughout this entire pandemic, have been working to support Canadians. Looking at this bill, I think it is absolutely exceptional.I would really like to thank my great friend, the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. I actually drove through parts of his riding yesterday on my return to Ottawa from Elgin—Middlesex—London. The one thing I see in southwestern Ontario is beautiful agricultural land. There are lots of different commodities and sectors, but it is a big farming community. There are some big pockets of cities, but surrounding all of those big cities are acres and acres of great farmland where they are producing necessary commodities and food.I am going to start with a very simple quote, which actually comes from the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. He said this at committee, and I want to put it in the record of the House of Commons because this is a very valuable debate. These are things that are very, very important to my riding, so I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to this bill for the farmers who are living in Elgin—Middlesex—London. I can tell members that, according to Statistics Canada, in 2016 there were 1,930 farm operators in Elgin and 3,260 farm operators in the county of Middlesex. These are things that are very, very important to my riding, so having the opportunity to speak to this bill is an honour.To quote my good friend, at the agriculture committee he said: The greenhouse gas pollution pricing currently allows qualifying farmers an exemption on certain farm fuels such as gasoline and diesel; however, it fails to extend that exemption to other fuels such as natural gas and propane. This is challenging on many different fronts, as farmers quite often don't have other options and their only option for their particular industrial equipment may be natural gas and propane.The science says that natural gas and propane are often cleaner fuels than diesel or gasoline. Why would we not include them in this exemption? Farmers, after all, are stewards of our land and, along with our indigenous people, were some of the first environmentalists standing up for the land and also for the animals and plants located on their properties.That is why I wanted to talk about propane. I have quite a bias, to be honest. The former chair of the Canadian Propane Association is a resident of Elgin—Middlesex—London. He is also the CFO for Dowler-Karn, which is probably one of the biggest distributors of gasoline and fuel products to multiple farmers in the southwestern Ontario region. I can sit down with him, and when I call Dan Kelly with a question, he will answer. If he does not have the answer, he will find it, because he is out there working for Canadian farmers. He brought this to my attention as well. He said that Bill C-206 is excellent and what we need to do. He was actually hoping that we would not have to put through Bill C-206, and that the Liberal government may recognize the issue and put it in the budget, but we did not see that. The government does not recognize that it is going to take more than just two or three years for farmers to transition to greener fuels.I was really happy to see this bill continuing on to third reading, but as the member for Saint-Jean indicated, these are the final days, so I hope that today we can get through this. After we return to Parliament, hopefully this is a bill that the Senate will look at very quickly. This is what our farmers need and what they are asking for.Continuing on to the Canadian Propane Association, I would like to read a statement I received from it. I am sure everybody has received it as well. It explains why we should support this bill and the importance of the exemption that would come to our farm operators.This statement, I believe, was put out after the vote on second reading of Bill C-206, a vote of 177-145. All opposition parties actually agreed and recognized that this is something that needs to be done. We saw that the Liberal government was not good with that, yet it may have had to do with it coming from an awesome Conservative. We may never know. However, I will read out the Canadian Propane Association's statement, which says:“Discouraging the increased use of carbon-intense fuels such as gas and diesel in favour of low-emission energy like propane for agriculture applications would be a win-win for the environment and for farmers’ bottom line,” said Nathalie St-Pierre, President of the Canadian Propane Association....(1135)“The principle of the GGPPA is intended to encourage a reduction in the use of carbon-intense fuels,” said St-Pierre. “By exempting gas and diesel but not allowing the same exemption for propane, the law actually encourages the increased use of gas and diesel – this is environmental nonsense.”Just moments ago, we heard my friend from Hamilton Centre say the exact same thing, which is that, because of this, people are beginning to use diesel. The government has established the carbon tax, but it is actually giving an exemption to a dirtier fuel. We have an option here. The statement continues:St-Pierre said that CPA members are also hearing from their customers in the agriculture sector about the significant added cost due to the federal carbon tax. According to an estimate provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer last December, over the next five years about $235 million will be collected from farmers for using natural gas and propane.I will note that statistic. I was speaking to Dan about this. On behalf of the farmers in our area, he sent a cheque for over $1 million for just a few months for carbon tax collection. That $1 million that could have been used for so many other things, perhaps new technology, workers or new things on farms, but instead, that money is paid to the government. We are talking about $235 million. I have heard people say that the government is going to lose $235 million. To me, the government should not be taking that $235 million in the first place, so it would not be losing revenue. This is revenue it should not be taking, so we have to look at this as not being a loss of revenue for the government. The government had no business taking the $235 million in the first place because, at the end of the day, who pays for it? It is going to be the farmers. After the farmers, who pays for it? It is going to be people sitting at their tables, eating their cornflakes or their eggs from the local chicken farm. These are the people who, at the end of the day, are going to be impacted. Yes, this bill is good for farmers, but it is also good for Canadian consumers who want to support the agricultural industry in Canada, especially that in Elgin—Middlesex—London, which is so important to me.We have talked about inflation. In the last few weeks, inflation has been really key. We have talked about how much the price of wood and lumber have gone up. Housing is a big issue. In my riding of Elgin—Middlesex—London, there has been a 46% increase since last April in the cost of a two-storey home. Inflation is an issue, and the government is adding more costs to our goods. If we talk about poverty reduction strategies, we need to see what we are doing that is creating more barriers. I look at not giving this exemption as just another barrier to reducing the high cost of our goods right now. Farmers know that, when they are paying all this money, it affects their bottom line.I am so fortunate to work with Scott at the Grain Farmers of Ontario in my area. He is the zone manager there. I thank Scott, who always works with me. The Grain Farmers of Ontario is the province's largest commodity organization, representing over 28,000 barley, corn, oats, soybean and wheat farmers, and it has been very supportive of Bill C-206, an act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act regarding qualifying farming fuel. The Grain Farmers of Ontario is supporting this bill because of its exemption of the carbon tax for on-farm fuel and calls on all MPs to consider the tax on grain drying and its impact on the agriculture system in Canada. It is quite simple. The government should not be making money off a tax that negatively impacts a farmer's ability to market viable grain. The carbon tax does not make that happen.Brendan Byrne was the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario on February 22, 2021. There are a lot of AGMs going on, so that may not be his position now. As we have always indicated, farmers have been doing great work in our communities. They are the stewards of our land. I think of some of the great projects that have been done in the back of farmers' fields with wetlands conservation. Those settlements are being taken back.I love farmers, so I am very supportive of Bill C-206, and I thank the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for bringing this bill forward. C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)Energy and fuelFarming and farmersGrain and grain growingPrivate Members' BillsPropaneTax exemptionThird reading and adoptionMatthewGreenHamilton CentreGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. It is great to have a vast audience across the way to hear what I am about to say, although the member for Kingston and the Islands may not entirely agree with it.I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this excellent private member's bill, Bill C-206, from my colleague for Northumberland—Peterborough South, and in particular to talk about the significant failures in environmental policy on the part of government and how it is imposing costs on Canadians without a real plan to help us achieve our environmental objectives vis-à-vis climate change.I will start briefly by congratulating the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South on his excellent work on this bill and so many other issues. He serves as the shadow minister for revenue in our caucus. When I hear “shadow minister of revenue”, I think it sounds exciting, but he really has grabbed this position by the horns. It has been a pleasure to work with him on a number of revenue issues, including trying to bring about reforms to the direction and control system. This member has been a great champion of the charitable sector, trying to push the government to reform various aspects of the regulatory and legislative environment around revenue, especially direction and control, to really empower our charitable organizations and help them move forward. I want to congratulate the member for all his work, particularly in this bill, on behalf of farmers in his riding and elsewhere.Bill C-206 seeks to change the definition of a qualifying farm fuel to include certain fuels not currently included, and that is a step forward in terms of allowing any fuel a farmer would use to be qualified as a qualifying farm fuel, and therefore not having the carbon tax applied to it. Right now, while natural gas and propane are not identified as qualifying farm fuels, gas and diesel are. Not only does this impose additional costs on farmers, but it also gives farmers an incentive to move away from using natural gas and propane and toward using relatively more gas and diesel. In all likelihood, this is sort of perverse incentive that encourages greater greenhouse gas emissions, so this member is rationalizing the system through this bill in a way that would reduce costs for farmers and help our environment by removing this artificial incentive to use fuels that pollute to a greater extent.One would think this is a no-brainer on that basis. If this is going to reduce costs for farmers, but is also going to help our environment by providing more of an incentive for farmers to use cleaner fuels, why would it not just be automatic that everyone in this House supports it? The Liberals are stubbornly clinging to their position that the way they did it was fine.The big problem with these Liberals on so many aspects of their environmental policy is they do not understand the way in which perverse incentives can lead to worse outcomes for the environment, and they are not willing to look critically at the impact of those incentives on behaviour.One of the issues we have talked about a lot in the Conservative caucus in terms of the failures of the Liberals' environmental policy is this issue of border adjustments. The Liberal approach is to impose carbon taxes on Canadian producers, Canadian farmers and Canadian consumers, but not to apply those same requirements on people outside of Canada who are producing products and then selling those products in the Canadian market.The effect of this is that it is artificially creating an advantage for foreign producers, the people manufacturing goods and growing crops outside the country who are trying to then sell those products in Canada. One is creating an advantage for those outside Canada who are selling their products to Canada over Canadian producers. This obviously does not make any sense, in terms not only of protecting our own economic interests, but also of responding to the environmental challenges we face.When one makes it more expensive, and in the case of this particular bill, it relates to farming, and when one imposes more costs on Canadian farmers and therefore tilts the field against our farmers and in favour of people involved in agriculture production outside of the country, that is not helping the environment. It is simply hurting our own economy at no environmental benefit.(1145)We understand, in this caucus, that the challenges we face in terms of climate change are global challenges. Canada has to do its part, but it also has to put in place policies that recognize that emissions can happen outside of the country, and when they happen they impact us. We need to have a structure that integrates an appreciation for the global impact of climate change.That is why the Conservative environmental plan, for the first time from any party, proposes a strong policy around border adjustment tariffs. There has to be an equivalency between the burden imposed on Canadian producers and the import adjustments that are taking place. We should not be creating a tilted playing field in which we are actually creating an advantage for those producing greenhouse gas emissions outside of the country.We have raised this issue of perverse incentives: incentives in the policy that actually encourage the wrong kind of behaviour. In the case of border adjustments, we are talking about an incentive that the government has created, in its approach to environmental policy, to move production outside of the country.If someone is making products for the Canadian market right now in Canada, that person is paying carbon tax. If someone is producing those products outside of Canada in a jurisdiction that does not have a carbon tax and then selling them into Canada, they are in an economically advantageous position, at least vis-à-vis the carbon tax. This should be fixed so that we have a fair environmental policy that encourages improvements to environmental performance, but does not encourage the wrong kinds of adaptation, such as moving work outside of the country. As other colleagues have talked about as well, in the case of this bill we are talking about another case of perverse incentive. In imposing the carbon tax on certain kinds of fuel and not others, as the system is currently structured, there is an incentive for farmers to use fuels that may be more expensive and that may produce more in the way of emissions.I think we can do better. The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South has quite rightly seen the opportunity to do better and has thus put forward a bill that seeks to adjust the incentive environment. That is why I am very supportive of this bill. I would encourage all members to be supportive of it and to push the government to recognize something. It has been a talking point of the Liberals for a long time. They say the environment and the economy go hand in hand, yet they impose restrictions and taxes that hurt our economy and provide no benefit to the environment.It does not make any sense that they would impose obligations on Canadian producers and not have the corresponding adjustments happening at the border. It does not make any sense from an environmental standpoint. If they really believed that there was a unity of objective that could be pursued between the environment and the economy, they would be supportive of the plan that we have put forward, which includes these kinds of border adjustment measures.In general, in our environmental plan as announced by our leader, the money that is gathered through the deductions paid when people purchase products that emit carbon is put back into their pockets to also pay for adaptation. Our plan is not just about taking money away from people who are producing: It is about giving those resources back to them to invest in adaptations that improve their environmental performance. Our plan is very different from what we see from the Liberal government. The government is trying to use the environment often as a way to raise extra revenue. Our approach is to target measures that are going to improve the environment, while also supporting our industry. On this side of the House, we recognize the important role of our farmers. We recognize the value of having agricultural production in Canada. We want to strengthen farming communities. We recognize that from a basic security, food security and well-being perspective, it is important to have strong agricultural production happening here in Canada.We have championed this position, as a party, from the very beginning. We understand that it is not enough to just say it. Within every party we hear members saying flowery words about the agricultural sector, but the Conservative Party has always been there to stand with our farmers, and Bill C-206 is another example of that.C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)Energy and fuelFarming and farmersPrivate Members' BillsTax exemptionThird reading and adoptionKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola to speak to my colleagues about Bill C-206, brought by the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South, who has done an excellent job of finding an issue that resonates not just within his riding but right across the country. I will make a few short points about this, because I believe that Private Members' Business provides the opportunity for members, such as the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South, to bring up issues they are hearing locally to see if they are salient. The adoption of this bill through second reading to committee and now to third reading shows there is a consensus in this country. The Liberals were the only party to vote against it. Every other party recognizes that Canada's future is, in great part, due to agriculture. Many may argue that Canada's past was formulated on that, and I would say that is true, but so is the fact we can do more.In fact, in the majority government the current ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, put forward the Barton report and said that Canada could do so much more by working with agriculture. It could expand exports and feed people not just across our country but around the globe. It seemed for a while that the report might go somewhere. Most farmers thought it was great to have a government that was focused on that. Unfortunately, the government was not. Rather, it was focused simply on ideology and not on helping to connect the dots to make it work for farmers. As the MP who sponsored the legislation said, the Grain Farmers of Ontario stated, “there are no readily available grain drying technology replacement alternatives that are cost effective. Drying grain is essential for marketing grain.” This points out that when the input costs are too high, grain farmers will lose traction to other areas that have better prices. Unfortunately, it is a commodity market and we cannot just say, “Buy Canadian because Canada is great.” People in other countries also need to feed their families. If the rate for our grain is too high because of input costs, these people will simply go to another cost provider.The member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan previously mentioned the concept of carbon leakage, which is where adding extra regulations or taxation beyond that of another jurisdiction eventually makes it difficult for a place with a carbon tax, such as Canada's, to compete. I should know this. A B.C. Liberal government was the first to introduce a carbon tax in British Columbia. It found out quite quickly that the farming community would not be able to be competitive. Therefore, along with cement, it ended up having to subsidize many of those activities.I am grateful the MP for Northumberland—Peterborough South has brought forward something that will help with that competitiveness. The bill has received broad agreement, with the exception of the Liberal government and its backbenchers. I am sure there was a whipped vote on this, so I know many Liberal members probably felt very sympathetic and wanted to vote alongside the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP to support our farmers, but unfortunately it seems many on that side do not question the government's position as much. In fact, some seem to want to carry it on all day long, but enough about the member for Kingston and the Islands.I just have a few more things to say. The Conservatives believe we should be working with agriculture. The government has put out a clean fuel standard that is so complicated that farmers do not know what opportunities are there. They are worried about getting lost in the paperwork. It is the same government that is making it more difficult for farm operations to use small amounts of propane. The government is basically encouraging them, through red tape, to move to diesel. We know it is not as clean, as easy to store or as manageable. The current government seems to always be at odds with what farmers need and want.I will say this. Members like the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South and our Conservative caucus will be standing up for our farmers. We will put forward solutions, and we will have a meaningful impact on our greenhouse gas emissions while growing the economy, especially for our farmers.C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)Energy and fuelFarming and farmersPrivate Members' BillsTax exemptionThird reading and adoptionGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, it is absolutely my pleasure to rise on my private member's bill, Bill C-206. To me, it is a fantastic wrap-up for the year, if we go to an election. A couple of weeks into being an MP, I was in Ottawa and my staffer came to me and said, “You won the lottery”. I did not think I had bought a ticket. What did that mean? I had gotten number 16 on the private member's bills, which then put in place a large canvass of issues: ones that affect people across Canada and in my wonderful riding of Northumberland—Peterborough South. One issue that kept coming up was the impact of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act on the agricultural sector.I am a very proud advocate for and supporter of the agriculture sector and rural Canada in general. I had been told that dirtier fuels like diesel and gasoline were exempt from the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act but propane and natural gas were not, and of the impact this was having on our local farmers. When I had the opportunity, I was compelled. This was something I had to bring forward for the residents of Northumberland—Peterborough South and for our farmers across the country.I have enjoyed this process. It has been an iterative process and it has been collaborative. In fact, this whole hour has been an island of its own in a sea of partisanship. This has been full of non-partisanship. We had the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell stand up for my private member's bill and for a commitment he made to a couple of constituents. That is the very epitome of what it is to be from rural Canada and rural Ontario. When we give our word in rural Ontario and in rural Canada, we stand by it. That is exactly what this member did, and I salute him. One of the issues he brought to attention in his discussion was that things may change, and that very well may be. That is why the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford made a wise amendment to my private member's bill, which was to timeline it and have it go for only 10 years. If technology evolves and, in a decade, we can get to a point where there are biofuels or some other way, we are all for it, but as of now there is no other solution. Climate change is 100% real, and we are all in the House to fight climate change.In the absence of exemption, we are pushing our farmers out of competitiveness because they are dependent on worldwide markets and on trade boards for pricing. When a cost is increased, such as with the carbon tax, it is put directly on the tables of our farmers. Farmers work so hard. Especially through this pandemic, they have not stopped for a moment, and because of that they have kept our food supply the best in the world. We produce the best grain, the best poultry and the best beef right here in Canada, and we need to make sure that our farmers stay competitive because when we increase input costs, those come directly from the farmers. These costs not only affect our farmers, but entire rural communities because farmers are largely the ones who drive our economies. They are the ones who go to tractor dealerships and buy tractors. They are the ones who go to local restaurants, and there may be only a couple of restaurants in their towns. They are also the ones who support our local grocery stores, so we need to support and protect our farmers.As I said, we are at the end of the session. I would like to take a moment to thank all the wonderful members of my constituency of Northumberland—Peterborough South and thank the farmers for this wonderful piece of legislation that I have been able to work with. Particularly, I would like to thank Brandon from the Grain Farmers. I would like to thank my staffer Hailey, who was fantastic and critical to doing this. Most important, I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture community who worked so hard to get this on board. We will have a vote on Wednesday and we will get this across. Hopefully, we will be back in session so we can get this bill passed and help our farmers.I thank everyone out there so much. It has been a great pleasure to hear all the interventions. Some of my best friends, across the aisle and otherwise, have spoken. The member for Hamilton Centre is even wearing a blue suit for us, if I am allowed to acknowledge that he is in the chamber. I really appreciate that. I thank everyone for their learned interventions and their contributions. It is a great day for farmers.C-206, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (qualifying farming fuel)Energy and fuelFarming and farmersPrivate Members' BillsTax exemptionThird reading and adoptionDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/63908BernardGénéreuxBernard-GénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GénéreuxBernard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessGreenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActInterventionMr. Bernard Généreux: (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to request a recorded division.AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I had the chance to listen to both the first part and second part of the hon. member's speech.I have not heard very much about a part of the bill that proposes an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, which specifically would make it unlawful to knowingly mislead electors during an election campaign. I find it interesting that this is in an omnibus budget bill. Has she had a chance to look into the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act and does she have any comments on it?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresElectoral systemGovernment billsReport stageLouiseChabotThérèse-De BlainvilleLouiseChabotThérèse-De Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join in the debate, once again, in the House. However, from what I am hearing in the media, and the rumours around Ottawa, we very well may be facing an election in the coming months. As this may be my last speech prior to that election, I want to share some brief words of thanks to the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot for the honour to be their voice in Canada's Parliament over the last year and a half or so. As we have faced an unprecedented time on so many fronts and the need for collaboration and to hold the government to account as a member of the opposition, it has been a true honour. I look forward to life getting back to normal. Alberta plans to open for the summer, with the vast majority of COVID restrictions being lifted on July 1. It is an exciting prospect for Albertans as we look forward to getting back to normal. Even though Parliament is scheduled to rise in a few days, I look forward to continuing to fight in every way possible for the good people of east central Alberta and Battle River—Crowfoot for whom I have the honour and privilege of serving.I am rising on debate on the Liberal's budget, an omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30, which the Liberals promised to never do. When a Liberal parliamentary secretary was asked that very question on Friday, he said in effect that this was different because it was a budget bill. I have asked a number of questions and on this and, quite frankly, I have not received much response to them. This bill covers a wide swath of things that, yes, were promised in the much-delayed budget that was introduced a number of months ago, but it also includes some other aspects, such as an amendment to the Canada Elections Act, a change to the gas tax fund and a few other things, which I will dive into in more detail.However, I would like to address one concern I increasingly hear from constituents, and that is the attitude to which this current Liberal government has approached the legislative agenda and the way it has governed the country. I had a constituent give me a very apt description that I would like to share with members about the rhetoric that has been coming out of the Liberal benches as of late, and it is simply this. The government is quick to blame the opposition for all its failures, which I think we have been very effective at articulating how absurd that is. Had it not been for the opposition, Canada would be in a much worse spot when it comes to COVID relief programs. The third time is the charm with respect to legislation that has had to be repaired several times. The fact is that the opposition has been exposing many of the areas of mismanagement and very troubling trends related to the approach that the Liberals have taken to government accountability and ethics.These last couple of weeks, in particular, the government House leader, other Liberal members and the Prime Minister in his press conferences, who would never say this in the House of Commons because he would be held to account on it, have effectively said that it is the Conservatives who have been obstructionists, that it somehow is the opposition's fault that the government cannot get anything accomplished. A constituent shared with me an analogy that I will share with members. It is a bit like students, after having received the syllabus for the school year, coming upon the night before the deadline for a major assignment at the end of the course and all of a sudden realizing they had lot of work to do but did very little or nothing and now they have a choice: They can either admit their failures or they can blame, pivot and make excuses. The Liberals have chosen to do the latter by blaming the Conservatives for obstruction, rather than acknowledging that they are the ones in charge and that they have utterly failed in their legislative management. If this is any indication of how the Liberals have managed government over the last six years, no wonder our country is facing some major challenges.(1220)Bill C-30 is a large bill and it addresses many aspects of COVID response program changes to other aspects of the functioning of government. I am going to get into those specific things. However, I want to touch on a couple of things that have not received a lot of air time, so to speak, one of which is the proposed amendment to the Canada Elections Act. The part of the Elections Act that talks about misleading statements during an election was struck down by a court ruling. The government has inserted in the bill, somewhat innocuously, an amendment to the act that would include the words “knowingly mislead” during an election.There should be a lot of discussion on the “knowingly mislead” part, especially when we see the failures of the current government to uphold elections commitments, its pivoting away from promises made and, certainly, the astounding level of mistrust that is faced across political discourse these days. I find it troubling that this has not been debated extensively. It calls into question some of the purposes associated with why that would be inserted into the back of a budget implementation bill.The second thing, and this is typically Liberal, is that in the budget implementation bill, the government plans to rename the gas tax fund. This is the Liberal agenda at its best. It takes something, renames it, shines it up a bit, gives it a little spit and polish, and then suggests they have done Canadians a great service with this new program with its fancy new name. That appears to be what Liberals have done with the gas tax fund, which will be called the Canada community building fund going forward.The new name certainly has a ring to it, and most Canadians might say that it is a great idea, with grant applications and funds going to municipalities. However, it is very important to highlight that it is simply a change in name of a program, which has some of the challenges associated with government accountability and the increased costs. Then I expect to hear a flurry of election spending announcements, promoted by the infrastructure of government, as we saw prior to the 2019 election. We are already seeing cabinet ministers jet-setting across the country, using the tools they have at their disposal to make a myriad of promises prior to the election. We are going to see a whole bunch of promises related to this new fund, but the Liberals probably will not call it a new fund. However, under a new name, the Liberals will certainly claim credit for the work, even though it was not the Liberals who brought forward that fund, and how it has benefited many municipalities, including some in Battle River—Crowfoot. I am glad to have had the opportunity to put that on the record so Canadians know that simply renaming something does not give the government of the day credit.There are extensions to many aspects of COVID programming and there are some concerns related to not being able to address some of the folks who have fallen through the cracks. There are further changes to health transfers, some of which are very needed. I would suggest the dollars are a little too late when it comes to vaccinations, which speaks to the Liberal strategy. If we had been on time with vaccines, we would not have had a third wave. This was the Prime Minister's third wave, when it comes to the delays we face.(1225)As I have come to the end of my speech, I will simply say this. Parliament is an institution that represents Canadians, and to hear that the government is trying to circumvent, at every cost, the need for this place to carefully and thoughtfully debate and discuss legislation, including something as significant as the bill before us, Bill C-30, is very troubling. It is very troubling to hear the Liberals try to circumvent and dismiss the need for what should be of absolute importance to every single one of us.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Community-Building FundCOVID-19Electoral systemGovernment billsImmunizationInfrastructurePandemicReport stageAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, it has become standard practice for successive Liberal governments, whether through direct legislative means, as we see in this bill, or through the myriad of other regulatory or political mechanisms, to blur the lines between the different levels of government.Our federation works because there has to be respect between the different levels of government, and unfortunately we have seen a significant erosion of that over the last six years. It has led to an increased level of alienation in various regions of the country. Certainly it is being felt in western Canada. A lot of that points back to a Liberal government that refuses to stay within the lines of what our country was intended to be and how the federation was intended to operate. It is incredibly troubling that time and time again we see an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction by the federal government. It is the Ottawa-knows-best mentality. That may make for great press conferences and great spending announcements, but it is not how leadership works. Leadership needs to be working with provincial partners and—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsProvincial jurisdictionReport stageJulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, the member emphasizes the problem. Time and time again, he refuses to acknowledge that there are regions of the country that demand respect in our federation. The Liberal government has refused to do this too, even in various pieces of legislation. I think about Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and even the debate around carbon pricing. The federal government has the ability to impose its will on provinces, but the question that should be asked is whether or not it should. The problem is that we have a Liberal government that refuses to respect anyone who disagrees with any aspect of the way it approaches politics, the legislation it puts forward—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsProvincial jurisdictionReport stageMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, the member asks a question that strikes at the heart of the way the Liberals have pulled the wool over the eyes of Canadians. They are trying to outflank the NDP on the left regarding policy measures, and when it comes to actual implementation to deal with the things they promised to deal with, they end up simply saying that they will consult going forward or they back away from their commitments entirely. That is a further troubling trend we see, and the government is not being honest with Canadians. With a lot of the COVID programming, we have seen that, increasingly, it is the elites who are benefiting from the billions of dollars that were meant to— Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsHigh incomeIncome taxReport stageJennyKwanVancouver EastAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a finance question.Two great economic historians from Harvard University, Reinhart and Rogoff, have listed five precursors to a debt crisis: asset price inflation, particularly housing price inflation; long-term current account deficits, that is to say buying from the world more than we sell to the world; a drop in output, as we experienced last year with the $100-billion drop in GDP; rising household leverage, and we have the highest household-debt-to-income ratio in the G7; and an increase in overall indebtedness. We now have $8.6 trillion of household, corporate and governmental debt combined, which is four dollars of debt for every one dollar of GDP.If interest rates rise before these incredible debt ratios decline, does the member believe we could face a debt crisis in Canada of which I have warned in the past and am warning in the present? Does he share that concern, and what would he do to avoid it?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPublic debtReport stagePeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and speak to the government's budget. I have been spending a lot of time talking to people in my constituency about where they think this country should go coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. What does the future look like? What are the things we need to be focusing on as we move forward as a country?There are three big priorities that I am hearing from my constituents in terms of their concerns of the direction of the government. Their concerns are around rising government debt. Their concerns are around the failure to support the energy sector and the role that the energy sector will play in our economy going forward. The third concern I hear a great deal about in my riding right now is freedom of speech and attacks on freedom of speech that we hear from the government.With respect to Bill C-30, the government's budget bill, let us zero in on the first of those two points: government debt and the energy sector. As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, people are looking to see what kinds of plans are in place to allow our economy to grow and prosper and be firing on all cylinders again. In order to do, that we need strong public finances. In order to do, that we need to have support for our key natural resource and other sectors that really drive prosperity.We have to have sound public finance and we have to have revenue coming in to government coffers as a result of jobs being created, opportunities being created in our key sectors. There is a great deal of concern about the public debt that has been run up over the course of this pandemic, but it did not start with the pandemic. Let us remember, when the Prime Minister took office, we had a balanced budget. Canada had been through the global financial crisis. We ran deficits during those years, but Canada was back in a balanced budget position in 2015. In fact, over the course of the tenure of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down. We had been through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Over the course of the tenure of that prime minister, through those incredibly difficult circumstances, the debt-to-GDP ratio had gone down.We had a prime minister coming in and saying, “the good times will last forever, do not worry about it, the budget will balance itself, so we can run modest deficits”. Recall that 2015 election campaign, three $10-billion deficits followed by a balanced budget in year four: that was the promise made by the Prime Minister. Teeny, tiny deficits, $10-billion deficits for three years followed by a balanced budget.What happened? In the first year under finance minister Bill Morneau, the government had a deficit that essentially ate up its promised deficit allotment for the three years all in one year. The Prime Minister had not foreseen perhaps, or maybe he did and just did not tell us, that when opening the floodgates with money for everything, money for this and money for that and we do not have to worry about raising the revenue for it, that can become a bottomless pit. We have seen over time this bottomless pit of willingness to go into debt get deeper and deeper. Instead of three years of $10-billion deficits and then a balanced budget, we had four years in the order of about $30-billion deficits. During relatively good years, the government ran up another $100 billion worth of debt.Part of the reason we need to have strong public finances is to preserve that capacity during challenging circumstances to run deficits. In the midst of a global financial crisis as we faced in 2008-09, in the face of the pandemic as we dealt with in this Parliament, it is very often necessary to have some degree of deficit spending. However, if we are running deficits already prior to that period and then go further into deficit, we increase our risk of a long-term debt crisis. Certainly we run up massive amounts of more debt that have to be paid off at some point.The government's long-term fiscal plan coming out of this pandemic involves very large deficits in perpetuity. There is no plan for us to ever get back at any point, even to the $10-billion figure that the Liberals talked about when they ran in 2015. The long-term plan is to spend more that we have every single year.We have different parties in the House with different approaches to spending. Conservatives believe that it is important for us to move toward a balanced budget—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Budget deficitC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stagePeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I thought it was my children calling, worried about the debt they are going to have to pay off in a few years as a result of the profligate spending of the current government.As I was saying, Conservatives emphasize the importance of moving toward a balanced budget. I do not agree with them, but I give the New Democrats credit for saying we should be spending more and increasing taxes. That is not an approach that is going to lead to long-term prosperity, but at least they sort of have understood at certain times that if they are going to spend more they have to pay for it somehow. The Liberal government, uniquely in this place, takes the position that we could consistently spend more than we have: that, during good years, we can run what were historically considered large deficits of $30 billion; and then, during challenging circumstances, we can run astronomical deficits of 10 times that. Notably, this one Prime Minister has accumulated more debt during his time in office than all of the previous prime ministers had up until 2015. This is the great debt Prime Minister. That is his legacy to our children. It is understandable that people in my riding are coming to me, asking what is the plan here, where is all this money coming from, and how are we ever going to get out from under this. I tell them the reality is that the money we spend today, we are going to have to pay off. It is going to lead to higher taxes, lower social spending or both, in the future, or maybe the government's way of getting out of it is simply printing more money and leaving it to inflation. That too is a form of taxation. It is a form of the government reaching into people's pockets and, through inflation, reducing the value of the money they have. Therefore, yes, we should be very concerned about debt.The way we can move forward as an economy is going to also require strong job growth and a reoriented, rational economic policy that gets our debt under control. However, also part of balancing the budget is promoting growth. We need to have support for what have always been the engines of economic development in this country, and those are the natural resources and manufacturing sectors.Conservatives have said very clearly that we want to support economic growth in all sectors of the economy. We want to support in all sectors and in all regions. For energy workers in Alberta, for forestry workers in B.C., for forestry workers and manufacturing workers in Quebec, for people working on the assembly line in Ontario, from coast to coast, Conservatives are supportive of those vital sectors. That is where we differ from the government. The government is disdainful of our energy and manufacturing sectors. The government is imposing additional burdens on those sectors. The Liberals have this notion that the sectors that have driven our success for all of our history could somehow be shut out of economic recovery and, instead, government could pick winners and losers and be subsidizing what it thinks are going to be the technology and the jobs of the future. If we are going to put the focus on jobs and opportunity for Canadians, then we need to come back to those tried-and-true sectors that have delivered prosperity in the past. That means removing barriers from our oil and gas sector. That means supporting private-sector-driven stimulus, the development of pipelines, energy projects that employ so many Canadians, not just in my riding, not just in Alberta but people from other parts of the country who invest in or come to Alberta or who create component products that are then used in energy-related manufacturing as well as extraction.We have this opportunity, going forward. We have an opportunity to secure our future; that is, to get our debt under control, to work toward a balanced budget over time, and to do so by controlling spending but also by supporting growth. On the other hand, we have a government across the way who says we can shut down our traditional sectors and at the same time we could spend more money than we have. The Liberals are cutting the knees out of our revenue sources and they are continuing to insist on spending more and more. It is not going to work to undermine the sources of job growth and opportunity growth and government revenue and, on the other hand, to just keep insisting on spending more and more money. That is a recipe for economic disaster. The government is just bullishly moving forward in this direction that will be disastrous for our long-term economic well-being. We need a change. We need a government that is committed to securing our future.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Budget deficitC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEconomic recoveryGovernment billsOil and gasReport stageAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on this important topic. He spoke a bit about cutting the knees out of our economy. Perhaps he was talking about the lack of pipelines getting built in this country. I wonder if he can talk a little more about that.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationReport stageGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, what we saw from the current government, immediately upon taking office, was killing the northern gateway pipeline and imposing all kinds of conditions on the possibility of an east-to-west pipeline that would connect Canadian energy with Canadian consumers. It has killed pipeline project after pipeline project, and that is obviously undermining investor confidence. At the beginning of this Parliament, there was the Teck Frontier project, a project that had been through all the hoops. Members of the government caucus openly lobbied to kill that project, which actually had a net-zero target built into it. We see project after project that go through all the steps, good projects that create jobs and take triple bottom line— Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationReport stageArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is quite correct that we sought to work with the government during the very challenging circumstances of COVID, but that does not mean we were not critical of some aspects of the implementation. There were many problems with the way these programs rolled out. We said there were ways they could have been constructed better. For instance, we talked about having a back-to-work bonus to make it easier for people receiving CERB to get back to work part time without losing all of their benefits. If the government had implemented some of our suggestions, we would have been able to be there for Canadians and also take into consideration the fiscal circumstances. We can do both at the same time; we can take both under consideration, but the government failed to do so. Much of the spending is far beyond these benefit programs. There are the benefit programs, but we were in a seriously dangerous deficit situation even before the pandemic.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure working with this colleague. I wish him well in his planned retirement.There are different things happening in different parts of the country. My province has announced a complete reopening starting at the beginning of July. There are different circumstances in different places and different trajectories. Hopefully, over time we are expecting the country as a whole to be on its way out of the pandemic as a result of various factors, including the availability of vaccines.I would say to the member's question that a targeted approach is important. There are certain sectors that have been hurt more than others, and there are certain sectors for which the impacts will be there much longer. Therefore, it is important to look at the changes in the circumstances and how some sectors are continuing to be affected while others are coming out of it. Certainly, we would provide the tools and incentives for returning to a situation of growth as quickly as possible, and that does require a bit of sensitivity with respect to the different circumstances.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageSmall and medium-sized enterprisesJackHarrisSt. John's EastTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair today, giving me this opportunity, I guess, to speak until the end of the programming motion that has been forced upon us because the government and the House leadership on its side seem to really want to do their homework at the very last minute. As a constant procrastinator in my youth, I appreciate that, but with old age we get wiser. I have come around to not doing that in my personal life and making sure that I am on top of my work before the clock strikes the eleventh hour.What I am going to talk about today with regard to this piece of legislation, the budget bill, the first BIA, is what Albertans and constituents in my riding have cared about for the last 20 years, which is equalization, equalization and equalization. That is some of the biggest unfairness in our Confederation, and I think every Albertan would say so.Typically in the BIA, the budget implementation act, we would see modifications made to the formula that governs equalization. I remember being on the finance committee when this was indeed the case. I actually missed it at the time, but the government simply rolled over the same formula and then accused the Conservatives at the time of having supported this formula back in 2014. The Liberals said it was not a big deal because it was the same thing.Here is the deal. Over the last two years, the provincial government in Alberta has run a $24-billion deficit, if COVID spending is excluded. Once COVID spending is included, it will approach a $40-billion deficit over two fiscal years in the province of Alberta, my home province, the province I call home, the place that adopted me. It is patently unfair that Albertans are continuing to see major contributions to federal coffers because, after all, it is not a cheque cut from Edmonton to Ottawa; it is the totality of federal income taxes levied on workers in Alberta, and then the redistribution is based on a formula and the fiscal capacity of the average of the 10 provinces combined together. Now, there are a lot of different revenues included. There are different calculations being made. At the Fraser Institute, Ben Eisen and another analyst made a calculation that demonstrated that in Canada, equalization and the fiscal capacity of the provinces are actually converging. Over the last five and a half years, my province has gotten poorer because of Liberal policies out of Ottawa. My province is now so poor that Albertans are only 20% above the median income of the people in Ontario, whereas before we were in the range of 80% to 90% above. That is a significant decrease in the common prosperity of the people of my province. It is directly related to policies that the Liberal government has introduced. It has stymied the growth of the oil and gas sector. I have not seen a single major oil and gas project be proposed and built since the Liberals took power. Actually, every single project that was completed had been started under the previous Conservative government.Equalization by 2025-26 fiscal year is expected to be $25 billion. That is according to the government's own figures. The total number is actually growing over time. It is not shrinking over time, and it should be shrinking because our fiscal capacity is actually converging. The provinces are actually becoming much closer together to the average. One would think that over time there would be less money to redistribute because the provinces are more even, but that is not what is going on.I want to recognize a member of the New Democratic Party, the member for St. John's East, who has stated several times how unfair equalization is to his home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the distinct privilege of being able to travel with different parliamentary committees to the province as well, and I have read the Greene report. Lady Greene provided a report on the state of the finances in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is an eye-opening read. It is not just unfair for Alberta. It is not just unfair for Saskatchewan and other “have” provinces contributing to our shared prosperity in this country; it is also unfair to Newfoundland and Labrador, which is seeing an immense drop in its provincial revenues and barely any finances being made up in the fiscal stabilization program, the FSP, the so-called equalization rebate.Let it not be said that we Conservatives and I have not done something about it. I have tabled Bill C-263, the equalization and transfers fairness act, which would have eliminated that cap, but in this budget, in the BIA, all the Liberal government is committing to do is simply increase the cap to another random number.(1305)The Liberals have tripled the cap now to a number that I do not think is defensible. If the cap had been eliminated entirely, my home province of Alberta would have been eligible for a $3-billion refund because of the significant loss in revenues. It is not as if the federal government does not have increasing revenues. I was just looking at the numbers. The income taxes that the federal government is forecasted to raise will go up by $46 billion over five years. That is $46 billion of additional revenue coming in, and it still cannot balance the budget within a five-year timetable. To conclude, I want to be clear that if Albertans want to know more, if members across the country want to know more, I encourage them to follow Fairness Alberta and Dr. Bill Bewick's work, which gives an eye-opening account by the numbers, not rhetoric, just by the numbers, of the hardship my province is being asked to bear in order to pay for the finances of the federal government, and we cannot afford it. We cannot afford this government. We cannot afford another five years of nothing being done on equalization. The formula needs to be changed, and there needs to be greater fairness for the people of Alberta.I will finish with a Yiddish proverb, because I know members know how much I appreciate them: “Let your mouth not speak what the eyes do not see.” Albertans have been seeing deep unfairness over the last five and a half years. We have suffered one of the greatest—Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEqualization paymentsGovernment billsReport stageGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Bill C-12—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, the member and I sit on the environment committee together. He described the process of committee review as “collaborative”. The Conservatives actually supported the Bloc amendments as well as NDP and Liberal amendments. We actually came there to collaborate, but that particular parliamentary secretary and his team of Liberal members made a complete hash of the process.He talked about indigenous knowledge. There was no indigenous representation at committee. The Assembly of First Nations brief came after the time for amendments. It was very clear that there was a political agenda between the NDP and the Liberals to slam through and not even support any other amendments.When it comes to some of the amendments, I can see why the member only wants to talk to the bill and not to the process or even this motion. The Liberals have mishandled even getting this to Parliament. It has been over a week and a half since the committee finished. The member referenced specifically amendments that would force the office of the environment commissioner to study or review the government's plan. That, effectively, is a cut because there is no extra funding to do this.Why is the government always pushing it onto someone else's desk?C-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesRules of debateChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act [Bill C-12—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, is this not a strange set of circumstances? When the government House leader said that we would be debating Bill C-12 last week, I foolishly assumed he meant the actual bill. Multiple times last week it looked like maybe Bill C-12 would be debated, but no. The Liberals say that we Conservatives are delaying. Unfortunately, instead of debating the bill today, we are debating a motion to shut down debate on the bill because the government cannot seem to manage the House agenda at all. To say this bill is urgent after not calling it for months, and indeed after proroguing the House and delaying everything, is the height of hypocrisy. Therefore, here we are.This is not the first disaster of management on this legislation by the current government. Indeed, it is just the most recent in a long list of failures relating to the bill. I would like to go through some of those here.When the bill was first introduced, I stood in the House and said I would support the bill. That is true and on the record. However, at that time, I made the mistake of taking the minister at his word: that he was willing to work in good faith with opposition parties. Very quickly I was disabused of this notion.The first domino was when the government pre-empted the bill entirely. It ignored its own promises and appointed the advisory body. The minister had committed to working with us and with the oil and gas industry to develop the advisory group. In fact, the Minister of Natural Resources said, “We're not reaching net-zero without our oil and gas sector in this country. We're not reaching it.” I agree with this minister and expected direct representation from this critical industry on the group advising government. Unfortunately, instead, the minister appointed a body with no direct oil and gas representation. It was full of people devoted to the death of that industry and the jobs and prosperity it brings.There were some choice quotes and statements from various members of the advisory committee. One tweet thanked Greta Thunberg for calling on the Prime Minister to stop all oil and gas projects. Another rejected that fossil fuels could co-exist with climate action, rejecting the industry and its workers entirely. Another advocated for stopping all fossil fuel exports and another said, “Tomorrow, I'll join thousands gathering around Canada to call on premiers to act on climate and reject pipelines.”Members may think that I am done, but I am just getting started because all those were from one person: Catherine Abreu of the Climate Action Network.Another board member, Kluane Adamek, again quoted Greta, advocating abandoning the fossil fuel economy. Simon Donner from UBC, another board member, called to halt all new oil sands projects and asked if we should cap production entirely.To be clear, I am not saying that these people are not entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. We are a free country with free speech, until Bill C-10 passes I guess. However, the minister chose these people who are actively anti-oil and gas and put them on this group to tell him what to do in regard to policies relating to oil and gas.We wanted to work with him on this advisory group and felt it could represent expertise in which Canadian industry excels. Instead, the minister would much rather reject industry entirely, so I for one have no interest in supporting his crusade or his legislation. It has become clear that the minister is completely focused on destroying Canada's oil and gas sector and all the people it employs.Even knowing all that, we went into the committee process in good faith. I met with many groups from across the ideological spectrum, did a lot of research and worked to create productive and relevant amendments that would improve the bill. What did we find at committee? As many more people watch the House and committees, despite being wonderful entertainment, I will let those at home know what exactly occurred. (1340)Initially, when the bill came to us at committee, all parties worked together to create a timeline for consideration that would have allowed enough time to hear witnesses, receive briefs and review the bill. However, when the committee next met, the Liberal members dropped a surprise motion to reverse all that had been agreed to in order to fast-track the bill and get it through as fast as possible. At the time, Conservatives warned that this schedule would make it difficult to properly conduct our important work, and how right we were. The Liberals, with their NDP allies, were able to speed things up, so we started the study immediately. Witnesses were due the next day, so everyone had to scramble to do their best. Witness testimony was essentially limited to two days. We did hear some particularly good testimony from a variety of witnesses, yet on something clearly this important to the Liberals, why would they not want more evidence? It would become clear soon enough.Many people do not know that when committees study a bill, there is a deadline to submit witnesses and amendments. As well, drafting amendments takes a couple of days. The incredibly hard-working staff, who assist in drafting these, are amazing to work with, but writing law takes time. The deadline for amendments in this sped-up Liberal-designed process was immediately after we heard the last witness testimony, so there was not much time to formulate ideas and get them ready. Even worse was how it affected the written submissions. This is what really gets me. As soon as the bill got to committee, we put out a call for written briefs. These are quite common: Generally experts or interested Canadians send in their opinions on a piece of legislation. They are an essential aspect in ensuring that Canadians can feel included in the process and feel heard. I spoke to witnesses who, when invited to the committee, were told the deadline for submitting a brief was the day they were invited. These briefs are often technical and professionally researched articles. How is an expert supposed to write a submission with literally zero days' notice? The answer is they cannot.Additionally, as we are a bilingual nation, all of the submissions had to be collected and translated before being sent to members of the public. All of this led to the farce that we saw at the environment committee on the study of Bill C-12. When amendments were due on a Friday before we started clause-by-clause review, only a small number of briefs were available to members. The next week, there were dozens of briefs. Over 70 were posted and then made available. That means that due to the Liberals' single-minded focus on passing the bill as fast as they could and limiting the witness testimony as much as they could, the vast majority of public opinion on the bill was not available until after amendments were due. This is a completely disrespectful act conducted by the Liberals and their allies in the NDP to ignore public opinion.Ontario Power Generation, Fertilizer Canada, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Canadian Electricity Association all sent briefs after amendments were due. Even environmental groups were hurt by this. The briefs from Ecojustice, Citizens' Climate Lobby, Leadnow, the David Suzuki Foundation and the previously mentioned Climate Action Network all were not available until after amendments were due. Perhaps the most egregious impact of the Liberals' behaviour on this bill is that no indigenous witnesses were heard from during the study. As par for the course, the brief from the Assembly of First Nations, as I am sure everyone has guessed, was available only after amendments were due.Additionally, there were a great many briefs from individual Canadians who worked hard to have their voices heard. Thanks to the Liberals, they feel ignored. I heard from one Canadian who said she worked hard on her brief and was excited to have her voice heard, yet when she learned that amendments were due before her brief could even be read, she was totally disenchanted with the process. Our responsibility as elected officials is to ensure that Canadians feel heard, feel included and feel a part of something. What the Liberals and their NDP allies did during this process is disgraceful, and it is a terrible mark on the history of this place.(1345)Now I will get to the clause-by-clause study itself. Despite all I said, we still went in with productive amendments and hoped for the best. Indeed, the minister said he was willing to work with all parties to make the bill better. Again, that turned out not to be true. It became clear very quickly that, instead of there being a willingness to debate or even engage on good ideas, the fix was in. The Liberals and the NDP made a deal to approve their own amendments and reject everyone else's, no matter how reasoned or reasonable.(1350)[Translation]Before I get to our proposed amendments, I just want to share an example that shows how ridiculous the whole process was. At one point during the study, the Green Party proposed an amendment that was identical to a government amendment. The Green Party's amendment came up first, and the Liberal and NDP members opposed it even though it was exactly the same as their own amendment.It is clear that their strategy was to reject literally every other suggestion, regardless of what it was. For context, the amendment in question would have required emissions targets to be set 10 years in advance.People who are familiar with the workings of Parliament and committees can probably guess what happened next. If an amendment is rejected, any subsequent amendment that says the same thing is automatically removed from the list because the committee has already expressed its will on the matter. The Liberals and New Democrats are so staunchly opposed to any amendment other than their own that they ended up killing one of their own amendments.What followed was an absurd exchange during which the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley proposed a new amendment that would require targets to be set 9 years and 366 days beforehand, instead of 10 years. I am not giving this example to poke fun at the Liberals and the New Democrats, even if it was funny, but because it shows to what extent they were reluctant to consider changes that were not theirs.What were some of the reasonable changes we proposed? I think Canadians would like to know.First, we think that solving the very real problem of climate change must be done through a whole-of-government approach. The federal government is famous for operating in silos. One group or department that is responsible for a problem or a particular issue does not usually work with others, or does not coordinate with them. I am sure anyone who has worked in Ottawa or for the federal government has many stories about this. That cannot happen when it comes to tackling climate change. Everyone must work together.Of course, Environment and Climate Change Canada is the key department, but it also needs to coordinate with the departments of industry, finance, natural resources, employment, crown-indigenous relations and many others. We therefore proposed a series of straightforward amendments to remove the powers to set targets, create plans and approve reports from the Minister of Environment alone and include the entire cabinet. The Minister of Environment would recommend policy to cabinet, but cabinet would ultimately decide how to move forward. This is not exactly reinventing the wheel.That is generally how policy is made in government: Silos are broken down as much as possible and other departments are included.Perhaps the Minister of Environment did not consider the impact on industry, jobs and indigenous peoples. Bringing together cabinet to make decisions about these objectives and plans is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP even refused to debate, and they rejected every amendment we proposed for that purpose.In their dream world, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change is an omnipotent figure who dictates every policy by decree. That is not how the Conservatives want to manage things. We believe in collaboration and the importance of working together, especially on the issue of climate change.Another set of amendments that we proposed would have added that, when objectives were set or plans formulated, the minister would be required to balance social and economic factors, including the impact on employment and national unity. Climate change is real, and we absolutely need everyone to work hard to address it.We cannot accomplish this by blowing the top off Canadian industry and the well-paying jobs that support Canadian families. We need to look at the big picture and make decisions that will improve the lives of all Canadians. That includes Canadians in the regions that will be most affected by these policies. Our country is stronger together, and we must do all we can to keep it that way. A government that is bent on destroying a region's main industry is not a government that knows how to build a nation. Therefore, it seems to me that examining how these policies will impact these factors would be a good idea.However, the Liberals and the New Democrats refused to so much as debate the subject and rejected all the amendments, which, frankly, surprised me. The government loves to talk about how the green economy will create so many jobs. If that were true, our amendment would allow the government to brag about it, would it not? Instead, they rejected it. Why? Because it came from the Conservatives.We then suggested that the progress report include the greenhouse gas emissions and sequestration from non-anthropogenic or non-human factors. This would include the amounts sequestered by our vast unmanaged forests and prairies and emissions from such things as forest fires and methane releases from melting permafrost. I personally feel that we cannot make a plan unless we have the full picture. Canadians often ask me what impact our forests have on emissions. Although this information is available in some places, it would be much easier for Canadians to have access to it in the main reports. Again, this seems like an obvious thing to include, but the Liberals and the NDP voted against it without debate.After that, we proposed another great addition. As people know, Canada is a federation, and the provincial governments control many of the policy levers that are needed to achieve our climate goals. They manage the resource sector, the electrical grid and the building code. (1355)We wanted the assessment reports to include a summary of the measures taken by the provincial governments to achieve the national greenhouse gas emissions targets.Again—C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsC-12, An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada's efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050Government billsGovernment Business No. 9Greenhouse gasesOil and gasRules of debateChrisBittleSt. CatharinesAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersCOVID-19 VaccinesInterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, today as we celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day, I would like to recognize the Siksika nation's generous donation of vaccines to the Dashmesh Culture Centre in Calgary for their vaccine drive. Through the tireless efforts led by President Amanpreet Singh Gill and the entire executive committee, the Dashmesh Culture Centre serves the community at large in Calgary through Seva and many community initiatives. This is what Canada is about.When the South Asian community needed help to tackle COVID-19, it was our indigenous brothers and sisters who stood up and came to help. During this pandemic, we must remember that we are in this together. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Somewhere along the way, we must learn that there is nothing greater than to do something for others.” We are stronger together and may God truly keep this beautiful land strong and free.CalgaryCOVID-19ImmunizationIndigenous peoplesPandemicSiksika NationStatements by MembersTonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBarrie—InnisfilInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, close to 200 well-wishers lined the streets leading to the home of Edwin Ng as he returned home earlier this month.Ng, a 48-year-old husband, father, grandfather and dedicated personal support worker, contracted COVID-19 when an outbreak devastated Roberta Place long-term care centre in January. He spent almost five months in hospital and underwent a double lung transplant. He was determined to survive and with support from his wife Samantha, family, friends, community and their faith in God, Edwin never gave up hope.Our community of Barrie—Innisfil is also sending its love and support to Troy Scott, owner of the Foodland in Stroud, who was recently hospitalized facing a similar battle as Edwin did after contracting COVID. In Barrie—Innisfil and communities across Canada, our resiliency and, in many cases our faith, has been tested with stories like Edwin's and Troy's.As we approach Canada Day inspired by these stories of resilience, let them serve as a reminder that as a nation, Canada has faced and overcome great challenges during our history when we are united, determined, compassionate and respectful, and we will do so again.Barrie—InnisfilCOVID-19Ng, EdwinPandemicScott, TroyStatements by MembersEmmanuelDubourgBourassaWayneLongSaint John—Rothesay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35897BlaineCalkinsBlaine-CalkinsRed Deer—LacombeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CalkinsBlaine_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersHenry FleckInterventionMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, Ponoka lost a legend earlier this year when Mr. Henry Fleck passed away on January 22. A cowboy to the core, Henry had a love for all things horse-drawn and was best known as a stagecoach driver in the grand entry of the Ponoka Stampede, a role he held for more than 15 years. No doubt about it, Henry was a cowboy through and through and shared his passion with everyone. If he was not driving the stagecoach in the summer, he was pulling a sleigh in the winter. He rarely asked for money; just a little something to cover the cost of feeding the horses. When the occasion called, Henry would honour fallen cowboys by bringing them to their final resting place in a horse-drawn hearse. Henry was proud to be from Central Alberta and would often tour with the stagecoach to other destinations to promote his hometown and the Ponoka Stampede and bring a sample of our western hospitality to everyone. We were so blessed to have such an incredible ambassador for the cowboy way of life in our midst.Rest easy, Henry. We tip our hats to you.Deaths and funeralsFleck, HenryPonokaStatements by MembersVanceBadaweyNiagara CentreRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the people of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes have been getting things done. Collaborating with the provincial and municipal governments, our community has been working together to bring federal funding for major projects we need in developing them from ideas into reality.Massive infrastructure projects, like the County Road 43 expansion that will get us to work in the morning and home at night more safely; recreation projects, like the new arena in Prescott that will serve as a community hub; or affordable housing projects, like the St. Vincent de Paul project in Brockville with affordable housing for seniors. I will continue to fight to make sure that our community gets its fair share of dollars for these vital projects. We are going to call on the government for more funds for investment in Gananoque, Westport, Rideau Lakes, North Grenville, across the United Counties with rec projects in Leeds and the Thousand Islands, and Edwardsburgh Cardinal.I want to thank my provincial and municipal counterparts and everyone in our community who has worked so hard on these projects. Together, we are building a better community.InfrastructureLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesStatements by MembersRachelBendayanOutremontColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersAttack in London, OntarioInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the anti-Muslim terrorist attack in London, Ontario that took the lives of four members of the Afzaal family devastated our nation, including my community of Oshawa and Durham Region. On Friday, June 11, councillor Maleeha Shahid and Siraj Patel organized a peace walk and vigil to remember the lives lost and mourn for Fayez, a boy now left without his family, and take a stand against the hate that brought destruction to innocent Canadians just trying to live their lives. I want to thank Imam Shakir and Pastor Jayson Levy for their words of comfort and challenge that evening. I was also thankful for the opportunity to visit the Islamic Centre of Oshawa this past Friday to speak with the imam and the congregation. The intense pain felt by those in London is shared in Oshawa.Oshawa has a strong history of celebrating our multicultural past, and we are committed to welcoming all cultures as part of our rich, shared and respected future.City of OshawaDeaths and funeralsLondonStatements by MembersVehicular homicideMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMumilaaqQaqqaqNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersConservative Party of CanadaInterventionMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, this pandemic has wreaked havoc on our economy and resulted in thousands of individuals being laid off, with the vast majority of those affected being women. While Canadian women have been struggling to make ends meet, the Liberal government, under this Prime Minister, decided to dole out millions to his rich friends and raise taxes on middle-class Canadians. Canadian women cannot afford this corruption and higher taxes any longer. However, there is hope for women. Canada’s Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure the future for Canadians, which includes recovering the million jobs lost, balancing the budget over the next decade and bringing about more accountability so we never see another WE scandal. For those who support higher taxes, job losses and more scandals, Canadians have four parties to choose from, the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and Greens, but for Canadian women who care about securing Canada’s economic future, there is only one choice: Canada’s Conservatives. COVID-19Economic recoveryPandemicStatements by MembersSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouYvonneJonesLabrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, today we learned that 149 Liberal MPs have been using taxpayer dollars to pay the Prime Minister's good buddy, Tom Pitfield, to help Liberals get elected. Mr. Pitfield is not just the Prime Minister's friend, but his wife was the president of the Liberal Party, and they both were with the Prime Minister on that infamous billionaire island trip. It is just a typical day in the life of the corrupt Liberals.Who instructed Liberal MPs to use their taxpayer-funded budgets to pay the Prime Minister's friend to do political campaign work?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinYvonneJonesLabradorPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, well, Liberal friends are certainly being served well: $200,000 for Katie Telford and Gerald Butts's moving expenses, half a billion dollars for the Prime Minister's friends at the WE Charity and now tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars for another one of the Prime Minister's buddies.It pays very well to be a friend of the corrupt Prime Minister, but Canadians cannot afford more of this unethical behaviour. Again, who in the government told 149 Liberal MPs to give taxpayer money to Tom Pitfield, the Prime Minister's friend and colleague?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the important work of Parliament. In less than one hour, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada will appear before the bar of the House of Commons. This Parliament, this one, has asked four times to see the documents relating to the firing of two scientists from the National Microbiology Lab. Now the agency has been found in contempt of Parliament for failing to hand the documents over.Will the government confirm that it will stop the cover-up today and allow the president of PHAC to table the unredacted documents to this, the people's House?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the important thing is that we respect our institutions.In less than an hour, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada should be here in the House to table documents regarding what happened at the Winnipeg lab. It is an order of the House, not a wish or desire. In one hour, we will see whether the Government of Canada respects our institutions and the will of the House of Commons.Will the government allow the Public Health Agency to table the documents that Canadians want to see so that they can understand what happened in Winnipeg?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what is dangerous and despicable is to disregard the orders of the House.Experts may not know that, but the minister should. The documents that we have requested will be tabled here with the Clerk. The Clerk will do his duty as a Canadian and a responsible man. He will review the documents, strike out any sensitive information and present the documents to parliamentarians. That is our job as responsible MPs.Why does the government want to play petty politics by toying with national security and disregarding the House? Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, when asked why 97% of Liberal MP offices were paying Tom Pitfield, the childhood friend of the Prime Minister and fellow vacationer to billionaire island, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “I haven't got a clue. I can't explain it. I vaguely recall once a year we write a cheque and it's always been explained that it is within the ethical guidelines, so we all kind of sign up for it and it goes into some oblivion.” Yikes.Who in the government told these Liberal MPs to sign taxpayer dollars into oblivion?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinBardishChaggerHon.WaterlooPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government House leader said that it is no big deal, so I guess we better take his word for it, just as those Liberal MPs should take the word of the Prime Minister and this cabinet, who have been found guilty of multiple ethical law breaches, that there are no ethical misdeeds happening here.Tom Pitfield is a close friend of the Prime Minister. This is another Liberal insider getting ahead on the backs of hard-working Canadians.Who in the government told these Liberal MPs to cut a cheque to the Prime Minister's friend Tom Pitfield?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, what is rich is hearing the government House leader, who sits on the side of the most corrupt government in this country's history, talk about shutdowns. The Liberals prorogued the House during a pandemic, filibustered dozens of hours across multiple committees and mismanaged the House agenda so badly that they find themselves unable to get what they deem to be key legislation passed at the end of the parliamentary session. He should be ashamed of this, just as he should be ashamed of how the Liberals are misappropriating taxpayer dollars to subsidize Liberal political operations.The Liberal minister needs to tell us whether he was complicit. Was he the one who gave the order for 97% of the Liberal caucus to misappropriate taxpayer dollars?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is clear that it pays to be a member of the Liberal Prime Minister's inner circle. Do my colleagues know Tom Pitfield, a very old friend of the Prime Minister's? Mr. Pitfield is also the owner of Data Sciences, a business that offers technical support for the Liberalist, the partisan scoring list of the Liberal Party.We learned today that 97% of Liberal members, or 149 of them, used their constituency budgets to pay for Data Sciences' services. Who asked Liberal members to pay for the services of the Prime Minister's friend?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the government House leader why this issue is so sensitive. Rather than tell the truth, two Liberal members said they did not know why they were paying Data Sciences with parliamentary resources. The Liberals are writing cheques to a friend of the Prime Minister without knowing why. That is what is really going on.We only recently learned about these partisan payments to Data Sciences, but Mr. Pitfield has been in charge of the Liberals' digital operations since 2015, and he will likely take on the same role for the next election. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much money his good friend has received from parliamentary offices since 2015?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not add Bill C‑6 to the agenda for four months, and they spent 183 hours filibustering in committee. The Leader of the Government is the one who is unable to manage the House. That is the reality.The member for Malpeque told the Globe and Mail that the Liberal Party gathers partisan information from constituency offices. He said that MPS have to be careful in how they handle the system, to avoid misusing the information for partisan gain.To sum up, the Prime Minister has a good friend who travelled with him to the Aga Khan's island and a close friend who runs the partisan Liberalist with money paid out of the public budgets of 149 MPs. He is asking Canadians to believe that no rules were broken. Who ordered the payments?Conflict of interestData Sciences Inc.Election campaignsExpensesLiberal Party of CanadaOral questionsPitfield, ThomasPrime MinisterReferences to membersTrudeau, JustinPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government introduced its budget with limited targets, and one of the few measurements was the declaration on chart 35 that one million jobs would be recovered by the end of June. The fact is that between March and May of this year, our economy lost jobs. We have the second highest unemployment rate of all the G7, and inflation is running rampant.Will the Prime Minister deliver on his promise of 1 million jobs recovered by the end of June?Job creationOral questionsMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, it appears that another promise made is a promise failed, when the government does not meet its benchmark of a return of creation of 1 million Canadian jobs by the end of this month. Between March and May, the unemployment rate rose from 7.5% to 8.2%. That is 1.6 million Canadians out of work. Jobs come from growth, and there is a lack of focus from the government on spending that would grow the economy. Could the Prime Minister tell us today where the jobs went and the new date they will be coming back on? Job creationOral questionsSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, I can assure members I am not laughing. Jobs are not being created. The economy is not growing, and we are slipping in our G7 position. Canadians are desperate. The Prime Minister sold this budget as a growth plan, but evidently it is nothing more than a marketing plan for an election. We cannot talk our way into a better future. My constituents are sick and tired of the lack of deliverables. They want action. I have had enough of the theatrics and the sales pitch of a budget.Will the Prime Minister come forward with specific growth targets and clean, clear timelines by economic sector? Economic recoveryJob creationOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, a Toronto birthday party that should have been a celebration instead ended in tragedy. A one-year-old, a five-year-old and an 11-year-old were indiscriminately shot, caught in the crossfire. This shocking and outrageous act of gun violence against the precious lives of innocent children is devastating. Violent gun offences are on the rise, increasingly because of illegal guns. The government has done nothing for six years. When will the minister act to protect Canadians and remove illegal guns from our communities?Crime preventionGun controlOral questionsShootings with firearmsDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister continues to mislead Canadians with that response. Under the Liberal government, gang violence continues to terrorize our communities, just like it did in Etobicoke this weekend. In Toronto, there have been over 160 shootings, with dozens injured or killed, in the last six months alone. The Liberals' failed approach with Bill C-71, the gun ban, the confiscation plans and Bill C-21 focused on law-abiding firearms owners rather than illegal firearms and criminals. Instead of deceitful, tired talking points, when will the minister admit their plans are failing and put forward measures that actually protect Canadians? Crime preventionGun controlOral questionsShootings with firearmsBillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, if the media and the Conservative Party had not been so vigilant, the Prime Minister would have allowed the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate our embassies around the world through the company Nuctech, which installed X-ray machines. We managed to convince him that it was a mistake, and he cancelled the contract.However, the same company has installed the devices at our borders and airports. If they were not right for our embassies, will the Prime Minister finally realize that these devices need to be removed from our borders and airports?AirportsBordersChinaGovernment contractsMillimetre wave scannersNuctech Company LimitedOral questionsSecurityBillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that this is not true. The government knowingly installed security-compromised Nuctech equipment at our borders and airports. The operations committee's recommendations are clear: remove the Nuctech equipment from our airports and borders and ban the purchase of tech from Chinese state-owned companies.Will the government act on this report to protect Canadians or will it instead continue to admire the basic Chinese dictatorship?AirportsBordersChinaGovernment contractsMillimetre wave scannersNuctech Company LimitedOral questionsSecurityBillBlairHon.Scarborough SouthwestBillBlairHon.Scarborough Southwest//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105210LianneRoodLianne-RoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RoodLianne_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInternational TradeInterventionMs. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers, producers and processors are worried about market access to international markets. They are unsure whether their current market access will continue. They also want to know if they will regain access to markets that have been closed to them. I have met with many stakeholders who are very concerned that the government does not have their backs on this.Will the government assure the House that it is actively working to guarantee and open market access for Canadian farmers, producers and processors? Farming and farmersMarket accessOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTourism IndustryInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, now that Canada is finally starting to catch up to the rest of the developed world on immunization, provinces, territories and municipalities are beginning to reopen. However, Canada's borders are under federal jurisdiction and there is still no clear plan for a permanent safe reopening. Thousands of small businesses are dependent on tourism and they are being left behind by the federal government.Once again, when will the government finally table a comprehensive, detailed reopening plan? BordersCOVID-19Oral questionsPandemicTourismTravel restrictionsRachelBendayanOutremontPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/20878Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.Kerry-Lynne-FindlaySouth Surrey—White RockConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FindlayKerryLynne_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, more than 265,000 jobs were lost in the past two months. In April, the number of Canadians receiving regular employment insurance was up nearly 10% overall, but up more than 22% for women. Women in South Surrey—White Rock who had jobs do not want EI; they want to work.Does the Prime Minister accept any responsibility for these job losses?Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Pacific salmon strategy of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is nothing but more empty promises. The Liberal government has been in power for six years and, once again, it has failed to listen to our B.C. fishers to develop and implement an effective plan to conserve and restore Pacific salmon. We do not need anymore studies. We do not need anymore stall tactics. We have experts on the water who know what needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.When is the minister going to start listening to B.C. anglers and get to work on restoring our B.C. public fishery?British ColumbiaFisheries policyOral questionsPacific salmonPacific Salmon Strategy InitiativeAhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInfrastructureInterventionHon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, with the closing of the Pierre‑Laporte bridge for repairs in a few days, construction of a third link is more important than ever to maintain the flow of traffic between Quebec City and Lévis.What are the Liberals waiting for to follow our lead? The Conservatives are giving their support for the third link, which will help our regions and our motorists.Will the Liberals finally make a decision and support the third link, which is essential for regional urban mobility? City of QuébecLévisOral questionsTransportation infrastructureBernadetteJordanHon.South Shore—St. MargaretsCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodImmigration, Refugees and CitizenshipInterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, for the 2020 parent and grandparent sponsorship application term, 209,174 applications were submitted. To date, zero applications have been processed. Even worse, this current processing time is estimated to be 28 months. This Liberal-made backlog mess is hurting young families, minorities and our economy, while the Liberals pile on more platitudes and election promises.When is the government going to fix its failed application system?BacklogsImmigrant sponsorshipOral questionsCatherineMcKennaHon.Ottawa CentreMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodCanada Revenue AgencyInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Ind.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, a recent report by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group says that a secretive division of the CRA is unfairly targeting Muslim charities with audits amounting to discrimination. The report found that 75% of the charities audited and whose status was revoked were Muslim charities, despite them representing only 0.47% of the overall sector.Could the minister explain what is being done to stop this harassment?Audits and auditorsCanada Revenue AgencyCharitable organizationsIslam and MuslimsOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1510)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, when a member rises to move a motion in the House, they must always have the proper equipment. We saw that the leader of the Bloc Québécois did not have the necessary equipment. That being said, I think that all parties know what the leader of the Bloc Québécois wants to talk about, and I seek the consent of the House to let him continue.Points of orderResolutionsSimultaneous interpretation and sound reinforcementVirtual ParliamentAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think we all recognize that the member for Beloeil—Chambly is not set up correctly to address the House of Commons. We also know what he wants to talk about today.What I would suggest to my colleague for Beloeil—Chambly is that he first make his presentation in French and then after that, if he can, translate it to be sure that every member will have access, in both official languages, to his proposition of the day.Official languages policyPoints of orderResolutionsSimultaneous interpretation and sound reinforcementVirtual ParliamentAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodResidential SchoolsInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1515)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will make myself clear so everyone understands what I am saying.We have to follow certain rules. Yes, there are technical considerations, but location matters too. I completely understand what motivated the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, to do this on National Indigenous Peoples Day and to do it in an indigenous centre. That puts us all in a positive frame of mind. Plus, his proposal, which he read in both official languages, was unanimously adopted.I invite the Speaker to issue a recommendation about whether we are supposed to be in the House, in our parliamentary office or in our riding office. If it should so happen that we are not in one of those three places, I believe, although we would have to reread what has been said about this, that we are expected to inform the House in advance so officials can make sure everything is working properly.For today, it is understandable. I would be the first to agree, because Wendake is in my riding. We can move symbolic motions like the one moved today. However, I think we need a rule, should a member choose to speak from somewhere other than the House of Commons.Points of orderSimultaneous interpretation and sound reinforcementVirtual ParliamentAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPoints of Order [Documents Related to the Transfer of Ebola and Henipah Viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, we shall follow the rules step by step. You were talking about the June 17 decision. There is someone here, and we are asking this person to table documents. Do what you have to do, and after that we will see if there are any documents. If there are none, we will address it.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPoints of Order [Documents Related to the Transfer of Ebola and Henipah Viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology]InterventionMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe you were interrupted while trying to finish the statement you were making. You were admonishing the Public Health Agency of Canada, and I think you should be able to finish your statement before there is a point of order responding to that statement. I think you should have the right to—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, what my friend, the government House leader, just did is completely unacceptable. He disregarded the ruling you made on June 17.If the member had something to say about this matter, he could have done it at the appropriate time, 10 days ago, when the member for Kingston and the Islands responded to my well-researched speech. That was when the government leader should have made the argument he made just a couple of minutes ago, instead of having the member for Kingston and the Islands give a speech, although I must say it was an interesting one. However, you considered the strength of the arguments and made a decision. You acknowledged that our proposal was a fair one.We proposed that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada attend at the bar of the House to receive an admonishment and to deliver the documents. When this matter was duly put to a vote on June 17, it then became an order.That order contained two elements. The first was that the president, Mr. Stewart, attend at the bar of the House. I see that he is still there, which is good. The second is that he be admonished by the House, and that is what you did.However, the story does not end there. The June 17 motion was very clear. The majority of the House of Commons, all of the opposition parties, voted in favour of it. He was supposed to deliver up the documents related to the Winnipeg lab without redaction. That demand has not been met.That is why I am informing you that I am raising a question of privilege related to the fact that this order of the House was not followed, given the refusal of Iain Stewart, president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, to produce certain documents when he attended at the bar, contrary to the order adopted by the House on Thursday, June 17.Standing Order 48(2) normally requires that I give one hour's notice if my question of privilege is not one “arising out of proceedings in the chamber during the course of a sitting”. Mr. Stewart received the order to attend at the bar of the House this day for the purposes of “delivering up the documents ordered by the House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that order”.(1540)[English]Mr. Stewart was here but he did not deliver what we were asking for. This is why we are talking about a question of privilege here today.[Translation]I want to stress that that is the real issue. The order of the House required two things: that Mr. Stewart attend the House to receive the admonishment, which he has done, and that he produce the documents, which he has not done.That is why the House is once again debating this issue. This is an important question of privilege related to what happened here a few minutes ago.House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 82, lays out the well-established list of types of contempt of Parliament.[English]I will refer members to the ninth and tenth items.[Translation]It includes:...without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information or produce papers formally required by the House or a committee;without reasonable excuse, disobeying a lawful order of the House or a committee;[English]Both of those have happened before our eyes today.[Translation]There is no question that Mr. Stewart was aware of the order made Thursday. He testified before the Standing Committee on Health on Friday, and said he was aware of the motion adopted in the House of Commons. That is a good thing.Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, states, at page 240, “Disobedience of rules or orders is an obvious contempt and would include refusing to attend at the Bar of the House after the House had so ordered, refusing to personally attend and to produce the documents requested by a committee…”.The documents Mr. Stewart was to produce were requested on four distinct occasions, last spring.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, you ruled that the House had every right to compel the production of documents. You also ruled that, contrary to a reckless Liberal opposition motion from 2009 and 2010, the House had taken the necessary steps to balance parliamentary responsibility with protecting national security, and to promote dialogue with the government on the issue.[English]The only way was to put forward a motion to order Mr. Stewart to appear in this House today, at the bar, with those documents.[Translation]It is also within the authority of the House, as indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, at page 130.It is incumbent on us to do something. The House must defend itself and assert its rights. Citation 120 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, states that with respect to questions of privilege, at first glance, and I quote: “Should the House wish to proceed without reference to the committee it may do so.” Maingot adds at page 263, and I quote: “It is nevertheless open in flagrant cases of contemptuous conduct to move that the facts in question constitute a breach of privilege”. In the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, session 1977-78 of the United Kingdom House of Commons, at paragraph 57, appendix C, a former clerk of that House, Sir Richard Barlas, wrote, and I quote: “Failure to comply with a formal order to attend or to produce papers may be dealt with by the House as a contempt; so may the failure to answer questions when giving evidence.” Such a failure should in fact be investigated by the Committee of Privileges. “[T]he House itself could and has dealt with the matter as one of privilege on a report being made by the committee concerned, and exercised its penal jurisdiction accordingly.”Last week, we proceeded without reference to the committee to call Mr. Stewart to the bar to produce the requested documents. I would remind the House that it was the majority of elected members here in the House who voted for that action. It was not a wish or a request, it was an order. These documents still have not been produced. The urgency of the matter has not changed.Paragraph 302 of the 1999 report of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the United Kingdom clearly states, and I quote, “If the work of Parliament is to proceed without improper interference, there must ultimately be some sanction available against those who offend: those who interrupt the proceedings or destroy evidence, or seek to intimidate members or witnesses; those who disobey orders of the House or a committee to attend and answer questions or produce documents....But unless a residual power to punish exists, the obligation not to obstruct will be little more than a pious aspiration. The absence of a sanction will be cynically exploited by some persons from time to time.”That is exactly where we are right now.[English]That said, what would be more important than imposing a sanction would be for the—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1545)[English]MotionMr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:That Mr. Iain Stewart be dismissed from the bar of the House.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsLeave to propose a motionMotionsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaStewart, IainSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—VanierAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we have seen worse.[English]That said, what would be more important than imposing a sanction would be for the powers of this House to be vindicated by obtaining the documents. Allowing the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to do its work would be, in my opinion, more valuable than deliberating on how to scold the Public Health Agency a second time.If the House were so inclined, it can arrest someone or even commit him or her to jail. For example, had Mr. Stewart not even showed up today, the authorities are clear that we could send Sergeant-at-Arms to bring him here.[Translation] Paragraph 121 in Beauchesne, in reference to persons summoned to attend at the bar, indicates that if the person is not present, “the absence is noted and the House orders the Speaker to issue a warrant for him to be taken into custody.”That did not happen, however. Mr. Stewart did what he had to do, that is present himself to the House, but he did not do what the order asked him to do, and that is submit the documents. Sir Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, states on page 62, and I quote, “If, when the order of the day has been read at the appointed time, the sergeant-at-arms informs the house that the person summoned is not in attendance, or cannot be found, the house will instruct the speaker to issue a warrant for his arrest.” That did not take place, and that is all the better.I will also quote from Parliamentary Practice in New-Zealand, which states, at page 794, “the House may also use its...powers to enforce and uphold its privileges. It may...coerce someone to do something it wishes to be done, for example committing a person to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms so that he or she may be brought to give evidence before a committee. When using its powers in this way, the House is not 'punishing' anyone for past transgressions, but rather ensuring that no transgressions occur.”It goes on to say, “The House uses its powers to secure compliance with its orders before there has been any disobedience of them. If a person committed into the Serjeant's custody escaped, then a contempt would be committed and the person would be liable to be punished. The distinction between punishing for disobedience and taking action to secure compliance can be a fine one where there is disobedience to the House's order.”Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the most recent example, a ruling by your predecessor, the hon. member for Halifax West, on May 18, 2016, which can be found at page 3547 of the Debates of the House of Commons. Members will recall this sad day. The ruling had to do with the incident in which the Prime Minister crossed the floor and forcibly grabbed the official opposition whip by the arm like a common thug and dragged him back to his seat. It was one of the most disgraceful incidents in the history of our Parliament. The supreme political authority of this country behaved with the dignity of a thug. A few hours later, he admitted his mistake and formally apologized in the House of Commons. The member for Papineau did the right thing. Let us remember the parliamentary consequences of that incident.In this case, after some brief comments, the Speaker simply said: I appreciate the comments of all the members who have spoken, and I appreciate the Prime Minister's apology.Having said that, I cannot help but find a prima facie case of question of privilege and I call upon the hon. member for York—Simcoe to move the appropriate motion.Mr. Speaker, since you do not have any written notice in this case, I would like to read the motion that I intend to move.[English]The motion states: That the House find that the Public Health Agency of Canada continues to be in contempt for its failure to obey the orders of the House, adopted on June 2 and June 17, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 21 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, directs the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House to enter into the premises of the Public Health Agency of Canada to search for and seize the documents which were ordered to be produced by the House on June 2 and June 17, 2021, and by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations on March 21 and May 10, 2021, and to deposit the documents with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Council under the terms of the order of the House adopted on June 2, 2021 and that the Speaker do issue this warrent accordingly.[Translation]We had previously worked on a motion that was reviewed by the Chair and staff, who concluded that the proposal was not acceptable, so we immediately came up with a new one, which was adopted.That is why we came prepared for every contingency this time around. If, by chance, the Chair decides that this first motion does not meet the requirements of the House, here is a second one that can be used moving forward.(1555)[English]The motion states: That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada continues to be in contempt for its failure to obey the orders of the House, adopted on June 2 and 17, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, refers the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for its consideration of an enforcement mechanism available for this House to obtain the documents previously ordered by the House and the special committee to be produced to provide that: (a) the committee to be instructed to report back within four weeks of the adoption of this order to provide that in the event it does not do so, it shall be deemed to have presented a report making the following recommendations: “That the Sergeant attending this House be directed to enter the premises of the Public Health Agency of Canada to search inside for the documents which were ordered to be produced by the House on June 2 and 17, 2021, and by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and to table these documents with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, under the terms of the order of the House adopted on June 2, 2021, and that the Speaker do issue a warrant accordingly; (b) any report which is ready to be presented when the House stands adjourned may be submitted electronically to the Clerk of the House and and shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that date, and (c) the provisions in paragraph (q) of the order adopted on Monday, January 25, 2021, concerning committee proceedings shall apply to maintain the committee held in relation to this order of reference until Sunday, September 19, 2021. Let me be clear: This House has a job to do and this House shall be respected and especially shall be respected by all members, because we are 338 Canadians here in the House of Commons but we are more than citizens. We are representatives of our constituents. When we do not pay respect to the House, we do not pay respect to the Canadian citizens. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I think that you will realize and recognize that if we let it pass, no one can address anything further.[Translation]This is all about respect for the House, which is made up of 338 Canadians who were duly elected by the public. If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?The June 17 order was very clear, and two things were supposed to happen. The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada was to appear here and receive an admonishment. He was also meant to deliver the documents, but he did not.It is like someone saying that they do not believe in a law, that it does not apply to them and that they do not care about the consequences because they do not believe in it. It is one thing if we are talking about a citizen who believes their rights have been violated. However, that is not how it works, and even less so when that someone is an elected official.The House must respect the House. That is why I urge the Chair to take my question of privilege into consideration.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, we once lived in a country where the Governor in Council ignored the will of the elected legislature. We once lived in a country where the executive council ignored the will of the legislative assembly. We once lived in a country where the chief minister and the cabinet ignored Parliament. That was a country long ago. That was a country some 18 decades ago and it was that ignorance of the elected legislature that led to the people rising up. It led to insurrection, it led to the rebellions of 1837 and it led ultimately to reforms. It led to the introduction of responsible government, first in the legislature in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which was established in 1758, and subsequently, several years later, in the predecessor Parliament to this one: the Parliament of the United Province of Canada in the 1840s. It led to Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine and Robert Baldwin establishing the first responsible government, the first great ministry of Canada, on February 25, 1848. It was an important milestone that established the fundamental concept that the executive branch of government is accountable to the elected legislature, that the executive branch of government cannot ignore the orders of this place, cannot ignore the bills that are passed and adopted in this place and the other place, and cannot ignore the will of the elected House of Commons. Until that point, the Governor in Council regularly ignored Parliament and the elected legislature. Bills were often vetoed by the governor. Orders of the House were ignored. The Governor in Council hired and fired advisers at will and made his own decisions, the legislature be damned.The introduction of responsible government was an event so important that on Parliament Hill we have a statue to Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine and Robert Baldwin that overlooks the Ottawa River and is labelled at the bottom, chiselled in stone, “Responsible government”. Since the introduction of that responsible government, Canada's democracy has evolved to the point that we now accept that the government is accountable to the House, but the Liberal government is rolling back 18 decades of parliamentary evolution with its defiance now of four orders of the House and its committee. The situation in front of us is rapidly evolving from a situation in which the government is simply refusing to provide documents related to the termination of Dr. Qiu and Dr. Cheng, and the transfer of materials from the Winnipeg National Microbiology Laboratory to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to a situation that is much more serious and that involves the rule of law. The rule of law is such a sacrosanct part of the trinity of our principles of a belief in democratic institutions, human rights and liberty and the rule of law, that the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms put in its preamble that this country recognizes the supremacy of the rule of law, and the Liberal government is seriously undermining that rule of law with its flagrant disobedience of the four orders of this elected chamber. There have been two strong precedents in recent years to support the orders of the House and its call for documents. One is the case that has been referred to many times, in which Speaker Milliken's ruling of 2010 made clear that it is the grand inquest of the nation that this chamber has an unfettered, absolute right to call for the production of papers, full stop. There was a more recent example two and a half years ago in the mother Parliament of the United Kingdom, when the Conservative British Prime Minister of the day defied Parliament and said she would not release the Attorney General's solicitor client-protected opinion on the Irish backstop in relation to the Brexit deal. (1615)She refused to hand over those documents, and the House found her in contempt and ordered that her Attorney General come to the House with the documents, which Attorney General Geoffrey Cox did because the British government understood the importance of the rule of law, the importance of Parliament and the importance of democracy. That is why the current Canadian government cannot be allowed to get away with this flagrant defiance of four orders of the House.I will finish by saying this. Why do Canadians send 338 of their fellow citizens to this chamber if their decisions are going to be ignored? Why do we spend $400 million a year on this chamber and the other one if our votes do not mean anything? Why do we vote to adopt orders if they do not have effect? Why are we spending billions of dollars on these buildings, some $5 billion on Centre Block alone at last count, if the processes and procedures in this place do not mean anything?We cannot allow this open defiance of the House to go unchallenged. We must uphold parliamentary democracy, and we must ensure the government fulfills the order of the House.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentRights of the House as a CollectivitySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.That is a very tough act to follow. Very powerful and passionate arguments were just made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills defending the importance of the decisions made in this place and the democracy that we have. I probably will be far less interesting, powerful and passionate, but I have a couple of citations to make that I think the Speaker will find helpful in making his decision, and I would like to share those with him.Central to the very key elements of the intervention from our opposition house leader, who made a very compelling case for the path that he has put forward, was the idea that, if the House is able to do incredible things to order persons to attend, we should be able to do the same with respect to documents. That is central to the arguments he made, and I just wanted to share with members a couple of citations I believe the Speaker will find helpful in making his ruling.First of all, in their 1972 paper, entitled “Parliamentary Committees: Powers over and protection afforded to witnesses”, then Attorney General of Australia, Ivor Greenwood, and then Solicitor General of Australia, Robert Ellicott, wrote at paragraph 117:Although seldom if ever used, it would no doubt be within the competence of the House of Commons and therefore our own Houses to authorise an officer to search for specified documents or classes of documents in a particular place and order that they be inspected or copied or brought before the House. If a committee had power conferred on it to do this there seems to be no reason why it, too, could not give such an order. Any person who obstructed an officer in the course of carrying out the order would, of course, be guilty of contempt.... We are inclined to the view that the power to give such an order is conferred on a committee by reason of a power to send for documents.The principle of the House being empowered to search for and seize documents is also endorsed at page 688 of Australia's House of Representatives Practice, sixth edition, and it is also cited favourably by Derek Lee, a former Liberal member of Parliament in this House, in his 1999 book, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records at page 47, where he adds, “Alternatively, where a person is in the sergeant's custody, the House may send the sergeant to accompany the prisoner while the prisoner goes to obtain the document required by the House, as the U.K. House of Commons did in 1809.”.I just wanted to make sure I added those important citations to the record. I think they will be helpful to the Speaker in making his decision, and I believe it is very clear that the House does and should have the power to order the documents to be produced, just as it can order someone to attend to the bar.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton HillsAlainTherrienLa Prairie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, on this matter, I would also like to add to the body of evidence you are considering in this matter as we had Mr. Stewart in front of our Standing Committee on Health on Friday, where he was questioned on this issue. It was very apparent in his testimony he understood the terms of the order and had decided not to abide by the second component of the order, which was the production of documents. It is important for the Speaker, in considering his ruling in terms of a prima facie case of breach of privilege, to understand that Mr. Stewart did have the opportunity to comply with the motion, that he understood the terms of the motion and yet failed to comply today. This has made my job as a parliamentarian and the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Health exceptionally difficult. It is our job to scrutinize these matters. I certainly feel that having the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada before the committee outlining the fact that he understood the terms of the motion yet indicating he may not comply with it to be highly problematic. Parliament is supreme. We have, as parliamentarians, the right to compel documents and to have them so we can suggest better public policy outcomes.I would add one further point in this regard. This is now becoming a pattern. There was a motion put before the House in October for the production of other documents. That has not been complied with fully, with the health committee we are seized with. In testimony in front of the health committee, the deputy minister for Public Works also said that the government had wilfully not complied with the terms of the motion and that it had not produced unredacted documents to the law clerk. Therefore, parliamentarians have not had the ability to scrutinize these documents.The documents I am raising right now as extra evidence are in fact contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars. It is difficult to ascertain because we do not have copies of them. Given that Canadians pay taxes to fund these contracts, and there have been a lot of delays in the delivery of these contracts, it is incumbent upon the committee to be able to look at these things. This is a pattern. I would direct the Speaker and the Clerk to the testimony of Mr. Stewart in front of the health committee on Friday, and present that as evidence that this was wilfully ignoring the will of the House. I find this deeply unacceptable and I certainly support some of the arguments that have been made by my colleagues this afternoon.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlainTherrienLa PrairieKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPrivilege [ Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, members of the government have been invoking this argument that the Public Health Agency is limited in the documents it can hand over, by law. We heard this argument the first time the president of the Public Health Agency appeared before a committee on March 22. He invoked the Privacy Act in his consistent refusal to answer questions or hand over information subsequently.I have a few points on this invocation of the Privacy Act.Number one, Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on this question in your ruling on the initial question of privilege, so it seems that by invoking this, members are trying to undo a ruling that you have already made.Number two, members have rightly invoked the constitutional principle that the rights of this House are part of our constitutional law and they supersede statutes like the Privacy Act. A point that has not been made, however, and that was made by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills at the ethics committee on March 31, when the committee first adopted an order to send for these documents, was that the Privacy Act itself contains an exception, which clarifies, in this case, that the document should be handed over. My colleague, at the time, read paragraph 8(2)(c) of the Privacy Act, which says:(2) Subject to any other Act of Parliament, personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed...(c) for the purpose of complying with a subpoena or warrant issued or order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information or for the purpose of complying with rules of court relating to the production of information;In other words, we do not have a conflict between the constitutional principle of the supremacy of Parliament and the Privacy Act, because the Privacy Act explicitly defers to the authority of courts, of Parliament and of other bodies that have the right to send for these documents. These arguments were made at the time, and in fact these arguments were persuasive to Liberal members of the committee. At the time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs said:I think the section that [the member for Wellington—Halton Hills] cited is actually more appropriate. I hope that legal counsel to the Public Health Agency of Canada will listen to [the member] on that, and investigate further the right and the responsibility of a parliamentary committee, following under the rules of the House and the purpose of the House to oversee government and its agencies. I'm not going to be arguing with [the member] on that point, as well.Very clearly, members of the government who claim that there is some legal obligation on the part of the Public Health Agency of Canada to not hand over these documents simply are not aware of the relevant law in this case. Mr. Speaker, you have ruled, the Constitution is clear and the Privacy Act is clear that these documents should be handed over. Members of the government have consistently agreed with that view of the law at the Canada–China committee. That is why they have voted in favour of motions to send for these documents.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePrima facie breach of privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRights of ParliamentSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJackHarrisSt. John's EastAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsForeign Affairs and International DevelopmentInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, as has become a pattern now, with two reports back-to-back at the Foreign Affairs committee, we have a supplementary report from a majority of members of the committee. Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc members, because of the potential of things being drawn out, found it most effective to put the will of the majority of the committee and a variety of recommendations, as well as evidence not reflected in the main report, into a supplementary report. This supplementary report reflects the views and concerns of members of the Conservative Party, the Bloc and the NDP. We are pleased to submit that joint supplementary report together.8510-432-187 "Assessing Risk, Preventing Diversion And Increasing Transparency: Strengthening Canada's Arms Export Controls in a Volatile World"Arms Trade TreatyDissenting or supplementary opinionsExportsMilitary weaponsStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentTurkeySvenSpengemannMississauga—LakeshoreKellyBlockCarlton Trail—Eagle Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59156KellyBlockKelly-BlockCarlton Trail—Eagle CreekConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlockKelly_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic AccountsInterventionMrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The 23rd report is entitled, “National Shipbuilding Strategy”, and the 24th report is entitled, “Procuring Complex Information Technology Solutions”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports. I would like to echo the comments of my colleague who formerly gave thanks and send my thanks to the analysts and the clerk for the excellent work they have done during this session.8510-432-188 "National Shipbuilding Strategy"8510-432-189 "Procuring Complex Information Technology Solutions"Computer systemsGovernment contractsGovernment response to committee reportsNational Shipbuilding Procurement StrategyReport 1, Procuring Complex Information Technology SolutionsReport 2, National Shipbuilding StrategyShipbuilding industryStanding Committee on Public AccountsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a complementary report to the report on Pacific salmon.As the fisheries committee has studied the state of Pacific salmon over the past 15 months, the evidence we have received has consistently pointed us to the stark and inescapable conclusion that the vast majority of Pacific salmon stocks continue to decline toward the point of no return. Throughout this study, the committee has heard the many threats our Pacific salmon face and the witnesses have also identified real, viable solutions that have been provided to the government through DFO, but the government has failed to take timely and effective actions to restore and protect Pacific salmon.Time after time, the committee heard how the government had ignored proposals for actions that could restore and protect Pacific salmon. In the past year alone, the future of over 10,000 jobs in British Columbia have been cast into great uncertainty and insecurity because the government continues to announce decisions without genuine consultation. It continues to issue decisions that put British Columbian jobs on notice without providing any transitional plan for the workers, families or communities affected.British Columbia's salmon economy is in great peril and this peril will only increase unless the government discards its failed approaches. Money alone cannot reverse the declines. The government must ensure that federal resources are attached to timely and effective plans, management and actions to save our Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon will not survive more of the Liberals' status quo. The time for action and change is now.8510-432-190 "Pacific Salmon: Ensuring the Long-Term Health of Wild Populations and Associated Fisheries"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPacific salmonStanding Committee on Fisheries and OceansKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure how it showed up on the broadcast, but someone else's image appeared on the screen as I was presenting the complementary report. If that is the case, I would like to present it again so it can be recorded properly.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFisheries and OceansInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to provide this complementary report to the report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on the state of Pacific salmon.As the fisheries committee has studied the state of Pacific salmon over the past 15 months, the evidence we received has consistently pointed us to the stark and inescapable conclusion that the vast majority of Pacific salmon stocks continue to decline toward the point of no return. Throughout this study, the committee has heard of the many threats our Pacific salmon face and witnesses have also identified real, viable solutions that have been provided to the government through DFO, but the government has failed to take timely and effective actions to restore and protect Pacific salmon.Time after time, the committee heard how the government had ignored proposals for actions that could restore and protect Pacific salmon. In the past year alone, the future of over 10,000 jobs in British Columbia has been cast into great uncertainty and insecurity because the government continues to announce decisions without genuine consultations. It continues to issue decisions that put British Columbian jobs on notice without providing any transition plan for the workers, families and communities affected.British Columbia's salmon economy is in great peril and this peril will only increase unless the government discards its failed approaches. Money alone cannot reverse the declines. The government must ensure that federal resources are attached to timely and effective plans, management and actions to save our Pacific salmon. Pacific salmon will not survive more of the Liberals' status quo. The time for action and change is now.8510-432-190 "Pacific Salmon: Ensuring the Long-Term Health of Wild Populations and Associated Fisheries"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPacific salmonStanding Committee on Fisheries and OceansCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsMarijuana FrameworkInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise in the House today to present petitions on behalf of constituents and Canadians across the country.The first petition has to do with the abdication of responsibility by Health Canada under the Liberal government when it comes to issues with the marijuana framework.The petitioners are asking the government to immediately close the loopholes that allow facilities linked to organized crime to grow marijuana in our communities and to provide law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute these unlawful operations.Law enforcementMarijuanaMarijuana grow operationPetition 432-01175Prescription drugsSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEthiopiaInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to take meaningful action to address the conflict in the Tigray region of the Ethiopia. Civilians are being subjected to human rights abuses and are being blocked from accessing humanitarian aid.The petitioners are asking the government to immediately work with the Ethiopian and Eritrean governments to end the violence and promote democracy and the rule of law. It is in such a time as this that the world needs Canada to have a principled foreign policy.Civil and human rightsElectoral observation missionsEthiopiaForeign policyHumanitarian assistance and workersPetitionsTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAirline IndustryInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, the third petition I will present today calls on the government to provide sector-specific support to the airline sector, with the conditions that airlines expeditiously issue refunds to passengers. Many of my constituents have been in touch with my office for well over a year and still have not received a refund.The government has a responsibility to ensure that the support it provides to large companies goes to those who need it and not in the pockets of wealthy executives.AirlinesCancellationCOVID-19PandemicPetition 432-01176ReimbursementTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConversion TherapyInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): (1735)[English]Madam Speaker, the final petition I will present today addresses Bill C-6. As I have always said, I support banning conversion therapy as do these petitioners. The petitioners recognize, however, that the poor and imprecise definition of conversion therapy in Bill C-6 will cause this bill to ban more than just conversion therapy, including counsel from religious leaders on sexuality, and the rights of parents to protect and guide their children. It is important we protect parental rights as well as the rights of Canadians to choose the type of support that is right for them.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyPetition 432-01177Sexual minoritiesTamaraJansenCloverdale—Langley CityNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlbertaInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadians. The petitioners wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that Alberta has one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada and, in particular, many young men are out of work. They further wish to draw the House's attention to the connection between a paycheque and one's self-worth. They highlight the impact that this can have on the mental health and well-being of many unemployed Albertans.Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with local organizations, the Government of Alberta and businesses to see Alberta's unemployment reduced to help those who are in need and for the government to immediately set up a 988 national suicide hotline.Help line servicesJob creationMenMental healthPetition 432-01183PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, the first petition is on a subject that is near and dear to my heart. It is on Pakistan's blasphemy law. Both my wife's parents were born in Pakistan, and I know from hearing stories and concerns from the Pakistani-Christian community and other minority communities that there are significant concerns about the blasphemy law and how it disproportionately targets religious minorities and people involved in personal disputes, and applies grossly disproportionate penalties to innocent people.Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to strongly advocate for the repeal or reform of Pakistan's blasphemy law.Civil and human rightsPakistanPetition 432-01187Religious minoritiesPatrickWeilerWest Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky CountryGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIncome Tax ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, the second petition reflects concerns I have been hearing from many different stakeholders about the direction and control system as it exists within the Income Tax Act.Petitioners note direction and control requires the use of resources by various organizations. It is cumbersome, resource-intensive and adds unnecessary administrative burdens. Also, in the context of international development, it makes it very difficult for organizations to work in the most effective way possible in partnership with local communities because these regulations require all projects to be under the control of the Canadian entity.Petitioners further note that the first report of the Advisory Committee on the Charitable Sector, made up of 14 sector members, recommends that the Minister of National Revenue work with the Minister of Finance to address the problems associated with the current system. Also, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development had a unanimous recommendation calling on the government to fix the direction and control system.Therefore, petitioners call on the government to replace the original regime and “own activities” test in the Income Tax Act, which requires registered charities to devote all their resources to charitable-sector activities carried out by themselves, with a regime that permits registered charities to operate and further their charitable purpose, and to replace current administrative requirements around direction and control with a requirement for registered charities to establish reasonable and practical parameters for ensuring resource accountability when working to achieve a charitable purpose through a third party that is not a qualified donee.Financial managementIncome taxPetition 432-01188Registered charitable organizationsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of SpeechInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, the third petition I am presenting is from Canadians who are very concerned about Bill C-10: the government's supposed reform of the Broadcasting Act, which would in reality give the government significant powers to control and limit speech online.Petitioners note that Liberal members of the committee voted in favour of amendments that would include social media platforms within the jurisdiction of this regulation. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to respect Canadians' fundamental right to freedom of expression, to prevent Internet censorship in Canada and not to continue with Bill C-10 as currently written.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechInternetPetition 432-01189GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the challenges experienced by the Christian community in Nigeria, whereas the escalation of extremist violence targeting Christians in Nigeria has led a growing number of experts to suggest that Christians in some parts of the country are facing an ongoing genocide. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to step up its efforts to defend the rights and security of Christians in Nigeria.Christianity and ChristiansCivil and human rightsNigeriaPetition 432-01190GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman Organ TraffickingInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. This bill was debated on Friday. Unfortunately, we did not have the support of the government to expedite it at that time, but hopefully that support will be forthcoming very soon. Petitioners want to see this Parliament be the one that gets Bill S-204 passed.Human organs and other body parts traffickingMedical tourismMedical transplantationOrgansPetition 432-01191S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, as I resume my speech from over a week ago, I want to echo the concerns that many people have brought forward about Bill C-6 and its definition of conversion therapy. Canadians from across the country have expressed concern and asked parliamentarians to fix the definition as they are concerned about private conversations and freely chosen, voluntary counselling being criminalized.Looking back at the committee that studied this bill, there were concerns expressed by several witnesses along these lines, with members of multiple parties endorsing that position as well. The member for the Bloc at the justice committee, the member for Rivière-du-Nord, expressed concerns about the impacts of the legislation. Along with the testimony from witnesses, many briefs were submitted to the committee. Almost 300 individuals and groups wrote briefs, which means that Canadians were interested in and concerned about this bill. The justice committee did not even take the necessary time to have the briefs translated or reviewed before it voted and adopted this bill. Why did the committee members not take the time to read over these briefs? Many Canadians are wondering.Fixing the definition is what Canadians are asking for. The Liberal government has failed Canadians by coming up with a definition that does not have unanimous support in this place. Conservatives are opposed to conversion therapy and are looking forward to a bill that would ban conversion therapy and not conversations.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesTerminologyThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLianneRoodLambton—Kent—Middlesex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105210LianneRoodLianne-RoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RoodLianne_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, I have received hundreds of emails and letters from constituents who are very concerned that their parental rights will be taken away from them, or their pastoral right to counsel their children or people who might be seeking their advice on this particular issue. Can the member comment on this?C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1750)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her hard work in this place.I agree with her. I have heard from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the definition of conversion therapy, particularly around the word “practice”. The word “practice” is not clearly defined in Canadian law, so what is a practice that would be covered by this law? This law would be banning a treatment, service or practice, and that is fundamentally what folks are concerned about. What is the definition of a practice? Is it just a conversation that people are having? Is it a prayer that is being prayed for somebody? There are many things. “Religious practice” is a term that we use often in the religious world. Would a religious practice therefore be considered conversion therapy? That is what folks are concerned about.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesTerminologyThird reading and adoptionLianneRoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has been extremely clear, and I have been as well, that we are opposed to conversion therapy. We are opposed to what people think of as conversion therapy.“[P]ractice, treatment or service” is not a clearly defined definition of conversion therapy. Particularly, counselling that changes behaviour is a concerning part of the definition. A lot of counselling is attempting to change behaviour, and that is exactly what I have been hearing from folks around the country. Over 300 briefs were written to the justice committee on this and they were ignored. The government members ignored those briefs. They did not listen to those briefs. They did not take the time to have them translated. They ran this bill through with a bad definition. Not only Conservatives on the committee said that, but Bloc members said it as well. C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyCounselling servicesGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, we are trying to ban degrading and harmful practices when we say we want to ban conversion therapy. The bill would not do that. Therefore, I will be voting against it, as I did at second reading. We want a bill that bans conversion therapy, not this definition of it.Many people asked for amendments to bring clarity to the bill. Once again, I will reference the over 300 briefs that the justice committee ignored when it rammed the bill through. These proposals included defining conversion therapy as a practice, treatment or service. We could put in greater precision and protections so that people can get the counselling they want, private conversations and discussions can happen and parents can set house rules for sexuality that happens in their own home.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyCounselling servicesGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC): (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, today we are debating a very unfortunately worded piece of legislation, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conversion therapy. I say it is unfortunate because this legislation fails to accurately define what conversion therapy is. It fails to provide clarity for Canadians, and I believe that it puts LGBTQ+ Canadians, children, parents, religious leaders and medical professionals at risk.From the outset, I have been clear that I do not support conversion therapy, which involves coercive, involuntary and abusive practices that seek to change someone's sexual orientation. The evidence we have heard is clear: These practices have been harmful to those who have participated and they should not be allowed to continue.The problem I have as a legislator is that the government has adopted a definition of conversion therapy that goes far beyond the scope of this harmful practice, and risks creating significant harms for families as a result. Going by the very definition the government has included in the legislation, we are asked to accept that even discouraging someone from “non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression” is a criminal act of conversion therapy.The Minister of Justice has tried to assure members of the House that honest discussions about sexuality will not be criminalized under this act, but it is very apparent that the wording has been left so vague as to open up the very real possibility that the courts could interpret honest discussions about sexuality as potentially criminal. Without further clarification, we are introducing confusion into the Criminal Code, which could potentially lead to many honest Canadians being subject to a criminal investigation for honest discussions about sexuality.The legislation is also potentially very harmful to children under the age of 16, who I believe are unable to truly consent to life-altering surgeries and drug regimens to achieve gender transition. This legislation could lead to the criminalization of important information streams that are essential for people to make informed decisions regarding gender transitions. In the recent United Kingdom High Court decision of Bell v. Tavistock, the court ruled that it is highly unlikely that children under 13 could truly consent to the use of puberty blockers. The court also analyzed the considerable effects of these treatments and concluded that it was even doubtful that children under the age of 16 could understand the long-term risks and consequences of these treatments.This legislation potentially undermines the ability of medical professionals to share critical medical information that may lead to discouraging a child from undergoing a gender transition. The consequences for these children, as we have seen in the Tavistock case, are permanent and tragic. This puts LGBTQ+ youth at significant risk, as they may not be given access to the necessary medical information and frank advice needed for them to make informed decisions.I am also very concerned over the effect this legislation could have on families, the foundational building blocks of a free society. The inclusion of gender expression and penalties for the repression of non-cisgender behaviour creates risks for families that could result in bad outcomes for children. It is not hard to imagine a young boy who wants to go to school dressed in female clothes. Many parents would force their child to wear what they believe are gender-appropriate clothes, and I believe in the majority of those cases the parents are doing it out of a genuine care and concern for the well-being of their child. When that child goes to school, perhaps he will tell the teacher that he believes he is of another gender and that his parents refuse to let him wear female clothing. If the practice of conversion therapy, as poorly defined by the government, is made a criminal offence, teachers would probably have little choice but to report the parents to children's services for allegations of emotional abuse. The ramifications of this outcome would be highly damaging to the welfare of children, families and society. The definition of conversion therapy must be clarified, and the rights of well-meaning parents who are caring for their children must be protected.One result of this legislation is that it could lead to an infringement on the rights of LGBTQ+ Canadians to seek out services they may genuinely wish to access. In my exploration of this topic, I spoke with members of the LGBTQ+ community who, for religious or personal reasons, felt they did not want to engage in certain activities.(1800)In some cases, members of these communities may have been struggling with issues of sex addiction or sexual practices that could lead to serious physical, emotional or spiritual consequences. Under this legislation, it would not necessarily be illegal to offer services that would be covered under the definition of “conversion therapy” to consenting adults. However, it would be very difficult for LGBTQ+ adults to find or access these services considering the effect of this legislation, which is essentially to make these services impossible to advertise and, by extension, to access in Canada.This could even lead to cases of discrimination, whereby a heterosexual who is seeking counsel and support for dealing with sex addiction or harmful sexual behaviours will receive treatment, but an LGBTQ+ person would be turned away. I do not think the government intended to discriminate against LGBTQ Canadians, but I believe that it is a very real possibility under this legislation as it has been drafted. Again, this demonstrates why the flawed definition of “conversion therapy” is leading to confusion and significant potential adverse outcomes for LGBTQ Canadians.Furthermore, the legislation's poor definition of “conversion therapy” could potentially lead to outcomes whereby well-meaning people with bonafide constitutionally protected beliefs will be made into criminals. When people are driven by a sincere desire to help those who come to them struggling with issues, they should not be treated as criminals for sharing their perspective. In the case of religious leaders who are approached by members of their congregation looking for guidance, I believe that under this legislation, the very act of even sharing passages of the Bible could be considered a criminal act of conversion therapy.These provisions create the very real possibility of criminal sanctions against those who hold unpopular opinions in whole or in part because of those opinions. Punishing people for having unpopular opinions or beliefs is not a Canadian value. Given the religious views of conservative Muslims and Christians, among others, it is probable that those impacted by this legislation will be people who come from various faith backgrounds. This is potentially a case of enforcing religious discrimination.Jail time is not an appropriate punishment for those who hold differing viewpoints, particularly religious views. The criminal penalties in this legislation, which include a maximum of between two and five years in prison, are on par with assault, abandonment of a child and infanticide. To treat people who hold constitutionally protected beliefs on par with those who kill children is completely disproportionate. I propose to the government that the provisions of this act are already addressed by human rights legislation and human rights tribunals. Given that we are debating competing rights, such as the equality rights of LGBTQ Canadians and the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion, it would be far better to delegate the adjudication of these difficult decisions to a body that is equipped to deal with them.In cases where there is evidence of harm related to conversion therapy, such as forcible confinement, assault or kidnapping, the Criminal Code already has significant mechanisms to deal with these matters. In cases where there is a dispute between people over what is and what is not legitimate to say to somebody regarding their sexual orientation or gender identity and expression, it would be far better for the human rights tribunals to be investigating and making decisions on these matters rather than the criminal courts.In closing, I have illustrated a number of reasons, including the poor definition, the potential for discrimination and the possibility that human rights tribunals could do a far better job of adjudicating these difficult decisions on competing rights, that I cannot support this legislation at this time. I believe that Bill C-6 would harm some LGBTQ Canadians, some families and society in general, which outweighs the potential benefits outlined in it. If the government is truly interested in working in good faith with concerned Canadians, it will commit to amending the definition in this legislation to provide clarity and protections for families, counsellors and medical professionals.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)ConsentConversion therapyCounselling servicesFamilies and childrenFreedom of conscience and religionFreedom of speechGender identity and gender expressionGovernment billsSexual minoritiesSurgical proceduresTerminologyThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsYoung peopleArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, the member mentioned the Keira Bell case in the United Kingdom. That is very important.I want to ask the member about some of the guidance we heard from expert psychologists and psychiatrists at committee. They were concerned that this bill would foster an affirmation-only process that would put some kids on a one-track road to affirmation, which leads to chemical hormone-blocking treatments and maybe even surgery. If the member could expand on that, I would appreciate it.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsHealth care systemSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsDaneLloydSturgeon River—ParklandDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice has been at pains to explain and to try to defend this legislation, saying that an exploration of sexual identity or sexual orientation would not be subject to criminal sanctions, but it seems to be very clear in the way that the legislation has been written and the intent behind it that there is no room for people to have confusion about their orientation or their gender. It is either black or white. However, we know there is a lot of gray in between.I believe the definition needs to be very clear, because these are really complicated issues. To put criminal sanctions of two to five years on people, many of whom have a sincere desire to help people who may be struggling, is vastly disproportionate and inappropriate.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsHealth care systemSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, I reject the premise of the member's question.If the government were to fix the definition to tackle the real problem that is conversion therapy, I would be more than happy to vote for this legislation. The fact that the government has not been willing to address those concerns that hundreds of constituents have written to me about and the views that thousands of people across Canada have expressed shows me that this is a cynical ploy by the Liberal government. I have to say that I respect the NDP position on this issue, because I firmly believe it actually wants a ban on conversion therapy, unlike the Liberal government, which says it wants a ban on conversion therapy but then leaves the bill to linger on the Order Paper for months and months on end, only bringing it up at the last second. It is a cynical power play by the Liberal government. This government is not actually interested in getting a ban on conversion therapy passed.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd: (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, the answer is simple: The definition is flawed. If the definition were not flawed, there would not be a problem here today. We proposed a very simple, straightforward amendment to fix the definition, and the government has refused to work with us on it.The fact is that the bill came out of committee in December and we were back at work in late January. The government could have put this up for debate at a number of opportunities, but it only really put it up for debate very close to the closing of the House. It leads me to believe that the government is not being sincere with this legislation and that it is not really, truly interested in getting it passed at all.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsSexual minoritiesTerminologyThird reading and adoptionKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again enter into debate in this place, and to do so on an important subject that should be a unifying force among all Canadians. Unfortunately, we have seen politics being played in a way that is inhibiting the ability to accomplish what is intended here.Let me first clarify a couple of things on which I have heard some of my colleagues asking questions. It is unfortunate, because time and time again we Conservatives have made it very clear that we are opposed to conversion therapy, as have I. All Canadians deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, yet we have seen time and time again throughout this debate the politicization of a very important subject for partisan gain. I find it unfortunate that this has been the case with this dialogue, and in some cases we have seen the shutting down of dialogue.I have heard from many constituents on this matter. I have heard from folks across Canada and on both sides of the issue. What I found very interesting is that the dialogue that has been offered by members of the House, and in some cases not just members of the Conservative Party but other parties as well, has been very constructive in ensuring that there is a legitimate, respectful discussion about something that has truly had a significant impact on people's lives and that needs to be addressed. However, we have seen some members try to dismiss some of the valid concerns that have been brought forward, which has taken away from what could have been a unifying discussion among all Canadians. I am troubled that this has been a game played by the Liberal government time and time again. My colleagues have articulated very well some of the concerns related to the definition of conversion therapy and some of the possible unintended consequences of legislation that is not specifically clear. In fact, I would point to members of the Liberal Party specifically; when the Minister of Justice was asked questions on the bill, he acknowledged that there were some challenges in the possible interpretations of the legislation before us.However, I will go back a little further, because I think that the context for the discussion that we are having today is very important.The bill was introduced prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which we all know ended up basically seeing the legislative agenda of the government shut down for an extended period of time. After Parliament was prorogued, a whole bunch of bills had to be reintroduced. First, to the inevitable questions that will come from members of the government party who are somehow blaming Conservatives for being obstructionists, I would simply suggest that the 35-plus-day delay, the committee dysfunction that has resulted from the government covering up various aspects of investigations into its members' conduct and whatnot, has led to a significant delay. However, what could have been an opportunity on a bill like this was not taken advantage of. Again, it was an opportunity to unify Canadians around an important discussion. The Liberals did not take advantage of that. When the government brought forward this legislation prior to the pandemic, some concerns were raised, and some of my colleagues raised those concerns. Interest across this country on both sides of the debate raised concerns on this subject. However, when the government reintroduced the bill in the fall, it did not take the opportunity to clarify some of these aspects of the bill. That, I would suggest, would have been a much more straightforward process to allow Canadians to be unified in opposition to something that all Canadians are opposed to, which is conversion therapy. The fact is that the Liberals did not take advantage of the opportunity to provide leadership and carefully consider some of the issues that had been brought to their attention.(1815)The result is that close to a year and a half later, we are seeing this debated, and some of the accusations that are being made by members opposite are certainly very troubling and call into question the integrity of certain members of this House. That is unfortunate. We need to be able to have dialogue and discussion and ensure that we are all working in the best interests of our constituents.I have heard from constituents on this matter, including before the current Bill C-6 debate. I have heard members of the Liberal Party talk about how nobody shares the views that I and a number of other Conservatives have articulated when it comes to concerns, and that is simply not true. The fact is that there are those who have raised concerns. The member for Sturgeon River—Parkland who spoke previously talked about some of the challenges in relation to the committee work that was done. The committee had a significant number of briefs that were submitted but not considered. It is our job as parliamentarians and legislators to ensure that we take great care in things as simple as the wording of a definition, and also the bigger picture, the possible implications of legislation and the possible impact that this legislation could have on, for example, people of faith and various folks within the LGBT community. Unfortunately, we saw that those concerns were dismissed, and when there was an opportunity within committee to have a wholesome discussion, we saw politics being played instead. I find that very unfortunate. Further, we could have seen the definition fixed and some clarity added to this particular piece of legislation. I would suggest that if this were the only piece of legislation in which this sort of issue was brought forward, then it might be a fair criticism, but the reality is that it is not. Time and time again we see legislation brought forward by the current government that seems to be intentionally divisive. That is not leadership. It is unfortunate that in a debate as significant as this one, we are seeing politics being played. I have no doubt that there will be those who are ready to attack members of the Conservative Party who may vote against this bill. To those, I would share a couple of brief comments.I mentioned earlier that I have heard from many constituents on this matter, including before the issue was initially voted on, and I took great care on both sides of the issue to speak to a number of those individuals. There were countless phone calls, emails and messages back and forth regarding this subject, and in the respectful dialogue that ensued, I saw something incredible happen, something that is unique to democratic discourse, and that was the idea of respect.The fact is that not everybody who reached out agreed with the position the government has or the position that I had in terms of the opposition to this bill at second reading, but after discussion, dialogue and respectful discourse, there was a level of unity that I found very encouraging, and it is unfortunate that this has not always translated into this discussion that we now have on the floor, whether physically or virtually, in this House of Commons.It is that sort of division that is causing a breakdown and a lack of trust in the work that needs to be accomplished by all of us as parliamentarians. In my case, I had hundreds of people, the vast majority of whom encouraged me to maintain my position on this matter and to share my concerns respectfully about the need to have clarity in this legislation. For members of the government to somehow suggest that this is an ideological escapade would be misleading at best and outright dishonest at worst, and I think it is a troubling trend we see within our democratic discourse.Let me finish by saying this: It is important for us to have respectful dialogue in this place, and as someone who can be very partisan, I will say that we need to ensure that good governance, good legislation, respectful dialogue, and respect for Canadians and the rule of law are at the very forefront of all we do.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsPublic consultationSexual minoritiesTerminologyThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, during my presentation, I presented the personal and emotional testimonies of those who found that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria and who found worth in their own process of detransition. These individuals have made their stories public, about detransitioning or deciding not to make transitions surgically or with the use of hormones. They stress that they are in no way wanting to be disrespectful toward other people's personal choices. As it stands, Bill C-6 would criminalize people like them.As it is currently written, could the member speak to how this will restrict the free, respectful and exploratory speech of those with valuable lived experiences?C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, the member brings up a very good point that we saw represented in much of the evidence that was presented to committee. The suggestion that somehow there is universal acceptance of Bill C-6 as a need to move forward to address these issues is simply incorrect.There are many lived stories from Canadians from coast to coast who have demonstrated that it is not as clear cut as is being suggested and that the implications of this bill could be very severe and would actually take away the rights of Canadians who are living their lives. It is very troubling that could be one of the significant implications of a bill being passed that has not had the proper consideration and due debate around some of the very valid concerns that have been brought forward.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, I do find it interesting that the member would be quoting from an article from a supposed “news site”. I say that with air quotes because it is funded by a wing of the NDP. It is this sort of divisiveness that is taking away from the very real concerns that have been brought forward about Bill C-6. For this member to hedge a premise of a question in a way that somehow alleges that there is nefarious intent behind the very real concerns that myself and other members of my party have brought forward regarding Bill C-6, is exactly why, and I wish the member would have listened more carefully to my speech. The need for respectful dialogue is paramount in this place so that we can all do our jobs as legislators to ensure that we are serving Canadians in the best way possible. Certainly, I endeavour to do that each and every day and I would encourage the member opposite to do so also.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsInformation disseminationSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionLeahGazanWinnipeg CentreMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, my question to that member would be very simple: Has he had the opportunity to read some of the evidence that was submitted to the committee when Bill C-6 was studied? If so, he would see very clearly that there is a wide variety of perspectives on this matter that demonstrate that it is not as clear cut as the divisive nature that certain individuals in this House are trying to make it out to be.I would say, with great respect to many members of this House who have encouraged that effective dialogue, it is unfortunate that there are some who would stoop to such a low level that they would discourage what would ultimately result in better outcomes for Canadians.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGovernment billsInformation disseminationSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on this issue. I understand that the opinions to counter this bill are not as numerous as the opinions in favour of it, but they are nonetheless no less important.When I was watching the debate ensue at committee, I was not a part of the committee, but as an interested parliamentarian, I watched all of it. The debate with respect to witnesses and so forth was rather even-handed. I did not count the number of witnesses who raised concerns, versus those who were in favour of it, but there were plenty of professionals and other individual people who brought up real situations which would be technically against the letter of the law according to this, but I think we would all agree are legitimate concerns. I just want to, as best as I can, address those today. Ten minutes is not sufficient for that, but I will do my very best. Of course, time is lacking to do much of what we need to do in this House.I am in support of a ban on harmful counselling. There are many other jurisdictions, governments and cities around the world that have banned conversion therapy, but in a different way. They have different definitions that are far less broad. Of course, many of them, if not all, outside of a few, are not criminal in nature. I think it is problematic when we have a very broad definition that is also criminal because we want to ban harmful courses of practice, but we do not want to put people in jail who, frankly, do not deserve to be there. As others have raised before, we want to be entirely certain that what we are targeting is, in fact, the evil that we are looking to target and not be overbroad in that ban. I am a little bit concerned that the assumptions that underpin this bill are faulty. When not all, but some of the assumptions are faulty we can be led astray. I just want to take issue with some of them.The first is the myth that Bill C-6's definition of conversion therapy accurately identifies treatments that will be harmful and does so in a way that is not overbroad. I think, of course, that there are abusive practices out there and I think that we should aim to ban them, but what Bill C-6 has done here is to basically, in my view, when looking at the definition, outlaw any validated form of talk therapy for Canadians wishing to deal with various issues related to sexual attraction and gender identity. For those who would like to look into the proceedings of the committee, there are many examples of very credible witnesses who have gone through circumstances where they needed counselling to address certain things and their stories are credible. I do not have time to go through them all, but members can look at them.I also want to say that with respect to transgender identification, particularly in children, there is a conversation going on globally right now that we are missing in this debate on Bill C-6. In the U.K., the Government Equalities Office for example, is looking into whether the influence of social media and the discussion of gender identity with young people have contributed to the striking increase in referrals. When I get into some of the data here on the striking increase, I think we could all agree that there is something here that needs to be looked at. In the last 10 years, in the United Kingdom, which mirrors data from other countries, we have seen referrals to these gender clinics skyrocket. We have seen them increase by about 1,000% for boys and 4,400% for biological females. These exponential rises, as I have said, are increasing in other western nations as well. We heard one of the members earlier speak about the United Kingdom High Court ruling with respect to Keira Bell. Keira Bell is one of the young women who was referred to the Tavistock institute, which is the clinic there that deals with gender referrals for gender identity. She was told that, if she went through the process, she would feel better about herself, so she went on to hormone blockers. She had a double mastectomy. She spent several years living, outwardly looking like a man, and she came to regret it. She was in her early twenties. She took the Tavistock institute to court saying she was not in a position where she could consent to this treatment, but was basically told that this would be the answer she needed to her life. It did not make anything better and, in fact, it made a lot of things worse.(1835)The court ruled that people under 16 could likely not consent to puberty-blocking treatments. This bill does the opposite. This bill says that if someone wants to put their child on hormone blockers or if they want to basically put them on the road to surgery, that is totally fine, but to give them the wrong type of counselling could get them in trouble.Some people would say that there is a clause in the bill that allows people to explore. However, the fact is we heard from very competent professionals in committee that this clause would not be enough, when there is potentially a five-year jail term hanging over people's head.We heard from Ken Zucker, an internationally renowned expert in gender identity. He was basically working with our clinic here, CAMH, for decades. He is internationally renowned in this field. He has literally written the book on how to treat gender identity in children. He was accused of conversion therapy a few years ago. He was fired from his position, summarily. He had the wherewithal and the resources to take his employer to court. He won a substantial settlement. He cleared his name.This is the type of thing that we are seeing, before Bill C-6. If this is the sort of witch hunt environment we are seeing before Bill C-6, it is going to increase significantly with Bill C-6. Other than the U.K., we are seeing other countries in Europe, Sweden and Finland, have gone even a step further. They are moving away from what is called affirmation-only models of care, which I suggest is what Bill C-6 is, this is what other professionals in committee said about this bill. In Sweden and Finland, they are saying there must be a sober second look when a child identifies as transgender. A sober second look is the very thing that I believe Bill would criminalize.Bill C-6 would criminalize parents who want to discourage their young child from transitioning, who would not be making life-altering decisions. I do not believe it is hateful for a parent to make a decision based on accurate medical facts.When it comes to transgender identification in children, reliable data indicates the vast majority of kids who identify as another gender would grow out of it, meaning by the time they become an adult, many of up them, up to 80% according to some studies, will identify or accept the body they were born with. I think that given data like that, we really need to give a lot of room here for kids to explore but not to push them on this one-track mode of puberty blockers and eventually surgery. This is what is being criticized by people like Keira Bell.I read an article in the National Post a year or so ago by Barbara Kay that highlighted the story of a young girl, JB is the acronym used, a child who is currently involved in an application in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This involves a teacher in an Ottawa area school who told this six year-old that girls do not exist. This six-year-old was a happy, loving young girl. I have a seven-year-old, a six-year-old and a five-year-old. The seven- and five-year-olds are girls. This six-year-old became distraught, withdrawn and depressed. She did not understand what it meant. The parents asked the teacher if she could just cool it on some of these ethereal gender theory comments. The teacher and administration refused to do this, and the parents had to take that girl out of that school. They moved her to a different school, and have taken this particular school board to court.The girl is once again a happy, well-adjusted young girl. It just goes to show that we have to be careful what we are putting into the minds of our young children. What the U.K. high court case found is that once these kids were put onto these drugs, the hormone blockers, it pretty much puts them on the road to surgery. It is kind of like a one-track street.We need to be very careful. We need to have a sober second look in this country.There are in fact many people, even in LGB communities, who are against this bill. I will read an email I received. It said: Dear Mr. Derek Sloan,As a Lesbian, I am asking you to investigate the use of gender identity in bill C-6. Approximately 75% of trans identifying youth will grow up to be gay or lesbian, if not affirmed and medically transitioned. This bill, as written, ensures that these gay and lesbian youth will be medically transitioned into straight adults. She goes on to say: Please protect vulnerable Gay and Lesbian youth from being told that they are“born in the wrong body” and told they should transition to feel “right” and to “fit in”. Sincerely...C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)ConsentConversion therapyFamilies and childrenGender identity and gender expressionGovernment billsOversight mechanismSchoolsSexual minoritiesSurgical proceduresTerminologyThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsYoung peopleDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the things that was notable in the committee was the 300 briefs that were just ignored. I was wondering if the member has any comments about that.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Committee briefs and other papersConversion therapyGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, I noted that as well. I also noted some members of the other parties, I believe a member from the Bloc Québécois, also said that we should spend a little time on them, even just out of respect for the people who submitted these briefs. The member is right, and I think there were about 300 or so that came in. They came in at the last minute and there was not enough time to have them translated, so the committee finished its work on this bill without even looking at those briefs. That is problematic. It shows there was a lot of interest in this bill, and we owe it to Canadians to have spent the time to look at it.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Committee briefs and other papersConversion therapyGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, this is interesting to hear because the personal and emotional testimonies I shared in my speech were all of young people who had transitioned in their teens and then realized in their early twenties that gender transition was not a permanent solution to their gender dysphoria, and they were in their own process of detransition. Clearly there is a concern here, as has been mentioned. I am wondering if he would expand further on how Bill C-6, as currently written, could very well restrict the freedom of the respectful and exploratory speech of these individuals with valuable lived experience.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, one thing that struck me about the debate on this bill, and of course this was not reflected in committee, although I think in committee there was a balanced discussion on many of the issues, was that right now there is a conversation going on around the world with respect to transgender identification in children. I heard some members talk about the fact that a small percentage of the people who transition have regrets. We are on the tipping point of a big iceberg of regret, because back 10 years or 20 years ago, the funnel for who experienced surgery with respect to transgender changes was a lot narrower. We are seeing, as I said earlier, this meteoric rise in identification. We are seeing an increase of 1,000% for men and 4,400% for young girls. We are seeing a U.K. government office do research into why we are seeing this, so I think the tip of the iceberg of regret is just on the horizon.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyFreedom of speechGovernment billsSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionTransgender personsCathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, that question brings up the issue of what exactly our definition covers. With respect to that particular situation, I have personally spoken to the man who underwent what happened in Kingston. I am not aware of the other cases, but I am talking about the main person who was testifying at city council. With his particular situation, he was basically prayed over in a very public manner and advised to take a three-day fast. These are things none of us would maybe agree to or advise, but when we take a look at what happened to this person, do we believe the religious leaders of this church should go to jail for five years? They prayed over an 18-year-old who was requesting prayer at the time. Now, apparently they embarrassed him, and of course I do not agree with that, but is it worth a five-year jail sentence? These are the questions we need to answer. When I was speaking to the minister earlier in this session, I said that the Canadian Psychological Association has prayer in its definition and asked if this would ban prayer. I was told it would not. C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)ChurchesConversion therapyGovernment billsKingstonSexual minoritiesThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1845)[Translation]Madam Speaker, here we are again to talk about the infamous Bill C‑10. We know that this bill has a direct impact on freedom of speech.We were surprised to see that the bill originally contained a fundamental provision, clause 4.1, which clearly defined the terms of freedom of speech and clearly indicated that this bill would not affect those working on social media when it came time to produce and post music or cultural activities.Unfortunately, the government withdrew that amendment. Members will recall that the second opposition party asked for that clause to be reinstated three times. When we proposed that amendment, the government and the second opposition party opposed it.How can the government introduce a bill that does not protect freedom of expression as it should, particularly since that protection used to be set out in the bill in black and white?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1855)[Translation]Madam Speaker, ever since the minister introduced Bill C-10 in November, everyone has been trying to improve it, despite its flaws. It did not address copyrights or CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, and it was missing a lot of things to protect Canadian businesses and domestic French-language and Canadian productions.Everyone tried to compromise to find a solution and improve the bill up until one Friday afternoon when the minister withdrew clause 4.1, which was supposed to be added to the Broadcasting Act, going after the content of social media users.My question for the minister and the Liberals is quite simple. Despite the gag order that the government imposed on us in committee and the fact that the Chair called the government to order by ruling many amendments out of order at committee stage—amendments that we will be voting on this evening—will the government agree to vote in favour of reinserting clause 4.1 into the legislation to protect the content of social media users, whatever it might be?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1900)[English]I thank hon. members for their interventions. I did not hear the minister's words in this case as I was taken aside for a moment on an administrative matter. For general purposes, references to lying is always a tricky area. Generally, if it is not applied to an individual member, group and so on, although it is not advisable, it is not an unparliamentary reference.The hon. minister can finish his response.Decisions of the SpeakerMembers' remarksPoints of orderMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1905)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am quite concerned about, and it is unprecedented, as we have never seen this before, is around the secret amendments at committee. The minister went on and on about how Conservatives spoke favourably about the bill when it was originally introduced and quoted us before the bill went to committee. However, amendments happened at committee. I saw on Twitter that Mr. Geist talked about secret amendments. This has been unprecedented. Would the minister not agree with me that the bill has been fraught with issues from the get-go, particularly in committee, and the secret amendments that the Speaker had to rule on have been unprecedented in my time here and definitely not the epitome of being well managed?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): (1905)[English]Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that in the minister's reality, this is all about artists, but to the real world, the non-Liberal world perhaps, to everybody I talk to about Bill C-10, it is about censorship, it is about what people can post on the Internet. It is the fear of government interference. We have seen big tech already clamping down on free speech. People are terrified of what Bill C-10 will bring. I was giving a talk to a grade six class, and those children are worried about it. It seems like the whole world knows that this is all about censorship, but the minister thinks it is all about artists. We love artists, but this has nothing really to do about artists. The fear is censorship.What would the minister say to these grade six children who are worried about their free speech because of the bill?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1910)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to ask the minister a couple of very important questions. First, I would ask him to correct the record because it has been made very clear that not all artists support Bill C-10. In fact, I have heard from many, and I know that other colleagues have, including those who have reached out to the minister directly, that they do not support Bill C-10, so that is misleading and incorrect rhetoric that he is speaking to.Further, I would suggest that the minister should be careful how he references things because we saw time and again how he might say one thing on Sunday afternoon television and then his office would have to clarify and correct the record the next day. He would say one thing in question period and another thing at committee. I am curious which minister is actually speaking to us today, because there seems to be a lot of confusion from his office or from himself regarding Bill C-10.There is one question I would really like to get an answer to. He talked about the example of Kim's Convenience being an epitome for Canadian success, whereas a recent report suggested that anti-Asian stereotypes were perpetrated through the production and what was in part government funding of that sitcom on Canadian television. Does the minister support that sort of stereotypes being a part of Canadian culture and in his approach to legislating culture in this country?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (1915)[English]Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister a question again in the House on the topic of Bill C-10, unfortunately not dealing with the subject of Bill C-10, but dealing with the issue of ramming it through the House. Recently, we saw the government guilty of trying to ram through a bunch of amendments, much to the surprise of many of us here who respect the process, respect committee work and yet again, we see the government time after time simply trying to sidestep the parliamentary process. We saw that example today again in the House, where the health officer who was supposed to produce documents as requested by the House still refused to do it, on the advice of the government. With such an important bill as Bill C-10, why does the minister feel he needs to ram it through the House?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1915)[Translation]It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.The question is on the motion.StevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1915)[English]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBroadcasting Act [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1915)[English] Call in the members.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC)(2105)[English]Motion Nos. 1 to 3 moved:Motion No. 1That Bill C-10 be amended by restoring Clause 3 as follows:“4.1 (1) This Act does not apply in respect of(a) programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — who is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service; and(b) online undertakings whose broadcasting consists only of such programs.(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not exclude the application of this Act in respect of a program that is the same as one referred to in paragraph (1)(a) but that is not uploaded as described in that paragraph.”Motion No. 2That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended(a) by deleting lines 1 to 3 on page 12;(b) by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 12 with the following:“(3.1) Orders made under this section do not apply”Motion No. 3That Bill C-10, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 12 the following:“(1.1) For greater certainty, programming services exclude any service that allows users who are not carrying on broadcasting undertakings to upload programs such as those provided by web applications, social media platforms and smart devices.”BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC)(2110)[English] moved:Motion No. 9That Bill C-10, in Clause 8, be amended by adding after line 21 on page 15 the following: “(4) Regulations made under this section do not apply with respect to programs that are uploaded to an online undertaking that provides a social media service by a user of the service — if that user is not the provider of the service or the provider’s affiliate, or the agent or mandatary of either of them — for transmission over the Internet and reception by other users of the service.”BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC)(2110)[English] moved:Motion No. 11That Bill C-10, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing lines 31 and 32 on page 16 with the following:“to a broadcasting undertaking shall be fees that relate to the recovery”BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (2115)[English]Madam Speaker, we all recognize that this is a huge job we have to do, and we want to be sure that we make the right decision at each and every step. I do not want to dodge our responsibility.[Translation]If we move too quickly, we might miss some parts.Need I remind the House that the reason there are so many votes in the House this evening is that other people, at another time, did not do their job?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (2120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to rise after you presented the long list of amendments to all parliamentarians and the people who are watching at home. Canadians are interested in Bill C-10 and the whole saga surrounding it since its introduction.I will not go back over all of the amendments that you just read, but I would like to talk about the key amendment, which seeks to reinstate protection for the freedom of expression of social media users. The government tried to attack freedom of expression, as many law professors and legal experts across the country have pointed out.Before I talk about this key amendment, it is important to explain to people how we got to where we are today and why members will spend so much time this evening voting on many amendments.The story began last November, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage introduced a bad bill in the House. Members of the House all wanted to pass legislation that would strike a balance between Canada's digital and conventional broadcasters.Everyone put a little water in their wine. We found ways to allow all members who had concerns to have their say. This allowed us to get information from the various groups involved around the country. Some people may not know this, but the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage even unanimously agreed to form a pre-committee so as not to slow down the process at the beginning. There was a willingness to find ways to improve this bad bill because it did not take into account the role of CBC/Radio-Canada nor the issue of copyright. There were several flaws and Canadian companies had no protection. We wanted to ensure that francophone and Canadian content was protected by certain safeguards, standards or basic criteria. There was nothing. If I remember correctly, the parties proposed more than 120 amendments, not counting the ones they added later.Although the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons kept telling us that committees were independent, the minister, who is not supposed to interfere in committee business, suddenly decided on a Friday afternoon without warning to withdraw clause 3 entirely, which included proposed section 4.1. That removed the protection with respect to user content, including of small companies that use social media.There is a lot of talk about YouTube, since that is something people understand. However, according to a memo from senior officials, this bill will affect all social networking platforms. Older people, and I would include myself in that group, since I have a few grey hairs, know about YouTube and TikTok, even though these networks are for younger people. However, this bill affects all of the other platforms young people use that we do not know about, such as social media games or all of the social networking tools that are not mentioned anywhere in the bill. The real problem is that the government targeted freedom of expression. The minister and his Liberal members on the committee did everything they could to stop the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice from testifying in committee and explaining why they wanted to withdraw clause 4.1. Work at the committee was stalled for two or three weeks as a result of members filibustering to force the government to explain itself and give us proof that freedom of expression was not in any jeopardy.After three weeks, the Liberals on the committee ended up agreeing to have the ministers testify. Unfortunately, all we got was an explanatory document, not the legal opinion the motion had requested. That was yet another way the Liberals failed to honour the committee's wishes.(2125)I think that the NDP members tried different ways of protecting freedom of expression, even if they did support Bill C-10. One NDP member, whom I am not allowed to name, but I forget the name of her riding, even suggested we work during the summer to improve this bad bill.However, we suffered another serious blow when the government, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, which is important to point out, decided to impose time allocation for a bill whose core element was freedom of expression. Worse still, the time allocation imposed on the committee, which is supposed to be independent, was not even properly applied. The committee members, apart from those belonging to the Conservative Party, decided to reverse the decision of the committee chair, who was only reporting what the Speaker of the House had said, that members would have to vote in favour of the bill without even reading the 40-some amendments that were missing.Therefore, we voted on the amendments one by one, without even reading them. The people who were interested in this controversial bill heard members say “yes” and “no” without even knowing what they were voting on. What a crazy story. This was completely contrary to what the Speaker and the House had decided.In a dramatic turn of events, when the report was tabled in the House, we informed the Speaker that the committee had voted to overturn the Chair's ruling. The Chair agreed with us and overturned the 40 amendments we had voted on.This means that we now have a bill in which some 40 amendments that attempted to correct its shortcomings were struck down after the vote. We are 48 hours away from the end of the session, and the government is trying to cram 20 or so amendments from several parties down our throats in just one hour of debate.How will this play out? This bill will move on to the Senate. For the people who are listening to us, the Senate will not stand for this, as it is supposed to be independent. The Senate will therefore begin to study the whole matter from the beginning to make sure it was done right, because the government did not do its homework, because the government waited six years to introduce a bill, because the government did not listen to the recommendations of the various groups, because the government played partisan politics and suggested there was a war between the cultural community and freedom of expression and made the Conservatives look like the bad guys. Even members of the Green Party and the NDP spoke out against some of these tactics by the government, which, as we all know, with an election coming up in the fall, wants to play tough.What is happening right now is really sad. We are being forced to rush votes on more than 20 amendments, some of which had already been rejected, and on the reinsertion of clause 4.1, which is the most important part. I hope my House of Commons colleagues will agree to vote in favour of that amendment at least. It will protect content created by social media users, which is what a number of former senior CRTC executives pushed for.Law professors from several universities across the country condemned this bill. I hope people will listen to them, because we are headed for disaster. This will get hung up in the Senate, it will never get to a vote, and the legislative process will never be completed because of the fall election. The Liberals are setting us up for failure, and this will be challenged before artists can even get the help they have been asking for for so long.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsPublic consultationReport stageReport stage motionsSocial networking sitesPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and who works very hard, as we all do. To answer her question, unfortunately I do not at all agree with her.At first, we agreed on the principle of Bill C‑10. The bill had several flaws and we were in a hurry to find common ground, but sadly, the government amended it along the way. I believe that is where the problem lies. The government, without notice and despite a pretense of collaboration, was paving the way so that social media could become official broadcasters with all the consequences that could have.Even worse, the government's willingness to play partisan politics, by framing the issue as being between freedom of expression and the artists themselves, offended many people. Under no circumstance could we let the Liberals get away with that. We will always work to protect freedom of expression. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFilibusterGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, I have had a lot of phone calls and emails to my office. People are very concerned about what the government is doing.I have a two-part question. First, if clause 4.1 were put back in the legislation, it would still be a flawed bill but would it be okay? Second, at this point, would the hon. member agree that the government should probably just put it aside, take its time and bring it back, whether in the fall or after another election?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsAlainRayesRichmond—ArthabaskaAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, which is more than relevant. It gives me an opportunity to come back to that subject.We, the Conservatives, have been attacked a lot for opposing Bill C‑10. However, when the government tried to demonize us for what we were saying, it attacked the thousands of Canadians across the country that wrote to us. The Liberals attacked the legal experts who raised red flags and said that this was a bad piece of legislation.To come back to my colleague's question, clause 4.1 is the very least that needs to be done so that we can continue to work on Bill C‑10. In the event that clause 4.1 is reinserted, there will still be work to be done to pass a real bill that meets the goal of protecting Canada's cultural community and ensuring that digital broadcasters, without touching social media, are able to contribute their fair share—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsCathyMcLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague articulates some of the concerns very well.I have been very troubled to hear the Liberal minister time and again misleading the House by accusing Conservatives of obstruction and delay, when it is actually the Liberals' mismanagement of the legislative agenda that has led to the position we are in. The Liberals have basically shut down debate on a bill on censorship.Specifically, I would ask the member to expand on how this is not about opposing artists, unlike what the minister suggests. The Conservative opposition to the bill is about ensuring that Canadians have freedom of speech and that this bill—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (2135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, these 15 seconds will not be nearly enough time. I will say, however, that the Conservatives will always fight for freedom of expression, not only for Canadians but also for our artists who want to have the freedom to write songs, say the things they want to say and put on the quality comedy shows that we all know.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59265CathyMcLeodCathy-McLeodKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/McLeodCathy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMrs. Cathy McLeod (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (2145)[English]Madam Speaker, I duly note my colleague's remarks, but when he suggests that it is only the Conservatives who are opposed and that we are not modern, I would like to point out that there were some very significant witnesses who came to the hearings and testified against this bill. The government originally put in a very important clause, proposed section 4.1, for a reason. To be quite frank, I have never heard any clear rationale as to why it was removed, from anyone, including the minister. My question is quite simple: Will my colleague vote for the reinsertion of proposed section 4.1 into the legislation?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72035BobZimmerBob-ZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZimmerBob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): (2150)[English]Madam Speaker, I have an article in front of me entitled “Heritage minister ignored his own officials over controversial Bill C-10, documents reveal”. It says:Months before the Liberal government removed a section of Bill C-10 in a controversial amendment [the] Heritage Minister...was told by officials within his own department that it was an “important limitation” on regulatory powers.What does the member say to all the critics of Bill C-10? It is not just the Conservatives, not just people on this side of the House who are criticizing this bill. What does he say to those people?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105835NellyShinNelly-ShinPort Moody—CoquitlamConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ShinNelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMotions in amendmentInterventionMs. Nelly Shin (Port Moody—Coquitlam, CPC): (2205)[English]Madam Speaker, I am a little concerned about the way Conservatives' intervention on this bill is being interpreted. I am really disappointed that it is being reduced to a fundraising effort and that this is how it has been interpreted. Clearly there has been a breach of the tools and the institution of democracy throughout this Parliament, and this is just one example of those being breached. As an artist, I am very disappointed. I feel we were forced to choose between spending more time talking about the artists and fighting for democracy. That should not even be an issue, but the fact we had to really bothers me, so I would—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, we would agree to apply the vote, and Conservative members will be supporting.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithYasminRatansiDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote, and I vote nay.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsYasminRatansiDon Valley EastAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had my hand up for the previous vote and I was not acknowledged by the Speaker.Points of orderRecognition to speakAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2305)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and Conservative members will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleYasminRatansiDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting in favour.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsYasminRatansiDon Valley EastPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting nay.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was waiting to be acknowledged on the previous vote. When that did not happen, I raised my hand to be acknowledged. I was voting for the previous motion.Corrections in a votePoints of orderAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was a yea.Corrections in a votePoints of orderAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote with Conservatives voting against.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting in favour.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerYasminRatansiDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvillePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting nay.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Conservative members agree to apply the vote and will vote against the motion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverYasminRatansiDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35389StevenBlaneyHon.Steven-BlaneyBellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/BlaneySteven_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Steven Blaney: (2315)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote against the motion and would ask that the following votes be tallied with those of the Conservative Party.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting nay.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsStevenBlaneyHon.Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—LévisDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and Addington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRameshSanghaBrampton CentreAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the previous vote to this vote, and Conservatives would be opposed.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleYasminRatansiDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we agree to apply the vote, and the Conservative members will be voting against the motion.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsYasminRatansiDon Valley EastJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and I will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and vote against.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsYasminRatansiDon Valley EastPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonRameshSanghaBrampton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver GranvilleAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply and will be voting in support.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25449YasminRatansiYasmin-RatansiDon Valley EastIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/RatansiYasmin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Yasmin Ratansi: (2325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverJodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Vancouver Granville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsYasminRatansiDon Valley EastPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Derek Sloan: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsRecorded divisionsReport stageReport stage motionsDerekSloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2355)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it troubling that we are being forced into closure, once again, on a debate that many have raised the concerns of censorship. It seems that the government is more worried about Conservative opposition to this than actually fixing what is deeply flawed legislation.The minister has said that all artists support the legislation, and that is patently false. I have heard from some in my constituency and others across the country as well as those who I know have reached out to the minister directly, saying that they have concerns.I am wondering if the member is willing to correct the record and acknowledge that there is not universal agreement from artistic communities on Bill C-10. BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, this evening, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law stated that he found it hard to think of a bill that had been more poorly communicated or understood. He specifically called out the Liberal government for misleading Canadians about the impact it would have on social media services.Would the member simply believe that the Canada research chair is wrong or is in fact the government impacting social media users?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsSocial networking sitesThird reading and adoptionJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC): (2400)[English] Mr. Speaker, Toronto's CN Tower is a Canadian landmark that is known worldwide. When it was completed in 1976, it was the highest free-standing structure in the world. It is 553 metres tall, or about 1,800 old-fashioned feet high. That is the length of five and a half football fields. It has actually been named a wonder of the modern world, right up there with the Golden Gate Bridge and the Empire State Building. The CN Tower gets a lot of attention, and tons of people visit it: two million a year.Some of those visitors got more than they bargained for on July 16, 2001. On that day, two radical activists decided to do a dangerous illegal stunt. The two men scaled the outside of the tower and unfurled a banner. That banner bashed the Liberal government and the U.S. government for allegedly being killers of the planet. Not doing enough to fight climate change was the charge. The men had to be rescued by firefighters, and they were later charged and convicted for their dangerous stunt. The court heard that the whole ordeal cost CN $50,000, but the two men only had to pay $3,000 in fines in total. I guess the punishment did not quite fit the crime.Who were those two men who created such havoc and made headlines worldwide? They were both Greenpeace activists. One was a British guy, Chris Holden. The other fella has really climbed to new heights. He is now a Liberal cabinet minister, the heritage minister. Two decades after his last dangerous stunt, this radical guy is pulling another one. In some ways, it is even more dangerous than his first stunt. He wants to censor our online free speech.By now many Canadians have heard of Bill C-10. It is actually interesting that hundreds of bills are discussed in the House and most people do not pay attention. If we mentioned a random bill, the average Canadian likely would not know what it is about and probably would not care. We realize that a bill is controversial when regular folks know about it and know it by name and number. I did a virtual meeting with students from a grade 6 class a couple of weeks back and they knew about Bill C-10. They were very concerned about it. They should be.I have a special interest myself in Bill C-10. I worked as a journalist for three decades in radio, TV, newspapers and news magazines, so free speech is in my DNA. For many years I was an opinion columnist for the Toronto Sun chain. Opinion columnists at Sun Media were the lifeblood of that organization. Every survey we did showed that many people bought the newspapers, and sometimes just to read one of the regular columnists.I am not going to bore anybody by dissecting the intricate legalese of Bill C-10. Lots of lawyers and legal experts have argued the finer points in detail. I know the government will tout this bill as being all about supporting Canadian content. It has already done that. It claims it is not out to stop free speech in any real way, but I do not believe it. Most Canadians do not either. It is no wonder that we do not believe it. The government has earned a reputation, and it is not a good reputation. It cannot be trusted. I do not trust it and Canadians do not trust it.The Prime Minister and his Liberals have a long string of botched files, ethics violations, broken promises and cover-ups. They failed to quickly close our borders when COVID hit. Then they failed on quickly getting Canadians vaccines. They tried to do a deal with the communist Chinese regime to get vaccines. Of course that failed miserably.The Liberals have failed on many, many fronts: the SNC-Lavalin affair, the WE scandal, cash for access, cancelled energy projects, disgraced cabinet ministers and MPs, blackface, the trip to the Aga Khan's private island, no serious plan to open our international border and cover-ups galore. Ler us consider a recent one. It is about the Winnipeg National Microbiology Lab and a refusal to provide vital documents to a key parliamentary committee. Look for that to be in the headlines for a long time. Is it any wonder that Canadians do not trust the Liberals? Is it any wonder they cannot be trusted with something so sacred as free speech? Is it any wonder that people do not trust the minister proposing Bill C-10, a guy with a radical past, a guy who got hauled off in handcuffs and was convicted by a court of law?(2405)We have already seen censorship raise its ugly head on the Internet. It is already happening at an alarming rate. I bet every Canadian with a computer knows someone who has had a social media post flagged or deleted by big tech. It could have been for something as simple as a personal opinion about COVID rules. I bet many of us know people whose social media accounts have been suspended or even shut down by big tech. It is ridiculous that some self-appointed 20-something is a judge at a big tech firm like Twitter, Facebook or YouTube.It also seems like conservative voices are the ones often targeted by these censors. It is strange how that works. Can members imagine what kind of censorship will happen if the Liberal government controls our online speech? I shudder to think of it. Some people might say that since I am a member of the official opposition, of course I will slam any Liberal bill. Well, it is not just the official opposition. There are a lot of people against this Big Brother bill. Every constituent I talk to wants me to fight against the bill. I cannot recall one person coming to me to say, “Hey, Kerry, you have to support Bill C-10.” In fact, I have heard so much opposition to the bill that I decided to start an online petition against it. I was inundated with people signing it. I told them that I would send a letter of protest directly to the Prime Minister on their behalf, and that is exactly what I did. Speaking of opposition to Bill C-10, members should check out what Tim Denton said. He is a former national CRTC commissioner, and he is also the current chair of the Internet Society Canada Chapter. Mr. Denton had this to say: C-10 is clearly intended to allow speech control at the government’s discretion. Ignore the turn signals, look at where the wheels are pointed. They are pointed at your right to communicate freely by means of the internet.This is scary stuff. Who would members trust to pass judgment on this bill, our heritage minister, with his radical past, or Mr. Denton? I know who I would trust.How about the comment from Peter Menzies? He is a long-time journalist and former CRTC vice-chair. I worked in journalism with Peter. He is a good guy, a smart guy. He has summed up the Liberal bill really well. He said that Bill C-10 “will place the internet under the control of the...CRTC. Its nine unelected, unaccountable commissioners will decide if your Facebook post or Youtube video is appropriate internet content.” My former colleague goes on to point out that the heritage minister “has promised more legislation to establish another regulatory panel to oversee what sort of things people may say on social media. All of this constitutes an outrageous abuse of government authority”.We can see where this legislation could go. Maybe a person does not like a government program or a policy or a politician and speaks out. Maybe they will get blocked or cancelled. There is a lot of cancel culture out there to go around, and the legislation before us would only make things worse.The bottom line is that the Liberal government cannot be trusted with our free speech. The minister, with his radical, checkered past, cannot be trusted with our free speech. Our free speech is too sacred to be imperiled by this terrible, dangerous legislation. Canadians are saying that loud and clear. Bill C-10 must be defeated. Our very democracy in Canada is at stake.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian contentCensorshipClimate change and global warmingCN TowerFreedom of speechGovernment billsProtestsSocial networking sitesThird reading and adoptionJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthLenoreZannCumberland—Colchester//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kerry Diotte: (2410)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is the old divert-the-eye trick. It is like a slight of hand. It is not about Canadian performers. I know many of them, and some of my best friends are performers. It is about freedom of speech. The government and the Liberals keep going back to try to shame us, but this is about freedom of speech. It is not about anything else. If members talked to any average Canadian at a Tim Hortons, now that we are open in good old Alberta, they will say they do not like this bill.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsIncome and wagesPerforming arts and performersThird reading and adoptionLenoreZannCumberland—ColchesterHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kerry Diotte: (2410)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is another diversionary tactic because the NDP member does not understand the kernel of this. As I said, I am not going to dissect this bill; I am not a lawyer. However, I know one thing. I know about freedom of expression. I was a journalist for 30 years. I talk to a lot of people, and I represent my constituents, who are telling me that they do not like this legislation and they do not trust the Liberals. The Liberals have not earned the trust on this bill. It is as simple as that. That is the absolute truth.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89150KerryDiotteKerry-DiotteEdmonton GriesbachConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/DiotteKerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kerry Diotte: (2415)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is another diversionary tactic. I very clearly stated in my speech that I was not going to dissect it. I am not a lawyer. It comes down to trust. People do not trust the government on this issue of free speech, nor has the government earned that trust. We just have to talk to many people. I have seldom seen a groundswell against a bill like the one I have seen with this bill.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionMartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2425)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point my colleague is making about the importance of culture and the arts in Quebec. I would say that arts and culture are certainly important in all parts of the country and really to all people everywhere. The problem is that the government has presented us with a framework that provides a false choice. It says that, in order to support artists, we would allow the government to intervene and regulate social media algorithms. We would say that we do not have to choose between supporting artists and protecting freedom of speech. We could devise various other mechanisms by which we could provide support for artists, and also not have the CRTC intervening and regulating social media algorithms. We should get out of this false choice presented by the government, where we have to either support artists or protect freedom of speech. We can and should, in fact, do both.AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsSocial networking sitesThird reading and adoptionMartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (2440)[English]Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening in the debate, the member for Toronto—Danforth, in response to a question I posed, wanted to make it super clear that this bill “specifically excludes content uploaded by users.” In response to that, the Canada research chair in Internet and e-commerce law stated on Twitter that it was false, that she was just wrong.Who has it right? Does the government have it right? Are content users impacted by this bill, as many critics are saying, or is the government right, that they are not? Which way is it?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionUser-generated contentAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2440)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments specifically about the importance of art and how art is not just something that we enjoy, but is something that can shape our view of the world and our understanding of deeper concepts. Does that not underline the importance of this space being democratized and of limiting government control? Once we accept that art can be a powerful way of conveying senses, messages and experiences, should that not underline the importance of government not being in a position to shape the kinds of content that people can see over others, and of not being able to intervene and prioritize certain content based on criteria that they establish?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsDeregulationGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2455)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to both this speech and the previous speech, and specifically the member's impassioned explanation of indigenous history that needs to be told.My concern is about allowing the state, in this case the CRTC as an agent of the state, to determine what content meets a certain satisfactory requirement to be prioritized in the next-to-play or the algorithm that shows up in someone's feed. If the state, for example, were to try to diminish some of its history, then it would put the very content that the member is so passionately defending at risk of being silenced. I am just curious as to how the member would reconcile some of the concerns that have been outlined with this bill about the possibility of state intervention, and specifically with the Liberals being able to determine what that may or may not be. How does he reconcile that with the need to ensure that there is actual freedom of expression so that these voices can be heard and, in the example that he shared, that this Canadian history can be told and accessed—AlgorithmsBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionCommunication controlGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2455)[English]The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2500)[English]It being 1 a.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.[Translation]The question is on the motion.In the usual way, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.PaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2500)[Translation]Accordingly, call in the members.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2530)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2530)[English]It being 1:30 a.m., pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 21, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). (The House adjourned at 1:30 a.m.)BruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it interesting to hear the Liberals tying themselves in rhetorical knots about defending aspects of policies and trying to distance themselves from decisions that were made in the past. It certainly is a fascinating discussion in rhetoric.My question for the member is quite simple. In Bill C-30, there are some changes to the Elections Act that are related to a court decision. Specifically, it would make it illegal to knowingly mislead constituents during an election. Now, there has not been a lot of focus on this in the debate on this bill because it is a bit like an omnibus bill, which the Liberals had promised not to do, but this has been inserted into the bill. I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular aspect of Bill C-30.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresElectoral systemGovernment billsReport stageRobertMorrisseyEgmontRobertMorrisseyEgmont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89167MattJenerouxMatt-JenerouxEdmonton RiverbendConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JenerouxMatt_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, it is good to be here. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on what could very well be one of the last sitting days of the 43rd Parliament. It remains a tremendous opportunity to represent the riding of Edmonton Riverbend, and I certainly look forward to continuing important discussions during what is likely a potential election around the corner.Now I want to get to the topic at hand, the budget. I want to highlight an aspect of the budget that I think is important, but maybe has not received a lot of the attention here in the House, and that is Canada's aerospace sector. Canada's aerospace industry was one of the hardest-hit industries as a result of the pandemic, and the budget has not allocated enough for its recovery. Specifically, there was very little mention of Canada's space industry and the government's long-term plans.Canada's space industry supports approximately 21,000 jobs across the country. The sector is composed of small businesses, multinational space companies, not-for-profit organizations, research centres and, of course, universities across the country. Canadian space organizations are internationally renowned for their scientific excellence and leading-edge technologies, such as space robotics, optical telescopes, satellite communications, earth observation and space situation awareness, and countless contributions to international collaborative science missions over the past five decades.There is a clear need for Canada's space sector to maximize Canada's leadership at the forefront of space. By charting a new course and taking a balanced approach, we can realize the full economic, social, scientific and strategic benefits to Canada's place as a global leader in the exploration, research and commercialization of space.This budget was a missed opportunity to provide Canadian space stakeholders clear guidance and a way to contribute to the future of the growing space program more proactively. If Canada is to remain competitive in space, it must adopt an overarching aerospace strategy that includes a clear and visible plan for space for the future. Every other aerospace nation has a national strategy to position their industries for recovery and growth and seize their share of the multitrillion-dollar emerging aerospace clean tech market. Canada needs to proudly support its aerospace industry and plan for the future. This budget fell short of that.I am a member of Parliament from Alberta, a province that has experienced great upheaval over the last few years. Oil prices have dropped and thousands are out of work. Every day I hear from families who are struggling to get by. This budget, which I will remind my colleagues is the first in two years, missed an opportunity to address these concerns and make long-term plans for the future of the province.We understand that transitioning to a green economy is in the best interest of our planet, and Alberta can play a big role in that transition. More than 17,000 Albertans already work for energy companies that have committed to net-zero by 2050. There was nothing in the budget about a long-term vision for Alberta's future.Western alienation is very real. Albertans are feeling like undervalued members of the Confederation, and talk of separation from Canada has become more and more common. There is a real anger toward Ottawa, and the budget was an opportunity for the federal government to make amends and show Albertans they are valuable and needed for a strong Canada. Sadly, it did not.My colleagues representing Alberta have been working extremely hard in the past number of years, and I am proud to say that our party has released a plan for economic recovery, stood up for Canadian energy workers and introduced a number of our members' bills to help Albertans and all Canadians. We all know that a strong Alberta means a strong Canada, and we will keep fighting for our province to be treated fairly by the federal government.If I may just beg the indulgence of the House for a few short minutes, I would like to reflect and offer a statement.In 2017, I was a member of a caucus that largely voted against Motion No. 103 when it was put forth in this House. Although nuanced, essentially it was a vote against recognizing that Islamophobia exists. I was wrong, and I am sorry. I want not just the Muslim community, but all of the communities of Edmonton, Alberta and Canada, to hear me say that Islamophobia is real. Islamophobia does exist within our communities, as witnessed this week at the Baitul Hadi Mosque in Edmonton. Since 2017, I have spoken to many who have helped show me what this vote meant to their community, and the sense of unbelonging it helped to perpetuate. Quite simply, the impact of our words and actions in this place reverberate throughout our society. I do not want to do this in a self-promoting way, but I wanted to make this statement here, in arguably the most important building in our country, that I recognize that Islamophobia exists here in Canada. The attack in London was an attack against the Muslim community and an attack on Canadian values.(1030)I want my children to also hear this lesson, and that is the lesson that, no matter how hard it can be, they can grow. I needed time to say this not only for my children but also for all children of Canada. I want them to see members from all political parties condemning these actions together because, after all, we are one Canada, and it is never too late to do the right thing.I will conclude with something that I think has interrupted every aspect of Canadians' lives. Canadians have really borne the brunt of the economic damage the pandemic has caused. Donations to many charities have dropped, and Canadians have seen their incomes impacted. Canadian charities play a critical role in the day-to-day lives of Canadians. Health charities support people living with diseases with information that has been backed by research and clinical studies. The pandemic has put many research programs at risk. Without funding for research that is usually provided by donors to charities, we could miss out on an important scientific breakthrough that could drastically improve the lives of Canadians. It is vitally important that we keep supporting our important charities.I was pleased to see the budget addressing the gap created by COVID-19, but we need to act urgently. The budget proposes launching public consultations with charities in the coming months. However, the eligibility has yet to be unveiled and the consultations have only just begun, despite the fact that charities of all sizes have been calling for additional supports from the federal government from the start of the pandemic. There is no guarantee that large national charities will qualify for this recovery fund. The allocated $400 million is unlikely to be enough to resemble recovery for the charitable sector. The government must have clear ineligibility guidelines and a timeline. These charities and the Canadians they serve need help now.I have had the privilege of working very closely with a number of Canada's health charities over the past number of months, and I can personally attest to the good work they do in our communities and all across the country. It would be a tragedy to lose the invaluable services that they provide and to lose any research funding that could lead to the breakthroughs. I urge the government to fast-track its commitment to charities.Aerospace industryAlbertaBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCharitable organizationsCOVID-19Government billsIslam and MuslimsOil and gasPandemicReligious discriminationReport stageScientific research and scientistsRobertMorrisseyEgmontMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89167MattJenerouxMatt-JenerouxEdmonton RiverbendConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JenerouxMatt_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Matt Jeneroux: (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, my statement speaks for itself, but the member is right that we can always grow. What I tell my children and the people I love is that it is never too late to do the right thing, and that is what I did today.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsIslam and MuslimsReligious discriminationReport stageMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89167MattJenerouxMatt-JenerouxEdmonton RiverbendConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JenerouxMatt_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Matt Jeneroux: (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to see my friend and neighbour in the Valour Building here in Ottawa. I had an opportunity to see him just this week. It is refreshing to start to be able to see more people around this place.The member raises some great questions. The important thing to remember, and what he and I often talk about, is that there are a lot of partisan lines drawn in this place. It is unfortunate at times, because I think we do have a lot in common. We could all learn from each other, no matter what part of the country we come from, no matter what political beliefs we have. There are always opportunities to grow. He is a perfect example of someone I have learned a lot from.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsIslam and MuslimsReligious discriminationReport stageGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Ind.): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I just want to share a story and ask the member a question.I went to a Catholic high school but grew up in a Muslim household. I remember taking a world religions class. It talked about all the religions of the world. It was a great course to introduce students to a lot of different ethnicities, religions and backgrounds. When I was in that high school, I can say without a doubt that I did not experience Islamophobia one bit. However, after 9/11, this has accelerated and brought Islamophobia and the fear of others into the limelight.Would my hon. colleague agree that these types of education courses in certain particular schools would help alleviate Islamophobia?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEducation and trainingGovernment billsIslam and MuslimsReligious discriminationReport stageMattJenerouxEdmonton RiverbendMattJenerouxEdmonton Riverbend//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89167MattJenerouxMatt-JenerouxEdmonton RiverbendConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JenerouxMatt_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Matt Jeneroux: (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to see my friend joining us here in the chamber today.Education is, of course, a very important aspect. I think of my friend who works in my constituency office. She is scared to go out in public to a train station where other members of her faith have been attacked and have had their head scarves pulled off. To me, that means something is wrong.Together, members from all parties could help to raise that issue more. I can only think that this would help fight the fact that Islamophobia is real and it does exist in our communities here in Canada.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEducation and trainingGovernment billsIslam and MuslimsReligious discriminationReport stageMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge Park//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgStatements by MembersCOVID-19 VaccinationInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Ind.): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians are now world leaders in the share of people who have had at least one dose of vaccine. With our steady supply, high vaccination rates and a shift to second doses, Canada is on its way to being one of the most vaccinated nations in the world. Congratulations to everyone who has worked on this world-leading procurement and logistical project. However, the fight against COVID is still not over and my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler in Waterloo Region is currently the region with the highest number of new cases daily in Ontario. Over 80% of the new cases and hospitalizations are from 30% of the adult population who remain unvaccinated. Sadly, we are facing the prospect of being left behind in reopening plans. I want to remind my constituents and all Canadians of the importance of getting vaccinated as soon as possible. It is the fastest path back to normal.COVID-19ImmunizationPandemicStatements by MembersGaryAnandasangareeScarborough—Rouge ParkChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59156KellyBlockKelly-BlockCarlton Trail—Eagle CreekConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlockKelly_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersFather's DayInterventionMrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, the family has always been regarded as the cornerstone of society. Ronald Reagan stated, “Our families nurture, preserve, and pass on to each succeeding generation the values we share and cherish, values that are the foundation for our freedoms.”The importance of the role of fatherhood should never be diminished. As we celebrate our fathers this Sunday, I want to pay tribute to the three generations of fathers in my family.To my father Ernie, thank you for being my biggest fan and a tremendous source of guidance and encouragement.To my father-in-law Henry, thank you for your wisdom and reason.To Theo, Jeff, Michael and Nic, thank you for your courage and commitment to your families.Finally, to Milton, thank you for being my rock, best friend and life partner; and for your dedication to our family.To fathers across the country, your contributions are essential in ensuring that we continue to thrive as a society. Happy Father's Day.FathersFather's DayStatements by MembersChandraAryaNepeanPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—Soulanges//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment TransparencyInterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians can see right through the government's tired, old excuses. That is not the kind of transparency Canadians are owed.The Prime Minister has become the boy who cried national security wolf once too often. Canadians remember how the government invoked national security as an excuse not to come clean about a sole-sourced contract for parkas. These were not military parkas; they were parkas for refugees, and the government covered up the contract.Lawful firearms owners have taken the government to court to challenge the scary-looking gun bans. They have learned all government evidence to justify the gun grab has been deemed a national security secret.Hotel quarantine costs, a national security secret; vaccine contracts, a national security secret; and the Prime Minister's sock budget, a national security secret. This is not how a democratic society is supposed to work.It is time for the government to stop crying national security wolf any time it has embarrassing information it wants to hide.Government accountabilityNational securityStatements by MembersÉlisabethBrièreSherbrookeIrekKusmierczykWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersCOVID-19 PandemicInterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, today, I do not wish to give a political speech. Today I wish to give a speech of hope. As Desmond Tutu once said, “Hope is being able to see that there is light despite all of the darkness.”For over the last year, people have lost their small businesses, loved ones, mental health, physical health, their homes and even, in some cases, their lives. For some of us, all hope seems to be lost. It seems that darkness has consumed our nation, but it is hope that will continue to keep us going. Just recently in my province of Alberta, many restaurants reopened for dine-in and many other restrictions were lifted. Hope is on the horizon. Businesses are reopening, jobs are coming, and I ask the Canadian people to get up and continue the fight against the pandemic and help rebuild our economy and glorious country. COVID-19PandemicStatements by MembersJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment PoliciesInterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1110)[English]Madam Speaker, there is an ancient writing that says, “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” The Liberal government clearly has a lack of vision for Canada. On this side of the House, we see beyond our perils and speak to our potential. On this side of the House, we know the importance of our farmers and harvesters who supply our food and literally keep our land. On this side of the House, we recognize how vital our energy sector is. On this side of the House, we value our workers, entrepreneurs, transporters and builders, knowing they will be the key to our comeback. On this side of the House, we recognize the importance of our seniors, veterans and current members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have both built and defended this great country. On this side of the House, we will offer Canadians a clear vision, so that when we get to that side of the House, Canadians will have a government that recognizes their potential and a government that will secure their future. On this side of the House, we believe in Canada and the story we have to tell: Our best chapters are yet ahead. May God continue to keep our land glorious and free.Government performanceStatements by MembersJoëlLightboundLouis-HébertRaquelDanchoKildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersClass of 2021InterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1110)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the graduating class of 2021. These graduates have overcome tremendous adversity over this past difficult year, and it is my hope they will take the resilience they have built and use it to empower their dreams, aspire to new heights and achieve excellence in their future endeavours. We are so proud of them.Now it is time to help us build a better world, and Canada needs them. We need their energy, their spirit and their optimism. There will be many more challenges ahead, but with them at the helm of the next generation, I know our future is in safe hands.This is an exciting time in their lives. The possibilities are truly endless for them. They should take all the opportunities that come their way, keep an open mind, work very hard, and have some fun this summer, because they have certainly earned it. If they can, they should reach out and volunteer in their community. We have many vulnerable neighbours who have had tough times this year and their smiling faces may be all they need to get through the day.GraduatesStatements by MembersRichardBragdonTobique—MactaquacDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersThe EconomyInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, many Canadians are on bended knees under the weight of crushing debt and a new reality of inflation, the levels of which have not been felt for generations. The cost of everything has gone up, but it is those who can least afford it who are paying the price. Increases in groceries, gas, carbon taxes, housing and rental costs are cascading across communities in Canada, including in my community of Barrie—Innisfil, and it is causing many sleepless nights. Senior Elizabeth recently wrote me, “We now have to pick our food purchases very carefully; even local produce has taken a large jump.” This should not be happening in CanadaWe need a government that understands that it will be the power of Canadian businesses, the people they employ, the products they produce in every region, in every sector of the economy, so Canadian businesses can compete here at home and around the world, and bring back investor confidence. There is only one party that will secure the future, that will unify Canada and bring back hope, opportunity and prosperity for all Canadians, and that is Canada’s Conservatives. Cost of livingInflationStatements by MembersMarilèneGillManicouaganKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, yesterday we witnessed a great, very rare and extremely important moment in the House. The House found the Public Health Agency of Canada in contempt for its failure to provide the documents about the events that occurred at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and ordered PHAC to produce these documents.We know that the Prime Minister refused three times to comply with orders of the House to that effect. On Monday, the Prime Minister will have two options: He can obey our laws and regulations, or he can flout them.What will he do?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is precisely because we are committed to national security that we are asking these questions and demanding the truth.Why did the Public Health Agency of Canada give the highest security clearance to a researcher with ties to the Chinese army?Why did PHAC give the highest security clearance to two researchers who were marched out of the laboratory by the RCMP?We want clear answers, and these answers cannot come from just anyone. The answers must come from the government.What will the Prime Minister do on Monday? Will he table the documents, yes or no?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I cannot get over the fact that she said that with a big smile.The reality is that Canadians need reassurance. As far as I know, the minister is an MP duly elected by the people, and she must comply with the rules of the House of Commons. This is an order of the House, and the government must support it.The Prime Minister refused three times. Monday is the moment of truth. Does the Prime Minister respect the House of Commons, yes or no?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, the role of Parliament is to hold the government to account. The National Microbiology Lab saw a significant security issue happen earlier this year, and Parliament needs to determine what happened so that it does not happen again. In order to do that, we need to see the documents that are related to this incident. There have been numerous orders for the government to provide them to Parliament, not to a different committee that is not an official parliamentary committee.Will the Minister of Health comply with the House order and send Iain Stewart here with the documents on Monday?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, the minister is not accountable to Thomas Juneau. She is accountable to this place.NSICOP is not an official parliamentary committee and it happens in secret. What is happening here is the government provided documents to that committee so that we could not look at them and we could not fix these issues on behalf of our constituents and the people of Canada. That is wrong and that is why this place is supreme.I will ask the minister this one more time. Will she comply with the House order and send Iain Stewart here to be admonished with the documents per the motion that was passed yesterday?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, last night, the majority of the House of Commons voted to censure the Minister of National Defence for his litany of failures. The most egregious thing he has been condemned for is allowing the crisis of sexual misconduct to fester in the military. Referring to the victims of military sexual traumas, Stephanie Carvin, associate professor at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, said the minister failed utterly to protect them or ensure there is any kind of justice for them in over six years of being the defence minister.Will the Prime Minister fire the defence minister today?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourDarrellSamsonSackville—Preston—ChezzetcookAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, if the member really wants to help victims of sexual misconduct in the military, she would quit obstructing the national defence committee's work.There is a growing wave of consensus that the Minister of National Defence is ill suited to implement the changes needed to end sexual misconduct since he has already failed to protect our women and men in uniform. Military sexual assault survivor Stéphanie Raymond said the defence minister “has missed too many opportunities to act. Unfortunately, he too is part of the problem [if] he continues to camouflage, or to be complicit by omission.” She also stated, “The minister, basically, I think he should perhaps leave his functions.”When will the Prime Minister do the right thing and show the defence minister the door?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, a scathing Toronto Star editorial said, “One of the minor mysteries of Ottawa in the spring of 2021 is why on earth [the defence minister] is still Canada’s minister of national defence. [His] credibility has been so thoroughly shredded by the sexual misconduct scandals paralyzing the Canadian Forces”. Sexual misconduct expert Megan MacKenzie from Simon Fraser University said the defence minister has “zero credibility” on sexual misconduct.Why will the Prime Minister not fire the Minister of National Defence?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, here we are in the magic million job month. June was supposed to be the month in which all of the pre-COVID jobs would be recovered: a million of them in chart 35. It is right there in the minister's budget that all of the jobs would be restored this month, yet we have lost a quarter of a million jobs in the last two months and have the second-highest unemployment in the G7.Will this month be as miraculous as the government claims? Will we have all of those million jobs back when the numbers come out next month?COVID-19Economic recoveryLabour marketOral questionsPandemicAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member did not answer the question. It was supposed to be this month that all those million Canadians would have their jobs back. He claims that there will be an “expeditious” recovery, another one of these subjective words that has no timeline, but his chart is very clear. It was supposed to be a million jobs by June 2021, yet we are actually losing jobs. We are down a quarter of a million in two months. We have the second-highest unemployment in the G7.Yes or no: Will the million Canadians have their jobs back?COVID-19Economic recoveryLabour marketOral questionsPandemicSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member need not worry. I do not believe him, because the chart in his government's budget says there will be a million jobs back by this month. Now, suddenly, he is running away from that commitment. He is saying, “Don't worry. We've got really expensive debt-financed government programs.” The Liberals are putting it all on the credit card, but he is running away from the central commitment to restore paycheques. Only paycheques will secure our future.I will give him a third chance. Will he restate the government's commitment in chart 35 of its budget, that a million Canadians who lost their jobs during COVID will have them back this month?COVID-19Economic recoveryLabour marketOral questionsPandemicCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, here are the direct consequences of 3.6% inflation, the likes of which we have not seen in 10 years. A young family is unable to buy a house. A father is forced to decide which day his kids will get a good meal this week. François and Martin struggle to make their long-distance relationship work because the cost of gas is too high for them to visit each other. The Liberals are putting Canadian families at risk. Why does the Prime Minister not have a plan to jump-start the economy and create jobs?Economic recoveryOral questionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I will take no moral lessons from the member.[Translation]The threat here is that interest rates are being driven up by inflation. The threat here is that this government is $1 trillion in debt. The threat here is that we have an apathetic Prime Minister who thinks that budgets balance themselves. The threat here is that the Liberals are doing absolutely nothing to make life more affordable for Canadians because they like to impose tax after tax. When will we get a realistic plan to create jobs?Economic recoveryOral questionsSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNatural ResourcesInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, unfortunately we were listening closely when the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance actually let it slip that these Liberals were going to crush the economic rebound. They are going to make sure it does not come back. We can absolutely see this in their approach to the oil and gas sector. They have Biden vetoing Keystone. Now Governor Whitmer is trying to shut down Line 5.My question to the parliamentary secretary to the finance minister is this. Did the Prime Minister even mention Line 5 at the G7 junket last week?Canada-United States relationsEnbridge Inc.Oil and gasOral questionsPipeline transportationSeanFraserCentral NovaMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNatural ResourcesInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1140)[English]I believe that, Madam Speaker: They are so far behind energy workers that no one can see where they actually are. It is an embarrassment how this government can treat our oil and gas sector.However, one thing about Line 5, and what we should be talking about, is that the treaty that was signed in 1977 to allow the free flow of oil across our borders was actually ratified and voted on by none other than then Delaware senator Joe Biden. If the Prime Minister has such a great relationship with the President of the United States, I ask again, at their G7 summit, when they were maskless and visiting, did the Prime Minister bring up Line 5? Canada-United States relationsEnbridge Inc.Oil and gasOral questionsPipeline transportationCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, Elder Eliza is a constituent of mine and a residential school survivor. She and her daughter applied for their status cards and were promised it would take six months to review. It has now been nearly three years. Every time they call Indigenous Services Canada for an update, they are left on hold for hours and given the runaround, time and time again. Perhaps it is because the minister has only 10 people at the call centre to process thousands of status card applications. Elder Eliza feels this delay is just another form of mistreatment and disrespect of indigenous peoples. Will the minister ensure that Elder Eliza and her daughter receive their status cards before the third anniversary of their application on July 7?BacklogsDepartment of Indigenous ServicesIdentity cardsOral questionsStatus IndiansMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmployment InsuranceInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, months ago I wrote to the Minister of Employment asking her to immediately address her department’s discriminatory policy. It is preventing some pregnant women who have lost their jobs because of the pandemic, through no fault of their own, from claiming EI maternity benefits. Maternity leave is a sacred right of motherhood in Canada for millions of women. These women have paid into EI for years, and it is unfair that they will be forced back into the job market within weeks of giving birth. I have met with these women. They are real. They are stressed. They need our help.The minister has the power to fix this. Why has she not?COVID-19Employment insuranceMaternity leaveOral questionsPandemicMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursCarlaQualtroughHon.Delta//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, the defence minister has been without honour from the start.First he let the Prime Minister destroy Vice-Admiral Norman, then he falsely claimed he was the architect of Operation Medusa. He took the honour out of the operation to combat sexual misconduct in the military, and now he has put the honour of our country at risk by claiming he did not know about our soldiers being ordered to train war criminals, when the report about it was sent three years ago.Why won’t the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and fire this minister? Minister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, when the Speaker makes a ruling, it is binding on this House. The Speaker is the lawful authority, and the Speaker's rulings carry force of law. The Speaker has clearly ruled that any parliamentary committee has the right to send for unredacted documents. That ruling has force of law.I have a simple question for the government members. Will they follow the law, or do they think that they do not have to follow the law?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaGovernment accountabilityInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityOral questionsAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89156ZiadAboultaifZiad-AboultaifEdmonton ManningConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AboultaifZiad_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, Canada’s housing market is the latest victim of Liberal incompetence. Their first-time homebuyer program has allocated only $178 million since its creation. That is just 14% of its budget. The minister’s program has helped only 9,800 applicants in two years. This is a national crisis affecting millions of Canadians, and it is the highest price increase since 2006. When will the minister realize this and admit his program is not working? First-Time Home Buyer IncentiveHome ownershipMortgagesOral questionsPeterSchiefkeVaudreuil—SoulangesAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105835NellyShinNelly-ShinPort Moody—CoquitlamConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ShinNelly_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMs. Nelly Shin (Port Moody—Coquitlam, CPC): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, StatsCan released a new housing price index for May. New home prices have increased 11.3% year over year, and this is the largest increase since November 2006. Prices for lumber and other products increased 17.9% from the previous month and have more than doubled year over year.Can the Prime Minister explain why he has implemented such incredibly poor economic policies leading to increased inflation and higher home prices, effectively crushing the dreams of young Canadian families looking to buy their first home? Consumer priceHome ownershipOral questionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, last week, Conservatives brought forward a motion that called on the government to address Canada’s housing affordability crisis. It laid out common-sense solutions to help Canadians achieve their dreams of home ownership, but the Liberals voted against it. Today, Stats Canada is reporting the largest increase in new home prices in 15 years. Increasing inflation and out-of-control Liberal deficits are only exacerbating the situation. Why are the Liberals pushing home ownership further out of reach for young Canadians? Consumer priceHome ownershipOral questionsAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodInnovation, Science and IndustryInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, Oshawa is home to Ontario Tech University, an institution designed to be a key economic driver in my community. A 2018 study found that 65% of software engineers and 30% of other STEM graduates leave Canada for opportunities abroad. The global tech race is on, and with the expiry of the American H1B visa ban in March, American tech companies are again free to start poaching our youngest and brightest. When will Canadian students see a targeted plan to keep them and their futures in Canada? Brain drainGraduatesOral questionsFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment PrioritiesInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister’s misleading and blind partisan rhetoric over the last week is quite something. It was recently pointed out to me that the Liberals' attitude is like that of an irresponsible student who, only when faced with a deadline and possible failure in a class, realizes their actions have consequences. Instead of taking responsibility, they are blaming others, blaming the system, and screaming it is simply not fair. The Liberals' condescending attitude abdicates the responsibility they have to serve Canadians. It is time to end the excuses and grow up. Will these Liberals take responsibility for their failures? Government accountabilityOral questionsFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105774TamaraJansenTamara-JansenCloverdale—Langley CityConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/JansenTamara_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMrs. Tamara Jansen (Cloverdale—Langley City, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, 21 years ago, a little girl named Heather was playing in her front yard in Cloverdale. Her neighbour, 24-year-old violent pedophile Shane Ertmoed, sexually assaulted and brutally murdered her. He stuffed her in his hockey bag and dumped her in the lake. Shane was sentenced to life in prison. Recently, the parole board approved his early day release, even though he admits that he continues to experience disturbing sexual urges. He plans to work in public parks, which are visited by many Victoria families.Will this government commit to reviewing this release immediately and overturning the board’s decision? Conditional releaseHomicideOral questionsParole Board of CanadaPedophilia and pedophilesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJoëlLightboundLouis-Hébert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I have been troubled to see the suspension of Canadians' ability to travel domestically and internationally, as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have seen Manitoba close its borders, keeping one half of the country from the other. How many family vacations will be ruined by these measures? Just yesterday, CBC reported from an anonymous government source that a vaccine passport program will be implemented for travellers entering Canada soon. Why is the government at liberty to discuss with CBC something that has never been presented or debated in the House of Commons?BordersCOVID-19Immunization recordOral questionsPandemicTravel restrictionsCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [International Trade]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I am standing on behalf of the Conservative committee members on the trade committee to present our supplementary opinion, which is attached to the report on WTO reform. As this is likely to be the final report tabled by the committee before we return in September, I would like to thank the clerk, the analysts and the technical staff of the committee for all their hard work in ensuring our meetings ran smoothly during this extraordinary time. I also want to thank the chair and all committee members for their work and contributions over the session.In our supplementary opinion, we highlight the important role the WTO has when it comes to free and fair trade globally. The pandemic has shown some gaps where the WTO could be reformed or better utilized, including in recent cases such as the dispute settlement process via the WTO's appellate body, as well as when it comes to finding a common-ground solution via the TRIPS council on intellectual property rights around COVID‑19 vaccines.Conservative committee members also highlight an observation we heard from Global Affairs Canada officials on the definition of “developed” and “developing” countries at the WTO, with each country getting to define itself as it chooses, with both of these salutations having different rights. We believe the Government of Canada's work in the Ottawa Group on WTO reform could also look into this definition to help standardize it to improve fair trade globally.We have also included recommendations in the supplementary opinion, which we hope the government will take into account.8510-432-179 "Reform of the World Trade Organization: Some Canadian Views and Priorities"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsInternational tradeStanding Committee on International TradeWorld Trade OrganizationJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekRubySahotaBrampton North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsProcedure and House AffairsInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, the official opposition generally agrees with the committee's findings and recommendations on the government's claims for why it prorogued Parliament last August. It was clear to Conservatives that the Liberals shut down Parliament last summer to cancel four committee investigations into the WE scandal and to prevent the ethics committee from learning how profitable the Trudeau family name has been for the Prime Minister's mother and brother. We deeply regret that the Liberals mounted a filibuster for over 100 days, preventing the committee from hearing from the Prime Minister and anyone else who had a role in his decision to shut down Parliament. With the help of the New Democrats, the Liberals managed to avoid any further scrutiny in committee.Where Conservatives part company with the committee's report is that we think the committee should actually finish the study by hearing from the Prime Minister. We think the committee should be empowered to order the Prime Minister to give testimony, and for the committee to see the PMO's emails and text messages about the plan to shut down Parliament.The committee report and the Liberal filibuster add another chapter to the current government's record. More scandals, more corruption and more cover-ups are what Canadians can expect from the Prime Minister and the Liberals. There is only one choice to end this corruption and secure accountability in Ottawa: Canada's Conservatives.8510-432-180 "Report on the Government's Report to Parliament: August 2020 Prorogation - COVID-19 Pandemic"COVID-19Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPandemicProrogationStanding Committee on Procedure and House AffairsRubySahotaBrampton NorthFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsIncome Tax ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)(1225)[English]Bill C-317. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (assistance for repayment of student loans).He said: Madam Speaker, today I rise in my place to table a bill that proposes a new way that we can help support students who are struggling with student debt. My bill proposes to amend the Income Tax Act so that employers can voluntarily enter into an arrangement in which part of the employee's remuneration would go toward student loan repayment as a tax-free benefit.Currently, if an employer wanted to help employees pay off their apprenticeship or student loan, that help would be taxed as regular income. That does not provide the needed and necessary help to students struggling with student debt. Student loan balances are often listed by young adults as a major reason for suffering from economic anxiety.Allowing employers and employees to voluntarily enter into an agreement in which part of the employee's remuneration would go toward apprenticeship loan or student loan repayment as a tax-free benefit would help young people pay down debt and start saving for the future by encouraging good financial management habits.I want to thank all of my constituents, particularly those young students who shared with me the pressure they are under, and I am hopeful that all members of this place will help support this initiative.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (assistance for repayment of student loans)Employment benefitsGrants and loans for studentsIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Falun Gong]InterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present two petitions.The first one is this. The Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, or the Magnitsky law, sanctions foreign officials responsible for gross human rights violations or acts of corruption. For over 21 years, China's Communist Party officials have orchestrated the torture and killing of large numbers of people who practise Falun Gong, a spiritual discipline promoting the principles of truth, compassion and tolerance. This includes the killing of practitioners on a mass scale for their vital organs to fuel the communist regime's organ transplant trade.The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to deploy all legal sanctions, including the freezing of assets and the barring of entry into Canada, against, but not limited to, the many listed in the petition.ChinaEconomic sanctionsForeign policyPetition 432-01147CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJasraj SinghHallanCalgary Forest Lawn//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEthiopiaInterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, the second petition says that the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House of Commons to the following: Ethiopia has experienced alarming bouts of unrest and violence in the last year; conflict has engulfed the Tigray region of Ethiopia, leading to egregious human rights abuses and a humanitarian crisis; and humanitarian actors and independent journalists and researchers have almost no access to the affected regions. They are being shut out from human rights, and many human rights violations have been going on. There are many other things listed in this petition.Civil and human rightsEthiopiaForeign policyHumanitarian assistance and workersPetitionsJasraj SinghHallanCalgary Forest LawnMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102653ScotDavidsonScot-DavidsonYork—SimcoeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DavidsonScot_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPefferlaw DamInterventionMr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, in Pefferlaw, we believe in rolling up our sleeves to help each other and in the power of our voices, and I am happy to rise today on behalf of the residents of Pefferlaw.The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to rehabilitate the historic Pefferlaw Dam and ensure the Pefferlaw River flows again. Built in the 1820s, the Pefferlaw Dam has a cultural, historical, environmental, economic and recreational significance to the visitors and residents of Pefferlaw.Maintenance, repair and renovation servicesPefferlaw DamPetition 432-01151Petition 432-01152SalmaZahidScarborough CentreCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsSex SelectionInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present these petitions. These individuals have indicated that sex-selection abortion is legal in Canada because we have no restrictions to date, in spite of the fact that 84% of Canadians believe it should be illegal to have an abortion simply when the sex of the child is not favoured.International organizations, including the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women and the United Nations Children's Fund, have identified unequal sex ratios at birth as a growing problem internationally, and our medical associations have indicated that in Canada as well. The petitioners are calling on the government to bring forward a Criminal Code prohibition on sex-selective abortion.AbortionPetition 432-01153Petition 432-01154Petition 432-01155Petition 432-01156Sexual discriminationScotDavidsonYork—SimcoeRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89116LenWebberLen-WebberCalgary ConfederationConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WebberLen_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTravel AdvisersInterventionMr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions I am pleased to present today from concerned Canadians from our great country. In the first, the petitioners are deeply concerned about the devastating impact the pandemic has had on the travel industry and independent travel agents in particular. The petitioners call on the government to ensure any financial aid afforded to the airlines is conditional on the payment of commissions to travel agents, who are being left out of any discussions. They also want to ensure any commissions clawed back by the airlines are returned in a timely fashion to the travel agents who have already performed the work.My second petition is also from Canada's independent travel agents, specifically those from Airdrie, Innisfail and Calgary, Alberta. Like those in the last petition, they worked hard early in the pandemic, rebooking and cancelling flights, only to have their commissions clawed back. They were not paid for their work. The petitioners ask the government to continue the Canada recovery benefit for an additional six months following the lifting of pandemic travel advisories. They also want to see the benefits maintained at $2,000 per month for the hardest-hit sectors of the economy.Finally, I have a third petition from independent travel agents, who are also struggling with the current travel and quarantine requirements in effect. The petitioners also call for specific sector funding for independent travel advisers. This sector was the first to see disruption and likely will be the last to return to normal. They also call on the government to extend the qualifications for the regional relief and recovery fund in urban areas to include sole proprietors.AirlinesCanada Recovery BenefitCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19PandemicPetition 432-01159Petition 432-01160Petition 432-01161ReimbursementTravel agenciesPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPornographyInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, the first petition I have to present today comes from Canadians across the country, who were very concerned about allegations that came out in a New York Times article, entitled “The Children of Pornhub”. One story reported that a 15-year-old girl, who had been missing for over a year, had been found when 58 videos of her rape and sexual assault were discovered on Pornhub.The petitioners note that Pornhub has no reliable system to verify that the people in the videos are not being trafficked or are minors who are being sexually exploited; that over 100 survivors and 500 NGOs have written a letter calling for a “criminal investigation” into MindGeek; and that the justice committee heard shocking testimony from Pornhub executives.The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to investigate and prosecute companies in Canada that host content featuring sex trafficking and child sexual abuse to the fullest extent of the law. They also call for a review of the legislative and regulatory framework to ensure that Canada's laws fully prohibit online, sexually explicit content featuring minors, torture, violence, cruelty and coercion. Finally, they ask for the introduction of legislation that would require companies to possess reliable systems to verify that people in sexually explicit images are of age and are not being trafficked.Child sexual abuse and exploitationOversight mechanismPetition 432-01164PornographyWeb sitesPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCorrectional ServicesInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present is from people across Canada. In Canada, almost one-quarter of the people who leave our correctional system reoffend within two years of being released. The petitioners are calling for a new system to ensure that victims are at the heart of our justice system and that we have a system to prevent recidivism and reoffending. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to support and quickly pass Bill C-228, an act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivism, to help to ensure that our society is safer, more peaceful, prosperous and just; and to support local communities and organizations that help people leaving correctional facilities become reintegrated into society.C-228, An Act to establish a federal framework to reduce recidivismPetition 432-01165RecidivistsSocial integrationArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, the third petition I have to present today is from Canadians from across the country.The petitioners are concerned about coercion, intimidation and other forms of pressure intended to force physicians and health institutions to become parties in assisted suicide or euthanasia in the violation of their freedom of conscience. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enshrine in the Criminal Code the protection of conscience supported by the passing of Bill C-268, the protection of freedom of conscience act, and to protect the charter rights of medical professionals who have chosen to not take part directly or indirectly in euthanasia or medical assistance in dying, ensuring that all medical practitioners and health care institutions are free from coercion and intimidation related to providing these services.C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (intimidation of health care professionals)Caregivers and health care professionalsFreedom of conscience and religionMedical assistance in dyingPetition 432-01166ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition I have to present—ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1240)[English]I am going to have to interrupt the hon. member. The time allowed for the presentation of petitions has been reached, which is at 15 minutes. In some cases, members have considered proposing a unanimous consent motion to extend the period. I note that the member still has more to say, and there is one other member of Parliament who has petitions to present as well. I would invite hon. members, if they wish, to proceed in that way, otherwise members who did not finish today will have to consider getting back to the House at the next sitting. Extension of daily program itemPresentation of petitionsArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionMr. Arnold Viersen: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to finish presenting petitions today.Extension of daily program itemLeave to propose a motionPresentation of petitionsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of ConscienceInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1240)[English]Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House for hon. members to finish their petitions?Some hon. members: No.Decisions of the HouseExtension of daily program itemLeave to propose a motionPresentation of petitionsArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions on the Order PaperHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 733--Mr. Gord Johns: With regard to the court cases Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1494; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCCA 237; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (29 March 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCCA 300; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), (30 January 2012) SCC File No. 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General Trial decision (Garson J.) – 2009 BCSC 1494; BC Supreme Court Docket No. S033335; the Supreme Court of Canada’s file number 34387; Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2021 BCCA 155; and all related cases: what are, including information from the Attorney General of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Environment and Climate Change Canada, for each case, the (i) total amount spent by the Crown between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2021, (ii) total amount, adjusted for inflation, (iii) total spent by the Crown by category (travel, salary, supplies, etc.), (iv) total amount spent in each fiscal year from 2005 to 2021, (v) total payment that has been, or is projected to be paid by the Crown, and an explanation as to how this figure was calculated, (vi) date by which it will be or is projected to be paid by the Crown?Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legal costs incurred by the government in relation to the various Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) matters identified in the question, at the British Columbia Supreme Court, court file number S033335, British Columbia Court of Appeal, court file number CA037704, Supreme Court of Canada, court file number 34387, and all related cases, to the extent that the information that has been requested is or may be protected by any legal privileges, including solicitor-client privilege, the federal Crown asserts those privileges. In this case, it has only waived solicitor-client privilege, and only to the extent of revealing the total legal costs, as defined below.The total legal costs, actual and notional costs, associated with the Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) matters referenced above, including at the British Columbia Supreme Court, court file number S033335, British Columbia Court of Appeal, court file number CA037704, and Supreme Court of Canada, and any related cases, between January 1, 2006, and April 30, 2021, amount to approximately $19.6 million. This amount covers the costs associated with the numerous procedures that have been filed in these various matters over a period of 15 years. The services targeted here are litigation services as well as litigation support services. Department of Justice lawyers, notaries and paralegals are salaried public servants and therefore no legal fees are incurred for their services. A “notional amount” can, however, be provided to account for the legal services they provide. The notional amount is calculated by multiplying the total hours recorded in the responsive files for the relevant period by the applicable approved internal legal services hourly rates. Actual costs represent file-related legal disbursements and legal agent fees, as the case may be. The total amount mentioned in this response is based on information contained in Department of Justice systems, as of May 5, 2021.Ahousaht First NationAttorney General of CanadaGovernment expendituresIndigenous rightsJohns, GordLametti, DavidLegal proceedingsLiberal CaucusMinister of JusticeNew Democratic Party CaucusQ-733Written questionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1240)[English]Is that agreed?Some hon. members: Agreed.Decisions of the HouseOrders for return to written questionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsHansard Insert[Text]Question No. 725--Ms. Leona Alleslev: With regard to Elections Canada, since January 1, 2014: (a) how many (i) electoral district associations, (ii) election campaigns were sent a confirmation email from Elections Canada that their financial return had been received by Elections Canada, broken down by year; (b) how many (i) emails, (ii) phone calls were received by Elections Canada related to political financing, broken down by quarter, province and year; (c) how many and what percentage of the political financing emails and phone calls in (b) received a response, broken down by quarter, province and year; (d) what are Elections Canada’s performance metrics for email and phone call response rates, broken down by year; (e) are political financing response emails required to include the name of the individual providing the response, and, if not, why not; and (f) how many and what percentage of political financing emails did not have the name of the individual providing the response, broken down by province?(Return tabled)Question No. 726--Ms. Leona Alleslev: With regard to Elections Canada, broken down by province, political party and year, since January 1, 2014: (a) how many and what percentage of annual electoral district association returns were considered completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (v) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months, (ix) greater than 24 months of their initial submission to Elections Canada; (b) how many electoral district associations have been deregistered; (c) how many local (riding-level) election campaign returns for the 2015 election were completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (v) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months; (d) how many local (riding-level) election campaign returns for the 2019 election were completed within (i) one month, (ii) two months, (iii) four months, (iv) six months, (v) nine months, (vi) 12 months, (vii) 13-18 months, (viii) 18-24 months; (f) how many 2019 local election campaign returns submitted to Elections Canada have not been completed; and (g) how many of the campaigns in (f) would qualify for, but have not yet received their election rebates funds?(Return tabled)Question No. 727--Ms. Leona Alleslev: With regard to Elections Canada, broken down by year since January 1, 2014: (a) how many full-time permanent employees worked at Elections Canada, excluding temporary employees hired for a specific election period; (b) how many individuals on contract with Elections Canada provided full-time labour or support to Elections Canada; (c) what is the yearly total amount of the contracts in (b); (d) how many individuals employed by or providing full-time labour or support to Elections Canada were given their position through an outside employment firm or agency; (e) of the employees in (a), how many had annual salaries (i) under $29,999, (ii) between $30,000 and $49,999, (iii) between $50,000 and $69,999, (iv) between $70,000 and $89,999, (v) between $90,000 and $119,999, (vi) between $120,000 and $149,999, (vii) over $150,000; (f) of the individuals in (b), how many received an annual renumeration with an annual rate (i) under $29,999, (ii) between $30,000 and $49,999, (iii) between $50,000 and $69,999, (iv) between $70,000 and $89,999, (v) between $90,000 and $119,999, (vi) between $120,000 and $149,999, (vii) over $150,000; (g) what was the yearly turnover rate for the employees in (a); (h) what was the yearly turnover rate for the individuals in (b); and (i) for the individuals having contracts with Elections Canada in (b), who fell ill or were required to quarantine, what, if any, specific sick leave or access to compensation has Elections Canada provided them, and on what date did this policy come into effect?(Return tabled)Question No. 728--Mr. Kyle Seeback: With regard to the Senate Appointment Advisory Board, broken down by fiscal year since 2016-17: (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents were or are working with or assisting the board; (b) of the positions in (a), what are the (i) job titles, (ii) Treasury Board classifications (AS-01, EX-02, etc.) and related pay ranges; (c) what are the total expenditures for the board, broken down by type of expenses and line item; (d) how much was spent to set up the board, including (i) the salaries of the staff that support the board, (ii) the furniture, (iii) the moving costs, (iv) the website development, (v) the information technology costs, (vi) other costs, broken down by type of costs; (e) how many resumes were received; and (f) how many Senate positions were filled from the resumes in (e)?(Return tabled)Question No. 729--Mr. Kyle Seeback: With regard to Requests for Proposal (RFP) put forward by Shared Services Canada (SSC) since January 1, 2020: (a) how many RFPs were issued by SSC; (b) for each RFP in (a), how many were issued that stated a brand name as a requirement; (c) what is the number of contracts issued by SSC based on brand name requirements in the RFP, broken down by (i) brand name, (ii) date, (iii) value of the contract, (iv) description of the service rendered, (v) file number; and (d) what is the number of contracts issued by SSC that were awarded through RFPs in (a) to companies offering an equivalent product?(Return tabled)Question No. 730--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regard to all grants and contributions provided to the Centre for Inquiry Canada, and broken down by department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity, since 2006: (a) what are the details of each grant or contribution, including the (i) date, (ii) type of grant or contribution, (iii) program, (iv) department, (v) purpose of funding and project description, (vi) location where related work took place, (vii) amount; and (b) which of the grants and contributions in (a) were related to the Canada Summer Jobs program?(Return tabled)Question No. 731--Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: With regard to the Pickering Agricultural Lease Renewal Strategy announced by Transport Canada on May 15, 2017: (a) what is the total number of leases signed under the strategy; (b) how many of the leases were (i) provided to new leaseholders, (ii) renewals of existing leaseholders; (c) what are the details of each lease, including (i) the size of holding, (ii) the dollar value, (iii) the nature of use, (iv) the length of tenure, (v) the restrictions, (vi) whether or not a purchase option was included, (vii) the name of lease, (viii) the nationality of lease, (ix) whether or not lease is transferable; (d) for leases with a purchase option, was the price set at fair market value, at the time of the signing of the original lease, or at the time of purchase; (e) what comparables were used to determine the market value used to set lease rates; (f) what was the number of expressions of interest made to lease land at Pickering; (g) what was the number of one year leases affected by the 60-day termination clause and were renewed under the 10 year lease to the original leaseholder, or to a new leaseholder; and (h) what are the details of all meetings or consultations, including those with lobbyists or politicians, related to the formulation of the Pickering Agricultural Renewal Lease Strategy, including, for each meeting, the (i) date, (ii) list of attendees?(Return tabled)Question No. 732--Mrs. Stephanie Kusie: With regard to the Air Travellers Security Charge (ATSC) since January 1, 2016, broken down by year: (a) how much was collected from passengers, broken down by averages per (i) day, (ii) month, (iii) year; (b) how much was used to pay for security services; and (c) what other programs or services are funded with the ATSC, and how much funding was provided to each program?(Return tabled)8555-432-725 Elections Canada8555-432-726 Elections Canada8555-432-727 Elections Canada8555-432-728 Senate Appointment Advisory Board8555-432-729 Shared Services Canada8555-432-730 Centre for Inquiry Canada8555-432-731 Pickering Agricultural Lease Renewal Strategy8555-432-732 Air Travellers Security ChargeAgricultural landAir safetyAir travellers security chargeAlleslev, LeonaCentre For Inquiry CanadaConservative CaucusElection returnsElections CanadaExpensesFull-time workersGallant, CherylGovernment assistanceGovernment leasesIndependent Advisory Board for Senate AppointmentsInvitation to tenderKusie, StephanieOrders for return to written questionsPickeringQ-725Q-726Q-727Q-728Q-729Q-730Q-731Q-732Seeback, KyleShared Services CanadaUser feesBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1240)[English]Is that agreed?Some hon. members: Agreed.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsQuestions Passed as Orders for ReturnsInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1245)[English]I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his additional comments, and thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who always frames his arguments in a well-informed way. I have the utmost of appreciation to my predecessor as well, Mr. Comartin, who I greatly admired in the House. He was a great chair occupant.For the familiarity of the House, there is a two-step process for a unanimous consent motion. The first part is indeed to seek consent for the member to move the motion, thereby waiving the usual notice requirement to put the motion before the House. Then, as members all know, if the waiving of the notice is accepted, the member can propose the motion for the consideration of the House. However, the unanimous consent motion process was only ever intended to be for taking an immediate decision in the House, and can in no way interrupt the daily proceedings of the House. This is why all of the rules say that for members to properly consider business, debate and take votes on questions, they must be put before the House in an orderly manner.The unanimous consent process calls for an immediate reflection of the House. It is an up or down, yea or nay. It is in two steps. If the second step does not succeed, in other words, if the second time around the House says no, it does not want to accept the motion that has been proposed, then that is the end of it.Admittedly, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has found a precedent, an absolutely valid one. However, there have been three other occasions when the same question has been put before the Speaker and we have decided more in keeping with the comments that I just reflected upon, that unanimous consent requires an immediate decision to be taken, and if there is a no on either of the two steps, the matter is finished until such time as another member may wish to propose it in a different way or indeed use other rubrics of the House to bring it before members for their consideration. That is where we stand on this. Now we will go to the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.Decisions of the SpeakerPoints of orderUnanimous consentKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Obstruction by the Government of Parliamentarians' Ability to Fulfill Obligations to Canada's Indigenous People]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1310)[English]I will take under advisement the words of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, take this into consideration and get back to the House in due course.[Translation]I see the hon. member for Saint-Jean is rising.Canadian Human Rights TribunalCare for childrenChildrenContempt of ParliamentCourt ordersDecisions of the SpeakerIndigenous peoplesIndigenous residential schoolsParliamentary privilegeRacial equalityTabling of documentsCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Obstruction by the Government of Parliamentarians' Ability to Fulfill Obligations to Canada's Indigenous People]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1310)[Translation]Members certainly have the right to express comments and arguments in relation to questions of privilege raised in the House.The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.Decisions of the SpeakerParliamentary privilegePoints of orderChristineNormandinSaint-JeanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Obstruction by the Government of Parliamentarians' Ability to Fulfill Obligations to Canada's Indigenous People]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wanted to offer comment with respect to the question of privilege from the member for Timmins—James Bay. With the hon. member for Carleton about to rise, is now the appropriate time to do that?Canadian Human Rights TribunalCare for childrenChildrenContempt of ParliamentCourt ordersIndigenous peoplesIndigenous residential schoolsParliamentary privilegePoints of orderRacial equalityTabling of documentsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Obstruction by the Government of Parliamentarians' Ability to Fulfill Obligations to Canada's Indigenous People]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1310)[English]I would say not.Certainly it is a member's right to add some comments on these matters. In the normal course, notice to the Chair around the interventions respecting questions of privilege is helpful, so I would ask the hon. member to consider that, as I explained to the hon. member for Saint-Jean.The member's interest is noted. I will now go to the member for Carleton for his comments, and ask the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to think about perhaps doing that at another time.The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.Decisions of the SpeakerParliamentary privilegePoints of orderGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will continue the question of privilege that I began earlier.As I have demonstrated, the government's decision to use printed money to pay its bills has driven up the cost of living for Canadians and increased inflation of key essentials, effectively creating the exact same conditions as a tax would on the population. Before we hear responses from the government, claiming that this money printing is for some purpose other than generating government funds for spending, let me quickly address the false pretext that the Bank of Canada and the government have ostensibly used to justify this money-printing bonanza.First, the Bank of Canada told the finance committee in the spring of 2020 that the program of purchasing government debt was designed to restore order in credit and capital markets. In fairness to the bank, there was disorder in the markets at that narrow period of time, in March 2020, as the world was responding to the sudden shock of the COVID closures. The bank officials noted at the time that there was a large bid-ask spread in bond markets, which effectively means that sellers of bonds were asking significantly more than buyers were willing to pay and as a result these markets were seizing up, threatening the ability of governments to raise cash and for markets to function. That was the case in late March 2020, but it only lasted about 10 days. That bid-ask spread vanished by early April, at which point bond prices not only began trading freely on public markets but also began increasing at an extraordinary pace. The bond prices began to inflate as central banks in general, but our central bank in particular, began buying them at an unprecedented pace.Furthermore, capital markets, while they did take a sudden drop in late March of that same year, had more than recovered by summer. In fact, today, our capital markets are higher than they have ever been. In fact, the Standard & Poor's TSX, which is the largest index of Canadian stocks, rose in market value above the size of our entire GDP for the first time in Canadian history and now stands somewhere around 125% of GDP, reaching record heights.Furthermore, as I have demonstrated, mortgage issuances have reached records and they rose faster than ever before in our history. The amount of cash in people's and businesses' bank accounts has increased by $200 billion. In other words, the absence of liquidity or the seizing up of capital and credit markets can no longer be used as a justification to continue printing money and pumping it into the financial system. Now we have more cash circulating in markets, both credit and capital, than ever before and more liquidity in the hands of businesses and households than ever before. Therefore, the claim that money printing is just designed in order to protect the liquidity of capital and credit markets is demonstrably false.Further evidence that it is false is the fact that the central bank has since changed its explanation for why it needed to continue printing money. It claimed then that it wanted to avoid disinflation or deflation. Apparently, they told us, this was the great risk that would result from COVID. However, as the evidence I have already presented demonstrates, there is no disinflation or deflation anywhere except perhaps in movie theatre and airplane tickets because people are effectively banned from buying either of them. Therefore, aside from those areas of the economy in which purchases are actually banned by local authorities for public health purposes, everything is actually increasing in price—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1315)[Translation]The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is rising on the same point of order.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are three elements to consider when you make your decision on the question of privilege.First, the member for Carleton respected the rules we have in this House of Commons when he raised his question of privilege two days ago and when he raised it again today, and he will conclude it today.Second, the decision belongs to you and no one else. I know that you will make your decision, and I will respect that decision because you are the Speaker of the House and you have no lessons to take from either side of the House. The decision is yours to make.Third, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands raised the issue of filibustering, I would remind him that his party is super efficient at filibustering, because in five parliamentary committees the Liberals spent 177 hours filibustering. We are peewees compared to them.InflationParliamentary privilegePoints of orderRights of Members breachedTaxationTime limits on speechesBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1320)[English]I thank the hon. members for their additional comments.Before I go back to the hon. member for Carleton, I will let him know that members who bring questions of privilege before the House should indeed take the appropriate time to explain the reasons they believe a breach of privilege has occurred. In fact, the convention we take as Chair occupants on these matters is to listen long enough to have an appropriate comprehension of the member's proposition and his or her concern about the breach of privilege to render a decision on it. Therefore, it really is an individual member making a case to the Speaker that in fact a prima facie case of privilege exists. That is why it generally follows with the opportunity for, if the Speaker should wish, the member to put the motion, after which a debate on the matter can ensue. However, initially, it is really an individual member making his or her arguments to the Speaker.I recognize the hon. member for Carleton has already been diligent in presenting on this particular point uninterrupted for more than 30 minutes. It is a complex point, so I will listen to him further, but I will also ask him to bring his presentation around to the specific area where he believes there has been a breach of his privileges.We will go back to the hon. member for Carleton.Decisions of the SpeakerParliamentary privilegePoints of orderTime limits on speechesGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada and the government have then claimed that the reason it must continue to expand the money supply, print cash and provide it to the government is to avoid deflation or disinflation, which they have identified as a great threat from COVID. However, as I was saying, there is no evidence that either of these threats have manifested themselves. Outside of sectors for which consumers are banned from spending their money, like airlines and movie theatres, effectively, there is inflation everywhere. In fact, as I said, inflation has now exceeded not only the 2% target of the Bank of Canada, but the 1% to 3% acceptable range for inflation. We are well out of the woods of any concern that we are going to plunge this year or anytime in the immediate future into a deflationary spiral. Therefore, that cannot be the justification.Finally, the Bank of Canada has claimed that it is continuing to print money because unemployment remains high. It is true that unemployment is high, we are the second-highest unemployment region in the G7, but there is absolutely no evidence, historical or present, that printing money will do anything about that at all. Money printing has never created jobs and in fact, if the Bank of Canada were to look upon its own history in the 1970s when it began a similar program of money creation, the result was higher unemployment, unemployment that reached 12% and inflation that also reached 12% and then later interest rates to quell that inflation reaching 20%. That was the stagnation crisis of the early 1980s that, I might add, left us with not just the worst economic situation since the Depression, but also the highest suicide rate among Canadians. In other words, fighting unemployment cannot be the justification for printing money. Quite the contrary, it makes no sense. Therefore, that leaves one explanation for the ongoing money printing, and that is that it is intended to fund government operations. It is standard and customary for a member making a claim of a breach of privilege of this type to rely on expert witness evidence, that is to say, to rely on the scientists and others who know the facts, the way that they would testify as expert witnesses in a court of law. I will bring to your attention the views on this specific matter of the inflation tax of the most renowned economic scientists in the history of the world. I will start with a 1978 lecture from Nobel laureate economic scientist—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1325)[English]I will interrupt the member as he is going into another segment of his presentation. I would ask him if he has an estimate as to how many more minutes he needs to frame these arguments.Time limits on speechesPierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1325)[English]About 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker.InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationTime limits on speechesBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1325)[English]We are really at a point where I have heard enough. We have had enough information presented that we are able to make a determination as to the prima facie case. I will give the member another two or three minutes to bring his comments to a close, after which I will be in an appropriate position to make the decision on the question of privilege. When I get back to the House, depending on what that decision is, we will have the opportunity to proceed from there.I will ask the hon. member for Carleton to wrap up.Time limits on speechesPierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I then address the third and final characteristic of a tax, which is that it is compulsory. This inflation tax is obviously compulsory. If people do not pay the inflation tax, they cannot buy food, which has gone up in price. They cannot buy housing, which has gone up in price. They cannot buy clothing, which has gone up in price. They cannot buy any of the essentials. The only way to avoid paying this inflation tax is to freeze, starve and go without the fuel to power one's life. In other words, other than to die, they have to pay the costs that are applied.The only alternative to that would be to violate a federal statute in the Criminal Code that bans people from stealing because that is, again, the only way to get around paying the inflated prices the government has imposed upon people.This inflation has all the three of the defining characteristics of a tax as provided in the Oxford English Dictionary: one, it raises money and is a levy for the government; two, it is paid by the people; and three, it is compulsory. It is all three of those things.The tradition of requiring every tax increase that is imposed on the population to come before Parliament is one that dates back 800 years to the Magna Carta. It is probably the reason we have Parliament. The number one point of tension between the commoner and the king has always been the king's insatiable appetite for tax revenue and the commoners' desire to resist that appetite and protect the fruits of their labour.If you were to rule that governments are allowed to do indirectly what they cannot do directly, that is to, for example, print money to fund their spending and pass on that cost through higher inflation to the population, you would effectively be setting a staggering precedent whereby governments can violate the principle of no taxation without representation by simply going around the parliamentary legislation process and raising taxes through the creation of cash.I finally point out that the reason for this rule is not just to stop the government from taking too much, but to stop it from taking from the wrong places. This is a tax we would never approve because it falls heaviest on those with the least, and in a roundabout way by inflating their assets, improves the fortunes of those with the most.In conclusion, if you were to put before the House a proposition to raise taxes on the poorest people in the land in order to increase the wealth of the most affluent people in the land and provide government with unlimited ability to spend, that would be voted down nearly unanimously because there is not a person in this chamber who would have the guts to go back to their constituents and defend such a voting decision. That is precisely why we have this precedent. It is why we have the privilege and the duty to vote on every single tax increase. I ask you to uphold these ancient English liberties that make Parliament relevant and that make this country a place of the commoners, not of the Crown.InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAlleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New TaxInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1330)[English]I thank the hon. member for Carleton for his comments on this matter. We will take it under advisement and get back to the House in due course.It now being 1:30 p.m., the House will proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.Decisions of the SpeakerInflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationPierrePoilievreHon.CarletonGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)(1330)[English] moved that Bill S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-204. Second readingHuman organs and other body parts traffickingOrgansPrivate Members' BillsS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1330)[English]I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary.On the face of what he has suggested, it does refer back to my earlier comments. Typically, when a member is posing a question of privilege for the consideration of the Chair, it is on them to present their arguments so the Speaker may decide whether a breach of privilege has indeed occurred. If it has, then a motion is moved and the debate can be taken.To the hon. parliamentary secretary's question, the amount of time is completely at the discretion of the Speaker. Once he or she has heard enough and are convinced that they have been provided enough information with which to render a decision on the proposition, as has been seen here this afternoon, the limit has been reached and we move on to other business. The opportunities to raise questions of privilege are an important privilege of hon. members, but they can only interrupt the process of debate and the day's business to the extent that conventions and practices permit, and ultimately, the chair occupant, the Speaker who hears the intervention, decides what that is.I think we will leave it at that.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.Decisions of the SpeakerParliamentary privilegePoints of orderTime limits on speechesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1335)[English]That is indeed correct.The hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.Decisions of the SpeakerParliamentary privilegePoints of orderTime limits on speechesMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDavidSweetFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. David Sweet: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, in that vein, I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary actually gave you the requisite notification that he would be raising that point of privilege, which is a concern as well.Notice requirementParliamentary privilegePoints of orderBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1335)[English]That is a good question, but when the parliamentary secretary initially raised his point of order, I was not too sure whether it was a new question of privilege. Indeed, I received it as, if you will, almost a follow-up intervention with respect the two earlier questions of privilege the House has been involved with. However, it is a good reminder for hon. members that, if they wish to bring something like that before the House, a one-hour notice is required, and I urge hon. members to do that.I see that we are six minutes into our time for private members' business, so we will start debate on that now. We will start with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.Decisions of the SpeakerNotice requirementParliamentary privilegePoints of orderDavidSweetFlamborough—GlanbrookGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, Bill S-204 would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. It fights the horrific practice of forced organ harvesting and trafficking.I am not going to speak much about the bill because everyone already knows this bill should pass. This bill has already passed the Senate twice and the House once, unanimously. This bill started out as a Liberal bill under Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Irwin Cotler.The question today is not on the substance of the bill. The question is about whether the government is committed to doing what it knows to be the right thing and allowing this bill to pass, or whether it will prevent the bill from passing. If this bill passes now, then the House can immediately resume consideration of the government's budget, so the government can either support that to happen, or we can spend the hour talking, delaying both this bill and the budget bill.Therefore, I would like to seek the consent of the House for the following motion. I move that notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on Bill S-204, the bill be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in a committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.Adoption at more than one stageConsideration in a Committee of the WholeHuman organs and other body parts traffickingLeave to propose a motionMotionsOrgansPrivate Members' BillsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1335)[Translation]All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.Some hon. members: Nay.The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.Resuming debate. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.Adoption at more than one stageConsideration in a Committee of the WholeDecisions of the HouseHuman organs and other body parts traffickingLeave to propose a motionOrgansPrivate Members' BillsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsThird reading and adoptionGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, it was disappointing to hear the no from—BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1335)[English]Just one moment, there is a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1335)[English]In the normal context, yes. Given that the motion was proposed in such a way that it would be acted upon at the end of today's debate, the expectation is that it would go the full hour, and members who are scheduled for debate would participate in it. In the normal course, a motion, for example, an amendment, would be proposed at the end of one's speech. If the amendment carries at that point, the debate would then continue on the amendment, and the member would have used all their time to do that.In this particular case, because the proposition was to essentially take effect at the end of the hour, I will accept that the members would normally have the usual time remaining for their remarks.Did the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan want to add to that point of order, or would he like to pick it up from here?Decisions of the SpeakerPoints of orderTime limits on speechesMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a moot point. I am very disappointed the member for Kingston and the Islands chose to say no to this unanimous consent motion given that the House has unanimously supported this bill in the past, but I have finished my speech. Human organs and other body parts traffickingOrgansPrivate Members' BillsS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1340)[English]I think we heard this earlier today. When yeas and nays are provided in the House, they are general in nature and not necessarily attributed to individual members.I am going to go back to the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to finish up his remarks. He has 13 minutes remaining if he wishes to use all of that, and then we will continue in the usual way. It appears as though the hon. member is finished.We will now go to questions and comments.The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.Decisions of the SpeakerMembers' remarksPoints of orderMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1340)[English]It seems that we have lost the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan's signal. We are not sure what happened. Given that we are partway into this, we will have to wait to see if he can get reconnected. We will pick it up at a later time under the debate on the motion before the House.We will go to the next scheduled member on the list. The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1345)[Translation]I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.The question of relevance certainly applies to all debates in the House. At the same time, however, there are always members who take the liberty of making a few comments on other matters. I am sure the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek will quickly come back to the relevant subject before the House.The hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.Decisions of the SpeakerPoints of orderRelevancyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague. Because of the numerous points of orders that were brought during private members' hour, I was wondering if that time will be added to the end of the hour. Standing Order 30(7) states:If the beginning of private members’ hour is delayed for any reason, or if the hour is interrupted for any reason, a period of time corresponding to the time of the delay or interruption shall be added to the end of the hour suspending as much of the business set out in section (6) of this standing order as necessary.Extension of debateHuman organs and other body parts traffickingOrgansPoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1405)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has talked about how much he knows about the parliamentary practices and procedures of this House. I have been listening intently, and he really has not talked about human trafficking—Human organs and other body parts traffickingOrgansPoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsRelevancyS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1425)[English]Madam Speaker, the member asked if we have ever seen a horse. We have seen part of one, but my point of order is different from that.Government members are now filibustering this private member's bill and have done so for half an hour now, which is pushing back debate on the budget. We were anxious to get working on the budget. Had Liberal members not been filibustering this particular bill, would that have allowed us to get through the time-allocated portion of the debate on the budget? That is my question.Human organs and other body parts traffickingOrgansPoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsRelevancyS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1435)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.I would like to seek the consent of the House for a motion that would allow every member who so wishes to speak and still expedite passage of this bill.I would like to seek the consent of the House for the following motion.I move that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, the House shall sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to consider and dispose of Bill S-204 as follows: the member currently speaking, as well as all members of the government caucus may speak for not more than 10 minutes on the second reading motion; and when every member of the government has spoken or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, Bill S-204 shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed. When Bill S-204 has been read a third time and passed, the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.AdjournmentAdoption at more than one stageConsideration in a Committee of the WholeHuman organs and other body parts traffickingLeave to propose a motionMotionsOrgansPoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageRules of debateS-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)Second readingSenate billsThird reading and adoptionCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC): (1440)[English] Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measures.Canadians have been hit very hard over the past year and a half because of the global pandemic, and many have lost jobs or had hours reduced. Some have had time off work to care for loved ones. Sectors, such as tourism and retail, have been hit especially hard.After going years since the last budget, Canadians were hoping to see some leadership from the Liberal government, and perhaps a clear direction and a path forward as we move closer to putting the pandemic behind us. Instead, Canadians were presented with a budget that was big on promises and very low on substance. Instead of a concrete plan of investment, increased economic activity and a pathway toward economic recovery and reopening, Canadians were presented with a collection of the greatest hits of past Liberal promises, which have never been delivered on to this day. The government has been high on rhetoric and low on results. Canada has a great story to tell, and we should have a government that is willing to do the work to put Canada in a position to prosper as we transition out of the pandemic.In the early weeks of the pandemic when Canadians were facing tremendous uncertainty, I took a drive through the beautiful riding of Tobique—Mactaquac in western New Brunswick. During the drive, I remember reflecting on what a difficult time Canadians were facing, some even more than others, and how many sectors were affected by the devastating effects of the pandemic. Some were fully shut down. Others were facing tremendous uncertainty. The headwinds of this unprecedented circumstance were truly overwhelming for many parts of the world, and Canada was no exception.As I was driving through my riding that day in the spring of last year, something caught my eye, and it left a deep impression on me. I still reflect upon it to this day on occasion. I come from a large rural riding, a farming and agricultural riding, that plays a tremendous role in our local economy. Particularly, I come from potato-growing country. In fact, part of my riding is known as the french fry capital of the world, and I must confess that my physique sometimes portrays that. It is a bit of a weakness. We do have great potatoes, meat and beef in my riding.This, in turn, drives many other sectors in our region, such as trucking and manufacturing, and our processing facilities. While much of our lives were shut down and despite the great uncertainty, fear and anxiety, some sectors kept going. even in the face of great uncertainty. They kept doing what they needed to do in the face of unprecedented obstacles.What I observed that day last year left an imprint on me: I saw farmers once again, in the spring, going out into their fields to plant seed in the ground. They did not know what the market would be like and they were not sure about the demand, but they got up and went to sow seed into the soil. They kept doing what they knew they could do, and entrusted things they were not sure about to what would come and who could be trusted to take care of them.Through faith, through hard work and through pure tenacity, many farmers in my region faced the headwinds of uncertainty head-on, and I drew inspiration from that. I thought that if the farmers can keep doing what they know is right to do in the face of uncertainty, all of us as Canadians can draw inspiration from that and keep doing the things we know are right to do, even though we are not sure what the ultimate outcome may be.I am glad to report that in my region several sectors kept going. Truckers kept moving their goods, farmers kept planting their seeds and the processors kept processing. The demand for food has remained.(1445)I think this has taught us all a significant lesson that we need to reflect upon: Now is the time for Canada to be positioned to take advantage of a post-COVID world. Now is the time for Canada to make the decisions that state clearly that we believe in ourselves and we believe in our potential as a country to move past COVID-19. This is a time when we can show the strength and fortitude that I saw in the producers, truckers and first responders of my region and that we have seen throughout this entire country. Now is the time to build with the future in mind. Rather than continually speaking to the perils and the overwhelming challenges that we face, let us as parliamentarians and as a collective body in the House speak to our potential as a country. The world wants to do business with Canada. The world likes Canada and the world sees our potential, and I think often more than what we may see in ourselves. We need the leadership here at home to say that Canada can become even more than what it has ever been. Canada can be positioned to thrive and prosper for generations to come if we make decisions to prioritize Canadian industry, Canadian entrepreneurship, Canadian technology, Canadian resources and Canadian know-how. Our greatest asset is our people, and the more we can empower our people and allow them to do what they do best, the more Canada will be positioned to thrive, grow and prosper on the other side of the pandemic.I speak with faith and optimism because of what I have witnessed at home and what I have heard from across the country: Canadians rose to the occasion in the face of great uncertainty. What we need now is a government that will respond in kind and say that it trusts Canadians to do what only Canadians can do and in a way that only Canadians can do it, that is, rise to face the challenges of this moment.Today I stand before the House with a great deal of gratitude in my heart for what I have witnessed in people and what I see in Canadians. I also stand before the House with a challenge for each of us. We should draw inspiration from those we work with, those we have witnessed on the front lines and those who have kept doing tremendous things when they were facing overwhelming odds and obstacles. I feel we can even draw inspiration from our very own coat of arms, which says, “They desire a better country.” That is in our coat of arms.In this post-COVID time when we move beyond the pandemic and get to the other side of it, why not desire an even better country to hand to future generations? Let us make decisions to invest in our people and entrust our people, and make the decisions we need in order to secure our future in a way that will make Canada sustainable for generations to come.How do we do that? We do it by maximizing the areas that we do and know so well, whether it is in agriculture, where we grow some of the best and finest foods in the world; in energy, where we have the most environmentally regulated and sustainable energy resources in the world and where we treat ethically the people who produce and work in its sectors; or in our technological fields, which are advanced. We have amazing potential, and I am speaking to it today.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Economic recoveryFarming and farmersGovernment billsPandemicReport stageCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (1450)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his insight and perspective, but being wise, being good stewards, planning ahead and seeing around corners is the essence of leadership and good governance. We cannot just speak to where we are currently; we must speak to where we are heading. I find the current government puts too much emphasis on what is behind, what we have gone through already. We need to have the vision to see where we are going in order to traverse the uncertain waters we are in now. That takes away nothing from the horrific challenges that COVID has presented to the country, and is still having its effect on, but we must speak to the future.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Budgetary policyC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageAdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (1450)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a good one as it relates to the inadequate support that we have found for those who literally grow our food and keep our land. Our agriculture producers are the backbone of our economy and are essential to our food security. If this pandemic has revealed anything, it is the absolute need to prioritize our agriculture and food supply chains.The current government has not. In fact, it has put priorities on so many things, but the one sector that seems to have been overlooked in many cases are those who actually grow and supply and literally keep our land in this time; that being, our farmers and our agricultural sector. I agree with the hon. member. This must be an ongoing priority for the government and we must do everything we can to ensure that our food supply chains are secure and that proper investment is made into agriculture.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Emergency Processing FundFarming and farmersFood and beverage manufacturing industryGovernment billsPandemicReport stageYvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88369RichardBragdonRichard-BragdonTobique—MactaquacConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BragdonRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Richard Bragdon: (1455)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her passion for rural Canadians, and I share that passion.We need to ensure that rural Canada remains and actually becomes a much greater priority for our governments. Our rural areas literally grow and produce so much of the food that we enjoy and require. Our rural areas oftentimes are the key manufacturers and developers of our natural resources. They are the ones that oftentimes house those who truck and ship our goods all over the world and throughout our continent. Our rural areas will be key in getting us to the other side of COVID-19.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment assistanceGovernment billsRemote communitiesReport stageRural communitiesRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1505)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the things that Bill C-30 does not address, and it is a wide chasm, is the issue of those who fell through the cracks under previous iterations of some of the benefits.I am speaking specifically about travel advisers and businesses that were started in 2020 that did not have access to many of the benefits that other businesses or other Canadians had. The fact is that the implementation bill neglects to address those issues and causes severe problems for those Canadians who otherwise did not qualify for these types of benefits.Could the member comment on that?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Business developmentC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageTravel agenciesMatthewGreenHamilton CentreMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the issues that people in my province have been speaking a lot about is the need for reforms to equalization and to the fiscal stabilization program. Views may not be uniform across the country on that, but one thing on which there is agreement, and that all the premiers have called for, is lifting the cap on the fiscal stabilization program. Provinces agree that it is not reasonable to have a cap on the fiscal stabilization program in light of the nature and objectives of this program. This is a call supported by premiers in the west and also by Premier Legault. I would like to hear if the Bloc supports this call from the premiers, including Premier Legault, to eliminate that cap as a basic fairness measure for the provinces.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresEqualization formulaFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsFiscal Stabilization ProgramGovernment billsReport stageXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1525)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act.The Liberals, after failing to deliver a budget for two years, finally got around to delivering one a few months ago. I have to say that the budget delivers. The only problem is that it delivers in all the wrong ways. The Liberals have delivered a historic deficit of $354 billion, the largest deficit in Canadian history, and the Liberals have delivered a mountain of debt, with the national debt projected to reach $1.4 trillion by the end of this year. To put that staggering figure in some context, the Liberals have managed to nearly double the national debt in the span of less than two years. This Liberal budget delivers yet another near historic deficit for this year of $154.7 billion, with deficit after deficit projected year after year, and no plan whatsoever to see a return to a balanced budget.The members of the government say, as one of the excuses that they peddle for the massive deficits and massive debt, that it is all about COVID, and that COVID has necessitated all of the spending, except that simply is not true. Indeed, when one looks at program spending for 2021-22 of $475.6 billion, only a little more than 10% of that is attributable to COVID. Speaking of $475.6 billion in program spending, that represents a 40.5% increase in spending from 2019-20 levels. That is right. It is a 40.5% increase in spending in two years under these Liberals.In the face of this massive, reckless spending, to paraphrase the great late former U.S. president Ronald Reagan, one could accuse the government of spending like drunken sailors. However, as President Reagan would say that at least the drunken sailors were spending their own money. The same cannot be said for the government. Whose money are the Liberals spending? It turns out that a lot of what they are doing is printing money.In an unprecedented manner, the Bank of Canada is buying the government's debt. There was a $354-billion deficit last year. Of that, the Bank of Canada bought over $300 billion, or over 80%. We have seen, in terms of the supply of money, an increase of some 20% over this past year alone. That represents an increase in the supply of money that we have not seen in this country since 1974, nearly 50 years ago.There is a price to be paid for all of this borrowing and all of the spending, and we hear the excuses from the government. The Liberals' justification is to say that now is a better time than ever to borrow and spend because interest rates are low.(1530)Interest rates will not always be low, and it must be said that the government does not entirely have control of interest rates. Market forces also help determine what interest rates will be. Putting that aside, there is a cost being borne by everyday, middle-class Canadians in inflation.Indeed, the consumer price index for April saw an increase of 3.4%. That was its highest recording since September 2011. It was a 10-year record in the consumer price index, and it was broken one month later when it rose by 3.6%. That has hit Canadians hard in the wallet.We have seen the costs of just about everything go up. Homeowners' replacement costs increased 11.3% from last year, representing the largest annual increase since 1987. Housing prices have skyrocketed 42% in the span of one year. We have seen gasoline prices increase by about 50% from last year.Regarding essentials such as groceries, the Canada Food Price Report projects that the average family of four will pay $695 more in groceries this year compared with last year. That represents the largest projected increase in the cost of groceries since the report was first published, more than 10 years ago.I know that for our silver-spoon Prime Minister and other Liberal elites, $695 is chump change. It means nothing to them. For everyday Canadians, at a time when 53% of Canadians are $200 away from insolvency, $695 can make the difference between putting food on the table and being able to stay in their homes.For this budget, we have heard the finance minister talk so much about stimulus. By the way, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was totally miscalibrated. For all the talk about recovery, I say where are the jobs? There were 200,000 jobs lost in April and 68,000 jobs lost in May. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, and the sixth-highest unemployment rate out of 37 countries in the OECD.For a government that has spent so much, it has failed to deliver as Canadians fall farther and farther behind. This is a failed budget from a failed Liberal government.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Budget deficitC-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresConsumer priceCOVID-19Government billsGovernment expendituresPandemicReport stageXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, we have a government that has spent a lot of money, but has not targeted the dollars to help Canadians. The member for Barrie—Innisfil posed a question earlier today about new businesses that have been completely shut out of the government's COVID supports. While small businesses and new businesses were struggling, however, the government had no trouble rewarding Liberal insiders like the Kielburger brothers and the WE organization. I reject the premise of the hon. member's question.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsGovernment expendituresPandemicReport stageKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, with respect to the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, we on this side of the House have been fighting for everyday Canadians, unlike the Liberal government whose policies have benefited some of the very wealthiest Canadians.What I entirely reject are the efforts on the part of the NDP to redistribute wealth, increase taxes massively and undermine Canada's competitiveness at a time when we are already lagging.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsPersonal income taxReport stageRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, no, I do not believe it is fair. We saw one example of that with Air Canada. We need to help Canadians get through this very difficult time, and the best way to do that right now is to move forward with a plan to reopen the economy so that Canadians can get working again and Canada can recover. That was entirely lacking in this budget.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCompaniesCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stagePaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithWarrenSteinleyRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, it is with joy that I enter the debate here on a Friday afternoon to talk about Bill C-30.There is a lot in this more than 700-page budget that we could go over. One of the things we noticed in this 700-page budget document is that it does not include the words “balanced budget” once. Out of 700 pages, there is no plan to return to balance. There is no plan to actually stop stockpiling debt onto future generations of Canadians. That is where I want to start my presentation today, talking about the next generations of Canadians, what this budget would actually do and how it would set up their life.There was a column, written by Franco Terrazzano, of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and Kris Rondolo, who is the executive director of Generation Screwed. That is how the next generation is starting to feel right now. In this column, they wrote, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they opened their eyes.” I saw today that my friend and colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot had his seven-day-old son, Winston, on the screen today. I am sorry to tell Winston that he already owes the government $28,000 as of today. What will that look like in a couple of years? By the time these little ones are blowing out the candles on their fifth birthday, Ottawa projects their share of the federal debt will be $35,000. That will be for every baby who was born on budget day this year.That is something we really need to start considering when we talk about budgets and bills like Bill C-30, and what we are doing to the next generation of Canadians. It is important to know why the debt is soaring. The pandemic caused government revenues to drop by 11% in 2020, but there is a bigger story. Ottawa's spending, and let us remember that revenue dropped by 11%, has increased 75%. Let us take that 75% increase in Ottawa's spending into consideration.Even worse, the Prime Minister and finance minister are using the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover to increase government spending for the years to come. By 2026, the federal government is planning to permanently hike government spending by $100 billion more than pre-pandemic.Where would we get the revenue from? I have often said to the people in Regina—Lewvan that the government does not make money, government only has the ability to take money, through taxes, from businesses and Canadians who have made it. That means that in 2026, the Government of Canada will be spending over $100 billion more than pre-pandemic levels. That money has to come from somewhere, and we all know where the government is looking to get some of that money. It would be out Canadians' pockets, whether it be through a $170 carbon tax, income tax or a tax on permanent residents. We know the CMHC has been looking at that. We talked about in the 2019 campaign. Everyone said that is was ridiculous and that it would never happen. However, the Liberal government has spent a lot of money to look at how it could take money from Canadians.Let us look at a few more numbers. On a year-to-year basis, the federal government spends $20 billion on debt interest charges each year. The provinces spend nearly $30 billion. By 2026, annual interest charges on the federal debt will nearly double to $39 billion. To put that in perspective, the finance minister's big announcement on a national child care program was that it was planning to spend $30 billion on day care over the next five years.It would be $30 billion for a national child care program. How much would the federal government spend on debt payment in the next five years? It would be $153 billion in debt interest. The government is going to spend $30 billion on child care, and that was a big, trumpeted, top platform policy, something it was finally going to get done, yet over five years, it would be spending $30 billion on day care and $153 billion on the debt.(1545)There is a lot of spending in this budget. It is 700 pages and there are programs that are going to have to be rolled out. We do not question the Liberal government's ability to spend money. I am sure the Prime Minister and the finance minister are very good at spending money. What we question is where their priorities lie for spending this money. As my colleague before me asked, where is the job creation in this? When are people going back to work? Where is the plan for people to start earning paycheques instead of receiving government cheques? That is what we on this side are asking. Despite the size of this budget and the long wait, because we waited two years for it, there is still no plan for Canadians to return to normal life. That is what I have been hearing. I had time to do a lot of Zoom calls in my riding and I spoke with Tracy Fahlman of the Regina Hotel Association. She said that her stakeholder groups and the members of the association know they need help to get by, but they want to know when they will be able to welcome clients back through their doors and start making money again. They do not want to be on government programs for years to come; they want to start living their lives, earn their money, have their employees come back to work and get their businesses up and running again. That is what Canadians are looking for in this budget, but what is sorely missing is the lack of a plan to create jobs for Canadians.Another thing we talked about in this budget is the ability to secure the future for the next generation. We are really looking forward to having this conversation, because I believe the government is really fired up to get ready for a campaign this fall, so we are looking forward to contrasting its lack of vision with our five-point plan to secure the future for Canadians and recover those million jobs that were lost. The member for Carleton brings that up often in question period. By the end of this month, in the government's detailed department plan, it is supposed to recover all jobs lost due to the pandemic. However, the members on that side do not want to answer if they will fulfill that promise they made to recover the million jobs lost due to COVID‑19. That is the question that Canadians want answered. It is in the detailed department plan of the Minister of Finance, so why can the Liberals not tell us if they are going to reach that goal? It is a simple question that requires a simple answer: yes or no. However, again today no one on that side wanted to answer that question in question period.I have often stood in this House and talked about the independent travel agents who have really been forgotten by the government. I tabled a petition on behalf of travel agents across Regina—Lewvan who are asking why, if the government has enough money for big bailouts for Air Canada, which can give $10 million to its executives, there is no money being paid to the independent travel agents who have been without income and unable to collect revenues for almost a year. The government is failing average, everyday Canadians. They have been left behind by the government's plan and budget. Another thing we looked for in the budget was support for pipelines. I do not think they are mentioned in this budget at all, not with respect to the oil and gas sector, so I have brought that up several times. They really need some support. We need to fight to make sure that Line 5 does not get shut down. The government gave up on Keystone XL, because we know the members on that side of the House do not like the energy sector. The Prime Minister himself said he wants to phase out the oil sector across western Canada. Ironically, that might be the only promise he ends up keeping for western Canadians, to continue to phase out the oil sector where the hard-working men and women in my riding and across western Canada go to work every day.I am happy to put on the record that the people of Regina—Lewvan did not vote for a Liberal government and that is why I will not be supporting this budget.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government assistanceGovernment billsGovernment expendituresLabour forceOil and gasPandemicPublic debtReport stageSubsidized day careTravel agenciesMichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is correct. I do enjoy working with him on the agriculture committee, and that is why I was very proud of our leader when he said that we would stop receiving the wage subsidy immediately when he became leader and that we would pay it back slowly. That is what Conservatives believe in. We put our money where our mouth is. I am not sure if the Liberal Party is going to buck up and pay the money back that they got from the wage subsidy, but Conservatives believe that money should be paid back. That is why I was proud to support the member for Durham when he made that announcement during his leadership race.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCOVID-19Government billsIncome and wagesPandemicPolitical partiesReport stageYvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, I can tell this member is a little sheepish right now because he did not realize that, during the debate on Bill S-204, the Liberals were filibustering their own budget bill. If they actually had knowledge of the parliamentary process, they would have realized that passing that bill unanimously would have let us vote on their budget bill this afternoon, but they are so incompetent, they did not realize they were filibustering their own budget bill.It is really unbelievable.Balanced budgetBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend and colleague for the shout-out and comment on how troubling the debt level is that exists for new Canadians. I am very happy to have celebrated the birth of my third son, Winston, so I appreciate that context for what we are debating here today. However, I want to ask specifically about how troubling the rhetoric coming from the Liberal side is. We saw an example of that here just a moment ago. Somehow, Liberals are blaming Conservatives for their own unbelievable mismanagement of COVID, the economy and the legislative agenda. I wonder if the member for Regina—Lewvan has further comments on that.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageWarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanWarrenSteinleyRegina—Lewvan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Warren Steinley: (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very tough but fair comment.I really think that everyone in this chamber is honourable, but the government may be angling for a fall election. They are going to try to say that we are uncooperative and that they cannot get their budget passed, which is their own fault because we could have voted on it this afternoon if they were really good at handling their legislative agenda. Sometimes we should not attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.It is now my turn to rise to speak to Bill C-30, the budget implementation act, 2021. This budget looks nothing like any other budget in Canadian history. Before I comment on Bill C‑30, I want to talk about an unacceptable situation in my riding that the government is responsible for. For years, the federal and provincial governments benefited greatly from the asbestos mines in the Appalaches RCM. Then the Liberal government shut down mining operations in the area. We can live with that. It was bound to happen. We can live with the mine tailings left by more than 100 years of mining operations. We can live with that, because we have turned things around. We have diversified our economy. I am very proud of my constituents' entrepreneurial spirit. They have transformed our mining town into a burgeoning town filled with robust small businesses. We can live with the fact that asbestos is still all around us. Asbestos is a natural fibre found in the ground, and closing the mines did not change the local geology. The asbestos was there long before us, and it will be there long after we are gone.What I refuse to accept is Environment Canada's latest fearmongering campaign. Environment Canada put an ad in our local paper that says, “If you are using mining residues containing asbestos in your landscaping you could be putting yourself, your family and your neighbours at risk.” The hook reads, “DID YOU KNOW THAT breathing in asbestos fibres can cause life-threatening diseases?”The answer to that question is yes. Used improperly, as was the case for years, asbestos can cause life-threatening diseases. It is ridiculous to tell people to be careful, because the fact is, their environment is dangerous. The government cannot just tell our people that their lives are in danger and then proceed to do nothing.In 2018, I asked the Prime Minister to help our people rehabilitate mine lands and fix 100 years' worth of mining mistakes. The only answer I got was that my request had been forwarded to the Minister of Natural Resources. I have heard nothing more since, nothing at all. Then this inappropriate, inexcusable and unacceptable ad was printed in the local paper.The people of our RCM are being asked to assume the full costs of the environmental clean-up needed after 100 years of asbestos mining, and to do so quickly. They are being told that if this is not done, their lives will be at risk.What is in the budget to help the people in my region? What is in the budget to help maintain economic diversification in my region? What is in the budget to protect people in regions that produce asbestos? There is nothing, other than an advertising budget, which Environment Canada is using to scare people without providing any real solutions.It may not look all that exciting, but this is a small town in Quebec that is doing its best to emerge from the asbestos producing era and has diversified its economy. Its people are proud to live there.The government is not offering any solutions. Time is running out. I wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Environment and to several offices last week. I did not even receive an acknowledgement of receipt.Governments are responsible for those 100 years of asbestos mining in my region. I expect the Liberal government to take responsibility and provide the means to ensure the safety and prosperity of our people.Thetford Mines is like a town in a mine, it is like an oasis in the desert. The government cannot turn a blind eye to this reality and it must immediately end the fear campaign initiated by Environment Canada. It must grant my request to create a rehabilitation fund, and it must assume and accept its responsibilities for the 100 years of asbestos mining in Thetford Mines, in Asbestos and in every mining town in the country where there was asbestos.Unfortunately for us, it seems that the government is completely disconnected from reality, the reality of regions like mine and the reality of the majority of Canadians.(1600)This budget is historic, but for all the wrong reasons.This week, we saw one of the negative effects of the Liberals' budget. The inflation rate hit 3.6%, the highest level in a decade.Statistics Canada reported that costs are rising in all areas: housing, vehicles, food, energy, consumer goods and others. Housing costs increased by 4.2% by May, the fastest increase since 2008. The cost of gas increased 43%, the cost of vehicles rose by 5%. Prices rose by 3.2% in just a few months. Everything is going up, including furniture and accommodation costs. However, Canadians do not have more money.The leader of the official opposition, the member for Durham, summed up the situation quite well in a speech earlier this week, and I quote: Today's inflation numbers show the damage [the Prime Minister's] risky deficits and trillion-dollar debt are causing Canadians. ...From housing to post-secondary education, transportation, and groceries, [the Prime Minister] has made life more expensive for average Canadians who are exhausted and want life to return to normal. It is clear that this government's spending habits will only make life more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.What does that debt look like? All told, the Liberals increased Canada's spending from $363 billion before the pandemic to about $500 billion for this year alone, and the deficit from $155 billion to a staggering $354 billion. After all of this government's spending promises, our national debt is going to hit the $1.5-trillion mark, a number that we are going to be hearing more and more in the House, a number that we never used before but that will now become a regular part of our vocabulary.Canadians, my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be paying off this debt for generations. The risk of a rise in inflation is currently weighing heavily on people's shoulders because interest rates are going to go up. That means that this budget will be a real problem for all generations of Canadians.Before I wrap things up, I want to stress that there are two absolutely unacceptable things in this budget.The first is the government's decision to divide seniors into two categories: younger seniors aged 65 to 74 and older seniors 75 and up. There is absolutely nothing in this budget for younger seniors. In contrast, older seniors, those who will be 75 before July of next year, will be getting a $500 cheque a few weeks before a possible election call this fall.The government has a lot of nerve if it thinks it is okay to give money to one group of seniors and completely ignore other seniors who, because of inflation, will have to pay higher prices for gas, food and all the other things I mentioned before. The government projects this image of being such a hero for seniors, yet it thinks this is okay. What a crock.The second item I wanted to highlight is increasing EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks. The House wanted these payments to go up to at least 50 weeks. For its part, our party is asking for 52 weeks. However, the government is not listening and will only increase the payment period to 26 weeks, and only as of next year.What will happen to all the cancer cases diagnosed between now and then? What will happen to all the people who become sick before the date the change comes into effect and who will not be able to receive benefits because the government decided that the change should only come into effect next year?It makes no sense. The government is completely out of touch. I am asking that it put both feet back on the ground. Therefore, it will come as no surprise that I should vote against such a budget, which divides and which will put generations upon generations of Canadians into debt, while doing absolutely nothing to protect our future or create jobs.AsbestosAsbestos safetyBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresDisability benefitsEmployment insurance benefits period extensionEnvironmental clean-upGovernment accountabilityGovernment advertisingGovernment billsInflationMining industryOld Age SecurityOpen-pit mines and miningPublic debtReport stageSenior citizensWarrenSteinleyRegina—LewvanJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1605)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who I have great respect for, for his speech today. One of the things that has not come up with Bill C-30 is the fact that it is an omnibus bill and it makes consequential changes to other acts including the Judges Act, the Elections Act and many other changes as well. This is coming from a government that ran in 2015, on the premise and the promise to Canadians that the Liberals were not going to impose omnibus bills. Could the member comment on that and the other pattern of deceit on the part of the government?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOmnibus billsReport stageLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1605)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. This is not the first time that the government has deceived us. Saying something and not following through seems to be the Liberals' governing style now.I was first elected in 2015, and I have a vivid memory of the Prime Minister telling us that interest rates were low and that they were going to run teeny-tiny deficits. The $10 billion was supposed to decrease until the budget was balanced.It did not take long to go from teeny-tiny deficits in one budget to massive ones in the next, and this was even before the pandemic. The deficits are even bigger now, as our national debt is going to hit $1.5 trillion.No, I do not believe a single word this government has to say about projections and budgets.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOmnibus billsReport stageJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1610)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we have asked this government repeatedly to take action for small businesses in the tourism industry and others that have been completely overlooked. It has not done so. This government is now claiming that we are opposing measures that should have been implemented a long time ago.The Liberals are in charge of their own legislative calendar, yet almost two years after the election, here we are at the eleventh hour, being asked to pass this government's first budget since the election. It is totally unacceptable. The Liberals are incapable of managing finances, and they are incapable of managing the House.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsGovernment expendituresPandemicReport stageLarryBagnellHon.YukonAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (1610)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford.I would like to remind her that she is directing a question like that to the member who represents the people of Lac‑Mégantic, who witnessed a terrible tragedy in their community resulting from the transportation of heavy oil by rail, costing the lives of 47 people.In response to the question about whether we should use safer alternatives to transport hazardous materials and oil, I would say yes. What is more, I will support any initiative that phases out the transportation of oil and hazardous materials by rail and uses pipelines instead.Atlantic CanadaBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationReport stageAndréanneLaroucheSheffordPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, if people are tired of working hard and getting nowhere, while watching others who contribute next to nothing get fabulously wealthy, then they should stop whatever they are doing. I am about to tell them five easy tricks that will allow them to get fabulously rich in today's Liberal economy, while contributing less than everyone else.I know people are skeptical. In today's modern, progressive, altruistic, state-controlled era there is no such thing as greed and profit anymore. Let me quote Liberal luminary Mark Carney, who recently said: The state embodies collective ideals such as equality of opportunity, liberty, fairness, solidarity and sustainability.In this collective state, of course, there is no greed and, of course, no one wants to get rich and no one can, except for using these five tricks, so tune in and listen carefully.Quick trick number one: Apply for a grant claiming it will be used to pay workers, when in fact it will be used to fund CEO bonuses, dividends and share buybacks. Air Canada, for example, used this trick to pay $10 million to its executives. I can quote The Globe and Mail about the wage subsidy. Remember how the wage subsidy was supposed to be for companies that were so poor they could not pay their workers' wages? Here is what The Globe and Mail said about that: In some cases, companies have yet to lay off workers, increase shareholder dividends and distribute bonuses despite collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in government money. In the wealth management industry, The Globe found that at least 80 asset managers, including some of the top performing hedge funds of 2020, received the grant. The rich are always very good at getting money. In fact, remember all of those cash payments that were supposed to be for families in need? The top fifth of households got, on average, $6,700. The poorest households got $4,000, so the rich got almost two-thirds more than the poor, even though the poor are the ones who lost their jobs. People should be rich and apply for government money, then use their connections, consultants and accountants to maximize their take. That is trick number one.Trick number two: Offer the Prime Minister's cabinet and family fees, expenses and luxurious trips. For example, the Kielburger brothers gave vacations, expenses and fees to the Prime Minister's team worth about half a million dollars. For that they got a half-a-billion-dollar grant. Then the Aga Khan gave the Prime Minister a quarter-of-a-million-dollar vacation, and he got a $15-million grant. These kinds of returns on investment would make Warren Buffett blush. A pro tip: People must have connections in the RCMP because, of course, much of this is illegal and even criminal, and they might get charged without having friends in law enforcement.Get-rich-quick trick number three: When central banks are throwing money out the window, stand next to the window. That is what the financial institutions have been doing. The Bank of Canada has created $3 billion and has used it to buy government debt. This is debt that the government sells to the banks on a Monday, and the Bank of Canada buys it back on a Tuesday, only at a higher price and at a profit to the financial institution. The trick here is also to own a mansion, gold, land, stocks or bonds, all of which will be inflated in value, increasing people's net worth. This trick worked for Canada's 20 wealthiest Canadians who, in the first six months of this money-printing scheme saw their net worth rise by a staggering 32%, while our waitresses, airline stewardesses and small businesses got clobbered and $100 billion vanished from our economy. Somehow, the very rich with all of their assets managed to get richer still. The lesson is the next time the government is printing money, start off by being rich, because then people can be richer still. When the Bank of Canada is printing money and throwing it out the window, stand next to the window. Get-rich-quick trick number four: Get into one of the fastest-growing industries in Canada. Yes, the economy is collapsing, but there are two industries that are on fire. The first is to become a consultant for the government. Since this Prime Minister took office, the federal government consulting budget has grown from $8 billion to $16 billion. For those Liberals over there who are missing their calculators, that is a 100% increase. People can get in on some of that cash.(1615)These are the kinds of jobs people can do these days, working from their living room, in their pyjamas, on Zoom: consulting; writing, for example, presentations that nobody ever sees; making up buzzwords that nobody even understands; doing PowerPoint presentations that no one will ever look at. It is 100% growth, and they can get in on some of that $16 billion too.Get-rich-quick trick number five is the fastest-growing industry in Canada, in fact, faster than the consultants. This industry is lobbying. Under the previous Harper government, there were 9,300 lobbying interactions in 2015. Last year, there were 28,000, a 200% increase in paid lobbying interactions. What is a lobbyist? People have heard of stockbrokers, real estate brokers and insurance brokers. A lobbyist is a power broker. For the most part, it is someone whom people can hire. They can pay them and turn their money into power and that power into even more money. If people want a loan, a grant, a handout, a regulatory protection or some other political favour to get rich, they hire a lobbyist. This industry is on fire for a very specific reason. Why? Because it is a product of government. The bigger a government gets, the more lobbyists it needs. Therefore, as government has almost doubled in size over the last five years, so too has the lobbying industry grown. Why? Because businesses want a return on investment. If there is money in software, they invest in technology; money in copper, they invest in mining; money in government, they invest in lobbying. The correlation between lobbying and government spending is almost a perfect match, not just here but also in the United States. As the government in Washington grosses a share of the GDP, so too does the amount corporations spend on lobbying that government. They go where the money is, and you should too, Madam Speaker. That is why I am letting you in on these five secret tricks. I am not asking for anything in return, except from time to time you might let me speak a bit more than otherwise would be allowed. That is a small price to pay for the kind of big money you are going to be making with these five easy tricks that I am sharing here and now.How does any of this make sense? We were told by Mark Carney that greed would be gone. We just needed to replace that nasty free market economy, which is motivated only by self-interest, with the altruistic power of the state. What, in fact, is the state? The state is just legalized force. It is the only entity that can apply force. Would they not think that someone who is greedy and self-interested would be less greedy and self-interested if they were acting through a creature that operates by power and force? It means that socialists have been trying to teach us for all these years that if we expand the power of the state, all of a sudden we will bring out altruism, that the weak and the poor will be advantaged. In what relationship of force have the weak and poor ever been advantaged? Of course, the weak and poor are disadvantaged and the powerful and strong get ahead when force is applied.We know that the same base instincts will exist when the state gets big. As Macaulay wrote:Where'er ye shed the honey, the buzzing flies will crowd; Where'er ye fling the carrion, the raven's croak is loud; Where'er down Tiber garbage floats, the greedy pike ye see; And wheresoe'er such lord is found, such client still will be.I notice how he used flies and honey, not bees and honey. Why? Because flies do not make honey. They consume it without producing it. They are the same parasitical creatures that those who get rich off the state are. They do not produce anything. They do not contribute anything. They take without making. If they were bees, they would be contributing. A free market economy is sort of like bees. They cross-pollinate, an aspect of trade and exchange that we see between a customer and a small business, between a worker and an employer, between an investor and an entrepreneur. That voluntary exchange is coming back, and that is why my five tricks are a limited-time offer. Soon, this state-run economy will be eliminated and replaced with a free enterprise system where everyone will go back to getting ahead by helping others and by improving their country by engaging the voluntary exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest, a system that makes everybody better off; a system where people have to be truly empathetic because, as entrepreneurs, they cannot improve their own lot unless they sell something to somebody that they want to buy, in other words, unless they make someone else's life better off. That is the way people will get rich in the future, but for the time being, they have my five quick tricks for getting rich.Bank of CanadaBanks and bankingBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCompaniesConflict of interestConsultantsCOVID-19Government billsIncome and wagesLobbying and lobbyistsMarket economyPandemicPolitical powerPublic Service and public servantsReport stageLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I did not accuse the RCMP of criminal activity; I accused the Prime Minister of criminal activity. It is a criminal offence to accept a gift or benefit from any person with whom one is doing government business. It is right there in the Criminal Code. In fact, we complained to the RCMP about this, and the RCMP did not say that the Prime Minister was innocent of the crime; it said that it could not “productively pursue” the investigation. We still do not know what that means, but at some point perhaps the commissioner of the RCMP will explain why it is that she could not “productively pursue” an investigation into the Prime Minister for taking a quarter-million-dollar vacation from someone who was seeking and was given a federal government grant.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresConflict of interestGovernment billsPolice servicesReport stageRoyal Canadian Mounted PoliceLarryBagnellHon.YukonGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, of course we support small business. We have fought for small business from the very beginning of this crisis, and we will continue to fight for small business, but I would add that the solution is to accelerate the safe reopening of our economy so that those businesses can get their customers back. What they want is customer sales, not permanent dependence on government. They know the government cannot pay the bills forever. What they need is their customers back, and for that to happen, we need to safely reopen the economy as quickly as possible.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageTourismGordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carleton for all his optimism and his five points. I come from Oshawa, which has a big manufacturing background, and I have been hearing about the Liberals shutting down our manufacturing sector, our softwood lumber sector and our mining sector. The member knows, of course, that Mr. Carney wants to promote Russian pipelines and block Canadian pipelines. Could the member please explain to Canadian youth who are looking for a good future how modern monetary theory is going to help them get those jobs of the future and how, by 2030, when they own nothing, they will be really happy?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMonetary policyReport stageYoung peoplePierrePoilievreHon.CarletonPierrePoilievreHon.Carleton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, this is a great question. First of all, MMT, as they call modern monetary theory, can also stand for “more money today” or “magic money tree”. It is this new theory where governments will simply print cash. The central bank creates the cash, sends it over in a Brink's truck every day to the Prime Minister's Office, and he just starts throwing the money around. What we have now is a bit different. To start with, we do not have a direct sale of debt to the bank. It first gets funnelled through the financial sector in Canada so that it can take a cut and get even richer before that newly printed cash trickles down to the people at the bottom. However, the bottom line is that what we have today is very similar to MMT. It is printing mass sums of cash, which inflates the assets of the rich and raises the consumer prices of the poor. It is a massive new inflation tax that will only help big government, big business and the super-rich at the expense of the working class. That is why we are speaking out against it. As for Mr. Carney, the member is right. He is part of the World Economic Forum, which the finance minister joins, which says that in 2030, only nine years from now, we will own nothing and we will love it. That is the agenda of these people. Maybe that is why, over the last year, they have done everything in their power to make housing completely unaffordable so that nobody can afford it except them, a small group of landed aristocrats, while the common people are out in the field doing the work. We on this side want to democratize property ownership and make it available to everybody.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMonetary policyReport stageYoung peopleColinCarrieOshawaLouiseChabotThérèse-De Blainville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35886ChrisWarkentinChris-WarkentinGrande Prairie—MackenzieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WarkentinChris_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics]InterventionMr. Chris Warkentin (Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, CPC): (1000)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present today, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, in relation to its study on the protection of privacy and reputation on platforms such as Pornhub.I would like to thank the analysts and the clerk for their diligence and support to our committee during this horrific testimony and challenging report.Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.8510-432-170 "Ensuring the Protection of Privacy and Reputation on Platforms such as Pornhub"PornographyPrivacy and data protectionStanding Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsWeb sitesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59156KellyBlockKelly-BlockCarlton Trail—Eagle CreekConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlockKelly_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Public Accounts]InterventionMrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following three reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts: the 20th report, entitled “Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities”; the 21st report, entitled “Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety”; and the 22nd report, entitled “Investing in Canada Plan”.Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these three reports.8510-432-171 "Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities"8510-432-172 "Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety"8510-432-173 "Investing in Canada Plan"Drinking waterIndigenous reservesInfrastructureInvesting in Canada PlanRail transport safetyReport 3, Access to Safe Drinking Water in First Nations Communities - Indigenous Services CanadaReport 5, Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety - Transport CanadaReport 9, Investing in Canada PlanStanding Committee on Public AccountsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStatus of WomenInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The 10th report is entitled “Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces”. Certainly, the disturbing testimony the committee heard from survivors shows that we have yet to hold people accountable at the highest levels. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to its 10th report. The 11th report is on supplementary estimates (A), 2021-22. The committee has considered the estimates referred by the House and reports the same. I want to thank our analysts, the clerk, all the translators and the committee members, who have worked so hard this session.8510-432-175 "Eliminating Sexual Misconduct Within the Canadian Armed Forces"8510-432-176 "Supplementary Estimates (A), 2021-22: Votes 1a and 5a under Department for Women and Gender Equality" E-tablingCanadian ForcesConduct at workDepartment for Women and Gender EqualitySexual behaviourStanding Committee on the Status of WomenSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022JamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic Safety and National SecurityInterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada is one the most tolerant and welcoming countries on earth. Canada is rightfully known as a place that accepts and affirms the equal rights, freedoms, opportunities, security, dignity and sanctity of all people of all ethnicities, faiths, sexual orientations, backgrounds and personal identities. These are the values and aspirations of the vast majority of Canadians.Canada is not perfect. Racism and racists exist in Canada. Heinous crimes of murder and violent attacks involving race and religious-based hate have been carried out in Canada. Action must be taken to protect innocent, vulnerable Canadians and to enact consequences when racism has made it out in discrimination, violence, incitement of harm or criminal activity.Racism exists in recent and long-standing systemic legacies like residential schools and forced relocations. Racism can be found in institutional structures that fail to root out racist elements within their ranks. It would be wrong to describe the RCMP or all its individual officers and staff as inherently racist or holding racist beliefs, or to blame all societal challenges on one institution. It is also true that various failures to respond effectively to the needs and realities of indigenous and racialized communities have led to a lack of trust and can be tied to biased outcomes.These challenges must be met with practical policy changes that solve institutional problems. It is crucial that individuals face consequences for their actions. Defunding or arbitrarily dismantling institutions is not a solution, but is evidence of allowing frustration to triumph over real reform.Conservatives of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security believe that some of the recommendations of the main report fall short of compelling meaningful action, go beyond the scope of the study or serve ideological objectives that we cannot endorse.For those reasons, we are tabling a supplementary report that focuses on practical solutions.8510-432-177 "Systemic Racism in Policing in Canada"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsPolice servicesRacial equalityStanding Committee on Public Safety and National SecurityJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCanada-Taiwan Relations Framework ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)(1025)[English]Bill C-315. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-315, An Act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada-Taiwan relations. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to introduce the Canada-Taiwan relations framework act.Canada does not have a formal relationship with Taiwan and that complicates our interactions. As such, the legislation seeks to establish an orderly mechanism by which to conduct relations by establishing a framework for strengthening Canada-Taiwan relations, including in respect of economic, cultural and legal affairs.Taiwan is one of Canada's largest trading partners. We have strong people-to-people links and share common values. It is a vibrant democracy and one of the world's top 20 economies. It is time that Canada's relations with Taiwan reflect the reality that Taiwan is today. This legislation is an important step towards that. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-315, An Act respecting a framework to strengthen Canada-Taiwan relationsInternational relationsIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsTaiwanYvanBakerEtobicoke CentreDaneLloydSturgeon River—Parkland//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98079DaneLloydDane-LloydSturgeon River—ParklandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LloydDane_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsAddressing the Continuing Victimization of Homicide Victims’ Families ActInterventionMr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC)(1025)[English]Bill 316. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House and introduce my private member's bill, McCann's law. In 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann of St. Albert, Alberta, left their home on a trip to British Columbia. Shortly after their departure, they were murdered, although their remains have never been found. With a body of overwhelming evidence, their killer was found and convicted of manslaughter. He is eligible for parole this year, despite never having admitted to his crime, nor providing the family of the victims the closure of knowing the whereabouts of their loved ones. The fact that a killer can walk free on our streets while a family is denied the closure of a funeral is an injustice. Bret McCann, the son of Lyle and Marie McCann had this to say: “By withholding where he left their bodies, [my parents' killer] is able to continuously revictimize our family. And without a proper funeral and memorial, our family is unable to fully grieve and reach a measure of closure.” This legislation would correct that injustice by introducing new consequences at sentencing and parole hearings for refusing to provide material evidence on the location of victims' remains. This will give the authorities the tools and discretion to introduce justice for families of victims. It is time to put the rights of victims and their families, not criminals, first. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) C-316, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories ActHomicideHuman remainsIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsSentencingMichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35897BlaineCalkinsBlaine-CalkinsRed Deer—LacombeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CalkinsBlaine_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTravel AdvisersInterventionMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present three petitions to the House on behalf of more than 24,000 independent travel advisers, 12,000 of whom are sole proprietors and the majority of whom are women who were most impacted by the COVID-19 restrictions. They lost incomes that they earned the year prior to COVID. They have lost their incomes for the year during COVID, and they will likely lose numerous amounts of income as our economy slowly begins to reopen. They ask for programs from the Government of Canada to recognize these realities and make sure that they are compensated fairly and adequately, unlike the programs that have been provided so far.AirlinesCanada Recovery BenefitCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19PandemicPetition 432-01138Petition 432-01139Petition 432-01140ReimbursementTravel agenciesAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConsumer ProtectionInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my Yellowhead constituents who are concerned about fraudulent charges by cable companies. They are calling on the government to form a government body separate from cable companies to investigate consumer complaints; have a system in place for consumers to take their concerns to that is not affiliated with the cable companies; and stop the cable companies' monopoly on charges and fees that they cannot prove the consumers ordered and have them accept responsibility for fraudulent charges on consumer accounts or billing errors by their own administration or a third party.Cable service providersConsumers and consumer protectionPetition 432-01141BlaineCalkinsRed Deer—LacombeMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Ind.): (1030)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition that calls upon the government to recognize the inadequacies of its response to the Government of Israel's multiple violations of international law and of Palestinians' human rights, including forced evictions, settlement buildings, unequal treatment, a tax on journalists, the bombing of humanitarian and medical facilities, and the killing of civilians.The petitioners call on the government to demand that the Government of Israel end evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and the West Bank, end apartheid on the Palestinian people, and implement a fair government and system for all people within its jurisdictions.The petitioners also call on the government to apply to Israel the same diplomatic tools that Canada has used in condemning activities in the Xinjiang autonomous region and in sanctioning Russian officials involved in the annexation of Crimea.Displaced personsForeign policyIsraelPalestinePetition 432-01142GeraldSorokaYellowheadLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsGovernor GeneralInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1030)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition on behalf of nearly 8,000 petitioners who are calling on the Government of Canada to immediately amend the Governor General’s Act so that only governors general who have held office for a minimum of five years are eligible for a pension and to withdraw the lifetime pension and hospitality budget of any former governor general who has not held office for at least five consecutive years.This petition is tabled on behalf of all of the workers who leave their jobs and are not entitled to employment insurance.Government expendituresGovernor GeneralPensions and pensionersPetition 432-01143Political appointmentsMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—HespelerGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)(1030)[English] moved: Motion That, given that the Minister of National Defence has clearly lost the respect of members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including those at the highest ranks, for, amongst other things,(i) misleading Canadians on the withdrawal of fighter jets in the fight against ISIS,(ii) misleading Canadians about his service record,(iii) presiding over the wrongful accusation and dismissal of Vice-Admiral Norman,(iv) engaging in a cover-up of sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces,the House formally censure the Minister of National Defence to express the disappointment of the House of Commons in his conduct.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan(1035)[English] Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the final time I will have to address the House virtually. I look forward to being in Ottawa next week and hope very much that we will be back to normal sessions come the fall.I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.I just have to say that this is a rare measure that we are requesting of all members of the House of Commons to censure the Minister of National Defence. The last time anyone was censured in the House was back in 2002, and it has come to this point, because the Minister of National Defence has refused to do the honourable thing and resign, and the Prime Minister has refused to do the right thing and fire the Minister of National Defence. Essentially, that leaves it up to us in the House of Commons to censure the minister going forward, until the voters of Vancouver South have an opportunity to express their displeasure in the upcoming federal election.I also just want to say to the Speaker, who has stepped into the chair, knowing that he has announced that he will not be running in the next federal election, how much I have appreciated his strength in the chair and his friendship over the years as we served together. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours, enjoying more time with his family.When we look at this motion, we have to look at the litany of misleading comments made by the Minister of National Defence over his tenure since 2015. I think all of us are all too familiar with the travesty of the wrongful accusations and the decision by the minister to go on a witch hunt to stop the procurement of the Asterix for the Royal Canadian Navy, and how he threw retired Vice-Admiral Mark Norman under the bus. We know that through 2017 and into 2018, this escalated to a ridiculous level and ended up in the courts. The case, of course, was thrown out by the judge, because there just was not any evidence for it. It was an unnecessary attack on the honourable service and great reputation of a strong military leader, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.However, we have to go back to the very beginning of the minister's tenure and look at what happened with his politically motivated withdrawal of our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The minister was over there meeting with the Government of Iraq, as well as Kurdish officials in Erbil, and he told CBC on December 21, 2015, that he had not had one discussion about withdrawing our CF-18s from the fight. However, an access to information request on the record of a wire message in reference to the Minister of National Defence's meeting with the Iraqi minister of defence on December 20, 2015, just the day before he made that statement, says, “the Iraqi Minister of Defence was clearly focused on Canada's decision to withdraw its CF18 fighter jets from the coalition air strikes, asking [our Minister of National Defence] to reconsider this decision on numerous occasions”. That was the very first step in the minister's very misleading comments to the media and to Canadians.We should not be surprised, because we also know that the minister, back in July 2015 when he was running to be a member of Parliament for the first time, claimed on a local B.C. program, Conversations That Matter, that he was the architect of Operation Medusa in Afghanistan. He reiterated that in April 2017, when he was at a conference in New Delhi on conflict prevention and peace keeping in a changing world. He again said that he was the architect of Operation Medusa.(1040)Of course, he was a major back then and had numerous members in the command chain above him who were making the decisions, and there is no doubt that he provided great input and intelligence into how Operation Medusa was conducted, but to claim that he was more than the team is something that is not well regarded within the Canadian Armed Forces or by veterans across this country, and the minister had to apologize.We also saw the minister take a shot at me back in 2017 over the cuts to tax-free allowances for forces members serving in Operation Impact while stationed in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan at that time. He claimed that it was the Conservative government that had taken away the tax-free allowance. I was able to get up on a question of privilege to point out that the initial assessments were made under the current Liberal government, and those cuts were made by this minister to hardship pay that was in effect back in 2014-15. Again, there was a finding that he misled the House.Now, the most egregious of all of this, and the one that is really rocking our Canadian Armed Forces right now, is, of course, the crisis of sexual misconduct. I will point out and ask the question: What do the Somalia affair, the decade of darkness and the crisis of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces today have in common? It all comes down to weak Liberal leadership. We know that when the news broke that retired General Jonathan Vance, the former chief of the defence staff, had issues of sexual misconduct raised in March 2018, the Minister of National Defence said at committee on February 19 of this year that he was “as shocked as everyone else at the allegations that were made public two weeks ago”. He was surprised to learn about these allegations, but then at the defence committee on March 3, 2021, the former ombudsman for national defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, Gary Walbourne, said at committee that “I personally met with [the minister] to address an allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour within the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically, against the chief of the defence staff, and to discuss my concerns about this allegation. This meeting happened on March 1, 2018.” That was three years before the story became news, when the minister was briefed by Gary Walbourne.Gary Walbourne went on to say at committee that:I did tell the minister what the allegation was. I reached into my pocket to show him the evidence I was holding, and he pushed back from the table and said, “No.” I don't think we exchanged another word. The minister refused the evidence, and we know that, at the defence committee on March 12, 2021, he then admitted, “I did meet with Mr. Walbourne”. The ombudsman brought up the concerns, but “He did not give me any details”, is what the minister was claiming. Yet, if we look at all of the information that flowed between the minister's chief of staff, Zita Astravas at the time, up into the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office on March 2, 2018, it all talked about this being a matter of sexual misconduct, which they actually described as “sexual harassment”. Elder Marques, Michael Wernick and Katie Telford, the chief of staff to the Prime Minister, all knew that this was an issue of sexual misconduct. Therefore, as the minister continues to dodge this and refuses to do the honourable thing and resign, and as long as the Prime Minister continues to back this inept behaviour by the Minister of National Defence and refuses to fire him, it falls upon us as the House of Commons to censure this minister since he has consistently and repeatedly misled the House. I call upon all members of the House of Commons in all parties to censure this minister for his continued casual relationship with the truth.AfghanistanCanadian ForcesCanadian Forces mission in AfghanistanCensure motionsConduct at workGovernment contractsIncome and wagesIraqLegal proceedingsMilitary operations and eventsMinister of National DefenceNorman, MarkOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSplitting speaking timeSyriaTax reliefVance, Jonathan H.AnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1045)[English]I will just interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary momentarily. I just wonder if he could move his microphone out slightly from his mouth. We are getting a lot of popping noise and so on, on the audio.While I am at it, I will ask the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman when he comes back for his response to the parliamentary secretary's question, to do the same, to just move the microphone. We will cover both of those off at this time.Let us go back to the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish his question.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan: (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows that I am not attacking the minister's service in uniform. As I said in my speech, he had an incredible service, including in Operation Medusa and the intelligence that he collected.What we are talking about is his lack of action and lack of leadership as the Minister of National Defence over the past six years while he has been in the job. Due to his lack of leadership, because he set such a low bar, leading by example, we have a crisis today with so many of our leaders in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are on our seventh vice-chief of defence staff because of the inept behaviour of the minister over the last six years, and two chiefs of the defence staff who are being investigated for sexual misconduct. This is a direct reflection of the leadership of this minister. That is why he has to go or we have to censure him.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member wholeheartedly. The most egregious thing that has happened under the leadership of this Minister of National Defence is that he has failed to move to protect the women and men who serve in uniform. Therefore, we have this crisis of sexual misconduct. The minister sat for six years on Justice Deschamps' report on how to stomp out sexual misconduct. The minister continues to kick the can down the road. He dithers and delays in making any future decisions on how we are to go about stomping out sexual misconduct.That is why we Conservatives have said that we need to have an independent investigation now. We need to freeze all promotions and salary increases until we figure out a way forward and ensure that there is more representation by women and under-represented minorities within the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.MoniquePauzéRepentignyHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister has consistently denied having any knowledge of that. We are questioning whether he has been misleading Canadians on sexual misconduct and concerning fighter jets and procurement of supply ships, so I guess it is reasonable to also question whether he was aware of what was happening during the transfer of prisoners in Afghanistan.It comes down to the nature and conduct of this minister, which is unbecoming of a parliamentarian, a veteran, as well as a Minister of National Defence. That is why we need to censure him.AfghanistanCanadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsPrisoners of war abuseReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in rising in the House today. First, I must mention that the Minister of National Defence and I have something in common: We each served honourably in the Canadian Forces for over twenty years. We both rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel and commanded infantry units. These are the things we have in common. The minister served our country particularly well in the various missions he participated in around the world. I thank him for his service.However, on October 19, 2015, in the federal election, we chose two different paths. I chose to run as a Conservative Party candidate, while the Minister of National Defence chose to run for the Liberal Party.Let me remind members what the Liberal Party represents for the Canadian Forces. Let us recall the 10 years of darkness of the Chrétien era, marked by the purchase of used submarines and the cancellation of helicopter contracts, a time when our soldiers did not even have combat boots. That is the path and the party that the minister chose.From that day on, he and I were no longer soldiers. We were now former military members who had become members of Parliament in the House of Commons, a political office. That is when the minister's problems began.The first step was in 2015. During the election campaign, a tragedy struck hearts around the world. The body of a little boy washed up on a beach in Italy. He was a Syrian refugee trying to flee Syria, which was under the grip of ISIS. Many refugees were seeking asylum. The Liberals opened up many new spots, and we were all for that. We needed to do something to help those refugees.However, our country was also engaged in combat. Our armed forces and our air force were in Iraq and Syria fighting the enemy, ISIS. What did this government decide to do when it took office? It pulled our CF-18s out of the bombing campaign against ISIS. It stopped fighting the enemy, the enemy that caused the little boy to wash up on the beach and the Syrian refugees to flee in search of asylum. We could never understand that.When we say that the minister is hiding the truth or misleading Canadians, we are talking about decisions. When we questioned him at length about the reasons behind the decision to pull our CF-18s out, the minister said that Iraq had agreed to it. Later, in an interview with an Iraqi minister, we learned that that was not true. Iraq was very disappointed with Canada's decision.The next step was a pivotal point in the career of a very talented military member, Vice-Admiral Norman, who was commander of the Royal Canadian Navy at the time. When he heard that the incoming Liberal government wanted to cancel the Asterix contract that had been awarded by the Conservative government, that was the last straw. Vice-Admiral Norman, a man who worked for his troops, the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy, knew full well that the Conservative government decision to award the Asterix contract to Davie shipyard was the best solution to fix the problems in the navy.We knew that the first decision of the Prime Minister and cabinet was to do everything in their power to cancel that contract. Vice-Admiral Norman did everything he could to prevent that from happening, and he paid the political price with his career. All he wanted to do was give the Royal Canadian Navy the tools it needed to do its job properly.What did the Minister of National Defence do to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces were operating effectively around the world? That is the duty of a defence minister. It is about ensuring that his troops have the necessary tools to do their job. Instead, the minister contributed to the problem. He helped ensure that Vice-Admiral Norman became persona non grata. He ended up facing serious charges and the RCMP landed on his doorstep. It is appalling.(1055)This man was expected to be the next chief of the defence staff. He was going to be the commander of the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, he was forced to retire. The government made sure of that by paying Vice-Admiral Norman's legal costs, which remain secret, so that he would just retire and stay quiet and so the whole thing would go away.Is that the leadership we expect from a minister? Do we expect the minister to always say yes to the Prime Minister's nefarious decisions? A minister must be able to stand up and say that something will not work, that we cannot do that. However, the minister said nothing. In 2018, the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman went to the office of the Minister of National Defence to tell him that there was a problem with the chief of the defence staff, General Vance. What did the minister do? He told the ombudsman that he did not want to know about it. The ombudsman was completely taken aback.The Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman told the minister that a victim had made allegations of sexual misconduct against the chief of the defence staff and that these allegations were not about 30-year-old incidents or incidents involving one too many beers, but were rather very serious allegations about recent incidents. What did the minister do? He did nothing. We learned about this three years later. We just learned about it.In 2018, during his tenure, the minister chose to hide the information. It gets worse. When the Conservatives were in power, they commissioned a report from Justice Marie Deschamps. She presented her report in 2015, in which she described attitude problems and sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces. What did the Minister of National Defence do with that report? Absolutely nothing.The full report contained 10 recommendations that the minister could have implemented. He had access to all of the resources and tools he needed to protect women in the Canadian Armed Forces. He could have instituted a process to streamline complaints. That was not done, and we do not know why. We are asking questions, but we will never know.Why were Justice Deschamps' recommendations never implemented? Was it because, again, the report had been commissioned by the Conservatives? Was it because people did not want these recommendations to be implemented? Was it because people did not want anyone to know? We have no idea.When all these problems are added together, the situation looks very serious. The Canadian Armed Forces are in turmoil. The head of the armed forces, the former chief of defence staff, is under investigation. The new chief of defence staff, who was in the position for one month, is under investigation. Generals are stepping down. Discipline and sound operations management within the Canadian Forces are evaporating. The soldiers and officers have no one to lead them. What is going on?On top of that, there is the case of Major-General Dany Fortin, a man I have known for a long time, a great soldier. He was put in charge of Canada's vaccine rollout, and he did an outstanding job. However, a complaint was filed against him. We do not know when or where it came from. Major-General Fortin was not informed of it. The decision was made to push him aside. The story went public, and he ended up getting all sorts of negative attention from the media, the public and the government without knowing what was happening or why. Today, this man is being forced to take legal action against the government and the Prime Minister to defend his reputation. Is that any way to treat the best members of the Canadian Armed Forces?Major-General Dany Fortin was brought in, in a public way, to help the country get out of the COVID-19 crisis, and how was he treated? He was not informed or even given a chance to explain a situation that may not even be true. We do not know. That is how the defence minister and this government operate, and that is why we can no longer trust the Minister of National Defence.I would like to remind the House that this has nothing to do with the soldier that the minister used to be. He served his country with distinction. However, he became a member of Parliament and a minister on October 19, 2015, and it has been a catastrophe ever since.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workFortin, DanyGovernment contractsIraqLegal proceedingsMilitary operations and eventsMinister of National DefenceNorman, MarkOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSyriaVance, Jonathan H.JamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanMichelBoudriasTerrebonne//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1100)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all his questions. I will take the time to answer at least one or two of them.With respect to Vice-Admiral Norman, it all started in 2014 and 2015, and we started debating it in 2017. Why was nothing done in the meantime? Because we only learned of the problem on the day the information got out. Ever since that time, we have been asking questions about this matter. We did not wait two years to do so, quite the contrary. As is the case with many files, we could not know everything there was to know. The Liberals have been in government since 2015. Therefore, we did not know any more about it than my colleague, since we did not have access to the documents and communications. As soon as we learned of the matter, we started asking questions.Regarding the Deschamps report, we will never understand why the government did not implement Marie Deschamps' recommendations as soon as it took office. If it had, things might be different today. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workGovernment contractsMinister of National DefenceNorman, MarkOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentMichelBoudriasTerrebonneKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.The minister was appointed on November 4, 2015. He is the one who made all the wrong decisions or who covered up all the decisions that were made and that I mentioned in my speech. I think there are enough of them for members to understand that the minister no longer deserves to remain in cabinet. Had Vice-Admiral Norman not suffered the fate the government had in store for him, he might have taken over from General Vance in 2018, and there would not have been all these problems with sexual misconduct and all the other issues with this file, not to mention the lack of strength we are seeing in the Canadian Forces.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, there was some filibustering at the Standing Committee on National Defence, in a bid to cover up what happened, once again. Who are the victims in all that? The victims are the women of the Canadian Armed Forces, who are once again looking at the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister and wondering whether these men deserve their loyalty. The main challenge facing the Canadian Armed Forces is trust in their leader. There is no trust at the moment, and that is the biggest problem.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Standing Committee on National DefenceAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1120)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to explain why he has always said that politicians should not get involved in the complaint against General Vance, when he personally handled Major-General Fortin's case.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workFortin, DanyMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1125)[English]Mr. Speaker, the only one who is making this issue personal is the minister himself. He is putting his personal reputation, his pride and his desire to be right ahead certainly of Parliament, but, more important, ahead of the interests of our men and women in uniform. The fact is that because this has been mishandled so badly, the men and women in uniform do not trust the minister again.If he were to put his name forward as a minister of defence to lead the men and women in the military and if the men and women in the military were casting a vote, does he think he would get even a slight majority of them wanting him to stay on? I do not think he would. They cannot trust him to clean up the military, to deal with the sexual misconduct and to lead them. I would ask him to not make this personal, but to put our military before his own ego and his own desire to be right, and to double down, as he likes to say. Does he think he even has the support of the military?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConfidence in governmentMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1130)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech. He went on at length about what the Liberals had spent on the defence department and how they had acquired planes, jets and so on. With the morale that has been developing because of his actions and inaction in his role, how can he expect to have personnel to man this equipment and fly these planes when the minister has failed to maintain the trust of our men and women in uniform?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConfidence in governmentMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his intervention today. I appreciate the work he has done at the national defence committee and having to sit through the ongoing, needless filibustering and obstruction by the Liberals. They continue their cheap political grandstanding. It has been very disheartening. It very much undermines the trust of the women and men who serve in uniform in our parliamentary institutions to watch the Liberals keep a minister in place who continues to lose their respect and now see parliamentarians from the Liberal side trying to hide that and being complicit in the cover-up of the minister failing to act upon the sexual misconduct allegations against General Vance three years ago.We have a parliamentary democracy that hinges upon ministerial accountability. In light of the fact the minister has not done the honourable thing and resigned, does the member believe the Prime Minister should fire the Minister of National Defence?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89156ZiadAboultaifZiad-AboultaifEdmonton ManningConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AboultaifZiad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Defence, since day one of the last Parliament, has had a rocky road, with a lot of scandals, issues and problems, and they seem to be piling up. So far, neither he nor the Prime Minister has done anything about it. I would ask the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona to comment on that.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill. As the strong, proud and ready member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, I am honoured to represent Garrison Petawawa. Today's motion is about the legacy of the Canadian Armed Forces during the current defence minister's tenure. He needs to step aside, since he is not prepared to admit each time he failed to uphold his oath of office to the Canadian people. He was under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. There is no room in the Prime Minister's Office or the Department of National Defence for sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, discrimination, harassment or any other conduct that prevents the institution and the whole of government from being a truly welcoming and inclusive organization.Canadians understand that a culture change, starting with the Prime Minister, is required to remove his culture of toxic masculinity behaviour to create an environment where everyone is respected, valued and can feel safe to contribute to the best of their abilities. As the member of Parliament for Garrison Petawawa, I know that respect is precious. If the Minister of National Defence has any respect for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, he would have resigned a long time ago.I have worked very hard to earn the respect of our women and men in uniform. They are heroes. This was in the 2018 briefing note to the chain of command, up to the Minister of National Defence, the individual at the top who claims ignorance of war crimes:We remain uncertain whether appropriate action was effectively taken...I am an ethical man and I believe in our moral doctrine and the LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict). I am bothered by the fact that my assigned duties allowed me to train and enable people who in my mind were criminals.These soldiers are also my constituents. I have a direct responsibility in calling out this dereliction of duty on the part of the Prime Minister. I acknowledge the trust they placed in me when they acted with a conscience. I will always have the backs of the women and men in uniform.On behalf of the people of Canada and on behalf of our Conservative government-in-waiting, I thank the soldiers who first raised the issue of war crimes, and then continue to raise these concerns. They have the gratitude and full support of the Conservatives, even if the Liberal Party continues to slough them off and act vindictively towards the soldiers who reported what they saw.It is obvious to those who care about things like international treaties and the law of armed conflict that the Minister of National Defence has many lessons to learn. He needs to take lessons from the official opposition when it comes to serving his country. The minister claims no politician should ever start investigations. How quickly he forgot his own advice when it came to an hon. naval officer, like Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. What the Prime Minister ordered, however, was not an investigation against Mark Norman, it was a witch hunt that ended badly for the Prime Minister and his minister. While I am proud and ready to defend the honour and reputations of the women and men who serve as the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, I cannot say the same about the current Minister of National Defence. The reputation has been maligned by the government of our country. The lack of leadership and direction from the Prime Minister has created many casualties.First is the Minister of National Defence. The motion put forward by the leader of my party says it all. Seeing the Minister of National Defence reduced to repeating mindless talking points is sad, when he had a strong role model sitting next to him, the former minister of justice, the MP for Vancouver Granville. As a principled woman, she knew when it was time to stand up and act honourably.The next casualties of the Prime Minister's lack of leadership are the women in uniform who have been victims of sexual misconduct under his watch, and the double standard on the way women and men are treated by the so-called, let me grope for his self-label, “feminist Prime Minister”.(1240)Let us talk about the female officer who was charged, convicted, fined and removed from her post. Her treatment was in direct contrast to the treatment afforded to Lieutenant-General Christopher Coates who, while serving as deputy commander of NORAD, had a consensual relationship with a civilian woman serving with the U.S. military in Colorado Springs.He was allowed to continue his post before being transferred home last summer to take over the military's joint operations command. Coates was due to be transferred to the senior NATO post in Naples, Italy, until news of the affair became public. Now, ignoring the family relationship between Coates and DND deputy minister Jody Thomas, this example of the double standard women in uniform face every day from the government is appalling. We can add that to the casualty list on sexual misconduct.The Prime Minister's own chief of staff, Katie Telford, did nothing to rein in the problem of the Prime Minister's toxic masculinity and seriously address the problem of the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. That makes her part of the problem and she should have resigned her position when her complicity was exposed.The next casualties of the lack of leadership and direction by the Prime Minister and his Minister of National Defence are all the serving women in the Canadian Armed Forces. From the highest-ranking general to those who are still around, to the newly enlisted, who should be eager to serve their country, but who are now demoralized by the actions of the Prime Minister.There are also fine individuals like Mark Norman and former armed forces ombudsman, Gary Walbourne. I am a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. We invited Gary to come to our committee. He stated for the record he met the defence minister in 2018 to discuss an allegation of sexual misconduct against former chief of the defence staff, Jonathan Vance.When he offered to show the minister proof of the allegation, former armed forces ombudsman Walbourne stated the government pushed him away and refused to review the evidence. “The only thing I ever wanted the minister to do was his job,” he is quoted as saying at the time that this happened. He then observed that “doing nothing wasn't the response I was looking for”. Doing nothing is the legacy of the defence minister and the government. This is now a government-wide scandal.The next casualties in the DND scandal are the MP for Kanata—Carleton and the MP for Ottawa West—Nepean. The endless filibustering of the Standing Committee on National Defence will not go unnoticed by voters. They also had a role model like the member who had also left the Liberal caucus who used to sit beside them in the government caucus. To retired general Andrew Leslie, the former member of Parliament for Orléans, who resigned rather than being reduced to a mindless government cheerleader, I thank him for his service to this country.The last point I will now deal with is the myth that some elements of the bought media repeat is that the military fared okay while the member for Vancouver South has been sitting in the defence minister's chair. Under the defence minister's time, though the government may have committed spending more money on the military in real dollars, it is all promised spending. The devil is always in the details. My constituents clearly remember the decade of darkness when Liberals slashed budgets, starting with disbanding the Canadian Airborne Regiment.For spending to actually happen, soldiers have to rely on a future elected Conservative government. Of the purchases that have actually been delivered so far, they are mired in controversy. Who is Adam Coates again? By all tests, the Minister of National Defence has failed Canadians.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsCoates, ChristopherConduct at workMinister of National DefenceNational Defence and Canadian Armed Forces OmbudsmanOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSplitting speaking timeVance, Jonathan H.Walbourne, GaryAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her service and for representing the brave men and women in uniform in her community.The question I have for her is about the culture of cover-up and why it is so important that the minister does resign. We have seen it with the SNC-Lavalin case. We have seen it with the WE scandal. Even before the last election, with CUSMA, we knew it was going to be a $1.5-billion hit to the auto industry, but the Liberals kept that away from Canadians before the election. They knew about this sexual scandal in the military before the election and now we are seeing it repeated with the Winnipeg lab cover-up.Could she explain to Canadians that it is absolutely necessary that the Liberal minister resign, not only for his behaviour, but for keeping this information away from Canadians before the last election?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.CherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, definitely the culture of cover-up is something that has to be dealt with, together with corruption overall. It started from the very beginning, with the purchase and procurement of the Asterix. There was government intervention trying to stop what was going forward. It was not stopped in its tracks at that time. Then there was the sexual misconduct and Operation Honour. They took the “honour” out of Operation Honour by allowing sexual misconduct to go unchecked for years, and now we have many women and men who are broken by what happened to them. This goes all the way to the cover-up on the vaccines, and now the Winnipeg lab. Heaven only knows what occurred as a consequence of their covering up what happened at the lab, with the scientists who were fired.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.ColinCarrieOshawaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, as soon as our current leader learned about allegations against the former chief of the defence staff, he reported it and it was investigated, unlike what happened with the current government.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very good question that my colleague asked. We are hoping that the minister will finally conduct an act of honour and do so on his own. However, right now, it is the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible, and he has presided over this culture of cover-up and corruption. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, all we have to do is look at the Prime Minister's own past misconduct. He dismissed an allegation of his groping with “she experienced it differently”. Then there was the bullying on the floor here during a vote, hitting an opposition member in the chest. Where the honour and dismissing have to come from is from the top, and that begins with the Prime Minister, who has dishonoured our entire country.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, Canada's military is in crisis on the defence minister's watch. An institution that has been revered for over a hundred years, Canada's military has liberated occupied nations, fought for democracy, freedom and peace, and brought honour and respect to our country and Canadian citizens. Now it is facing some of the darkest days in its history. Canada's military is entrusted with protecting and preserving Canadian values, but it must also embody them. However, serious abuse of power, sexual misconduct and discrimination at the highest levels in Canada's military continue unchecked, and the defence minister and the Prime Minister have failed to act. That is why today's opposition day motion calls on the House of Commons to censure the Minister of Defence, and why it is so important.Members of the government will cry that today's motion amounts to nothing more than petty partisan politics. That, in itself, is evidence that the current government understands neither its sworn obligation, nor the dire situation that Canada's military is in. Members of Parliament are elected to govern, and governing is much more than merely passing laws. Governing, at its most fundamental, is about ensuring that those entrusted with leading the country embody the values of honesty and integrity that Canadians expect, and are held to account when they have broken that most sacred trust.In his direction to ministers in 2015, the Prime Minister charged them with “[c]reating the culture of integrity and accountability that allows [them] to earn and keep the trust of Canadians”. The Prime Minister went on to say, “Whether a Minister has discharged responsibilities appropriately is a matter of political judgment by Parliament.” Therefore, any attempt to characterize today's opposition day motion as partisan or petty politics must be vehemently rejected. It is the role of Parliament to judge a minister, and not one we take lightly. Today, this House of Commons is fulfilling that most difficult and serious responsibility.The defence minister has not acted with integrity and accountability. Instead, he has consistently misrepresented the facts, refused to answer direct questions, failed to implement important changes to improve the military's culture and turned a blind eye to serious allegations. In 2018, allegations of serious misconduct were made against the former chief of the defence staff, General Vance. For three years, the defence minister knew, and key officials in the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council and the minister's office knew, and they all did nothing. No one else would have known, if two parliamentary committees, the defence committee and the status of women committee, had not decided to study this serious military misconduct.What Canadians have learned through the testimony at those committees and in the media has simply shaken us to our core: hours and hours of jarring testimony detailing accounts of abusive power, misogyny, rape, sexual harassment and discrimination. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.CherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Leona Alleslev: (1255)[English]We heard testimony of investigations that were never carried out or were covered up, evidence that was lost or tampered with, and serious crimes that were pleaded down to an administrative slap on the wrist, purged from the records and simply forgotten. We heard from victims who were threatened into silence and themselves blamed for what had happened to them. They told us how their careers were destroyed and they were drummed out of the military. Perhaps most tragically, we heard from victims who believe they will never be able to get justice for what happened to them.To quote retired Colonel Bernie Boland, “The entire institutional weight, influence, power, intellect and knowledge is directed against [victims] rather than what it's purportedly supposed to be.... Equal justice for all is not being applied here at all.”All of this, in Canada's military? How could this possibly happen in a country like Canada, where justice, accountability and the rule of law are our foundation?The former chief of the defence staff, General Vance, the highest military officer; then his replacement, Admiral McDonald; Vice-Admiral Edmundson; General Fortin; General Rouleau; and Vice-Admiral Baines are all either under police investigation or have had to step aside for questionable conduct. Even more general and flag officers are complicit, through their actions or their silence. The failure of Canada's military starts at the top of the chain of command, and the top is the defence minister. Under the National Defence Act, the defence minister is responsible for the management and direction of the Canadian Forces, and it is his duty to hold those at the most senior levels to the highest standards. A military has great power. It is the one group of people in Canadian society entrusted with the ability to bear arms and to commit acts of violence on behalf of the country. In a democracy, citizens need to know that the military is held in check by our elected officials.The minister had a responsibility to take swift and immediate action regarding the allegations against Vance, but for three years he did nothing. While he may not have conducted the investigation himself, it was up to him to ensure that one was done. As elected officials, our loyalty is to country first, before party and before individuals; we are here to act in the best interest of the country. That is what we also ask of our military, and Lieutenant-Commander Trotter risked his personal well-being to do what is right. He said, “as an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces I swore an oath to Queen and country to fulfill my duties, and there's the old adage of service before self. There may be blowback. There may be career implications”. He further stated, “My personal conviction as an officer of the Canadian Armed Forces is that I will put the service and my service members above my own needs and safety.”Canadians rely on ministers to do the same, to put this country and Parliament before themselves and to accept responsibility when they fail to do so. However, after months of questions in the House and numerous appearances at committee, not once has the defence minister accepted any responsibility. Not once has he said he should have done something differently and, most important, not once has he committed to holding accountable those who have failed in their duty. Lasting change will only come when those who have failed are held accountable.Governing does not mean to delegate and disappear. It means ensuring that government departments and public servants deliver the services Canadians need, to the standards they expect and in a manner that brings honour and pride to Canada as a nation. When it comes to the conduct at the highest level of the Canadian Armed Forces, the defence minister and the Prime Minister say it is not up to them.If the defence minister and the Prime Minister are not responsible, then who is? The defence minister has clearly shown that he will not accept responsibility. He will not act honourably, admit he has failed in his duties and resign, and the Prime Minister will not hold him accountable and fire him. Rather than standing up for women, the Prime Minister has reinforced an entrenched and toxic military culture. His inaction has emboldened the old boys' club and denied women the opportunity to be believed.(1300)Women in the military have earned the right to serve equally with respect. All men and women in uniform have sworn to give their lives for their country. In return, their elected officials must vigorously ensure they are protected by Canadian values.Service to country is who I am at my core. My father was a major-general who served in the military. I followed him, like many others, in uniform and was honoured to wear the Canadian flag on my sleeve.The defence minister has lost the trust and confidence of the military and Canadians. The crisis in Canada's military will not end until the defence minister is censured. I implore all of my colleagues in the House to support this motion and censure the defence minister.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Leona Alleslev: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, that is a very disheartening question from my hon. colleague. If the Minister of National Defence, on his watch, is not accountable for the conduct and behaviour of all the men and women in uniform, then who is?There can be no change if those who have failed are not held accountable. Regardless of what has occurred over the last 100 years, what is important is whether the minister can make a change in the military if he has lost the trust and confidence of the men and women in uniform and Canadians to fulfill that role.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsChange managementConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Leona Alleslev: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has done incredible work. It is an honour and a privilege to stand beside her as we fight for something that truly matters and is at the foundation of our country.There is no question that as we, in our Canadian democracy, have a government and a cabinet, the Prime Minister has an incredible role. The fact that a minister has been allowed to be derelict in his duties, while his fellow members of cabinet and the Prime Minister have stood idly by, is another failing of the government. It is not petty partisan politics. They are entrusted with governing and representing the values of Canadians. When they fail to do so, we have to be open and committed to vigorously holding them accountable.It is not only the defence minister who is accountable. It is the Prime Minister and cabinet as well.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsPrime MinisterReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Trudeau, JustinHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her service in uniform to this country and for her leadership in Parliament. She has been doing incredible work on this issue at the status of women and national defence committees in trying to right the ship and change the culture. My hon. colleague has served, so she has witnessed first-hand the culture within the Canadian Armed Forces, which was described by Justice Deschamps as toxic masculinity. What do we need to do to change it?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsChange managementMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.LeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Leona Alleslev: (1305)[English]Madam Speaker, that is not a question that can be answered in 10 seconds or less.I thank my hon. colleague for his incredible work and his appreciative tone for those who have served.What do we need to do? We need leadership that fulfills the roles and responsibilities of the Code of Service Discipline and fulfills the honour and integrity of the office they hold. That is not limited to those in uniform. It also applies to the defence minister, the Prime Minister and cabinet. Until individual—Canadian ForcesCensure motionsChange managementMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite made a number of comments about the previous service of the Minister of National Defence. I would like to note, and if he had been listening to the speeches he would know, that nobody has attacked the service of the minister while he was in uniform. Rather, they are talking about his lack of accountability and leadership since he has become the Minister of National Defence.I know the member served in the Canadian Armed Forces and understands the chain of command, so I would like him to answer this very simple question. Who do the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman report to? As well, I would like his feedback or comments on the fact that former senior officers are reaching out to me saying the minister no longer enjoys the confidence of either the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces. Victims are also reaching out to me, and the one word they are using to describe the Liberal filibustering at the defence committee is “brutal”.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, based on the speeches here this morning and the comments made, it is obvious to me that the Minister of National Defence served within our Canadian Armed Forces, as well as with the Vancouver Police Department, with honesty and integrity, but in 2015 something changed. In 2015, he joined the Liberal Party. We heard in the speeches this morning that he has misrepresented the facts and the truth, refused to answer questions and instructed Liberal members at committee to engage in meaningless filibustering. Something changed when he started running with the posse of the Liberal cabinet. My question for the member is this: Does he think the systemic moral corruption and rot within the Liberal Party has claimed another victim?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, it is disheartening to listen to the member for Winnipeg North with his continued Liberal deflection, dithering and delays, which we see all too often from the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. We are now seeing it from the parliamentary secretary himself.He would rather sit here and talk about how we have more victims because of the lack of action by the Minister of National Defence. When he learned of the General Vance allegations and was presented with the evidence, he pushed away from the table, turned a blind eye and covered it up for three years. He took honour out of Operation Honour by leaving General Vance in charge of the Canadian Armed Forces during that entire time.The member for Winnipeg North has no moral authority to come in here and try to pass judgment, when he should be standing up and saying, “Yes, we need to censor the Minister of National Defence. Yes, we believe in ministerial accountability.” If he will not do the honourable thing and tell him to resign as the Minister of National Defence, then will he tell the Prime Minister to fire him?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Calgary Shepard.Normally when I rise in the House, I am very pleased to put words on the record about all the issues we talk about here, but today I rise with extreme frustration and disappointment concerning the sexual misconduct in the Canadian military, the lack of results from the Liberal government and the failure of the defence minister to take this issue seriously. The Conservative motion on the table today rightfully calls for the resignation of the defence minister because of his record on this issue, and because of the men and women in our Canadian Armed Forces who have been sexually exploited and who he has let down.I listened intently to the minister's speech today in response to our motion. I was waiting and hoping that he would express regret for his record on failing to address sexual misconduct in the military, but he did not. There was no personal acknowledgement that he had thus far failed to send a clear message to the most powerful men in our military, who report to him, that this behaviour will not be tolerated and that this culture is no longer acceptable.The minister has been in charge of our military for over six years, yet in that time, and especially in the last five months, we have seen eight senior ranking military officials resign in disgrace over allegations of sexual misconduct under his watch. In the five months since the scandal concerning General Vance broke, who at the time was the head of our military, it has only gotten worse. Most recently, Canadians learned that the man who has authority over the investigation of sexual misconduct went golfing with the man accused of that misconduct. After five months of headlines, they thought it would be okay to go golfing together, which is the clearest violation of conflict of interest that I have ever heard of. When I saw that headline the other day about the golfing scandal, it truly sickened me to know how little has really changed after the last five months of repeated headlines and conversations about this scandal. I cannot imagine how that headline was received by the men and women in the military who have been raped, abused and mistreated by their superiors, and for them to know that nothing has changed.This was after the minister answered dozens and dozens of questions in the House, in committee and from reporters on this issue since it broke in February. Time and time again, he has said that he is essentially proud of his progress on this issue, with that disclaimer of, “Oh, there's much more work to do, but don't worry, we'll get to it”. Well, the fact that the man in charge of the investigation thought it would be acceptable to go golfing with his buddy, the man accused of the misconduct, is all the information I need to know about how this Liberal minister clearly failed to pass on the message he has so proudly shared in the House of Commons with members from all parties. He is happy to say the words to reporters, to the opposition and to his voters, but he is, apparently, incapable with following through, being a leader and laying down the law. He is the head of our military. The buck stops with the Liberal Minister of Defence. When it comes to this culture of old boys' club men protecting each other from accountability for demeaning and disrespecting women in our military, the minister has demonstrated that he does not have the ability to follow through on his words. Otherwise, the golfing scandal would have never happened. That is why we are asking for his resignation today.I want to speak for a moment about what it is like for the thousands of women in uniform who have served our country, and the millions more women in Canada who have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace. I say women, but of course, we know that men also experience this. In fact, 30% of the sexual misconduct complaints in our military are from men, so it is important that we do not forget them. However, I can only speak from a female perspective, and that is what I will be doing today.I will use the example of the email that General Vance sent to his junior officer, whom he far outranked, because not only does it show what he thinks is acceptable behaviour, but it speaks perfectly to the broader issue of the power imbalances in the workplace when sexual relations are brought into it.A junior ranking military official met General Vance at a function, and he offered her mentorship and career advice if she ever needed it. It is pretty exciting as a young, aspiring career woman to get an offer of mentorship by a superior, especially an older man, which is very valuable. We live in a man's world, so we cannot put a price on that career advice, and I can imagine she was quite excited for the opportunity. However, when she emailed him for that career advice, he concluded his reply with, “Or...we could throw caution to the wind and escape to a clothing optional island in the Caribbean...I hear the beer is good there... Cheers, JV” Now, I do not know this woman, but I do know how she must have felt reading that email. She was probably excited to see the email pop up in her inbox, to see what he was going to say, but she opened it only to see that he was propositioning her for sex. Make no mistake, this happens all the time, but when it happens, when one gets a message like that, whether it is in person, a text, an email or a phone call, a woman instantly gets a pit in her stomach. It is like a vice grip. Her heart starts beating. She may start to sweat. She is sickened with anxiety and dread because she knows in that instant that everything has changed for her, but not for him. (1340)I am not sure whether his comment was flippant or deliberate, and I am not sure which one is worse, but with it General Vance changed the entire dynamic of that relationship. Why is that? These types of relations are against the rules in the military, which he would have well known. If these were unwanted advances, which clearly they were, now the junior member had to deal with an ordeal that she did not ask for.Now it is a situation that she is going to stress over. She is going to lose sleep over it and try to navigate it without damaging her career. This woman had to figure out how to push back and say she was not interested without damaging his ego. All women in this chamber will know that when a man makes advances they do not want there is that nervous laughter: “Ha, ha, so funny. Get your hand off me”. I think all the women in this chamber have probably experienced that at some point or another.Every woman I know certainly has had to deal with this at some point in her career, and it is particularly insidious when it is at the workplace. Perhaps there is an aggressive drunk at a bar. We know the feeling of dread and of having to try our best to let these men down gently so we do not hurt their egos. Make no mistake, I have met thousands of men who are amazing allies to women, but I have come across those insidious men in my career and in my life.A woman knows that if she does not tread carefully, verbal abuse can ensue or perhaps violence. It can affect her career if her name comes up for a promotion, for example, or for a new posting or new opportunity, and the old boys are talking about who they are going to pick for that promotion or that new posting. She knows that if she hurts a man's ego with her response, it might affect the reference he would give her when her name comes up. Let us be real here. That is what is going on. That is what women have to deal with when unwanted sexual advances come their way from male superiors in the workplace, and this happens all the time.It is particularly insidious at work because it affects a woman's career. Everything that she put work into is at stake in that ridiculous moment when someone thoughtlessly says something to her. General Vance did that to this servicewoman. He might not have given it a second thought, but if that is the case, that is how detached from reality he really is. That is how drunk on power he and his fellow high-ranking military officers really are. They have no idea what it is like for the women they do these things to.We know this kind of behaviour is just the tip of the iceberg. It is symbolic of a greater problem. Women have been sexually abused, raped and harassed day in and day out in our military, all while trying to do their jobs, keep their heads down and advance their careers like everybody else.There are land mines like this everywhere for women as they rise up the ranks in their careers. I know it. I have lived it, just like millions of other women. I am not unique, but it is real and it happens every single day.What is most disappointing is that the Liberal government was elected twice on its feminist promises and credentials, yet here we are six years later with no feminist change seen in our military. The defence minister has spoken at length about this, yet nothing has happened. The scandals just keep rolling out. Every day there is a new headline. These men thought that going golfing during an ongoing sexual misconduct investigation was somehow acceptable just a few days ago. That is the minister's record on this issue. That is why we are calling for him to resign.Before I conclude, I have two quick things to say. I want to seriously thank the Conservative members on the defence committee for their dedication and their tireless effort. I am very proud to serve alongside them. They have been tireless in their pursuit of justice for the women and men who have been mistreated in our military. To the men and women in our military who have suffered through this hell, and I do not choose that word lightly, I say we are with them. We have their backs and we will not stop until there is a reckoning in our Canadian military.I will conclude with a message to women Liberal MPs in the House. I know that they are all proud feminists, but now is the time to walk the talk. If they are going to go door to door in the next election and tout their feminist credentials, they have to stand up for women when it counts. It counts today.The minister has failed the women in our military. He has failed to stand up for them. He has failed to fulfill his duty and hold these powerful men accountable. He has failed to send the message that it is not okay to go golfing with the accused when an investigation is going on. There is no way around it. There is no other way they can try to spin it. That is the reality.I know that in their hearts the Liberal members, particularly the women, know what I am saying is correct. The minister might be a nice guy, but that is not the point. He clearly cannot fulfill his duty.In conclusion, the current minister has proved he cannot defend women who have been sexually harassed, raped and abused. The women in our military only need seven Liberal MPs to abstain or, better yet, vote for his resignation. He could still be an MP, but he should not have control over changing the culture in our military after he has let us down as women so profoundly. I would ask seven Liberal MPs to please consider this and do the right thing.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workConflict of interestMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersRouleau, MikeSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentSplitting speaking timeVance, Jonathan H.AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Raquel Dancho: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, what I am aware of is that just a few days ago, the heads of our military thought it was acceptable to go golfing, which is a clear conflict of interest. The man accused in this sexual misconduct investigation went golfing with the man who has authority over that investigation. Therefore, clearly the minister is not being effective. Clearly, the message is not being delivered to this minister. He must resign.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsLindsayMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Raquel Dancho: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, it was really great to get to know the member on the status of women committee. She is an extraordinary member of Parliament and stands up very strongly for women in this country.Regarding the report, I would say the minister has had six years to act on it. Clearly there has been no action, or we would have seen results and we would not have had another scandal this weekend where the most powerful military men in this country thought it was okay to get together just like the old days, as if nothing had happened. What I would want to see from this minister is real action and results. Just within the last week, we are seeing that has not been the case. He has had six years to make a difference and he has done nothing.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workExternal Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed ForcesMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourLindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweKerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White Rock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/20878Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.Kerry-Lynne-FindlaySouth Surrey—White RockConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FindlayKerryLynne_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, I find the reaction on the other side of the floor just extraordinary. I thank my colleague for her passionate comments. This is not just a historical matter. It is a current matter, as is clearly shown by this latest golfing excursion. The last time I looked, the current government had been in power for almost six years. This minister has had his portfolio and his mandates for that same amount of time. Could the member comment on the fact that this is not just a historical matter, but a current matter?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourRaquelDanchoKildonan—St. PaulRaquelDanchoKildonan—St. Paul//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Raquel Dancho: (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, when I was crafting my remarks today I knew that some women and men from the military who had been sexually exploited and abused might be watching. I want to take this opportunity to say how sorry I am for what they are going through. When I was writing my remarks, I was looking to give some advice on what they could do, but the reality is that after six years there is still not a clear line of authority for reporting this kind of misconduct. We saw that with General Vance three years ago. When the ombudsman came forward and said there was something going on, what did the minister of defence do? He pushed himself away from the desk and said that he could not hear about this. That is what the minister of defence did when he was approached with a sexual misconduct issue. He physically excused himself from that situation, did nothing about it and never followed up.That is where we are with the current Liberal government. That is really the only hope that the Liberals are offering women in the military today. How disappointing that is, and I wish I could have offered something more—Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White RockAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, it is hard to follow a member like the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. She basically made the entire case for this motion. I am not going to repeat what she said because she passionately explained to Canadians and her constituents the exact matter at hand: the minister's dereliction of duty and his failure to take command of the situation, to own responsibility for it and to do the right thing. This is a motion that calls for the minister's censure. The House of Commons is unsatisfied with the quality of his work. It is not enough to simply keep repeating that he is doing something. I have heard Liberal MPs say this repeatedly. The member for Winnipeg North made the best possible case that could be made in the House, and it is still not enough. I hear from constituents and read in the papers that he is just not doing enough. He has failed. He has not done the job.The Prime Minister refuses to relieve him of his responsibilities, so we are at a point where we have to censure a member. Earlier today the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman mentioned that 20 years had passed since a member had been censured in the House in this manner for the performance of their duties and responsibilities to Canadians. It has been a very long time. The issues are the sexual harassment and misconduct allegations in the military, the treatment of Vice-Admiral Norman and the continuing cover-up of what is going on. They include misleading Canadians on the withdrawal of fighter jets in the fight against ISIS. They go on and on. The Canadian Forces are in disarray. The men and women in uniform do not have a leader who is willing to take command. At last count, eight or nine senior officers in the military had either resigned, been fired or been relieved of command duties. That is huge. We have no commander-in-chief and there is no Governor General, either. The minister is supposed to be the one responsible at the moment, and I do not think there is any faith in his ability to deliver on everything that he is supposed to right now, which is why Conservatives are asking for a vote of censure on him.“The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied.” That is a Sir Humphrey Appleby quote. There will be a Yiddish proverb at some point. I will think of one. The minister has denied knowing anything, but then there were internal access to information requests that came back saying the minister knew. There was a long chain of information from the Privy Council of what it knew, when it knew it and when it was informed these were #MeToo sexual harassment allegations. Now we have that information and it is unbelievable that we are here, nearing the end of June and still debating who is responsible for the failure to address these systemic problems in the senior ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces. Brigadier-General Gordon O'Connor served the House very honourably. He was the minister of national defence over a decade ago. He used to say that sexual harassment and misconduct issues in the military were issues of command. There is a command responsibility for senior officers to look after those in the lower ranks, and to make sure they are treated correctly by their commanding officers. Commanding officers who cannot keep control of their troops have failed in their duties of command, in just the way the minister has failed in his responsibilities of command.The reason I know Gordon O'Connor, a former brigadier-general, former “zipperhead” or tank commander and former minister of national defence in the House, is because I was a junior exempt staffer in his employ. I know exactly what he expected of senior officers in his ranks. That is well over a decade ago now, so I am dating myself. As my staff always remind me, there is a generational divide between them and me.The Yiddish proverb I am thinking of is, “Words should be weighed, not counted.” The motion has weighty words in it. Conservatives are asking for censure of a minister for his performance and failure in the conduct of his duties. He has a responsibility to the men and women in the armed forces to ensure, first, that their commanding officers do not mistreat them, and second, that he follows through on investigations to make sure they are safe from their own members in their workplace. They expect the enemy on the battlefield to be shooting at them, trying to end their lives and kill them. (1355)What they expect in return is that we have their backs, that the minister has their backs and that when he sends them into harm's way, he sends them with commanding officers who are able to ensure their personal safety from their own. That is a minimum requirement we should expect from the minister and the senior ranks of the military.I know that the member for Edmonton West will appreciate that I have gone through the minister's departmental plans that he signed off on. After question period I will refer to the departmental plans, but they show that the minister, who signs off on these documents every time they are submitted with the estimates that we have to vote on, and the military have not been taking it seriously. I read here, “To be determined by March 31, 2021”, and then it defers it until 2022 and future years. There are no targets in place. There is no plan in place in their own departmental plans. They have not said anything in about here fixing actual goals for dealing with the problem. They are literally kicking it down the road. They are waiting for future years to take care of this. There is talk publicly, but as for the actual plans for the civil service and what it is supposed to be doing, there is nothing there. After question period, I will fill members in on the rest.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105178DerekSloanDerek-SloanHastings—Lennox and AddingtonIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SloanDerek_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersCOVID-19 Emergency ResponseInterventionMr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, Ind.): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians know that I have fought hard for them in Parliament over the past several months when other parties have failed to do so. Too many times, we heard nothing but silence in Parliament over urgent issues, such as the detainment of Canadians at airports; research into promising COVID treatments like Ivermectin, which has been utilized in other jurisdictions but not Canada; the unconstitutional push for vaccine passports with no debate in the House of Commons; the use of endless lockdowns across Canada, despite the negative impact on our economy and youth mental health; the rights of workers against forced vaccinations in the workplace and, of course, the Prime Minister's famous double standard on the constitutional rights of Canadians to protest.I have always stood up for Canadians on these issues, just like today when I hosted a panel of Canadian doctors and professors, who are now facing extreme censorship across our nation due to their whistle-blowing on Canada's handling of COVID-19.I call on the government, big tech and other organizations to stop muzzling medical experts and let them share their concerns freely without fear of reprisal and censorship.COVID-19Freedom of speechImmunizationPandemicStatements by MembersAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertRajSainiKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersMember for North Okanagan—ShuswapInterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, as this parliamentary sitting nears conclusion, I stand in appreciation of Canadians I have been honoured to work with through the challenges of the past 16 months.I send my thanks to my team in Ottawa and at home in the North Okanagan—Shuswap. To Joel, Chelsea, Mary, Penny and Teresa, I give my thanks for being on the front line of the thousands of calls, emails and letters the office has received. Working as a team, they have consistently gone that extra mile to assist constituents with professionalism.I also want to thank the good people of the North Okanagan—Shuswap for their patience and co-operation as my team and I worked with them through the challenges of stranded travellers, lost jobs, struggling businesses, separated families and more. As we move into the summer months and beyond, my staff and I will continue to be available to them all.To everyone, I wish a safe, healthy and happy summer.North Okanagan—ShuswapParliamentary staffStatements by MembersTributesRajSainiKitchener CentreRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGeorge CarstedInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, teacher, soldier, husband, father, patriot and Reform Party volunteer. That was George Carsted, who passed away peacefully at the age of 90. George immigrated to Canada in 1951 from Germany. While he was a patient at McKellar General Hospital in Fort William, he charmed his future wife Helen, who was a nurse on his ward. They would be happily married for 64 years. George became a teacher and got his first teaching job at Glenlawn Collegiate in 1958 in Winnipeg. Later, he became the principal of Hasting Junior High and then Glenwood School.While still a teacher, he took on a second career with the army reserves. He was the commanding officer of The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada for a time and then Colonel Carsted ended his military career as deputy commander of the Militia Area Prairies in 1981.George and Helen retired to Calgary to be closer to family. To Caroline, Frederick, Elizabeth, Eric, my friend Douglas, and to his 11 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren, please accept the eternal gratitude of this nation.CalgaryCarsted, GeorgeDeaths and funeralsParamilitary militiaStatements by MembersTeachersRenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersSmall BusinessInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the small business owners in my riding and across the country who have been working so hard to stay afloat throughout the pandemic. Our communities are better and stronger places to live because of their tenacity and commitment to weathering this storm. That said, on behalf of Manitoba business owners, I want to express their disappointment and frustration over how the Liberal government continues to handle the COVID-19 pandemic. Many businesses, especially in the catering, hospitality, travel and tourism sectors, remain shuttered because of the Liberal government. Just today, one of my constituents said, “All I ask of the government is to quit making us beg to open.” They made the sacrifices and took on mountains of debt to get through this crisis. However, the Liberal government’s slow reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of forward planning and late rollout of vaccines and rapid testing are directly responsible for the delayed reopening of our economy and the ongoing suffering of small businesses. Canadians deserve a government with a plan to secure their futures. Unfortunately, Liberal ministers have repeatedly ignored their phone calls and emails. Canadians deserve better. Accommodation and hospitality servicesCOVID-19Economic recoveryPandemicStatements by MembersTourismKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersDomestic ViolenceInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, It starts in school:A tug of the hairSome crass languageA first love, without love, without respectNot to worry, boys will be boys... And it continuesA new relationship, passionate, but unhealthyLove serves as bait, but has no soulThat first love planted a seed, now growing strongThe respect comes and goes, and then just goesKind words become unkindWhispered words become screamsConnection becomes disconnectedA gentle touch, now but a memoryReplaced by bruised skin, bruised heart The love is gone, control's all that remainsIsolation, devastationDeath.13 women were killed in Quebec13 lives lost to a treacherous love I can no longer stand by and hold my tongueI can no longer ignore this violence.To colleagues and Canadians alike:We cannot pretend we don't see The cries, the tears, the noises, the bruisesAre not all harmlessPerhaps a sign of something wrong We cannot close our eyesIf we're to save that 14th woman,Who's now suffering in silence, hoping a neighbourWill see the signsAnd put an end to the deadly cycleOf domestic violenceDomestic violencePoetry and poetsStatements by MembersMarcSerréNickel BeltScotDavidsonYork—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102653ScotDavidsonScot-DavidsonYork—SimcoeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DavidsonScot_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment PoliciesInterventionMr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians are being left behind by the Liberal government. Inflation is out of control. Prices are skyrocketing. Wages are down. Unemployment is rising. Businesses are closing. When Canadians look at their country, they no longer see it as a place where they could build something for the future. That is on the Liberals.They have turned Canada into a country where it has become impossible to succeed. Inequality is rampant and opportunity is nowhere to be found. Young families cannot afford to buy a home. People are losing their jobs. Taxation, red tape and restrictions are stifling and shuttering businesses across the country. Success is no longer determined by hard work. It is something only well-connected Liberals and the wealthy can achieve. Canadians need hope. They need assurance that there is a future for them. That is what the Conservatives are fighting for. Canadians are counting on us to secure their future, and we will not give up.Economic recoveryStatements by MembersLucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersThe EconomyInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford more of the same from the Prime Minister and his Liberal government. As we turn the corner on the pandemic, Canadians need paycheques and opportunity. However, for my constituents whose paycheques depend on the Canadian energy sector, more of the same from the Liberal government is actually detrimental. With their livelihoods already under attack long before the pandemic, more of the same from the Prime Minister means more job losses and even less opportunity.Only Canada's Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure the future. It includes job creation and economic recovery in every region and every sector of this country. Canadians who can afford not to worry about their jobs have four parties to choose to from. However, for everyday Canadians who care about securing Canada's economic future, there is only one choice: Canada's Conservatives.Economic recoveryStatements by MembersSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, let us review. The minister falsified his service record, turfed Admiral Mark Norman, bought used fighter jets, slashed health care for military personnel and covered up sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces after a complaint by a woman in uniform three years ago.Will the minister finally resign?Minister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.AnnieKoutrakisVimyChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not fire the defence minister. The defence minister will not do the honourable thing and resign. The military has no respect for its minister, and the hard-working people of Vancouver South have lost confidence in him.Canadians cannot afford more of the same corruption from the defence minister. Therefore, I urge all my Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of censuring him for his conduct, and join the Conservatives in sending a clear message to the women who serve their country that we are demanding better and demanding a change at the top.Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, if the Deputy Prime Minister is concerned, she should realize the toxic culture starts with the Prime Minister, the defence minister and the chief of staff. For three years, everyone in the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office knew of these allegations. The Deputy Prime Minister has an office in the same building. If she is sincere about ending the toxic culture she just talked about, after three years of failing the woman who came forward, how can women in the Canadian Armed Forces possibly have any faith in the defence minister to do his job after he failed them so badly for three years?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the minister's response. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is not accountable to the House. The committee has no authority to look into an ongoing investigation. The rules make that clear. The cover-ups need to end. When will the Prime Minister turn the Winnipeg lab documents over to the House? BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is wrong. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians is not allowed by law to review active investigations. The committee is now being used as a political tool by the Prime Minister to cover up the Winnipeg lab incident.The Conservatives will never be complicit in this Liberal corruption and will bring accountability back to Ottawa. That is why today I am informing the government that Conservative members of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians will be withdrawing their participation effective immediately.BiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational Security and Intelligence Committee of ParliamentariansOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedalePattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada's military is in crisis on the defence minister's watch. There have been hours of jarring testimony detailing accounts of abuse of power, rape, sexual harassment and discrimination. Numerous generals are under investigation, others complicit through their actions or their silence. However, the defence minister will not accept any responsibility. He will not do the honourable thing, admit he has failed in his duties and resign.Will the Prime Minister act and fire his defence minister?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has consistently misrepresented the facts, refused to answer questions, failed to implement important changes to improve the military's culture and turned a blind eye to serious allegations of misconduct. The Prime Minister directed his ministers to create a “culture of integrity and accountability that allows [them] to earn and keep the trust of Canadians”. The defence minister has been derelict in his duty and has lost that trust.Will the Prime Minister act and fire the defence minister?Conduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, since taking office, the defence minister has been making decisions that defy logic.His government promised to help the victims of ISIS, and yet what was one of the first decisions this minister made? He decided to pull our CF-18s out of the bombing campaign against ISIS. That campaign was protecting the victims. Can the minister tell us the real reason for the withdrawal of our CF-18s from the fight against ISIS?Canadian ForcesCF-18 aircraftGovernment accountabilityIraqIslamic State of Iraq and the LevantMilitary operations and eventsOral questionsTerrorism and terroristsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that does not answer my question. What is the real reason? We do not know.I have another question. This minister oversaw the wrongful indictment and unconscionable dismissal of Vice-Admiral Norman. When Norman stood up to defend Davie's construction of the MV Asterix, the minister did the Prime Minister's bidding rather than think of the best interests of the Royal Canadian Navy.That is absurd. Can the minister tell us the real reason for the accusations made against Vice-Admiral Norman?Canadian ForcesInformation leaksLegal proceedingsNorman, MarkOral questionsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, when Major Kellie Brennan appeared before the status of women committee, she told the committee that General Vance told her he was “untouchable” because he owned the CFNIS. Now it has been revealed that while under investigation he went golfing with Vice-Admiral Baines and Lieutenant-General Mike Rouleau, who himself held oversight authority for the military police. Given these startling revelations, when will the minister finally follow through with the Deschamps report recommendations and create a fully independent external investigation body?Canadian ForcesConduct at workExternal Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed ForcesInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsSexual behaviourSexual harassmentHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, when Vice-Admiral Norman was under investigation, the minister immediately had him suspended. Meanwhile, when the minister became aware that the former chief of the defence staff was under investigation, he refused to even look at the evidence, left him in his role, and even gave him a pay raise.Given that General Vance believes that he is above the law, and given the minister's refusal to act, does the minister also believe that General Vance is above the law?Canadian ForcesConduct at workOral questionsSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, orders of the House and its committees are binding and must be complied with, just like Canadians have had to comply with public health orders about quarantining. Your ruling yesterday made it clear the government was defying three orders of the House and its special committee.Will the government now comply with these orders and deliver the unredacted documents to the law clerk before the House has to adopt a fourth order demanding the government comply?BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervillePattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am not playing games. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the Minister of Health has been telling Canadians to do what public health tells them to do. However, she insists on not doing what the House is asking her to do, and that is to submit the documents regarding the Winnipeg lab.Does the government not understand that it is undermining the rule of law when it tells Canadians to follow the rules and then does not do the same? BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has laid bare the truth about our institutions; they are weak and mediocre. We have no Governor General because of scandal; the former clerk resigned in scandal; eight senior leaders of the Canadian Armed Forces have been forced out. We have a military procurement that cannot procure and payroll systems that cannot pay. Now we have a Parliament that cannot do its job, because the government defies the House.When will the government preserve what little remains, comply with the orders and hand over the unredacted documents to the law clerk?BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1445)[English] Mr. Speaker, inflation is on the march, and life is getting more expensive for Canadians. Today, economist William Robson of the C.D. Howe Institute warned that the Liberals may have gone too far with massive borrowing and spending, and they risk inflating away the value of our money. Deutsche Bank warns of an inflation time bomb. Stats Canada says that inflation is higher than it has been in over 10 years. Yes, inflation is on the march. When will the government finally act to make life more affordable for Canadians?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—LawrenceChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the same rhetoric we heard yesterday and the day before. The minister's talking points do not make life any more affordable for the many Canadians who have seen their dream of owning a home disappear under the government. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the minister may have miscalibrated her economic policy.Meanwhile, the price of everything is going up, food, clothing, rent, gasoline, yet the minister and her plutocrat Liberals refuse to listen. Why is she hell-bent on hurting struggling Canadians?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the finance minister should know that the real threat to Canadians is the inflation rate of 3.6%, a rate that has not been seen in 10 years. The minister seems to be completely unaware of the state of Canadian families' finances. Everything costs more: gas, food, houses and furniture. However, the government is not taking action because it knows very well that inflation means more money in its pockets but less in Canadians' pockets.Why does the Prime Minister not call his finance minister to order by requiring a credible plan to create jobs and kick-start the economy?Economic recoveryJob creationOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am appealing to the Prime Minister. What does he not understand when I say that everything is more expensive?This government has lost control of public spending. We are talking about a deficit that has now reached over a trillion dollars. This deficit is a debt that Canada has to pay back, and it is the Canadians of this generation, the one after that, the one after that, the one after that and the one after that who will pay for it.If nothing is done, Canadians will pay more tax on more products that will cost more. Is the Prime Minister beginning to realize that all Canadians will pay dearly for his fiscal recklessness?Budgetary policyOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodSeniorsInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, seniors who collected CERB and submitted a statement of estimated income with their GIS applications have been left in limbo. These seniors have been told by Service Canada that their applications are on hold and cannot be processed because they are awaiting direction. Without GIS many seniors will find themselves in serious financial hardship and some seniors stand to lose other benefits tied to the program. What is worse is that there is no indication that a decision is even forthcoming. How long will the Liberal government leave seniors in limbo?Canada Emergency Response BenefitCOVID-19Guaranteed Income SupplementOral questionsPandemicSenior citizensMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleDebSchulteHon.King—Vaughan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105630Jasraj SinghHallanJasrajSingh-HallanCalgary Forest LawnConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HallanJasrajSingh_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, nearly half of COVID-19 deaths were immigrants at the start of this pandemic. The government botched the vaccine rollout and new Canadians lost their lives. These people came to this country for a new beginning, yet the government's repeated failed response has cost people their lives and livelihoods. Vaccination rates are still low in immigrant communities, leaving the most vulnerable in our society at risk.Why has the government failed our hard-working immigrant and new Canadian communities so badly?COVID-19Deaths and funeralsImmigration and immigrantsImmunizationOral questionsPandemicDebSchulteHon.King—VaughanPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35897BlaineCalkinsBlaine-CalkinsRed Deer—LacombeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CalkinsBlaine_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, provinces have been setting out measurable goals and benchmarks for when they are lifting public health measures. This gives businesses the ability to plan for reopening. Groups like the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada are urging the government for a federal plan, yet when it comes to the Liberal government's restrictions, there is only uncertainty.What benchmarks are the Liberals using to determine when to safely open the border with the United States to everyone, and how long will it be until we reach that point?BordersCanada-United States relationsCOVID-19Oral questionsPandemicTravel restrictionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodOfficial LanguagesInterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this week, the government undertook the modernization of the Official Languages Act.I am somewhat concerned about the timing of the bill's introduction. It will be a slap in the face to all those who have been waiting a long time for this bill if the government introduced it knowing that it intends to dissolve Parliament. Only the Liberals have that authority.Can the Prime Minister promise now that Parliament will be back in the fall to study the bill?C-32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsOfficial languages policyOral questionsMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-Cartierville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, patient groups across the country have been calling on the government to delay the implementation of the PMPRB guidelines, which are set to come into force on July 1. Most of the witnesses we have heard at health committee on the subject were unanimous in their position that they want less pandemic distraction and more time for a transparent discussion, to ensure that the new regulations will do more good than harm.The implementation of the new regs has already been postponed twice. Will the minister postpone the regs again, as requested by patients?Oral questionsPatented Medicine Prices Review BoardPatented medicinesPrice determinationMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervillePattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has responded to several questions today in the House, but will not respond to my questions and I ask if he would. As someone who has served his country, he knows the military slogan, “Never pass a fault.” That is what he is doing with his failed leadership. He is the only original minister of the Liberal government. He has had six years, three Supreme Court justice reports, two ombuds reports, eight generals who have resigned, the last two chiefs of the defence staff under investigation, and he gives words like, “We need to do better; we need to do more.” We do, but we need a new minister with the confidence of Canadians to do that.Will he resign?Minister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88692RameshSanghaRamesh-SanghaBrampton CentreIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SanghaRamesh_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodDiversity and InclusionInterventionMr. Ramesh Sangha (Brampton Centre, Ind.): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, in my last S.O. 31, on May 31, I talked about the excessive use of power regarding systemic racism and discrimination intra-community, and in institutions and government.What steps will the government and the leadership be taking to eliminate these concerns of misuse of power, not in their own self-interest, but for the best interest of Canadians at large?Oral questionsRacial equalityOmarAlghabraHon.Mississauga CentreBardishChaggerHon.Waterloo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerHon.Andrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAndré GagnonInterventionHon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I too would like to pay tribute to a wonderful man who I was fortunate to get to know during my time in your role as Speaker. I do not need to tell you that serving as Speaker is an extremely challenging role, but thanks to a strong support team of clerks, such as Deputy Clerk André Gagnon, Speakers are able to continue the tradition of safeguarding the rights and privileges of the House, and members continue to be served by the highest degree of professionals.As deputy clerk, André Gagnon has played a leadership role. If one has been around here long enough, then they likely know his big bright smile, his quick jokes and his kindness. André is serious, smart, understanding and a strong leader. He is admired by his staff and is highly respected by his colleagues. He also pulled some of the best pranks this chamber has ever seen. His work ethic and dedication to this chamber are second to none, and I know we will all miss his wisdom around here.The whole House administration team during my time, clerk emerita Audrey O'Brien, former clerk Marc Bosc, Eric Janse, Bev Isles, Colette Labrecque-Riel, and of course, the man of the moment, André Gagnon, were a procedural dream team. I cannot thank them enough.The years we spent sitting around the table in 220 north Centre Block will be forever ingrained as some of the best of my career. We debated and edited, re-edited, rewrote, redebated and re-edited more rulings than I can count, but there is no other team I would have rather done it with. André was there. He was there to support this House, his team and all members of Parliament.In the aftermath of the October 22 shooting, André was there with a steady hand. It was difficult. Things were changing quickly, but he was such an incredible force to help the chamber get through that, always putting the interest of the institutions first.In the changeover to our temporary home in West Block, the House administration had an enormous task. Much of it we might never know, but, again, André was there all along. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you no doubt know first-hand that, as deputy clerk, André helped lead the House of Commons administration during the pandemic. I would like to commend André and his entire team for the role they have played in ensuring that this House, this institution that is so vital to our democracy, was able to function with all the challenges that the pandemic posed.André, we will miss your smile, your personality, your wisdom and your experience in this chamber. We are sorry to see you go, but I am sure I speak for everyone who ever worked with you when I say we are so grateful for your service. We wish you all the very best in your post-parliamentary career.Deputy Clerk of the House of CommonsGagnon, AndréRetirement from workTributesGeoffReganHon.Halifax WestClaudeDeBellefeuilleSalaberry—Suroît//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodBusiness of the HouseInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (House Leader of the Official Opposition, CPC): (1540)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as I ask today's Thursday question, we are entering the final sprint before the summer break. I say “break” because in politics, there are never any real holidays. It is a summer parliamentary break.Here is my question for my counterpart on the government side, the hon. member for Honoré‑Mercier. Can the minister inform Canadians and this House of the parliamentary business we can expect in the coming days?Weekly Business StatementAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the extra 45 seconds. It is much appreciated. I was worried I would not have time to go through the departmental plans.Where I left off before question period was that I wanted to get into the departmental plans. This is where the rubber hits the pavement. This is where we see the priorities of the minister. Is he actually taking seriously the sexual misconduct allegations, stories, and individual cases of men and women who have been abused by others in the military? What I discovered is that the government is not taking it seriously, and the minister is not taking it seriously. Let us go back to the 2018-19 departmental plan. It has “Annual # of reported incidents of Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour in the Defence Team” as one category of priorities, and then under “Target”, it says “To be determined by 31 March 2021”. It has no available indicators of where they were at. Under the field “Number and type of actions taken in response to reported Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour incidents by the Defence Team”, it says “To be determined by 31 March 2021”.I will move on to the following years, 2019-20. Under “Annual number of reported incidents of Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour in the Defence Team”, it says “To be determined by 31 March 2021”. Again, there are no indicators anywhere, no reported numbers anywhere. Under “Number and type of actions taken in response to reported Harmful and Inappropriate Sexual Behaviour incidents by the Defence Team”, it says “To be determined by 31 March 2021”.I will move on to the next departmental plan, 2020-21. Under “% of the Canadian Armed Forces...who self-identify as victims of harassment”, the target is “Less than 11.9%”. The minister signed off on every single departmental plan. Less than 12% is one in eight members of the Canadian Armed Forces to suffer being inappropriately harassed in the workplace. The actual results for 2018-19 were 17.7%. This is the first time there are actual numbers being presented here. Now, in the departmental plan for 2021-22, the fields actually change, which is pretty typical of the government. We have “Annual number of reported incidents of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces”. Members would think that by now the department would have it figured out, but no, it says “To be determined by 31 March 2022”. There are two wonderful little asterisks, and they leave it for well into the future. If the minister was actually serious, if the words he says in this chamber and outside in nice statements actually meant anything to him, he would have followed through in the departmental plans that he signs off on and ensured that there was follow-up and actual, real targets put forward. This is why the House has come to the moment now of censuring the minister, because he has shown a dereliction of his duties, an irresponsibility of command and, overall, he has led the Canadian Forces into disarray. The situation we find ourselves in is entirely of his own doing.As was mentioned during question period, this is a minister who served in his post the longest of any member of cabinet. He owns the entire last six years; they are entirely his responsibility. We are making a judgment call here, as members of Parliament, to hold him personally accountable for his own performance, which, as we can see in the departmental plans, does not meet the standards of what a minister should be doing. As the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said before me, the minister has shown an extreme dereliction of duty and of his own responsibilities as the top member responsible. He is the political head of the department, the political head of the Canadian Armed Forces. It falls to him at the end of the day, and he has fallen far short. We must vote to censure the minister on this matter. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKellyMcCauleyEdmonton West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, the departmental plans, as described on the government's website, “describe departmental priorities”. These are priorities presented in the House, signed by the minister himself.Now, in the departmental plan for this year, there are two notable things. My colleague mentioned several, but there is also “Number of Canadian Armed Forces members who have attended a training session related to sexual misconduct (Operation HONOUR)”. It says the department will set a goal, not this year, but a year from now. So, there is no goal set for this year. This has been an issue for three years, and the department cannot even set a goal until next year. The other one is “Number and type of actions taken in response to reported sexual misconduct incidents by the Defence Team”. What is the department's goal? There is not any this year, but it will set a goal next year. What does my colleague think when the minister stands and states again and again that this is a priority? Ending this misconduct is a priority, and yet the minister's own form that he signed and presented to the House states that the department will not even look at it this year and maybe a goal will be set next year. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourTomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The member for Edmonton West obviously has read the departmental plans. He is probably one of the few members who have read all of the departmental plans that the government ministers put forward. If anybody wants to follow at home, it is actually page 51 that we are talking about. It is one of the rows below. He is right. If this was a priority and it was absolutely serious, then in these plans that the minister signed off on he would have given absolute direction to the department, set the target, benchmarked himself against the goal he was trying to reach, and proven to the rest of us that he actually does take this seriously. We have had three Supreme Court justice reports up to this point. There are more than a half-dozen senior officers in the military who have resigned, stepped down or been relieved of their command. We do not have a Governor General. The Canadian Forces is in disarray, and it is entirely the fault of the defence minister. He has to be censured. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKellyMcCauleyEdmonton WestJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of what the Liberals have been doing all day. I have been listening to the entirety of the debate. They deflect and deflect. Real leaders take responsibility in the present, in the situation they find themselves in. The minister has had six years to deal with the situation. He has been aware for three years of the specific allegations against General Vance. He has done nothing. In the motion before the House, we lay out the case for why the minister should be censured. Leaders, in the moment, take responsibility. They do not look to deflect the issue to others who are not in the employ of the government today. They do not look to past governments. They take responsibility, they move forward and they change things, and the minister has not done that.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workGovernment accountabilityMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourJenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, indeed, my colleague is absolutely right. Once again, during question period, three reports prepared by former Supreme Court justices were mentioned. The member just referred to the report by Marie Deschamps.It is time to do more than just talk. I mentioned individual departmental plans earlier; that is where the planned measured should be outlined. The source of funds is one thing, but what will be done with that money? Usually a departmental plan should show whether this subject is taken seriously. The minister signs it, decides what it will include and what will be the department's focus for the next year, if required.There are already three reports, the facts have been established and action needs to be taken.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workGovernment accountabilityMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that my colleague never once addressed the motion of censuring the Minister of National Defence. I want to join with him and thank all the brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and do such incredible work. Unfortunately, their morale has been severally hurt because of the lack of leadership shown by the Minister of National Defence.The member talked about how Canada was back. I can tell him that the number of Canadian forces members serving on U.N. missions today is at the lowest levels in history, where we struggle to even have 40 members deployed on U.N. missions anywhere in the world. Canada is back? That is complete rhetoric and virtue-signalling without actually taking any action.He talked about Operation Impact, something that was started under the previous Conservative government, in which we advised, assisted and worked side-by-side with the Kurdish peshmerga, our allies in stopping ISIS. Unfortunately, now we have found out that the Liberals changed the mission and may have our forces training Iraqi war criminals. That is deplorable. Operation Unifier was started by our Conservative government as well.Will the member vote with us tonight to censure the Minister of National Defence because of his lack of leadership, for him misleading the House on too many occasions and for his destructive work in undermining the trust of the Canadian Armed Forces?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMilitary operations and eventsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the work she does alongside me at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which just studied sexual misconduct in the military.We heard that the Minister of National Defence knew about this for three years. In fact, the Prime Minister's Office knew about the Vance allegation too, but no action was taken. Even when senior officials in the armed forces continued to step aside or step down because of allegations, no action was taken.I think the member remembers the testimony from survivors. They said that until the people at the top are held accountable, there will not be change. Would she not agree that the people at the top should be held accountable, starting with the Minister of National Defence?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the parliamentary secretary.Why will the Liberal members of the defence committee not even vote on their own motion at the committee?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsCommittee studies and activitiesMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Standing Committee on National DefenceAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.I am actually very torn to be speaking today. As most members in the House know, I spent 25 years in the military. I am actually speaking from a level of disappointment. I am not going to attack the minister's record of service. In fact, I respect his record of service, both as a police officer in British Columbia and as a reservist with our Canadian Armed Forces. He has done three tours in Afghanistan. If I had to go back out on military operations in the future, I would trust him to be beside me.There is a lot of talk here about politicians and civilian oversight, which nobody in the military would ever disagree with. We need that. We live in a democracy. However, and I hate to burst the bubble of some of my colleagues, the rank and file of the military do not really care too much about us in the House of Commons. They respect what we do, but they serve the country. They are not serving us: They serve all Canadians.One serving member, as they followed some of this unfortunate situation with the sexual misconduct allegations and the state of the Department of National Defence and the military right now, said this just drives it home. They think they are political pawns for the government and that all decisions are being made based on keeping votes versus what is right. For the rest of my speech, I am going to speak about the leadership and accountability of this minister, or lack thereof, since he became the Minister of National Defence.In times of crisis, militaries rely on leaders to provide focus on the priorities that matter. They bring energy and determination and demand that standards are met. In a democracy, militaries are led by elected officials who must set the tone, give direction and follow up on that direction. None of this has happened, in the last three years in particular. Platitudes and evasion of accountability are the exact opposite of what is expected, and indeed what is demanded. Leaders must not only lead, they must be seen to lead. They seek and accept accountability in themselves and others. Canadians expect more. Canadian Armed Forces members need more.The solution is not to express surprise and disgust, but to actually provide detailed, specific expectations, a path to meet those expectations and consequences when those expectations are not met. Accountability starts and stops with the Minister of National Defence.I am going to focus on three of the sexual misconduct allegations currently ongoing within the Canadian Armed Forces. Let us talk about the former chief of the defence staff, General Vance, going back to 2018. I have discussed with the minister in the past my own frustration with and disappointment in the current Prime Minister for his interference in the independence of our judiciary and our prosecution system tied to the SNC-Lavalin affair.In this case, the minister says it is not up to politicians to interfere in an investigation. I would totally agree. However, as the CDS and the ombudsman report to the Minister of National Defence, he is at the top of their chain of command. He is clearly accountable for the performance of the Chief of the Defence Staff and he is the steward of the Canadian Armed Forces.When he was duly informed of a potential breach of Op Honour, an allegation of sexual misconduct by the former chief of the defence staff, the minister failed to take appropriate action. He could have initiated an investigation, or at least ensured one was initiated by the appropriate authorities. However, once he was made aware of that breach, he actually became complicit in allowing the breach to continue by not taking that appropriate action.Had the minister still been a serving member within the Canadian Armed Forces, he could have been held accountable for failing to act. The minister knows this, and knows that it is the honourable thing to step down.(1630)Further, as a former police officer, he knows that initiating an investigation or demanding that one be conducted is not tantamount to interference. Interference with an investigation can only occur if one has been initiated. The minister, as a former police officer, cannot argue that he was unaware of that fact.Now I will talk about Admiral McDonald. During testimony at the defence committee, Lieutenant-Commander Trotter talked about how he attempted to report the allegations against Admiral McDonald. He was eventually placed in contact with the chief of staff to the department assistant. This is an office that supports the Minister of National Defence, but reports directly to the deputy minister. These DND staff mishandled this complaint, initially suggesting that Lieutenant-Commander Trotter report the incident to the sexual misconduct response centre, which has no mandate to handle sexual misconduct complaints. Trotter was then referred to the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, but only after the military police liaison officer to the SMRC was brought into the discussion. This incident further reinforces my point that even now, three years after the minister was first made aware of allegations of shortfalls within the department, under his lack of leadership the department is still incapable of properly handling a sexual misconduct complaint when it involves higher ranks. This is clear evidence of sustained and systematic failure within the department.More recently we heard about General Fortin. I am not going to get into the details because the only information I have is what has been made available to the public. However, what has been reported in the media suggests that DND and the Canadian Armed Forces are not even following their own policies involving General Fortin. He was directed to step aside and take leave when he was accused of historical allegations of misconduct. From the media reporting, General Fortin is now attempting to deal with this in court because the department and the military failed to follow the removal from command process that was established in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This is a mess. Based on the public information available from General Fortin's lawyer, it has been suggested that senior Liberal leaders are directly engaged in these decisions affecting the employment of the Canadian Armed Forces senior leadership. Of the first two examples, the minister is refusing to take action on one under the auspices of not interfering, yet the Liberals are not following the proper processes on the other and are actually interfering in a potential sexual misconduct allegation.I would like to conclude with some feedback and commentary that I have received from the rank and file and recently retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces: their opinions about the current government and the lack of leadership by the minister. One said, “I had no intention of framing or hanging my certificate of service because it has the current Prime Minister's name on it. Now I think it might make a very good fire starter.” When I talk to victims and people I know who have testified at committee about sexual misconduct allegations, and I ask what they think about the Liberal filibustering going on at the defence committee, the word they use is “brutal”. A former senior military officer said, “This Minister of National Defence enjoys no confidence from any part of either the department or the Canadian Armed Forces due to his lack of leadership.” This is why, unfortunately, Conservatives had to move this motion today calling for the minister to be censured. As my regimental slogan goes, never pass a fault.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workFortin, DanyInquiries and public inquiriesMcDonald, ArtMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSplitting speaking timeVance, Jonathan H.AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff: (1635)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will correct the member. The Leader of the Opposition was not the Minister of National Defence at the time of the previous incident. He was the Minister of Veterans Affairs and was not the one accountable or directly responsible. In fact, he took the appropriate action by reporting an allegation or rumour he heard to the appropriate authorities, which was then investigated by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Obviously, based on the information it made available, it maybe did not highlight the shortfalls with the previous chief of the defence staff.As for answering the member's hypothetical, if I had been the Minister of National Defence when the former ombudsman brought that allegation forward, I would not have hesitated to look at it and make a determination to get an investigation started, then I would have stayed out of it. Once I had initiated that and ensured it was done, I would need to turn it over to the proper authorities. We cannot turn our backs. As the Minister of National Defence, the CDS reports to him.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff: (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is really sad. When we had the take-note debate a while back on gendered violence, it was based on the tragic killings in Quebec. I spoke up then about the need for more resources. Specifically within the Canadian Armed Forces, when the first report by Madame Deschamps came out I was still in uniform. I was shocked. In fact, I will even admit I almost did not believe it until I started talking to a number of my female colleagues who are still serving, and they started telling me stories. I got so disgusted and mad that I almost got mad at them, because I had obviously failed if they did not feel they could use me as a colleague or peer, as we were lieutenant-colonels at the time. They could not come forward and tell me what was going on regarding the behaviour of some general officers. That is on me. That is on every senior officer, male and female, within the Canadian Armed Forces who is allowing this to be perpetuated and not fixing it. Yes, independence is required. Everybody needs to step up. That is why I go back to my comment about the failure of the minister with respect to accountability and leadership. When something is reported, we have to do the right thing.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1640)[Translation]It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Public Safety; the hon. member for Bow River, Canadian Heritage; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Small Business.AlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundMarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wish that we did not have this motion before us today. This is not something that is great for Canada or for our armed forces, but at the same time it is necessary. I am a bit frustrated and a little angry to be speaking to this today.The Canadian military forms an integral part of who I am, as an individual and as a Canadian, as is true for so many other Canadians. My father enlisted in the Korean War in the 1950s. He was 17 years old. His father would not sign his papers unless he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force. He actually was in the process of signing up for the Princess Pats. This unit went on to Korea and fought in the battle of Kapyong, where we had many casualties.This battle was really a key battle. The Princess Pats regiment was given a presidential citation for bravery for facing overwhelming odds against Korean, North Korean and Chinese troops as they were swarming over and invading South Korea at the time. The PPCLI was there to protect the retreat. They were the rearguard for South Korean and American forces and troops, putting their lives at stake, and there were deaths. As a matter of fact, it got so bad that they called on artillery to be fired upon their own positions because they were being overrun.This measure of bravery is what Canadians are known for, and they have been for over a century. Members can think of the First World War and Vimy Ridge. Canadian soldiers got the job done. There were thousands of casualties. They advanced in the face of fire and lay their lives down.Over 100,000 Canadian troops, men and women, have laid down their lives for our country and for our freedoms, and we honour them. We honour their memory for what they have done, not just those who have lain down their lives, but all those who have served in the military and who are serving the military. We are proud of them. I can imagine being at the mess hall table or in the barracks and having these conversations. I am sure it is frustrating to hear about how many generals have had to resign. This is at the top, and the onus and leadership needs to be taken. We have actually seen a lack of leadership and a lack of accountability, and it is shameful. It is not right. It is not appropriate for our troops.We live in a critical time. I will talk more about that in a few moments.My dad went on to serve for 36 years. We lived on bases. I was born in Germany, at 4 Wing in Baden Soellingen. It was West Germany at that time. The Berlin Wall was built when I was there. I am kind of aging myself. I know I look very young, but I was born at that time, in the 1960s.My dad later told me that when I was born he wondered what type of world he was bringing his child into. He did not know, with nuclear bombs all over. I remember growing up later on, having air-raid sirens and preparing for the potentiality of a war, but the Canadian troops were there. They served in great strength and numbers. We were a very serious partner.(1645)We still are. We have great troops. They have been reduced over the years, but we have fantastic troops. One thing Canadian soldiers are noted for is their quality. They are great professional soldiers who do their job and are not trying to get glory. I talked to my father before he died and asked about stories he had not told me before. He started in the Air Force working on the ground crew putting munitions on aircraft, bombers and fighters. He was serving somewhere in Alberta at the time, and he said a Lancaster bomber landed and crashed into the hangar at the air base. It was fully loaded with bombs. My father took no thought to his life, and he ran in with an extinguisher. He saved the airmen and put the fire out. He dragged out the pilot and did not make a big fuss about it. The pilot actually gave him $20. In those days that was quite a bit. He did not get a medal. He was not trying to get the glory, and that is what our soldiers are like. They are not necessarily trying to get the glory. They are there to do the job. I want to pay my respects for what the men and women in uniform do day in and day out on land, sea and water serving our country. They deserve our applause. We applaud them. I think of various battles. I think of the First World War and Vimy Ridge. That had been assaulted numerous times by other troops, but the Canadians went in there and they took it over. They are soldiers known in the past, and now, for their valour, intelligence and commitment. They were also the shock troops in 1918. Even in 1918, there was the risk of losing the war, and they were first in line.My wife and I were at Juno Beach in 2017. While I was there I had the realization that, during the Second World War, Canadians had spilled their blood there. Hundreds of young soldiers. I ask members to imagine the sacrifice they made.We have a strong peacekeeping tradition. I am from a family of six children raised, as I mentioned, in a military home in Chibougamau and Valcartier, Quebec, and Holberg, British Columbia, all these different bases. My first memories are of men in uniform and what they did, and of being proud to see my dad. I had the opportunity to also serve in the military, along with my brothers and sisters. I was proud to serve Canada, proud of the uniform and committed to the country. Honestly, I really feel that this is beyond politics. I know the Liberals will say this is politics. This is also about our military and, in the face of great looming dangers with China and Russia, we cannot afford to have our military demoralized. We cannot afford this. The minister needs to do the right thing, even if he thinks he is innocent. Members have heard why we do not think he is so innocent, but that is not the point. The point is he needs to do the best thing for Canada.(1650)He needs to step down. He does not have to wait for the Prime Minister to say he needs to leave. He just needs to tell the Prime Minister he needs to step down because this is not good for Canada.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthIqraKhalidMississauga—Erin Mills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, we should not be in the position we are in today. There should not be a motion. We should not have to be speaking about this today. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. We should not have been in this situation three years ago with General Vance. There was knowledge of his improprieties and the sexual misconduct. To knowingly place him in that position was wrong. There are so many misleading statements that the minister agrees to, yet he is still in this position. We should not be in this position, and I put the onus on the Liberal government and the Prime Minister.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.IqraKhalidMississauga—Erin MillsKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1655)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. I agree with her. It is unbelievable that we are in this situation. The minister said that he was not aware, but the other witnesses had proof that he was. It is therefore really unbelievable that he is still in his position. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Royal Canadian Legion in Maple Ridge, and I believe it is the largest in Western Canada. I certainly personally support our veterans, as I am a vet myself. It is very important, and I know the Conservative government will look after our vets. We are committed to that.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsClosure of government operations and facilitiesMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.VeteransBrianMasseWindsor WestKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for providing us a glimpse of what honour in our military has been in the past. Although it is being impacted, we still carry that honour in our Canadian military.In the Chinese culture, there is a saying that the leader sets the example. If the upper beam is crooked, it will cause the entire building to crumble. I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his response. In 2018, the Prime Minister responded to an accusation of groping a journalist by saying that everybody understands things differently. In 2019, in the SNC-Lavalin incident, he mentioned that he would take responsibility. Would that have anything to do—Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1655)[English]I am afraid we are out of time there. We will ask the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to respond.KennyChiuSteveston—Richmond EastMarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has become very evident that there is a tremendous amount of virtue signalling from the Liberal government and from the Prime Minister. We heard comments yesterday from the leader of the Green Party. This has been ongoing, the pretending to be against harassment, sexual harassment, and yet they continue to allow these sorts of things to continue. It is embarrassing and it is a shame.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthIqraKhalidMississauga—Erin Mills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1705)[English]We will have to leave that there for the moment as time has expired, but we will now go to questions and comments and perhaps the hon. member will have the opportunity to pick up those last thoughts in the course of the next five minutes.Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.IqraKhalidMississauga—Erin MillsMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the member. She said that the Conservatives were questioning the service of the defence minister. The Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who served in the military, got up and said that this is not about the service record of the minister when he was in the military. It is about his service record here in the House of Commons as the Minister of Defence. From the CF-18 debacle to the Mark Norman debacle to the fact he did nothing about General Vance and the succession of people who have had to step down, he has taken no action. Leadership is about accountability. With all of the things the minister has failed on, is that not the reason he needs to step down?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthIqraKhalidMississauga—Erin Mills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have had the opportunity to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands straighten this issue out. We thought it was the Minister of National Defence who, for years, ignored evidence of sexual harassment, but all along it was Harper's fault. Now we know.Putting that aside, I appreciate everything the gentleman has to say to cover up for the horrible deeds and lack of deeds of the Minister of National Defence. I have to ask him about the departmental plan. The departmental plan is not like the budget; it is not an aspirational thing. It is a legal document brought to the House to justify the three-year plan and for the department to justify the spending of resources. In that plan, signed by the Minister of National Defence, is a goal to have only 12% of the Canadian Armed Forces be harassed. That is a goal.If the member opposite really believed in ending harassment in the armed forces, why is it not a zero-tolerance policy? Why is the goal set at 12%?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Skyview.I hold in great respect the opportunity to participate in today's debate. The topic of this debate is something I hold close to my heart, as both my brother and father served our country. I witnessed first-hand the honour, integrity and respect they both held for the roles and their time in service. My father served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Navy during World War II on HMCS Stormont in the Battle of the Atlantic. In his recollection of his experience in the navy, he stated, “True leaders lead by their actions, not by the words.” It was a virtue that he carried out throughout his entire life and was the foundation of what made him a noble leader who many respected and looked up to, me included.My brother, who served as a pilot from 1981 to 1996, was a captain at the National Defence headquarters and also a man who led with a high degree of integrity, righteousness, honesty and the type of honourableness that gains trust from fellow comrades, as well as from citizens for whom my family had the privilege of serving.Lastly, the riding I represent, Edmonton Centre, was previously held by the Hon. Laurie Hawn, who also served in the Canadian military with distinction. I have enormous respect for him.I share these personal stories because they make up only a few of the individuals who have been recognized as contributors to Canada's reputation of having a noble, virtuous, principled and ethical armed forces. It is these folks who we owe great respect to, as they have upheld our entire country to a standard of righteousness, rectitude and reverence.It is because of these noble individuals that we have been able to effortlessly create trust between the armed forces and the public, the very cohesion to create unification, wholeness and a sense of togetherness in this country. It is a cohesion that has been eroded for six straight years, and the defence minister has placed all Canadians at risk of ever trusting our armed forces again by covering up sexual misconduct allegations. This is alarming, troublesome and unacceptable. More than that, it is offensive and completely dismissive of all the individuals who have come before the minister and those who are currently serving and doing so with a high regard for themselves, their actions and the Canadians they serve. As I stand here today, I cannot help but think about the women in my life and all the women residing in Canada who have witnessed the government shamefully continue to turn a blind eye to this and neglect the previous claim of being a feminist government that empowers women.This is not about the minister's military service. We acknowledge that he served with incredible distinction. This is about what is happening today. It is about the impacts these actions and the lack of responsibility have on all Canadians today, and will have moving forward if appropriate measures are not taken. This is about ensuring that we as a country feel immense pride in our institution that continues to serve, that all men and women feel it is a safe place where sexual allegations are taken seriously and that any further incidents of sexual misconduct will be condemned and justice will be served. This is about creating certainty for the men and women currently serving and those who are contemplating joining our armed forces so that if they ever encounter this type of harassment, their government will not turn a blind eye, like this one has continued to do for many years.This involves all of us. All of Canada's reputation is on the line. Anyone who genuinely and sincerely cares about the credibility, stature and honour of this country and our institutions would nobly resign and refuse to be selfish by remaining in a role that is no longer held in trust by the people it is meant to serve.If the Prime Minister continues to make the choice not to act like a leader in this serious situation and leaves this to the defence minister, who has serious allegations against him, the result will be a continued erosion of the relationship between institutions, government and public. The lack of action speaks tremendous volumes about this Prime Minister's leadership and where he stands on equity for all persons.This is not about partisanship and it is certainly not about politics. It is about ethics, morals and the willingness to do the right thing and protect the citizens who serve and the citizens who look to their government and their institutions for protection. How can we expect our honourable armed forces to keep us safe if CAF members themselves do not feel safe in the armed forces?(1735)It is astounding that months after we called for action and years after sexual allegations were released, the Prime Minister decided to protect his own chief of staff rather than the thousands of men and women who serve this country. That is an insult to all of us. The Prime Minister has blatantly shown us where his true values lie, and it is certainly not with our armed forces and the people who graciously and righteously choose to be of service.We will not back down from holding leaders and all persons in government to the highest standard of honesty and integrity. The minister and the Liberals refused to be accountable for their failure on the sexual misconduct allegations made against General Vance three years ago, but they have had the opportunity in the last couple of months and weeks to clean up their actions, recover their reputation and just ask the defence minister to step down. However, instead of the Liberals spending the past few weeks figuring out how they could make this situation better and lead with more dignity and integrity, we found out that the military's second in command, the vice chief of the defence staff, and the commander of the navy went golfing with Canada's former chief of the defence staff, the retired Jonathan Vance, who remains under military police investigation for the alleged inappropriate behaviour we speak of. This is problematic given that the vice chief has oversight of the police force investigating Vance.It is blatantly obvious that the standard of conduct that is being held by the government is shameful and embarrassing, and the minister's leadership, or lack thereof, is downright deceitful. Over two months ago, Canada's Conservatives not only continued to speak out about the government's wrongful dismissal of the allegation, but also acknowledged that no amount of words would ever recovery a situation like this one involving the defence minister, as so much trust has been broken.This is not something that can be combed over with an apology or long words on the history of the minister's military service, regardless of how distinguished it is. This requires taking action and responding to the current impacts that the lack of measures has had and will continue to have. Change and reinstatement of a noble government and a noble armed forces can only come through action, the very thing missing from the minister.This is not a partisan issue. This is certainly not a personal issue against the Minister of National Defence. This is a countrywide issue affecting all of us. How could trust be instilled by the same person and persons who lost it and by the ones who are to blame for placing the collectiveness between government, the armed forces and the broader public in discord? The faith in a just and equitable government has diminished and will continue to do so until we see notable activity.This is why the Conservatives have laid out an accountable, actionable plan that will be implemented to tackle the issue of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. The plan will recover the trust that has been broken and reinstate the integrity lost. This plan will include an inclusive service-wide independent investigation into the sexual misconduct in the military. It involves suspending all general and flag officer promotions and salary increases while an investigation into sexual misconduct of the military is taking place. Furthermore, it will involve the introduction of policies to ensure that future complaints are made to an external independent body outside the chain of command.Canada's Conservatives will continue to stand up for women and men in uniform and demand the Liberals end their cover-up of sexual misconduct. We cannot allow our daughters, sisters and mothers to work in unsafe environments. No one should be subjected to sexual harassment when they show up to serve our country.I stand here to ensure that any woman or man can serve their country with honour and without compromise. I stand here on behalf of my brother and father, who served and contributed to the uncorrupted and therefore reputable armed forces. I stand here for the thousands of Canadians who so selflessly served in our armed forces and continue to serve. I stand here on behalf of the Conservative Party, but also for every single Canadian who is questioning the character that makes up the government and the morals it leads with. If the government truly believed in leading with the highest degree of integrity, ethics and equity and believed in justice for all, then the decision to censure the minister would occur without hesitation. I will conclude with my father's words, a man who served in the Royal Canadian Navy, from his recollection of his experience in the navy: “True leaders lead by their actions, not by their words.” I stand here and appallingly question the entire government's morals and lack of action and ask it this: If the government is so willing to let this terrible example of abuse of power slide, what else will it let slide?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workConflict of interestGovernment accountabilityInquiries and public inquiriesMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsPublic trustReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentSplitting speaking timeVance, Jonathan H.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsIqraKhalidMississauga—Erin Mills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, how do I feel about an issue as important as this today? Did the member actually hear my speech? This is about today. This is not about what happened before. This is about action that can be taken today.We need leadership. We need the defence minister to show some leadership. If he wanted to do the right thing, he would resign. Budget cutsCanadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, to add to my colleague's question, the last thing we need is more studies. We have a report, and we have suggestions on how we can fix the problems. It is time to execute on that, but it is not what we have seen from the Minister of National Defence. He has had ample opportunity to act on that report, but he has not done it. We should get on with it and get it done.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workExternal Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed ForcesInquiries and public inquiriesMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsPublic trustReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Vance, Jonathan H.LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, leadership starts at the top, so who is responsible? Ultimately, in the government, it is the Prime Minister of Canada who is responsible. He should do the right thing and make sure the minister resigns.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Cumming: (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, this is another classic example of the idea that it is Stephen Harper's fault. I find that appalling. Action has to be taken now, and it is this government that needs to take action.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignationSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsJagSahotaCalgary Skyview//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion. For months, we have heard through the media allegations of sexual misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces and the complicity of the Minister of National Defence. This prompted the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to launch a study into sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, which we just concluded and the committee report was tabled today.Many of the FEWO study witnesses spoke of the Canadian Armed Forces' challenges with repeated sexual misconduct incidents, with one witness noting, “I joined the Canadian Armed Forces in July of 2018. Since then, I feel like I've experienced a lifetime's worth of sexual assault and misconduct.”Another witness who appeared before the committee gave a very interesting perspective on the double standard that the military justice system has toward women and men. The witness discussed how when they were deployed in Afghanistan an investigation had been conducted into a consensual relationship she had with a U.S. officer who was not in her unit but was of the same rank. She admitted that the relationship she had was against regulations and that she had pleaded guilty to the charges. She was fined, repatriated from theatre and posted out of her unit. She accepted this as her punishment. However, as a result, she was called demeaning names and was told she was not worthy of leading soldiers. She said she was threatened with violence by commanding officers and would be repeatedly chastised by other officers. She was sent to work alone in an office managing a single Excel spreadsheet, and it quickly became clear to her that her career in the Canadian Armed Forces was over. When she left the military, she had originally been given an offer to go into the reserves, but that was revoked upon her leaving, with the commanding officer telling her she was not the type of leader he wanted in his unit. She said that her biggest failure in life was how she was pushed out of the armoured corps, and that is something she continues to carry immense shame for. However, this is precisely the type of leadership displayed by the former chief of the defence staff, who served as the longest-serving chief of the defence staff. This former CDS, General Vance, not only rolled out Operation Honour, but at the same time was having inappropriate relations with those under his command. That included one woman who, when she appeared before FEWO, mentioned how she had asked questions about who would have the ability to investigate actions against the chief of the defence staff and whether the CFNIS would be the appropriate body. The response the general gave her was that he was “untouchable” because he owned the CFNIS. It was deeply concerning to hear that someone would actually believe he was above the law and would be willing to create an unsafe work environment and felt he could not be investigated. To this day, this woman believes she is not going to get justice for herself, but that it was important for her to come forward so the issue could be dealt with, with the aim that other women in the military would be able to get justice. It is not hard to see why this witness would believe that.Over this past weekend, we heard that while under investigation, General Vance went golfing with Vice-Admiral Baines and Lieutenant-General Rouleau, who himself held oversight authority for the military police. The abuse of authority and the flagrant disregard for women in the Canadian Armed Forces are completely disgusting.Shortly after a witness appeared before our committee, a Facebook group of military police were making comments such as “If you sleep with a senior rank you get good postings and promotion to support the bastards but no parenting and support from the senior rank”. Another said, “Giggity”, while another said, “Her story is about as clear as a PMQ orgy party on pay day.” It is no wonder women do not feel safe in our Canadian Armed Forces.(1750)What makes this worse is that all of this occurred under the watch of this minister, who, to this day, has yet to take any responsibility for his role in allowing for this toxic culture to exist.When the minister appeared before committee, my colleague said to him, “[Y]ou're not owning up to the reality that you're not taking action to create a shift in the culture.... [T]he longer you continue to dodge responsibility this way or that—it's not going to change.... If you keep repeating the same points—I'm just sensing you're still not owning up to this”. The minister just kept repeating the same points. He did not take any responsibility for the actions of the General Vance investigations. As was pointed out to our committee:...General Vance had to be protected because he was seen as a rising star during his career and therefore a good move for the military. It wasn't in the interest of the Forces to cast him aside or investigate him due to an allegation of sexual misconduct or assault. You don't want to tarnish the career or cause the loss of a valuable co-worker who is your right-hand man, for example. So General Vance's superiors or peers certainly had an interest in hiding these things, because they liked his work, operationally speaking.Canadians expect our ministers to represent all Canadians, work to defend all Canadians and support all Canadians. However, all the minister has done is protect and excuse the inexcusable, and he has sent a message to all those serving in uniform that as long as one is a man, a friend and high enough in rank, one can sexually assault someone and the minister will turn a blind eye on it. This is not my Canada. A fundamental change within the Canadian Forces with regard to its toxic culture and sexual misconduct issues is needed to ensure the safety and success of its members. Our brave service members deserve better. Conservatives are committed to ensuring that change occurs in the Canadian Armed Forces and will continue to hold the government to account on its shortcomings on this file, including and especially the need to take responsibility for the ongoing leadership crisis and the harm it has caused. As a woman, it broke my heart to listen to the witnesses come forward and tell their stories, and how they continue to live with the trauma of sexual misconduct and sexual assault months, years and decades later. We constantly heard from witnesses about how tiring and disrespectful it is to continue to just talk about this issue. These are conversations we have had for decades.All of the survivors spoke of the urgency to bring about cultural change, but they and military academics highlighted the requirement of having the most senior leadership, including the minister, involved directly in this change. What we have seen from the minister is an abdication of his responsibilities in bringing about this change. He testified at committee that even prior to being appointed minister he was aware of this issue. If he truly was aware of this issue and the significance of it, then why has he sat silently on the sidelines while women have suffered significantly under his watch? Why did he turn a blind eye when his buddy, the former chief of the defence staff, was placed under investigation? Why does the minister continue to refuse to bring about true cultural change instead of yet another report?I guess it is true what they say about Liberals. There is not a problem in the world they cannot solve by just having another report written. The time for reports is over. Women need action now, and we can start by getting rid of this inefficient minister, who places friendship over the security of individuals. Canadian ForcesCensure motionsChange managementConduct at workGovernment accountabilityMilitary justice systemMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.JamesCummingEdmonton CentreMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Jag Sahota: (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, what can I say? I am disappointed with the question the member has asked me. What I have heard throughout the day is how the Liberals want to just deflect and place responsibility on the previous government.The Liberals had six years to fix this issue that they apparently knew about before they became the government. Maybe it is time for them to start looking at themselves internally and ask what they can do. They say big words, that they are going to protect women, to support women. Maybe it is time for action now. That is what Canadian women in the armed forces and in uniform are looking for.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Jag Sahota: (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There are a lot of words that have been said for decades. Over the last few months, we have heard more words. We have heard more fluffy words: “We protect women. We are the feminist government.” If we look back, the definition of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces was not even fixed. Even though that was recommended in 2015 in the Deschamps report, nothing was done until November 2020. It is basically the Liberal government saying a lot of fluffy words and doing nothing for women.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsChange managementConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Jag Sahota: (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, I am going to go with the survivors and believe what they have told me. They have basically said there has been no cultural change in the Canadian Armed Forces and women continue to suffer because of the lack of action by the government and the boys' club that continues to put women down. This is exactly what we see here: one man protecting the other. I cannot emphasize enough that every witness we spoke to basically said that the change has to come from the top down. That is where the cultural change needs to start.I would say that whatever has been done is not enough. We need to move forward with concrete actions that help women, so this does not happen to another woman in the Canadian Armed Forces or in uniform.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourLarryBagnellHon.YukonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Kenny Chiu: (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, there has been no translation into English.AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.He did a good job of telling the troubling story of the Liberals and the Minister of National Defence. The Liberals truly did not take their responsibilities; neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of National Defence.What does the member think we should do?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I just want to say how much I enjoyed the speech from the member for Lac-Saint-Jean and that I enjoyed working with him on the national defence committee, as he is the critic for the Bloc Québécois on national defence.The member talked about the minister needing to resign, and I appreciate his support of our motion today to censure the minister because of this constant misleading of the House and Canadians. He very eloquently laid out the litany of problems that we have had with this minister over the past six years. In light of the fact that the minister will not do the honourable thing and resign, and knowing that we are going to censure him because of his behaviour and dishonourable conduct as a parliamentarian, as a minister, will the Bloc Québécois also call on the Prime Minister to fire the Minister of National Defence?Canadian ForcesCensure motionsMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I usually say it is an honour to join in any discussion and debate on the floor of the House of Commons, but today it is not an honour. It is actually with a heavy heart that I join in the debate, because we are once again talking about sexual harassment and allegations of sexual impropriety in our armed forces.Many colleagues have spoken very eloquently on this debate, including the member for Kildonan—St. Paul. A lot of people have brought their own personal experiences to this House today and have spoken passionately on why there needs to be a cultural change in our armed forces.I am a six-foot four-inch 255-pound, or sometimes 260-pound, farm boy from Saskatchewan, so I have not had a lot of experience with sexual harassment personally. However, people who are close to me have. Talking with them about the experiences they have gone through, I have always taken this very seriously. It is a passion of mine that any kind of sexual harassment should be stopped dead in its tracks. We should stand up for the victims, always.Some of the questions from the Liberal MPs today invoked the minister's past history. That is not what we are here to discuss today. We are here to discuss his overseeing of a continuation of sexual harassment and a culture of depravity in our armed forces. We need to listen to the victims when they come forward. That is what we are discussing.For my Liberal colleagues, we are not tarnishing the record of the minister's service when he was a soldier in the armed forces; we are talking about his record as the Minister of National Defence of our country. It is not well suited for him to continue in this position. He misled Canadians when it came to the fighter jets. He misled Canadians when it came to Vice-Admiral Norman. He made sure that the culture of sexual harassment could continue in the armed forces.When some of our senior people in the Canadian Armed Forces are golfing with someone who has had that charge brought against them, it shows a complete and utter disrespect for the members of the armed forces who have come forward to talk about their harrowing sexual harassment experiences.The victims are not the only ones who have to go through this. Their family members do as well. They are there to support the victims when they have nowhere else to turn. For those family members, this does not go away. There is a lifetime of trying to get through what has happened at the hands of the aggressor. It is something that needs to be stopped in its tracks, and if the minister has shown an inability to do that, we need to hold him to account in this House by voting in favour of this motion. He does not have the moral authority or the legitimacy to continue on in his role as the Minister of National Defence for our country. The House has to say that in one voice. That would show that we do want this culture in the Canadian Armed Forces to change. It is something we need to do as a single voice.I appreciate all the speeches from my Bloc colleagues, my NDP colleagues and everyone in the opposition who is going to stand with the victims of sexual assault in the Canadian Armed Forces by saying, “No more.” It cannot continue. Something or someone needs to be put in place to change that culture.We could just look at the department plan, for example. A colleague, the member for Edmonton West, pointed this out to me. This is almost unforgivable. The goal for the Department of National Defence is to have 12% or less people reporting sexual harassment. That is the target. That is the goal.Colleagues, that goal should be zero, not 12%. If they cannot figure that out on the other side of the House, then most of them are not fit to be in the positions they are in. There should not be a 12% goal of sexual harassment in any department anywhere in Canada.The Liberals have said they are going to bring back reports. Some of these reports have not brought in any goals since 2018. The Liberals always say there are systemic issues in the departments or systems in Canada. They always like to say they are the natural governing party of Canada. Liberals have been in office more than anyone else, so it is their systems that they say they cannot change.(1825)If they are not willing to do it, in the Conservative Party of Canada we have a government-in-waiting that will not stand for sexual harassment in our Canadian Armed Forces. Our goal will be zero sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces, not 12%.I am sure that when the member for Durham sends out his mandate letters to ministers, especially to the minister of defence, it will mention the culture of sexual harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces and the fact that it needs to change. The men and women in uniform will have a minister of defence in the Conservative government whom they can trust, whom they have respect for, who will make sure to have their backs. That is not what is happening right now. Many colleagues who have very good relationships with the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have told their stories. They have said that it is almost impossible to continue to have respect for a minister who continues to let them down time and again. This is not a single instance. There are four or five defining moments in this minister's career over the past six years when he has failed to measure up to the bar of the minister of defence, whether it be Vice-Admiral Norman, the fighter jets, his taking liberties with his own record, or the sexual assault of individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to do better. Canadians and the hard-working men and women in uniform deserve better than the record of this minister over the past six years.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsConduct at workDepartmental expenditure plansMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual assaultSexual behaviourAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Censure of the Minister of National Defence]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff: (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1850)[English]Madam Speaker, I am astounded that the member talked about openness and transparency from the government. Does he not realize that this is the government that has redacted documents, prorogued Parliament so people could not find out about the WE Charity scandal, filibustered at committee and, just today, was found in contempt of Parliament for not delivering requested documents? I do not call that openness and transparency, but I digress.My question today is about the transportation estimates, which is what we are here to talk about. I notice that the government donated money to Air Canada, which gave its executives bonuses, and that sounds a lot like Bombardier and all those other Liberal friends. I do not know why the government is choosing winners and losers. It gave money to Air Canada and Air Transat but not to WestJet. Is it just Liberal friends and donors that get money from this government?AirlinesDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022GregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (1855)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my friend, the member for Hull—Aylmer. We have had some good times together here and abroad. I am always happy to see him.I find it unfortunate, though, that the Minister of Transport is not here to give a speech and answer questions, because it is quite clear that this motion is directly related to transportation. Although my friend from Hull—Aylmer gave a very good speech, it did not specifically address transportation.I can understand why. In my opinion, as my party's transportation critic, the government has botched this file, and that includes the airline and cruise ship industries. Why did the member not talk about transportation, the subject before us, instead of giving an overall vision?Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022TransportationGregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of serving with this excellent member on the public accounts committee. I enjoy working with him. I do have a relatively pointed question for him, though. There is some aviation in my riding, and in the recent budget the Liberals proposed a tax on planes and other items. The idea, of course, is to tax the wealthy, but in my riding it would cost jobs. I want to know what he would say to the family members who are going to lose their jobs because of this tax.Air transportationDepartment of TransportLayoffs and job lossesMain estimates 2021-2022Select luxury items taxGregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara Falls.I mentioned in my question earlier that the reason we are here today is to discuss the estimates, specifically as they relate to transport. My message here today is about the overwhelming incompetence of the government regarding transport. The estimates here today are just a symptom of that. There have been so many instances in which the government has not delivered on the file of transport.Regarding airlines, for months the airline sector waited for a plan from the government. I have gone through the timeline before and will attempt to go through it briefly today. On March 18, 2020, the international border closed. On March 21, Porter Airlines suspended operations. On March 23, Sunwing Airlines suspended operations. There was no plan from the government.On April 1, Air Transat concluded repatriation operations. On April 18, Air Transat suspended flights. On April 20, Air Canada concluded repatriation operations. There was still no plan. On June 30, Air Canada announced it was discontinuing services to 30 regional routes and closed eight stations. On July 17, WestJet concluded its repatriation operations. On July 23, Air Transat restored operations. On June 24, WestJet laid off 3,333 employees through restructuring. There was still no plan.On July 31, Air Canada posted $1.7 billion in quarterly losses. On August 14, the Government of Canada introduced flight plans. On September 1, Nav Canada increased fees by 29.5%. There was still no plan. On September 23, Air Canada announced a COVID-19 testing pilot project at Toronto Pearson Airport. On October 1, Air Canada ordered approved rapid tests. There was still no plan. On October 14, WestJet suspended routes to Atlantic Canada. On November 2, the Calgary Airport quarantine and testing projects began. There was still no plan. On November 6, Sunwing Airlines restored operations briefly, but there was still no plan. We have seen this continue through the fall, the winter and now the spring with no plan from the government. However, promises were made. Promises were made by the Liberals on March 10, 2020. When asked what the government could do to help airlines, the Minister of Economic Development said, “What we’re looking at is how can we mitigate the impacts while making sure that we can have, still, a strong summer season, and that we can really bounce back.” We did not see anything.On March 19, 2020, then finance minister Bill Morneau said, “We will be refining what we’ve done, we will be thinking about next steps. We are working hard with the airline sector.” Still, there was no plan. On March 20, the Prime Minister's government promised a plan to help the industry that would follow an $82 billion aid package that was announced earlier that week, yet still nothing happened.For months we heard empty promises from the government. Devastating actions were occurring in the airline sector, yet there was no plan. Finally, when we saw not even plans, but deals with specific airlines begin to emerge as brought forward previously in the House by the member for Sarnia—Lambton, we found out the government was incapable of creating deals without taking care that there would be no executive compensation.When I demanded a plan for the airline sector in the House several times over, I made my demands clear: support for regional routes, protection of workers and, most importantly, making sure that taxpayer funds were not used for executive bonuses. However, Air Canada, with which an agreement was negotiated, was awarded $10 million to give bonuses to executives, and the government was incapable of excluding this when it made its plan.I wish I could say this was the only incident of government incompetence when it comes to executive bonuses. We found out, not a week later, that Nav Canada handed out $7 million in executive bonuses after laying off 700 workers and increasing airport fees by 30%.(1905)I wish the incompetence stopped there, but it did not, and I can see why the Minister of Transport did not show his face in the House today.I currently have five letters outstanding to the Minister of Transport. The first one is on a pleasure craft operating competency program. Changes were going to be made in the operation of pleasure craft, which was bringing stress and strain to tourist and boating operations all across the country. There was no response from the Minister of Transport on this letter. Regarding electronic logging devices, on which we have seen legislation come into place, a letter has been sent to him, and there has been no response from him.On ballast water regulations, which are having a major effect on shipping, which is—AirlinesDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022Pleasure craftSplitting speaking timeGregFergusHull—AylmerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not believe I recognized someone as being in the House or not. I was recognizing who delivered a speech. There is a difference between the two. One indicates the physical presence of someone, which is what the Standing Orders say we are not able to comment on, and the other indicates someone who gives an address. For example, because this is specifically regarding transport, I expect we would hear from the Minister of Transport. I distinguish one as being physical and the other as an individual delivering a speech. I will leave it there.I will go back to the third letter I did not receive a response to, about ballast waters as I said, which have a major effect not only on shippers, but also on supply chains in the country. I sent this letter on May 31 and I have yet to hear a response. Again, this is more incompetence by government and the minister. I sent a letter on June 9 to the Minister of Transport regarding shipping containers, which are causing major stress for exporters as they attempt to get their goods out of the country to international markets, and I have yet to receive a response.Most insulting not only to me, but to the individuals who asked me to take on this task, was the presentation of pins with insignias of airline sector companies that I made to the minister on March 11. I received no correspondence from him saying he had received the pins. In fact, I posted a video on social media of me delivering the pins. I was outside his door with this presentation and he never got back to me. This presentation of hundreds of company insignia pins from workers in the airlines sector who have lost their jobs is now sitting in my office if he would like to contact me to claim it.Another example of the government's incompetence with regard to the transport sector is the reannouncement of announcements. The night before last, my staff said the Minister of Infrastructure and the Minister of Transport were making an announcement the next morning at the Macdonald-Cartier airport, and we had better be ready to respond. We did not have to be ready, because the government did what it always does: It reannounced funds that had been announced already. It made a spectacle of it in a press conference rather than following through with actions. We have seen sign after sign of incompetence by the government, but most frustrating in this moment is the lack of a restart plan from the government not only for the airline sector, but for Canadians in general. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead. I am very disappointed that I do not have the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Transport at this time in this regard.Health Canada's expert advisory panel released its chart on conditions for entry into Canada on May 27. This was weeks ago, and we still have not heard any announcement by the government as to the timelines and thresholds tied to this announcement and the report from Health Canada's expert—Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, like myself and the leader of the official opposition, share a commitment to Canada's workers. She is right that the government, in not coming up with a reopening plan for the nation, is leaving all of Canada's workers in the lurch. I stand beside her in the hopes that the government soon will pay attention to Canada's workers and come up with a plan, not only for the workers of Canada but for all Canadians.Canada Emergency Wage SubsidyCOVID-19Department of TransportIncome and wagesMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaMarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, the member spoke about no plan for the airline industry. I put a question to the Minister of Transport about the cruise ship industry. He had a plan. His plan was to start in springtime of 2022. He was totally blasé, not recognizing that it is a $2.6 billion industry. It would not even allow for technical stops.Does the member have any comments about that?Cruise shipsDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his advocacy for the cruise line sector in British Columbia, which also serves the cruise line sector across Canada, of course, because other ports are affected.The cruise line industry was clear with the government, when U.S. legislators put in temporary legislation, that action was necessary, yet it did not act. Now we see an effort from the U.S. government to perpetually halt these technical stops, which will have a devastating effect on the cruise line sector in Canada. The industry has indicated to us that it must have government response immediately, at the very latest in October, or else its next season will be ruined as well.The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and I are begging the government for action in regard to the loss of these technical stops, in perpetuity.Cruise shipsDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgePaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, during my conversations with port authorities, they told me that there were gluts of anchorage all along the western coast as a result of this pandemic. Once again, it falls upon the federal government to find solutions to these problems. I hope it starts to do that.Department of TransportGrain handlingMain estimates 2021-2022Ports and harboursPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithTonyBaldinelliNiagara Falls//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30330TonyBaldinelliTony-BaldinelliNiagara FallsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BaldinelliTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, CPC): (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today and take this opportunity to share my thoughts on the recently tabled transportation estimates. These estimates, which are based upon budget 2021, have failed to present the needed road map and economic recovery plan that would lead us out of this pandemic in a timely manner. Not surprisingly, these estimates are just as disappointing as the budget itself.Transportation is a critical component to our travel and tourism industry. Without the important role played by the transportation sector, Canadians and international visitors alike would be unable to experience the amazing sights, culture, landscapes, attractions and history that Canada has to offer. While a great number of provinces and territories are getting closer to a reopening of their economies, with plans in place, the federal government's lack of preparedness in its own jurisdiction poses a major obstacle in accelerating our economic reopening progress as a nation.Let us take the Canadian cruise ship industry for example. Last February, the Minister of Transport banned cruise ship activity in Canada for a full year, without even considering whether health conditions could improve faster to allow the industry to resume earlier and salvage part of the late summer or early fall season this year. Instead, it was a blanket ban for a full year. Meanwhile, the Americans took this issue with an approach much different and far more optimistic. They could restart their American industry much sooner and responsibly before Canada's cruise ban ends in February 2022.Consequently, our neighbours to the south have recently introduced legislation to allow American cruise ships to bypass Canadian ports on the west coast during voyages between Seattle and Alaska. As a result, Canada's west coast cruise industry is at risk of losing its spot in this marketplace. There is a real fear that these proposed changes could one day become permanent, which would have a devastating impact on Canadian coastline economies. Thousands of jobs in the tourism and maritime service industry rely on the safe operation of cruise ships between Canada and the United States.As the American cruise ship industry begins to resume safe operations and with Canadian industry making it clear that a plan is urgently needed to save its 2022 season, there is still no safe restart strategy for cruise ships in Canada. We can blame the federal Liberals and their indifference and naivety for the unnecessary turmoil and economic loss.Another example of the federal government's lack of preparedness can be found in its transportation consideration at our international land border crossings. There are four major international bridge crossings in my Niagara Falls riding alone. These include the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie, the Rainbow Bridge and Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara Falls, and the Queenston and Lewiston Bridge in Niagara-on-the-Lake. Before COVID, all four bridges were critical in facilitating travellers and trade in a timely manner. However, since COVID, all four bridges have struggled greatly without emergency financial assistance from our federal government. When the American federal government stepped up to support the bridge authorities on its side of the Niagara River, financial aid from our federal government was nowhere in sight. I have written to the minister about this issue and still no action has been taken. One would imagine that CBSA officers who are front line, outward facing and essential workers would be prioritized by the federal government, their employer, to get vaccinated earlier. Instead, vaccines only began to arrive in Niagara for CBSA officers a few weeks ago, and this only happened after I asked the minister responsible about this in question period. It should not be this hard. Another border challenge involving transportation is quickly coming and it will be here before we know it. In my discussions with local bridge authorities, there is a major concern about how the logistics of reopening these bridges and testing travellers will work from a border management perspective. What is to be avoided from their perspective is a plan that will result in border delays so long and dreadful that it may deter U.S. travellers from coming into Canada altogether. That is why we have been asking for months now for the government to present a safe and responsible federal reopening plan. When will this be announced?As I have said many times in the House, COVID-19 hit our travel and tourism industry first, it hit it the hardest and it will take this industry the longest time to recover. These estimates are tone deaf to the fact that we are still fighting this pandemic nearly 15 months after it started. In addition to lacking any coordinated effort of sense of a recovery plan, there is scant to no mention of sector specific support measures for those hardest hit in our transportation sector.Let us take motor coach buses for example. This industry has been a key component for connecting Canadians and visitors in rural and remote areas to the larger urban centres and beyond. However, COVID has been relentless against this sector.(1920)It is no coincidence that on May 13, in the midst of a severe third wave of this pandemic, Greyhound Canada announced it was permanently cutting all bus routes across the country and shutting down its intercity bus operations after nearly a century of service.An article in BNN Bloomberg reads, “The decision is a blow to rural and remote areas that rely on a patchwork of private intercity bus companies for transportation.”Many Canadians, including the most vulnerable, live in rural or remote regions that depend heavily on these bus services to travel large distances between smaller towns and urban areas. As Greyhound continues to operate in the United States, it is difficult not to place the blame squarely on the dire economic situation in Canada that we face because of the Prime Minister's third wave.The operators of Double Deck Tours, a local business in my riding, have also written to me. It is Niagara Falls' oldest tour company and it provides fully guided tours of the attractions, events and sights of Niagara Falls and Niagara-on-the-Lake. They write:Given the impacts of COVID’s third wave on our economy and the absence of a coordinated border reopening plan, we are facing the possibility of having to rely exclusively on limited local business and a summer with ongoing restrictions. This will significantly reduce our recovery trajectory and our ability to replace these subsidies with revenues. The limited opportunity presented by a restricted summer will not be sufficient for businesses to accrue the liquidity required to make it to summer 2022, our next peak travel period.Pressure is mounting on this issue. Earlier this week, the Canadian press reported that Canadian business leaders were demanding a plan from Ottawa to reopen our borders and our economy now. Perrin Beatty, the chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is quoted as calling Canada an outlier in failing to provide a fully fledged reopening plan that includes vaccination rates and other criteria.What are the Liberals waiting for? We need them to coordinate and co-operate among themselves with industry, with business leaders and with our international partners to come up with a safe and responsible reopening plan so we can get life back to normal as quickly as possible. Canadian businesses and industries are eagerly seeking clarity and certainty from their federal government. Instead, it is becoming more clear by the day that the federal leadership, in this regard, is sorely absent.Transportation, travel and tourism are among some of the hardest-hit sectors of our economy. It is going to take some time for them to recover. In fact, many businesses in these sectors are in survival mode, while they watch other parts of our economy reopen more quickly. The reality is that travel and tourism will not restart overnight. While 2019 was a record year for many Canadian tourism businesses, the Tourism Industry Association of Canada estimates it could take until at least 2025 before 2019 levels are achieved again. The Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada fears it could lose nearly 30 years of economic progress in its sector if more emergency financial support is not provided soon by the federal government.Before this pandemic, Canada's travel and tourism industry was the country's fifth-largest sector, responsible for $105 billion in revenue, or 2.3% of GDP. It employed one in 10 Canadians, or 10% of Canadian jobs, and had 225,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. It is terrible to see how much economic damage, loss, suffering and setback have been caused by this prolonged 15-month pandemic. It is even more terrible to know that our federal government, whose key responsibility is to protect its citizens and Canadian interests, was not ready to protect us at the start, and 15 long months later, it remains unprepared to provide a clear plan forward on safely and responsibly reopening our economy and our borders.It should never be lost on any Canadian that the Liberal government prorogued Parliament last summer in the midst of a national pandemic health crisis. Let that resonate for a moment; think about it. Canadians deserve so much better, and Canada's Conservatives are ready and prepared to deliver the governance and leadership they so badly deserve.BordersBridgesCruise shipsDepartment of TransportIntercity busesMain estimates 2021-2022Tour busesTourismStephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30330TonyBaldinelliTony-BaldinelliNiagara FallsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BaldinelliTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Tony Baldinelli: (1925)[English]Madam Speaker, in terms of the budget, this government is in control of its own legislative agenda. It prorogued Parliament last summer. That was six weeks of delay right there, and this budget is the first budget that we have seen in two years. Let that resonate for a moment. I can tell the member that I was disappointed by the funding provided for the tourism sector. It is $1 billion for a sector of our economy that generates $105 billion. It is simply a pittance and it is not what is required for our sector moving forward. In my community alone, there are 44,000 workers and 16,000 hotel rooms that depend on the tourism economy. Let this resonate for a second: We generate in Niagara alone $2.4 billion in tourism receipts. What this government provided for tourism is not sufficient and will not support the sector. Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022TourismLarryBagnellHon.YukonKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30330TonyBaldinelliTony-BaldinelliNiagara FallsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BaldinelliTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Tony Baldinelli: (1925)[English]Madam Speaker, like the hon. member, I believe that the issue of temporary foreign workers is plaguing all tourism operators across the country. I have heard from numerous tourism operations across the country, including in my own riding, about the need for labour and the need for temporary foreign workers. To the member's point, yes, this government is operating in silos. It is not talking to the stakeholders. It is not assisting with meeting the needs that are so important to them as we move forward and look towards the recovery that we all want. Among stakeholders across the country, there was almost unanimity among everyone I have spoken to. Why is the government ending programs like the CEWS and the CERS and the Canada recovery benefit this summer, when almost all of the stakeholders asked for those programs to be extended until the end of the year? Department of TransportForeign workersMain estimates 2021-2022KristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30330TonyBaldinelliTony-BaldinelliNiagara FallsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BaldinelliTony_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Tony Baldinelli: (1930)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct that the challenges the grape and wine industry faces are the result of the government's own actions. The government caused the problems that resulted in the World Trade Organization challenge, and on the $102 million, which is divided in the first year, I am already hearing from stakeholders that it is insufficient to meet the needs that those stakeholders, wineries and growers have. Again, the government is not talking to the sector and it is not talking to the industry. That needs to change if we are going to see benefits resulting from it.Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022Wine industryCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, we want to go after all these people who are cheating on their taxes, but unless we fix the other side of the equation, which is the out-of-control spending of the government, it will not do us any good. I wonder if he could comment on that?Department of TransportGovernment expendituresMain estimates 2021-2022Tax avoidanceGabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1955)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Bloc Québécois member for his comments.He talked about his riding and about the restaurants, stores and small businesses that are closing because they cannot find enough workers. The same thing is happening in my riding of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.My colleague talked about incentives. Can he elaborate on that?Department of TransportLabour shortageMain estimates 2021-2022YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (2025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting at the finance committee while we heard the CRA talk about tax evasion and the Panama papers. We heard first-hand, in response to this member's question that, for two years in a row, there have been no convictions. Could the member expand upon that? In the case of the Panama papers in particular, the informant evidently put his life in jeopardy in order to bring justice and capture people who are avoiding paying these taxes. As the late great Jim Flaherty said, every time there is a tax evader, it means that middle-class Canadians have to pay more taxes. I wonder if the hon. member could expand upon the impact to Canada and the personal impact to him hearing over and over again that there have been no convictions with respect to the Panama papers, despite so much being sacrificed to get those materials out.Canada Revenue AgencyDepartment of TransportLaw enforcementMain estimates 2021-2022Tax havensPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2025)[Translation]The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2030)[Translation]The hon. member for Vancouver East.PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (2050)[English]Mr. Speaker, this transport minister and his cabinet colleagues left our international borders open for too long. Flights were coming into Canada carrying COVID-positive individuals as the virus was spreading around the world, and was continuing to be brought into Canada. Yet, we had tourism operators, like guide outfitters and fishing lodge operators, who were crying for assistance. They had COVID management plans in place and quarantine management plans in place to bring in customers so that they could at least maintain their business, and yet this government turned a blind eye to them. Why did this government take so long to close our borders, and why did it turn a blind eye to tourism operators who were crying out for help?BordersCOVID-19Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicTourismTravel restrictionsSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (2055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.[English]The Liberal government is incapable of accepting responsibility. I am so tired of receiving the response that Nav Canada is an arm's-length organization. The government has to take responsibility for the decisions of Nav Canada.However, we have seen this consistently. We see this with the documents from the Winnipeg lab. We saw this with Bill C-10. We saw this with General Vance. We saw this with the WE scandal. We saw this with SNC-Lavalin.Here is the solution to where we find the $7 million: We go to the executives and ask for it back. It is as simple as that.When will the government take responsibility for something?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022NAV CANADAPerformance bonusesReimbursementSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (2055)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government continues to spend and spend. There is no doubt that there was a need to spend during the pandemic. There was a need to bridge. However, as the PBO said, we are walking on a very thin tightrope right now. If we were to have a crisis like an economic recession or a climate-related crisis, we would have big financial problems.If we were to reach a financial crisis, which tax would the member increase? Would she put a tax on principal residences? Would she cut spending? Would she cut civil servants? What is her approach for the crisis that we will almost inevitably face?Budgetary policyDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022SorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelaga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (2055)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure tonight to rise in the House to speak to the main estimates for the Department of Transport. I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Wascana.Since the beginning of the current session of Parliament, it has been my pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This committee is filled with a good group of parliamentarians working to get answers for Canadians on transport-related issues and to secure the future of transport in this country.This past fall, we began a study to examine the impacts of COVID-19 on the aviation sector in Canada. We heard heart-wrenching stories from many witnesses about how much of their workforce had to be laid off. Many were struggling to put food on the table in cases where there were gaps in federal support.What is interesting to note is that, while some companies were getting little to no support and could not secure a meeting with the minister, other companies were receiving much more support and getting meetings with the minister on a regular basis. The patchwork approach the government has been taking when it comes to getting support to Canada's aviation sector ignores all the workers in the aviation sector who have lost their jobs as a result of the government's inaction on this file. Canadians have been watching closely over the past year, and many in this sector still have not received the support they require. Hope is dying.It is nice for aviation workers to hear from the government that help is on the way, but when is it coming? When days turn into weeks, weeks turn into months and then months turn into over a year, I can see why so many in the industry who have still not received support have lost hope. However, members should note that not all airlines are still waiting for support. Air Canada received a $5-billion package from the government in April, and shortly after, it awarded more than $10 million in bonuses to executives and managers. The Conservatives have been clear from the beginning: We must get support out the door to those who need it most, and no taxpayer money should ever be used for executive bonuses.A couple of weeks ago, I heard from a constituent who, prior to COVID, booked a vacation for himself and his wife for their 30th anniversary. Because of travel restrictions, their vacation was put on hold and they received a travel voucher that was good for 24 months. This was all good until my constituent lost his job because of COVID and needed to access the funds that were tied up in a vacation that he and his wife never got to go on.Many travel companies have said that passenger refunds are tied to government support. Sunwing received a temporary support package back in February and set aside money for customers, but it has not dispensed that money, as it is still in negotiations with the government regarding its full support package.The predicament this constituent and many other Canadians in similar situations now find themselves in is that they still have no clear indications from the government about when travel restrictions will be lifted, and the end of the 24-month period for the travel voucher is coming quickly. If the government does not soon finalize the support package, customers in this situation are at risk of losing the thousands of dollars they saved for a vacation that they may never get to go on. This is just one story of how the government's inaction on this issue is costing Canadians.On the border, as I mentioned, the government has still not provided Canadians with any sort of indication as to when the border might open. The government waited far too long to close the border. Now we are nearing the end of the pandemic, and it refuses to provide Canadians with certainty as to when we will reopen it.(2100)I would like to thank all those who work at the CBSA and have been challenged over the past year to quickly adapt to the ever-changing rules and travel restrictions thrown at them. COVID began in March 2020, and we knew very early on that COVID was entering Canada because we left our borders open and the government repeatedly failed to take meaningful action to secure them.The spending that is occurring in the transport budget is important, and I agree that we must provide support to the industries that were hardest hit by COVID. However, with the government, we repeatedly see money being allocated in the budget and then either not getting out the door fast enough, like all of the lapsed infrastructure spending, or getting out the door and into the wrong hands, like with the WE Charity scandal and Air Canada's executive compensation package.An area that needs support is the tourism industry. When I talk about targeted support being needed, an area that comes to mind with a shortfall is tourism.COVID-19 has been incredibly tough on the tourism industry. I talk with many stakeholders in my riding, and a concern I hear from them is that, while the $500 million in support the government is offering is appreciated, when stretched to companies from coast to coast to coast, this support is being spread too thin. Businesses have suffered major losses through no fault of their own. The support they need should be available to continue their operations.It is extremely important that we fully recover the tourism industry, especially in communities that rely on the industry as a significant part of their economy. A factor we need to think about in relation to tourism recovery is the transportation of people and how easy it is for tourists to get to their destinations. In many cases, taking a bus over a flight or driving can make for a more economical vacation. With the closing of Greyhound Canada, this is leaving a gap in our transportation network. Many Canadians across Canada who live in rural or more remote regions depend on intercity bus services to travel large distances between smaller towns and urban areas. As Greyhound continues to operate in the United States, we must recognize that the decision to close down operations in Canada will have a ripple effect on our tourism industry and will result in consumers having less choice in how they reach their vacation destinations. Our transportation sector is of vital importance for the tens of thousands of Canadians employed in the sector. These are real people who need support and must not be treated as political pawns. For nearly a year, the government has been promising them support but repeatedly failing to deliver in a meaningful way.To conclude, my Conservative colleagues and I are calling on the government to deliver support to our aviation sector. That means restoring Canada's regional routes, ensuring passengers receive refunds, making sure travel agent commissions are not clawed back, ensuring Nav Canada maintains adequate service levels for air traffic controls and bringing forward a comprehensive travel restart plan so that Canadians are no longer left in the dark.Air transportationAirlinesBordersDepartment of TransportIntercity busesMain estimates 2021-2022Splitting speaking timeTourismTravel restrictionsSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (2105)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very good points that we need to start looking at. One of the big things is that many businesses are financially not viable because clients are not coming in to support the business. They do not have funds because no one can travel and be part of tourism, or it is because of the isolation. Since we cannot properly distance in a lot of tourism opportunities, we cannot have proper engagement. That is where the government needs to either secure loans or create a compensation package in order to make these businesses viable once again. That is the challenge that the Liberals are not responding to for Canadian businesses. Small businesses such as those in the tourism industry are going to suffer greatly without this compensation package.Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022TourismKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (2110)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very interesting points. I am not saying the plan is not a great concept; the problem is financial viability. Unfortunately, Canada does not have enough densely populated areas, so it would be very expensive to build and operate and maintain that kind of rail system. That is the only downside to that kind of concept. It would be fantastic if we had better populations in the remote areas.Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022Public transitRural communitiesMatthewGreenHamilton CentreMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (2110)[English]Madam Speaker, one of the difficulties is that with the failure of the government on border controls in this pandemic and the flawed vaccine rollout that the Liberals are scrambling to catch up on, what has happened is that the government introduced programs to help businesses at the beginning, but a lot of people were falling through the cracks. Even though the defects in the programs were identified in March of last year, the government has continued to extend the programs and not repair them. Now we find that a lot of tourism and travel businesses are out of runway, and the support is simply inadequate. I wonder if the member could comment on how that is happening in his riding.Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicTourismGeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (2110)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has brought up some very good points. We remember how our Prime Minister spoke to start off with, saying that we should not worry, that the government was there to help the majority of the people first and that then it would be able to help those people who fell through the cracks. When are the Prime Minister and the government going to actually help the people who have fallen through the cracks?Many people have commented to me that they applied for this program and got a couple of dollars from it or they applied for that program and were not eligible. Unfortunately, they fell through the cracks, and because of that they have now lost their businesses. Very many business owners are experiencing the same type of financial situation.Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicTourismMarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC): (2110)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise in this virtual chamber to participate in tonight's debate.I have the privilege of serving on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with an outstanding group of MPs from all parties. Over the course of the past several months, the committee had the opportunity to hear from many representatives from the country's air travel sector. Yesterday the committee presented to the House its report, entitled “Emerging from the Crisis: A Study of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Air Transport Sector”. However, the committee witnesses were unanimous in their bleak assessment of the effects of the pandemic on air travel. Few sectors have been hit harder by the pandemic than the air travel sector. Airlines, airports, independent travel advisers, air traffic controllers and small business owners who run the souvenir shops at the airports have all experienced job losses, cutbacks and hardship. However, unlike many sectors, restarting the air travel sector will not be like turning on a light switch. The air travel sector has faced many unique challenges during the pandemic, the effects of which will be felt for years to come.For this evening's debate, I will focus my remarks on the difficult situation in which Canada's airports find themselves.The air travel sector cannot function without financially viable airports. After all, the airplanes have to have some place to land and some place to take off from. When most of this country's airports were privatized in the 1990s, a fee structure was established with the airlines that was based on air traffic volumes. This country's airports could rely on a steady stream of revenues as long as there was also a steady stream of commercial airline flights. All of that came to a halt in the spring of 2020 at the start of the pandemic. In my home city of Regina, the Regina International Airport went 10 days at the beginning of the pandemic without a single commercial passenger flight. For much of the pandemic, air travel levels were down as much as 90% compared to pre-pandemic levels. This lack of air travel means a lack of revenue for this country's airports. As a result, airports had to lay off staff and dip into cash reserves. When the cash reserves ran out, they had to go to the bank and borrow. Today, this country's airports have debt loads that they have never seen before. How will they pay off this debt? It will be by passing the cost on to consumers as air travel resumes after the pandemic. Now, some people may shrug their shoulders and say “So what? Airport debts and debt servicing fees get passed on to air travellers; that is life.” Maybe it would not be such a big deal if Canada were a closed country that lived in isolation, but we are not. Air travel policies of the American government are bound to affect Canada and the rest of the world as well. It is worth noting that within weeks of the start of the pandemic, the U.S. Congress passed the CARES Act to provide $10 billion in financial relief to American airports. This means that American airports have had financial certainty throughout the pandemic and have not had to go deep into debt. It means that American airports will not have the financial burden of debt and debt servicing costs to pass on to their customers. Even before the pandemic, flying out of a Canadian airport was significantly more expensive than flying out of an American one. This is because, historically, American governments have viewed airports as an infrastructure investment, while in Canada, most airports operate on Crown land and serve as a source of revenue for the federal government through ground lease payments. As Canadian airports take on more and more debt and pass more and more debt and debt servicing costs on to passengers, American airports become relatively less expensive by comparison. This poses a real long-term problem for Canadian airports, especially those that are located within driving distance of the U.S. border. The Bellingham airport in the state of Washington is just a short drive across the border from Vancouver. The Niagara Falls airport is on the American side of the border, just a short drive down the highway from Hamilton and St. Catharines. The airport in Plattsburgh, New York, already advertises itself as “Montréal's U.S. Airport”.(2115)All along the Canada-U.S. border, the story is the same. American airports will become more attractive options as Canadian airports struggle to find ways to pass their crippling debt loads on to Canadian travellers. These debt loads will have a ripple effect across the air travel sector as Canadian airlines, independent travel advisers and hotels lose business across the board.What could the government do to help this country's struggling airports? I would say one thing the air travel sector really needs right now is a safe reopening plan. The quicker we could get Canadians flying again, the quicker airline and airport revenues will rebound, and all of the harmful effects of the pandemic that I have described could be minimized.However, the biggest challenge facing the air travel sector is a lack of customers, caused by uncertainty in the marketplace. The pandemic has thrown many sectors of the economy into chaos, including restaurants, movie theatres and clothing stores. Most businesses are primarily governed by their provincial governments, and most provincial governments have already spelled out a safe reopening plan based on vaccination levels. For example, in my home province of Saskatchewan, in just three more days restaurants will no longer have to limit the number of customers seated at a single table, although customers will only be able to order à la carte and buffets are not allowed yet. Just think of how much easier it will be for restaurant workers and owners and their customers to plan a major dinner party when there is a clearly spelled out reopening plan for restaurants. Now, imagine if the federal government were to do the same thing for air travel. I am sure that after well over a year of this pandemic, many Canadians would really like to start making their summer travel plans. Airlines, travel advisers, tour operators and hotels would all like to start making bookings.What are the rules? More importantly, what will the rules be next week and next month and in the coming months as vaccination levels continue to inch upwards?If someone who is fully vaccinated flies down to the States and then flies back, how much longer will that person still have to go through the mandatory 14-day quarantine? How much longer will that person still have to go to the quarantine hotels? What about someone who is only partially vaccinated? What about a husband and wife who are fully vaccinated but whose children are too young to receive the vaccine? That is just for international travel. What about travelling within Canada? Are we going to see a patchwork of different rules within Canada, whereby some provinces require quarantines and others do not? Will it be easier for Canadians to fly to the United States for their summer holidays than to other provinces within Canada?These are all very reasonable and practical questions that Canadians are starting to ask. The absence of any answers and the absence of any safe reopening plan from the federal government is putting another summer travel season in jeopardy. The loss of another summer travel season would cause undue harm, not only to this country's airports but to our airlines, independent travel advisers, air traffic controllers, tour operators and so many Canadians who depend on a properly functioning air transport sector.I call on the government to present, as soon as possible, a safe reopening plan for air travel.Air transportationAirportsCOVID-19Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicTravel restrictionsGeraldSorokaYellowheadChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (2120)[English]Madam Speaker, some of the vocabulary is a little technical, so I am going to respond in English.It is my hope that this is not just a delay in the closing of these air traffic control towers. It is my hope that once air travel resumes to normal levels, there would not be a need to close these towers at all and that life would be back to normal, Canadians would be flying again, and there would be no need for layoffs at Nav Canada.I would encourage the hon. members to read the report that was tabled in the House yesterday. One of the themes of the report, and one of the recommendations, is the need for alternative funding models for not just Nav Canada but air travel in general during the times of a pandemic. The funding model for Nav Canada has worked very well for the first quarter-century of Nav Canada's existence, but when a pandemic hits, everything becomes quite topsy-turvy.We have a social safety net in place for workers in the form of employment insurance and workers' compensation and that sort of thing. Maybe we need a self-funding social safety net for Nav Canada, where it could draw—Air traffic control and air traffic controllersDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022ChristineNormandinSaint-JeanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (2125)[English]Madam Speaker, it would be foolish to pick a date on the calendar at random and say that is the date of the reopening. We need to have a comprehensive plan that is built in consultation with our medical professionals. What the federal government should do is follow the lead of many provincial governments, which is to come up with a minimum level of vaccinations that would make a safe reopening plan reasonable. Then it could look at the calendar and say, based on the current levels and rates of vaccination, what a reasonable time frame to achieve those goals would be so Canadians could start making their summer travel plans, so they could be working again and getting life back to normal.COVID-19Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022PandemicTravel restrictionsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (2125)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, I am certainly in favour of the principle of refunds for air travel passengers who have paid for a service they have not yet received. I will have to admit that I have not yet read that bill in full, but I will certainly read it with interest.AirlinesDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022ReimbursementKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (2145)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech and for his work. I am interested to know how the transportation and tourism spending announced here is going to help his riding. What does he think is missing that should have been there?Department of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022TourismTransportationLarryBagnellHon.YukonLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Transport]InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (2155)[English]Madam Speaker, I am happy to be here tonight to talk about transportation and tourism. These sectors are very important not just in my riding, but across the country. As for the estimates, since I do not have a lot of time, I will be pretty succinct. First of all, I will talk about what is needed and then what is in the estimates and the budget. We know that because of the pandemic, all of the airlines and a number of transportation businesses have had to lay off workers and they are in a tough spot. The government needed to come up with some kind of aid package. That said, it picked winners and losers. It decided Air Canada and Air Transat were going to get bailouts, but not WestJet. Why is that? That is just not fair. We need all of them to continue.Greyhound has gone out of business. This is a critical service, especially for lower-income individuals and people across the country in rural and remote places. Something is needed there and there is nothing coming forward.One of the groups that is very concerned is travel agents. A lot of times they have consulting fees and they have not been able to take advantage of a lot of the government's programs. Something needs to be done for them.We need to get a border opening plan, not just with our neighbour to the south, but across the provinces, accelerating the vaccine rollout, working with the provinces and territories to open up and providing an incentive for Canadians to travel in this country. That is a huge $30-billion opportunity, a way of restoring life to the tourism sector that has been very hard hit. The $1 billion in the budget is not going to do it, so we need an additional incentive on top of that. In addition, as I have said, we need to put back in place all of the smaller routes and work on that plan.When it comes to the tourism sector, a lot of the festivals and fairs were very hard hit. In my riding, there is the Brigden Fair and the Plympton-Wyoming Fair. There are fall fairs all over the place and everybody wants to get back to them, but without some kind of government infusion, they will not be able to survive. We need to do something for them. Let us get back to normal.AirlinesDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022TourismLarryBagnellHon.YukonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2245)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.Canadian ForcesCensure motionsDecisions of the HouseMinister of National DefenceOpposition motionsReferences to membersSajjan, Harjit S.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2245)[Translation]The next question is on opposed vote 1.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [ Concurrence in Vote 1—Transport]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2240)[English]If a member of a recognized party present in the chamber wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMain Estimates, 2021-22 [ Concurrence in Vote 1—Transport]InterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2300)[Translation] I declare the motion carried.Motion No. 1 agreed toThe next question is on the motion to adopt the main estimates.Decisions of the HouseDepartment of TransportMain estimates 2021-2022MotionsBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2300)[Translation]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. opposition whip.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2310)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.Decisions of the HouseMain estimates 2021-2022MotionsBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertBruceStantonSimcoe NorthJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2310)[Translation]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. chief opposition whip.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to the current vote.C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Government billsMain estimates 2021-2022Recorded divisionsSecond readingSupply billsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2325)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mrs. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)(On clause 2)C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsMain estimates 2021-2022Referred to Committee after second readingResolving into a Committee of the WholeSecond readingSupply billsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (2325)[Translation]Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the bill is exactly in its usual form, with the exception of the non-recurring expenditures contained therein?C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Consideration in a Committee of the WholeForm of billsGovernment billsMain estimates 2021-2022Supply billsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2330)[Translation]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2340)[English]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toWhen shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?Some hon. members: Agreed.C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsMain estimates 2021-2022Report stageSupply billsBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2340)[English]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would ask them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote.C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Government billsMain estimates 2021-2022Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2350)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsMain estimates 2021-2022Supply billsThird reading and adoptionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersSupplementary Estimates (A), 2021-22InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2355)[Translation]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2405)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toDecisions of the HouseMotionsSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2405)[English]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would ask them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.I see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2420)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed to[English]I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Mrs. Alexandra Mendès in the chair)(On clause 2)C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsReferred to Committee after second readingResolving into a Committee of the WholeSecond readingSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022Supply billsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (2420)[Translation] Madam Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that the bill, which may be the last before a possible election this fall, is exactly in its usual form?C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Consideration in a Committee of the WholeForm of billsGovernment billsSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022Supply billsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertJean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2425)[English]If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2435)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?Some hon. members: Now.C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsReport stageSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022Supply billsMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJean-YvesDuclosHon.Québec//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2435)[English]The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.Jean-YvesDuclosHon.QuébecMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2450)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-34, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsSupplementary estimates (A) 2021-2022Supply billsThird reading and adoptionBruceStantonSimcoe NorthMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (2450)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House at any hour, of course.This evening I find myself talking about a subject that we have been discussing at great length. That is the complete disregard that Liberal members have for this place, particularly the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet, with respect to the subject of documents ordered by the Canada-China committee and the government's refusal to follow the orders for those documents to be tabled with that committee. When they have tabled the documents, recognizing the order made by the committee, they have done so with illegal redactions of those documents. Twice the documents were ordered; twice the government failed to properly table them. The House ordered the documents to be tabled; the government failed to table them.Now today, in a landmark vote in the House, the documents were again ordered, but this time the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada is to deliver them personally at the bar of the House of Commons, at which time he is to be admonished by the Speaker.It is unbelievable that we find ourselves in a position where the House has had to take this extraordinary step, but it certainly is consistent with the behaviour and the pattern of behaviour that the government has demonstrated over the last six years, and certainly in the recent months, with many hours of filibusters across multiple committees, be it the health committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, national defence or the access to information, privacy and ethics committee. There are no lengths to which the government will not go to perpetrate its cover-up, to hide the truth from Canadians.In this case, we have to wonder what could be so damning in these documents that the government is refusing to comply with lawful orders of this place. There are provisions. We will hear the cries from the parliamentary secretary that national security could be at risk. That is disingenuous. We know that the parliamentary law clerk has been given the task to ensure that no breaches of national security could come to pass and would make all of the appropriate redactions to ensure that that is the case.Canadians deserve to know the truth, and they deserve a government that respects the will of Canadians and puts their best interests ahead of corruption and pride. We have a government that has the Prime Minister and several ministers of the Crown who have been found guilty of breaking the ethics act. We have filibusters across multiple parliamentary committees, too many hours to rhyme them all off in the short time that I have, a prorogation to cover up the WE scandal, and now we have, of course, landmark findings against the government in this place today.As I said, Canadians deserve accountability. We were promised that we would have the most accountable government in history. With this Liberal government, Canadians have seen anything but that, so it is important to ask why. Why is this government refusing to respect the will of this place and respect Canadians?Adjournment ProceedingsBiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securitySpecial Committee on Canada-China RelationsBruceStantonSimcoe NorthSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2455)[English]Madam Speaker, it would be much easier to take the parliamentary secretary at his word that the government was acting with the best intention of Canadians in mind, and not simply looking to protect its own political self-interest. We have seen illegally redacted documents provided to the health committee against orders of that committee, to the finance committee and we have seen it now to this special committee.While the Liberals may believe that they are acting with the best interests in mind, they are contravening lawful orders of the documents that have been ordered with provisions for national security that would allow for the parliamentary law clerk, an impartial intermediary, to make those redactions and allow Canadians to have their continued confidence in public institutions.That is what we are looking to do. That is what the opposition is looking to do, striking a balance where they can hold the government to account in a responsible way and protect the confidence of Canadians.Adjournment ProceedingsBiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securitySpecial Committee on Canada-China RelationsSeanFraserCentral NovaSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertSeanFraserCentral NovaPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersHansard InsertSeanFraserCentral Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71323JohnWilliamsonJohn-WilliamsonNew Brunswick SouthwestConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsonJohn_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersIsraeli Prime MinisterInterventionMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate incoming Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett on successfully forming a national government and to thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for 12 years of service, during which he strengthened the many bonds between Canada and Israel.I also want to congratulate the Israeli people on electing their new government, the culmination of a robust democratic process, which is the only one in the Middle East.The Conservative Party will always support Israel, our ally in the fight against terror, and will work toward a future when all the region's people can vote to have their democratic preferences reflected in governments of their choosing, that is to say, elected by a free and fair democratic process in Israel as in Canada.Bennett, NaftaliIsraelNetanyahu, BenjaminStatements by MembersKodyBloisKings—HantsPamDamoffOakville North—Burlington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersConstruction Zone Road SafetyInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, in just over a week's time, we will all be back in our home ridings. While all of our ridings are diverse and unique, one activity that will be ongoing in many regions across Canada is annual summer road work and maintenance projects.I raise this point as a reminder because it is critically important that we remind our constituents to slow down and pay attention when passing through a construction zone. In British Columbia alone, there have been over 13 roadside workers killed over the past decade after being hit by vehicles, and 30 more injured. Let us not forget that a roadside construction site is also a job site, and highway and flagging workers deserve the same respect that we would expect with citizens passing through our job site.April 28 is our National Day of Mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. Let us make every day this summer a day to take care to ensure those who work on our roads can be as safe and as stress-free as possible on the job.Accidents at workNational Day of MourningRoad construction and repairRoad safetyStatements by MembersWorkersMarie-FranceLalondeOrléansSalmaZahidScarborough Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30330TonyBaldinelliTony-BaldinelliNiagara FallsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BaldinelliTony_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLiberal Party of CanadaInterventionMr. Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's pledge of a one-shot summer and his recent attendance at the G7 summit simply proves that Liberals have one set of rules for themselves and another for hard-working Canadians who are abiding by health guidelines and who simply want this pandemic to be over.Every day I hear from my constituents who have been separated from their families and loved ones by the lengthy and extended border closure with the United States. This border closure has also had a devastating impact on our local and national tourism economy. Niagara is the number one leisure tourism destination in Canada employing some 40,000 tourism workers and generating over $2.4 billion in tourism receipts. Budget 2021 only commits $1 billion in tourism funding, which completely misses the mark when we consider that Canada's tourism industry generated over $105 billion annually before COVID. Severely underfunding indigenous tourism only adds to my disappointment in budget 2021.The Liberal government has failed families, border communities, and Canada's travel and tourism industry, and it continues to fail the people of Niagara.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)Statements by MembersTourismRandeepSaraiSurrey CentreKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLucie CôtéInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): (1410)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to Lucie Côté, a friend who left us far too soon because of COVID‑19. Lucie was a determined woman who was proud of her roots. She was a loving partner to her husband Rémy and a devoted sister to Diane and Sylvie, who cared about her a lot. She was the mother of four children, Jean-François, Jocelyn, Caroline and Isabelle, the beloved grandmother of 12 grandchildren, and a friend to many.All her life, she worked for the well-being of others and she was active in her community at both the local and national levels. This caring woman was a source of inspiration and leadership to us all. Before her untimely death, Lucie was getting ready to live out her retirement dreams with her husband Rémy after a busy lifetime of hard work. Lucie, we miss you very much and we will always remember your zest for life, good humour and sensitivity.Rest in peace, Lucie.Côté, LucieCOVID-19Deaths and funeralsPandemicSenior citizensStatements by MembersKirstyDuncanHon.Etobicoke NorthBobBenzenCalgary Heritage//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96361BobBenzenBob-BenzenCalgary HeritageConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BenzenBob_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersNational DefenceInterventionMr. Bob Benzen (Calgary Heritage, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, Parliament will rise this summer without receiving a report from the national defence committee into sexual misconduct allegations plaguing our military. Rather than facing tough questions on what transpired within the leadership of the armed forces on the current government’s watch, Liberal members of the defence committee, empowered by their partisan chairperson, have instead filibustered, delayed and repeatedly suspended the committee to prevent a report from coming forward. Our current meeting has been ongoing since mid-May.To show how blatant and pathetic the Liberals' obstruction has become, they have lately been filibustering their own amendment to a motion: anything to avoid a vote they know they will lose, instead of giving answers to Canadians. Multiple defence reports are now casualties of the government’s partisan antics. The Liberal members continue to place their party above the people, and especially above victims of misconduct in our military. Canadian ForcesCommittee studies and activitiesConduct at workFilibusterSexual behaviourStanding Committee on National DefenceStatements by MembersVance, Jonathan H.JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreLindsayMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersThe EconomyInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, last month 68,000 more Canadian families lost their jobs, yet the Liberal government has spent more in deficits than any other G7 country, and in fact more than ever in Canadian history. It is clear the Liberals cannot manage our economy and deliver results, no matter how much they spend. It is under the current Liberal government's feminist policy that all economic gains made by women in my lifetime have been completely wiped out, and Canadian families are having to live through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Inflation has hit the highest levels in a decade. The costs of groceries, lumber and housing have all skyrocketed to unprecedented levels. The paycheques of Canadians are buying them less and less, yet the Prime Minister and his cabinet are acting as though everything is fine when it is not. Canada's Conservatives are the only party that will make economic recovery the number one priority, ensuring families have secure jobs and can put food on the table, pay their bills and have more opportunities in every industry in every region of this great country.Economic recoveryStatements by MembersYvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéRobertMorrisseyEgmont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has confirmed that inflation is at a 10‑year high in Canada because this government's spending is out of control. The cost of everything is on the rise: housing, education, transportation and groceries. Canadians can no longer accept this government's limitless spending.When will the Liberals rein in their spending?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsRobertMorrisseyEgmontChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, inflation is at a 10-year high. The cost of housing is up nearly 40%. This is quickly turning into an economic crisis for Canada's working poor and families trying to buy their first homes. The working poor and first-time homebuyers cannot afford more of the same economic incompetence.Can the government guarantee that housing prices will stabilize and start going down by the end of this summer?Consumer priceHousingOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, what is irresponsible is that Canada is the only country in the world that had no budget for two years. When it comes to the housing crisis, the government is telling Canadians not to buy a house: they should just rent. That minister and an out-of-touch, ideological Liberal government are telling Canadians to give up on the dream of home ownership. Instead of the failed Liberal approach, Canada's Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure our future including help for first-time homebuyers. First-time homebuyers know they are only going to get help when the Liberal government gets out of the way and the Conservatives come to get the job done.HousingOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, he falsified his service record, threw Admiral Mark Norman under the bus and misled Canadians. Do we want to hear more? The Liberal caucus seems to forget he bought used fighter jets. He cut benefits to our troops fighting ISIS. He cut health care for military members. He cut defence spending. He all but eliminated Canadian peacekeeping and, of course, for three years he covered up sexual misconduct allegations in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces need leadership. When will the Prime Minister fire his defence minister?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister will not do the honourable thing and resign after having failed women in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Prime Minister will not fire him. The Liberals are never accountable. Therefore, I want to speak directly to the voters in Vancouver South. If they want to end cover-ups on sexual misconduct in our military, and if they want to secure accountability in Ottawa, it is going to be up to them to support the Conservatives in the next election, demand better and replace the most corrupt and incompetent defence minister in Canada's history. It is up to them.Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, our Canadian Armed Forces are in chaos. The unravelling of the top brass and the repeat cycle of resignations are beyond disturbing. Who is actually in charge? It is clear the defence minister has lost all respect. He and the Prime Minister are considered a joke because of their terrible leadership. The men and women in our military cannot afford any more of this.Can the minister tell us if the Prime Minister ever voiced concerns to him about how he handled sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces?Canadian ForcesConduct at workOral questionsSexual behaviourChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a no, which means our military can just expect more of the same from this fake feminist government.Our military deserves a minister and a Prime Minister who do not just say the right words, but actually do the right thing. The respect and trust for the minister is gone. The damage to him is beyond repair, and when our military does not respect its top commander, we are in a very precarious place. Our armed forces in our country cannot afford this to continue.Will the minister do the right thing and finally resign?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, he is doubling down on defending himself and his horrible, failed record. The men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces do not respect the minister, and his continuing in this role is damaging our military. The minister has failed the people who defend us. Our troops have sacrificed so much, and it is time the minister did the right thing for these men and women. Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure Canada's future, and that includes bringing accountability, honour and respect back to our military.Again, I ask this minister if he will do the right thing. Will he step aside for the sake of our country and for our men and women in uniform?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. It is time to send a message.The Minister of National Defence completely abandoned the Canadian Forces during years of incompetence. The Prime Minister himself said that the problem of sexual misconduct in the military had been ignored for far too long, but he acts like that is not the case.If he really wants to start changing things, the Prime Minister needs to fire his Minister of National Defence.Why is the Prime Minister insisting on keeping the minister in place?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country with honour. Our brave men and women who serve in our armed forces deserve all the support we can give them. Every day that the Minister of National Defence stays in office is a show of disrespect for the service of our armed forces.The Minister of National Defence has to stop trying to fix things. It is too late. He needs to step down.When will the minister realize that?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's situation has morphed into a cycle of scandals followed by its empty excuses and a false promise to do better. There is never any accountability.The situation in the armed forces is a perfect example. It has become toxic and is falling apart before our eyes.The Minister of Defence must resign or the Prime Minister must boot him out. Which one of them will do the honourable thing?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has always had a casual relationship with the truth. He misled Canadians about the protests of Iraqi officials for pulling our CF-18s out of the fight against ISIS. He embellished his service record, saying he was the architect of Operation Medusa. He originally denied he knew about the General Vance allegations in 2018, but was complicit in the cover-up for three years.Canadians do not trust the Minister of National Defence. Members of the military do not trust him. When will the Prime Minister fire him?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.MélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister has not learned anything from his own mistakes, so he should actually follow our example.The Canadian Armed Forces is losing senior officers at an alarming rate. Two chiefs of defence staff are under investigation, and the seventh vice chief of defence staff since 2015 just resigned. All of this is happening under the failed leadership of the defence minister and is creating a national security crisis for our nation. The Minister of National Defence must be held to account, and no one trusts him to rebuild our armed forces.Will the Prime Minister fire his inept defence minister today?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians were shocked to learn that the man with control over the sexual misconduct investigation went golfing with the man accused of the sexual misconduct, General Vance. Clearly these men at the top of the Canadian military were not informed of the seriousness of this investigation and were not informed of the need for a culture change in our military. The Liberal government and the defence minister have had six years to fix this, yet they resoundingly failed or this golfing scandal would have never happened.How can the minister take these questions with a straight face? Has he no honour?Canadian ForcesConduct at workConflict of interestInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsRouleau, MikeSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has built his entire image on being a feminist and, yet, after six years, he has allowed this toxic culture to continue under the watch of his defence minister, who sat idly by and allowed the most powerful military men in our country to continue to demean and disrespect our women in uniform. What message does this send to women and to men in our country, to aspiring women leaders in our military, that the Prime Minister thinks this is acceptable behaviour? Canadians are watching. Will the Prime Minister be a leader for once and fire his defence minister?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the cost of living is up, way up. Inflation is now at 3.6%, the highest it has been in over 10 years. Prices for everything, gasoline, food, furniture, are up, while millions of Canadians see their dream of home ownership disappear. Canadians need a leader who is focused on governing, not on preening for the cameras at the G7. When will the Prime Minister finally take his job seriously and make life more affordable for the people he is supposed to be serving? Cost of livingInflationOral questionsDebSchulteHon.King—VaughanChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, even the finance minister does not get it. Inflation is way up. It is at its highest point in a decade, proving that the finance minister's trillion dollar debt and endless deficits are inflicting more and more damage on our country. Meanwhile, the cost of everything is going up, and housing has become unaffordable for millions of families. How much more expensive does life have to get before the minister and her Liberal government realize how badly they have failed exhausted Canadians?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, today it is clear that we have an inflationary bubble. The government is just trying to pump even more hot air into that bubble. It has created a trillion-dollar debt, which means too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. Now, in addition to not having paycheques, Canadians who do work are seeing their paycheques nibbled up by this growing level of inflation.Will the government reverse its inflationary policy, stop spending what it does not have, restore fiscal responsibility and allow Canadians to afford their cost of living?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, so she just wants us to help her give more and more inflationary spending into the economy, driving up the cost of living, particularly on the working poor, and devaluing the wages of the Canadian people.We have the second-highest unemployment in the G7, higher than the OECD, higher than the U.K., the U.S., Japan and Germany. Now those same unemployed Canadians are facing higher prices for shelter, fuel and food.Instead of ramming through another inflationary budget that drives up the cost of living, why will she not actually reverse course and protect the value of the dollars Canadians earn?Cost of livingInflationOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why the government cannot answer the following question.President Biden directed U.S. intelligence to determine whether the pandemic originated from human contact with an animal or from a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.Last weekend, the G7 discussed this issue, and the government pledged co-operation. Given that government scientists at the Canadian lab in Winnipeg worked closely with the Wuhan lab, will these scientists and their documents, including lab notes, be made available to U.S. investigators?BiosafetyChinaCOVID-19Inquiries and public inquiriesInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPandemicUnited States of AmericaMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleMarcGarneauHon.Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know from public documents and peer-reviewed academic papers that a Chinese military scientist, Feihu Yan, of the People's Liberation Army worked at the Winnipeg lab, a level 4 facility where the world's most dangerous viruses and pathogens are handled.Who approved this individual to work at the government's lab in Winnipeg?BiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsSecurity checksMarcGarneauHon.Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—WestmountPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I will try another.During this pandemic, the health minister has been telling Canadians to follow public health orders, yet the health minister continues to defy a House order to hand over documents about the Winnipeg lab. Does the minister not see how corrosive this is to the rule of law, when she tells Canadians to comply with public health orders while at the same time defying an order of this House?BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of Health honoured us with her presence before the Canada-China committee to answer our questions. However, she wasted our time for three hours. She did the same thing she does during question period, which is repeat platitudes. The minister even tried to make us believe that she had not received a briefing about the breach at the Winnipeg lab.Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Minister of Health had not been briefed on the matter?BiosafetyChinaHajdu, PattyInternational relationsMinister of HealthNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsReferences to membersAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to go back and look at the committee blues. She clearly said that she did not know anything, she never knew anything.The other issue we have is that when we talk about the security breach at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, the Prime Minister always accuses us of being racist and fearmongering.However, last week at the G7 meetings, the same Prime Minister supported a motion calling China a threat to public safety with a government seeking to undermine the global system.The Prime Minister is trying to act tough on the international stage. Why is he unable to tell us the truth and give us the information in Canada?BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1500)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, here is the truth of the matter. When the Prime Minister says that the protection of public safety is at stake and that that is why he is hiding the truth from Canada, it is because the real problem is that if people knew what went on, it would put him in conflict with China.The Prime Minister is still having problems with China. We saw that with the development of the vaccine with CanSino, where we were had. As for what happened at the lab in Winnipeg, it is clear that there was a problem, not for China, but for Canada. That is why the Prime Minister does not want us to know.Could he at least confirm that there is no longer any co‑operation with China?BiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (1505)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that public safety is the reason he is hiding the truth about the security breach at the Winnipeg lab from Canadians.The truth is that, if that information were made public, it would show how badly he was fooled by the Chinese Communist regime, just as he was fooled by the CanSino company, which is owned by the Chinese Communist regime.Can he at least confirm that there is no longer any co‑operation going on between the Winnipeg lab and Communist China?BiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1605)[Translation]Madam Speaker, Conservative members on the committee are presenting a supplementary recommendation to the Subcommittee on International Human Rights' report on the Canadian ombudsman for responsible enterprise, CORE.[English] The committee heard expert witnesses that expressed concerns about CORE, in particular its advisory capacity, its potential conflicts of interest and its effectiveness and jurisdiction. (1610)Extraterritorial concerns, at a minimum, would require information and collaboration with entities outside of Canada. In addition, greater industry consultation would be necessary if CORE's responsibility was to be expanded to all sectors, which is a desire that has been expressed by the government. Conservative members recommend the government conduct, through an independent expert panel, a comprehensive review of CORE every four years to ensure its effectiveness as a tool to uphold human rights.8510-432-162 "Mandate of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise"Canadian companiesCanadian Ombudsperson for Responsible EnterpriseCivil and human rightsDissenting or supplementary opinionsSocial responsibilityStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentPeterFonsecaMississauga East—CooksvilleRajSainiKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89095RobertKitchenRobert-KitchenSouris—Moose MountainConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KitchenRobert_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsGovernment Operations and EstimatesInterventionMr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, entitled “Ensuring Robust Security in Federal Purchasing”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. I would also like to take a moment to thank the clerk who did such a great job of organizing the meetings that led to the production of this report. I thank the analysts who wrote the report. Their work is impressive, and we appreciate their dedication in producing this outstanding document that will hopefully go a long way when it comes to how the government looks at the integrity of its procurement procedures. I thank the witnesses for their well-thought-out testimony and candour during the meetings that took place on this study. Their contributions are invaluable and are the crux of this report. We really appreciate the time and effort undertaken to provide us with this input.I thank the House of Commons staff including our interpreters and technical staff. We know that these hybrid meetings have not always been easy, and we are so thankful for the work that they have done behind the scenes to keep everything up and running.8510-432-164 "Ensuring Robust Security in Federal Purchasing"ChinaEmbassies and consulatesGovernment contractsGovernment response to committee reportsNuctech Company LimitedSecurityStanding Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesRajSainiKitchener CentrePierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsGovernment Operations and EstimatesInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1610)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party definitely supports the report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the contract awarded to Chinese firm Nuctech.However, we consider it urgent to table a supplement to this report because we believe that it is essential to uncover the extent of the systemic flaws in the federal procurement process. This standing offer is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the federal government’s complacency on national security issues associated with these procurements. Urgent and necessary changes to the contracting system are needed to correct these systemic flaws. Another thing that is urgently needed is strong leadership.We studied the details of the contract awarded to Nuctech and heard from several industry representatives. Dubbed the “Huawei of airports” and banned from U.S. airports, Nuctech is a China-based company founded by the son of former Chinese leader Hu Jintao. The government awarded it a standing offer despite the national security risks. This standing offer made Nuctech the supplier of X-ray equipment to all Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions around the world.That the Prime Minister considered it a good idea to award such a contract to a company under the control of the Chinese Communist regime shows his disregard for the national security that he claims to be defending. Canadians have good reason to be concerned about his failure to take the threat posed by the Chinese Communist regime seriously. That is why we are tabling this supplement to the report, which contains additional recommendations.8510-432-164 "Ensuring Robust Security in Federal Purchasing"ChinaDissenting or supplementary opinionsEmbassies and consulatesGovernment contractsNuctech Company LimitedSecurityStanding Committee on Government Operations and EstimatesRobertKitchenSouris—Moose MountainVanceBadaweyNiagara Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Freedom of Speech]InterventionMr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today to present e-petition 3393 on behalf of many Canadians, particularly those from my riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington.The petitioners are extremely concerned that Bill C-10 unjustly infringes on citizens’ right to freedom of expression outlined in section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly that the speech Canadians engage in on digital platforms is crucial to their conveying of their basic individual expressions. Bill C-10 would provide the CRTC with the authority to control and regulate user-generated content on digital platforms that Canadians use every day and censor what Canadians post and see on social media and the Internet, providing it with sweeping powers over how Canadians communicate and express themselves online.These Canadians want their rights upheld and due process followed. I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for so ruling yesterday.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechInternetPetition 432-01121LindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFarmers' Protests in IndiaInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in this House, a petition that is signed by many Canadians, calling the government's attention to the farmers' protests that continue to take place in the states of Punjab and Haryana, India.The petitioners are calling on the Canadian government to respond to reports of violence against these protestors. They also wish to convey their sincere belief in the right of individuals to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.I note that those rights to peacefully protest are enshrined in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Civil and human rightsFarming and farmersForeign policyIndiaPetition 432-01124ProtestsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105120ChrisLewisChris-LewisEssexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisChris_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConversion TherapyInterventionMr. Chris Lewis (Essex, CPC): (1620)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition calling on the House to address concerns related to the broad definition applied to conversion therapy in Bill C-6.The petitioners' concerns relate not to the intent of Bill C-6, which they strongly support, but rather to the chilling effect the broad definition contained in Bill C-6 may have on counsel from parents and teachers, as well as professionals and religious counselling that is voluntary and with full consent.The petition contains four recommendations to the House with respect to clarifying the definition.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGender identity and gender expressionPetition 432-01127Sexual minoritiesCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present the following petition on behalf of constituents in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. The federal government introduced Bill C-21, which includes sections that prohibit the majority of replica firearms, such as airsoft guns. It will also criminalize thousands of law-abiding Canadians for possessing legally obtained firearms and financially devastate thousands of Canadians who are reliant on the sale of firearms. As well, hunting has a long history in Canada for both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians and needlessly revoking the firearms of citizens erases and discounts our history and traditions. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop targeting law-abiding citizens for possessing legally obtained firearms, protect their rights and freedoms by ensuring that firearm legislation is based on evidence and not ideology, and withdraw Bill C-21.C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms)FirearmsPetition 432-01130Petition 432-01131KodyBloisKings—HantsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I only have five petitions to table today.Canada has spent a great deal of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. The first petition I am tabling highlights the situation of the Hazara community in Afghanistan regarding historical violence and the ongoing violence and persecution the community faces. The petition identifies a terrible genocide that took place at the end of the 19th century, and identifies more recent acts of violence, such as a horrific attack on a maternity ward in May 2020 and targeted attacks in Behsud, Jabrayil and Jalalabad in the earlier part of this year.Over 150 Canadian men and women have lost their lives in the fight in Afghanistan, so Canada has a close relationship with Afghanistan. Canadians feel a deep desire to advance justice and human rights there.Therefore, the petitioners call on the House to formally recognize the ethnic cleansing perpetrated between 1891 to 1893 against the Hazaras as a genocide, to designate September 25 as Hazara genocide memorial day and to support Bill C-287, which seeks to ensure that all development assistance contributes to peace and security when it is being disbursed.AfghanistanC-287, An Act to amend the Official Development Assistance Accountability ActGenocideHazarasInternational development and aidPetition 432-01132BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman Organ TraffickingInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ in the case where there has not been consent. This bill is currently before the House, and the petitioners would like to see it passed expeditiously. It was passed in the same form unanimously in the House in the previous Parliament, and it has been passed twice unanimously in the Senate.Human organs and other body parts traffickingMedical tourismMedical transplantationOrgansPetition 432-01133S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConversion TherapyInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the third petition I am presenting deals with Bill C-6, the government's conversion therapy bill.The petitioners are very supportive of efforts to ban conversion therapy. However, they are concerned about the definition as written in the bill, believing that it is inaccurate and that it would apply to private conversations in which sexual behaviour is discussed but that have nothing to do with conversion therapy as it has been historically defined.The petitioners call on the government to ban coercive, degrading practices that are designed to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity; to ensure there are no laws discriminating against Canadians or limiting their ability to access services on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; and to fix the definition in Bill C-6.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGender identity and gender expressionPetition 432-01134Sexual minoritiesGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEthiopiaInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition highlights the situation in the Tigray region and more broadly in Ethiopia. The petitioners are concerned about the human rights and humanitarian situation in Ethiopia and want to see greater engagement from the Government of Canada on these issues. That includes promoting greater engagement in elections and in the election monitoring coming up in Ethiopia.Civil and human rightsElectoral observation missionsEthiopiaForeign policyHumanitarian assistance and workersPetition 432-01135GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, the fifth and final petition I am tabling today highlights the horrific situation confronting Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China. The petitioners note various aspects of these atrocities in the petition. They call on the government to recognize the Uighur genocide. They also call on the government to use the Magnitsky act and to recognize that any proposed co-operation with the Chinese state should be viewed through the lens of the fact that the Government of China and the Chinese military are in the process of committing a genocide as we speak.I commend these petitions to the consideration of members.ChinaEconomic sanctionsForeign policyGenocidePetition 432-01136UyghurGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, you have notice from me of a question of privilege.I am rising today because of the government's imposition of a new tax without needed approval of the House of Commons. It has breached the privileges of all members and has done so in contravention of Standing Orders 79(1), 80 and 83.1, as well as principles laid out on pages 827, 828, 829, 831, 833, 835, 841, 893 and 906 through 908 of Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017. There are also numerous rulings by the Chair and most important of all section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867.In essence, I am rising today to ask that you find a prima facie case of breach of privilege because of the government's imposition of a secretive and insidious tax designed to raise funds for it to spend at the expense of the Canadian people without holding appropriate votes in the House of Commons and possibly in direct contravention of other laws that have been passed by this House.The new tax of which I speak is designed to raise more money for the government to spend. In fact, it raised more money for the government to spend in the last fiscal year than all other sources of revenue combined. This tax should be called the inflation tax, which is—InflationParliamentary privilegeRaising a question of privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1650)[English]Mr. Speaker, I speak of this illegal inflation tax, in which the government is funding its spending with newly created currency that increases consumer prices through the levy of inflation.Before I go any further, let me clarify the difference between inflation and the inflation tax. It is not a tax when, independent and separate from government, consumer prices rise due to supply and demand dynamics. However, when they rise because the government and central bank coordinate to expand the money supply, thus raising consumer prices above what they would otherwise be and force consumers to pay what they would otherwise pay, that is a tax.I do not raise this question of privilege lightly, but after careful consideration of the nature of the government's actions and their real-world effects on Canadians, both of which I have described. As well, I rely heavily on the jurisprudence from the Chair and the clear legal definitions of a tax.To prove this breach, I would have to show three parts. First, that there is a privilege for members of Parliament at stake, and that the privilege is governments cannot tax what the House does not expressly approve through votes by each member in the chamber. Second, I would need to prove the policy in fact imposes a tax. Finally, I would need to provide proof the House did not approve this tax. Together, these points prove the government committed a prima facie case of breach of my parliamentary privilege by denying me the opportunity to vote on this tax increase before it took effect.Let me start with the first part. Is there a privilege for each member to vote on any new taxes introduced or imposed on Canadians? The answer is yes. In fact, this privilege on Canadian soil originated with the British North America Act, section 53 of the Constitution, which reads:Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.This constitutional principle is further enshrined in Standing Order 80(1), which states:All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.The failure of this House to “direct, limit, and appoint” revenue-raising measures is accordingly not only a violation of the Constitution but also of the privileges of members of the House set out in the Standing Orders.In the Eurig Estate case, the courts considered the constitutional implications of a tax raised through such improper and indirect means. Justice Jack Major, writing for the majority, wrote that section 53 of the Constitution “...codifies the principle of no taxation without representation, by requiring any bill that imposes a tax to originate with the legislature.”Justice Major goes on to say “My interpretation of s. 53...prohibits not only the Senate, but also any other body other than the directly elected legislature, from imposing a tax on its own accord.”Any other body—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1700)[English]Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, Justice Major made clear that it is his interpretation that no body, other than the House of Commons, can initiate a tax increase. I would submit that “no body” includes the Bank of Canada itself, in collaboration with the government. When the court said “there should be no taxation without representation”, it got to the heart of my point here today. It stated:...the Lieutenant Governor in Council cannot impose a new tax ab initio without the authorization of the legislature.... “The Governor in Council has no power, proprio vigore, to impose taxes unless under authority specifically delegated to it by Statute. The power of taxation is exclusively in Parliament.”The court went on to say that section 53 “ensures parliamentary control over, and accountability for, taxation” and quoted the distinguished legal scholar Elmer Driedger, as follows:Through the centuries, the principle was maintained that taxation required representation and consent. The only body in Canada that meets this test is the Commons. The elected representatives of the people sit in the Commons...and, consistently with history and tradition, they may well insist that they alone have the right to decide to the last cent what money is to be granted and what taxes are to be imposed.Elsewhere, the court similarly held in the Westbank First Nation case: ...the Canadian Constitution (through the operation of s. 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867) demands that there should be no taxation without representation. In other words, individuals being taxed in a democracy have the right to have their elected representatives debate whether their money should be appropriated, and determine how it should be spent.InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, just because the member does not understand the fact, that does not erase that it is indeed a fact.I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his help along the way.Peter Hogg, who, until his death last year, was Canada's leading constitutional scholar, underscored the point that I am making now in a 2002 article:It must be remembered that the taxing power is the one upon which the rest of governance depends. As the King and Parliament both recognized in the 17th century, nothing important can be done without resources, and it is control of the taxing power that provides the resources. Moreover, no other power has as direct and immediate an effect on citizens as the taxing power, and (for that reason) nothing government does is as unpopular as the imposition and collection of taxes. There is a huge incentive for governments to offload this power to a delegate, who can raise taxes quietly without any irritating fuss in the Parliament or Legislature, and who can shoulder the blame when the media do get wind of the action.As Professor Hogg noted, this is not a new problem. In fact, it is one of the oldest and most important matters in the system of parliamentary democracy. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that taxation is the reason we are all here today. The Crown's power to tax and the need to obtain the consent of those paying the taxes is why Parliament exists in the first place. We could look at 800 years of history, going back to the Magna Carta, to find that the principal disagreement between Crown and commoner has been on the subject of taxation. It is essential to the privileges of every member of this House that every single levy or tax come before us to be voted on before it is enacted. I think I have clearly proven that it is the privilege of every member to vote on a tax increase before it is imposed. What is the tax of which I speak? The answer is, it is the inflation tax. Is excessive inflation, which results from excessive money creation, in fact a tax? We can look to the definition of “tax” found in Oxford Languages, a 150-year-old dictionary, which defines taxes as follows:A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits, or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.I will break down that definition. First, it is state revenue, “levied by the government”. Second, it is “added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.” Third, it is a “compulsory contribution”.First, is the inflation tax designed to generate state revenue, levied by the government? I will give the data to prove that in fact it is. In February 2020, the Bank of Canada owned $106 billion of government debt. As of the end of last month, that number had reached $412 billion. That is an increase of almost $300 billion in one year. It is also an increase of 300%. Last year, the amount that the Bank of Canada produced for the government by purchasing government debt was over $300 billion. It was the single biggest source of revenue for the government, bigger than income tax, consumption tax, tariffs and private loans combined.Never before has the Bank of Canada been the single biggest provider of funds for the government's operation. It does this through a process whereby the government sells debt onto the market and the bank buys it back at a higher price. This has the effect of flooding government coffers with cheap credit that it could spend liberally, as it did last year and continues to do right now.(1705)The result is a massive increase in the money supply. When the Bank of Canada uses its balance sheet to buy government debt, it increases the number of dollars in circulation. In the period since late winter and early spring of 2020, the money supply has increased by over $300 billion. In fact, from February 2020 to February 2021, the money supply grew by $354 billion. The deficit for the last fiscal year was $354 billion. In other words, the same amount the government needed to borrow was the amount that the Bank of Canada created. This led to a 20% year-over-year increase in the number of dollars in coins, bills and bank deposits. That is the biggest increase since 1974, which was the last time the government went on a money-printing binge, which led to major inflation crises thereafter. For context, the increase in the money supply is so large that it could fund our Canadian Armed Forces for 10 years. To use another measure, fully one in six dollars in the entire M2 money supply has been created in the last year alone.In the fiscal year 2021, the Bank of Canada was the single largest source of funds for the Government of Canada. All revenue from other sources was $294 billion, and net new borrowing was $41 billion, but revenue from the bank was $303 billion. That $303 billion is an extraordinary and unprecedented sum. The bank did not do this on its own. Let me now speak about the direct coordination between the government and the bank that led to this massive increase in the money supply.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance actually said that there was coordination between the bank and the government. The coincidence that we see in the amount of money printed and the amount of money spent demonstrates this coordination as well. For example—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1710)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out before the interruption, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, the government had been coordinating with the central bank to produce these funds and these funds had been used to spend.The massive dollar figures involved that I mentioned earlier are not only staggering and unprecedented, they may be illegal. In fact, I stumbled on a section of the Bank of Canada Act, section 18(j), only hours before I was originally planning to make this question of privilege. Having read that section and looked at the numbers, I came to the conclusion that there very well might be a breach of law involved in what the bank and the government have colluded to do.Allow me to read the section in question, section 18, which states that the bank may:(j) make loans to the Government of Canada or the government of any province, but such loans outstanding at any one time shall not, in the case of the Government of Canada, exceed one-third of the estimated revenue of the Government of Canada for its fiscal year... I turn your attention, Mr. Speaker, to table A1.4, “Summary Statement of Transactions”, budget 2021, projected revenues $355.1 billion. To respect section 18(j) of the Bank of Canada Act, which limits the bank's ability to lend money to the government to no more than one-third of projected budgetary revenues, the bank would be effectively capped in its loans to the government at $118 billion, $118 billion being one-third of the $355 billion of projected revenues. In fact, the Bank of Canada balance sheet shows that it now holds $415 billion, almost $300 billion more than the legal cap provided in the act.When I discovered this apparent breach, I immediately delayed my introduction of this question of privilege to spend the time to verify and re-verify my calculations. I had never seen a government body quite so flagrantly violate limits that Parliament has placed upon it in statutory law, so I thought there must be some mistake. However, as I crunched the numbers, I realized that no, in fact, the one-third limit was breached.I then reached out to the Library of Parliament to conduct a full review of all the legislation passed to approve emergency COVID spending since the spring of 2020 to find out if maybe the section was temporarily suspended or a special exemption to it was created to allow this kind of dollar figure to be lent from the bank to the government. Sure enough, the Library of Parliament said that there was no such exemption or suspension of the section; it is still in place.In other words, this research shows, and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, and your trusted advisers and the officials at the Library of Parliament to verify my claim here, that the Bank of Canada has breached limits that Parliament has imposed on its ability to lend money to the government. These limits do not exist without reason. There is a reason why Parliament chose deliberately to write a section into the Bank of Canada Act limiting the amount of debt the bank could buy. The reason is this: Parliament foresaw that future governments might try to use the printing presses over at the bank to pay for spending that it could not raise through the more normal process of taxation.With the limits Parliament placed on the Bank of Canada's purchase of government debt, Parliament effectively banned the government from raising taxes by inflationary money creation instead of by legal and legitimate taxation. That the government and the bank have circumvented that ban and broken a law of Parliament breaches the privileges of every member of the House to vote on laws that are made and repealed.In the process, the government has breached the principle of the independence of the central bank. This breach is not the result of the independent action of the bank. (1715)The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, during the appearance of the Governor of the Bank of Canada before the finance committee on June 16, 2020, said, “There's been an enormous coordination between OSFI, the bank and the federal government.”I have given the fiscal and mathematical evidence to show that this coordination has occurred. In fact, not only did it occur last year when the bank bought effectively 85% of the government's deficit, and wherein the bank increased the money supply by exactly the same amount that the government borrowed in the previous fiscal year, but that “enormous coordination” has continued into this fiscal year. On April 19, the Minister of Finance introduced a budget in the House projecting a $154 billion deficit, or borrowing effectively $3 billion a week. Two days later, the Governor of the Bank of Canada held a press conference, announcing that his bank would be buying $3 billion a week of government debt. In other words, the government is borrowing $3 billion a week and the central bank is buying $3 billion a week. The government is running roughly a $155 billion deficit and the bank is lending roughly $155 billion throughout the year. In other words, this coordination is not just in words—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, we shall listen to the member who has raised the question of privilege. It is the basis of the House of Commons to respect the will and thinking of each and every member. We could disagree with what the member is saying, but at least we shall listen to him, especially on a privilege question, which is not easy to address; we recognize that. It is so important for the Canadian taxpayer that we listen to the member. InflationInterruption of Member speakingParliamentary privilegePoints of orderRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said when I quoted the Oxford dictionary, a tax has three characteristics: that it is a state revenue levied by government, that is adds to the cost of goods and services transactions and that it is a compulsory contribution. I have just gone through the first point in which I have demonstrated that this cash creation is state revenue levied by the government— InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1720)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I said, the second characteristic of a tax is that it adds to the cost of some goods, services and transactions. Just today, Statistics Canada released fresh data showing what consumers have known for months; that inflation has rocketed up to 3.6%, well above the Bank of Canada's 2% target. This data was essential to my argument today, thus one of the reasons why I waited for its publication before presenting this.As of this morning, three of four measures of the Bank of Canada for inflation show that inflation has breached the 2% target. Several product groups were well above that. Gasoline is up 43.4%; home ownership replacement costs, 11.3%; and durable goods, which includes things like cars, appliances and furniture, is up 5%. That is just to name a few. This is demonstrated proof that people are, in fact, paying the cost of the inflation tax. Food prices are also on sharp rise. According to the latest Canada Food Price Report, food costs increased 2.3% last year, with an expected 4.5% to 6.5% increase in meat, 3.5% to 5.5% increase in bakery and 4.5% to 6.5% increase in vegetables this year.Housing prices have ballooned 30% from March 2020 to March 2021. This is where the cause and effect is most evident. COVID should have reduced housing prices. The wages with which people buy houses dropped. People lost their jobs, making it harder to place offers on homes. To escape lockdowns, more people moved to the countryside, where prices per square foot are lower. Immigration came to a halt, reducing the number of buyers in the market. All these factors would have driven demand and therefore prices down.In fact, the country's top housing regulator, CMHC, predicted prices would drop as much as 14% for those reasons, and they did begin to drop in March and April of last year. Then, suddenly, as the Bank of Canada's increase in the money supply began flooding into the market, prices began to reverse. The government pumped $356 billion of brand new, newly created cash into the system, and that was exactly the size of the deficit and the size of the money supply growth—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, the member for Winnipeg North is using points of order as a tactic to interrupt the member for Carleton. The Chair had made a decision and then gave instruction to the member for Carleton to be concise. The member for Winnipeg North then challenged the Speaker's interpretation of what was and what was not concise. We are seeing this tactic where we have members using their privilege in this place to raise germane questions of privilege, and we have members from the government side who enter into debate instead of accepting the decision of the Chair, and that was with respect to whether the member was being concise. It was not a question of repetition. I would hope that other members, under your direction, Mr. Speaker, would allow the member to conclude his question of privilege without these interruptions and tactics they are deploying.InflationParliamentary privilegePoints of orderRights of Members breachedTaxationTime limits on speechesCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivilege [Alleged Breach of Members' Right to Vote on a New Tax]InterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre: (1725)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, housing prices were dropping until the bank began printing its money. The increase in the money supply flooded into the mortgage system. From the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021, mortgage lending grew by 41% and, as a result, from April 2020 to April 2021, housing prices went up about 42%. In other words, there is a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the increase in the money supply and the increase in prices. This is supported by years of research by academia. For example, Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, said, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”, and John Maynard Keynes—InflationParliamentary privilegeRights of Members breachedTaxationAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105835NellyShinNelly-ShinPort Moody—CoquitlamConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ShinNelly_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionMs. Nelly Shin (Port Moody—Coquitlam, CPC): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-269, , an act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition—deposit of raw sewage), which was tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.As the Fisheries Act currently stands, there is no definition of raw sewage. Bill C-269 would amend the act by adding raw sewage to denote the following: raw sewage means sewage that has not yet been processed or treated to separate and remove contaminants, and includes (a) used water from sanitary appliances that contains human fecal matter or human urine, (b) used water, other than the type of water described in paragraph (a), from sanitary appliances or from other appliances in a kitchen or laundry, and (c) surface runoff and stormwater that is mixed with the type of water described in paragraph (a); The bill inserts a statement in section 34 of the act that would not allow raw sewage to be eligible for an exemption permit from the minister. Bill C-269 amends section 36 of the Fisheries Act by adding, “No person shall deposit or permit the deposit of raw sewage in water frequented by fish.” The bill also states non-application for Canadian fisheries waters located in the Northwest Territories, in Nunavut or north of the 54th parallel in Quebec or Newfoundland and Labrador. The bill also indicates that anyone dumping raw sewage in water frequented by fish is guilty of an offence and liable. The act would come into force five years after the day on which it receives royal assent.Bill C-269 is simple and straightforward. It calls for accountability and urgency of action. For me, personally, it triggers a vision for improved environmental protection and infrastructure. In 2015, when the member for Ottawa Centre was the minister of environment, she allowed the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. Regardless of any justification, that is an unfathomable amount of toxic matter that was dumped into the water. I cannot even imagine what the repercussions of that were.According to Environment Canada, from 2013 to 2017, more than one trillion litres of untreated waste water is known to have leaked or been purposely dumped across Canada. The City of Victoria and surrounding municipalities finally became one of the last major communities to stop dumping sewage into water in 2020. According to Mark Mattson, president of non-profit water protection organization Swim Drink Fish, Canada still has ongoing sewage pollution problems.Bill C-269 is necessary to protect our waters from contamination and for wildlife species in water to be able to survive and thrive. It is time there was no more ambiguity on this. Being the member of Parliament for Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra, I have the privilege of being an advocate and steward for many environmentally sensitive places within my riding. This privilege brings responsibility. Today, I would like to highlight a very special and globally significant creek, which is Stoney Creek, which some of the rivers in my riding feed into.Stoney Creek is the environmental lifeline for countless wildlife, as well as an urban oasis for both my riding and the neighbouring riding, Burnaby North—Seymour, and the greater region. Countless hours and decades of work by stream keepers from the Stoney Creek Environmental Committee, as well as local residents, has resulted in the return of salmon to Stoney Creek.Today, Stoney Creek is the most successful Vancouver area urban creek for returning salmon. Stoney Creek is the spawning grounds for chum and coho salmon, as well as steelhead and trout. It is also significant on a global basis as it is home to the endangered Nooksack Dace. Approximately 10,000 Nooksack Dace remain.It is very moving to watch the salmon on their spawning journey. I see their long, upstream and painful journey of perseverance ending in sacrifice for the next generation. It is very emotional to watch. I was shocked to learn that after torrential rainfalls, sometimes raw sewage overflows from Coquitlam sewers and makes its way to the celebrated Stoney Creek where the endangered Nooksack Dace have made their home and the coho and chum salmon come to spawn.It is troubling for me that sewage overflow coming from my riding in Coquitlam is contaminating the aqua ecosystem in the riding of Burnaby North—Seymour in Stoney Creek. Upon discovery, I officially offered my assistance to the mayors of Coquitlam and Port Moody to seek federal infrastructure funding for their sewer systems when they seek upgrades.However, I am perplexed as to why the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who has been in office longer than I have, has not taken any action on this troublesome issue or championed funding for sewage infrastructure when the harm is being done to wildlife in his own riding and reports of sewage being dispensed into Stoney Creek have been happening under his watch for years.(1745)According to obtained records, since 2014 at least nine documented discharges of sewage have occurred in the Stoney Creek watershed. Raw sewage has spewed from manholes in my riding and flowed into the creek, and some experts believe that raw sewage is also escaping through exfiltrating from the Metro Vancouver Stoney Creek trunk line and flowing into the groundwater and ultimately into Stoney Creek. The Metro Vancouver Stoney Creek trunk line was constructed in 1959. Over time, concrete piping and gaskets will tend to deteriorate, increasing the likelihood of both infiltration of groundwater into the pipe and inflow from surface water entering collectively inflow and infiltration, or I and I, as well as exfiltration of sewage into the groundwater and creek.Records obtained via freedom of information requests show the following levels of E. coli in Stoney Creek. On September 18, 2020, there were 8,664 colony-forming units per 100 millilitres of water. In August there were 7,701, and in October there were 4,611. Samples exceeded 1,000 colony-forming units per 100 millilitres on six days. Ultimately, to solve the problem, new sewage infrastructure needs to be built. From obtained records, it is apparent that Metro Vancouver trunk line is over capacity, a very common phenomenon.Meanwhile, the catchment's population is projected to increase 15,000 to 50,000. Constituents and other nearby residents are concerned that not expanding the sewage infrastructure promptly will result in increased contamination of Stoney Creek as well as situations where new home purchasers will not be able to move into their new homes due to lack of sewage capacity. Something similar recently happened in Campbell River, another B.C. community.The topic of sewage is not a glamourous one, but waste elimination is a basic health and safety issue that needs to be dealt with. As we have seen, a microscopic virus like coronavirus has done much damage in our lives and to our establishments. Development of residential homes is a natural part of urban sprawl. Building more affordable housing is necessary to allow young families and first-time homebuyers to break into the housing market and have a home, but development without proper infrastructure is dangerous for the community and surrounding ecosystems.Bill C-269 is a good place to start to trigger more accountability and action to upgrade all the infrastructure needed. Development is inevitable, but without the proper infrastructure, we could see a host of problems, of which the impact could be the contamination of our waters and harm to endangered species and salmon. It requires a concerted effort among all tiers of government to solve this problem effectively of aging sewage infrastructure and innovating new systems to meet the demands created by growing development in urban and suburban centres like my riding, and extreme weather events from climate change. If done with efficacy, a simple bill, like Bill C-269, could instigate the unfolding of a larger vision to yield greater protection of vulnerable fish, species and water habitats and improve public health and safety and job creation to help reopen our economy.This is a problem across our country, and municipalities are aware of it, but they are stuck. They have so many other pressing matters they have to get to that without the funding, it gets shuffled under the pile. With Bill C-269, accountability would be placed. We can keep talking about the environment with trumpet blasts, but without deadlines and rules and a plan to accomplish these goals, it is still talk and no action. We know, as humans, we all need a deadline and some rules to get anything done. I see this bill as one that has great potential to help us literally clean up our act.One thing I did discuss with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle was the five-year term clause. In discussing it with him, it is something that should be debated and discussed with fulsome conversation so that we are helping the municipalities set themselves up for success and not failure. It should not be punitive. It should be something to help them get things done efficiently.In closing, I feel that this is an issue that has been around for a long time and everyone is aware of it, but it is one of those things that nobody wants to tackle because the money is not there. We know that with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the minister promised $35 billion, but how much of that is used for things like this?(1750)Moving forward, as we discuss Bill C-269, I hope that we can come to the table, bring our different ideas, and use this as a starting point to break that cycle of all this aging infrastructure not being dealt with, so that we can protect the environment, so that we can move forward with positive, prudent development that does not create other problems, and so that municipalities do not feel like they are alone but that they have the support of other tiers of government.C-269, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage)Habitat conservationPrivate Members' BillsSalmonSecond readingSewage treatment and disposalCharlieAngusTimmins—James BayTerryDuguidWinnipeg South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, I must admit that during my time in this place, I have always found great value in private members' business. It is our opportunity as members of this place to bring forward legislation that we believe will ultimately better serve this great country. Yes, there is a lottery system in place, but there is also nothing to stop the government of the day from taking a great idea in a private member's bill and incorporating it into government legislation. Indeed, we have witnessed this practice before.Another aspect of private members' business is that often members in this place will vote more freely than on government bills. That can add a very interesting dynamic, particularly during a minority government.Given my passion for private members' business, I must state in advance that I am speaking in support of the bill before us, as it is important to me.The bill proposes to exclude raw sewage from the definition of “deleterious substance” so as to entirely prohibit its deposit in water, which is a critically important environmental protection we can pass in this place. Indeed, I suspect that if we asked Canadians, most would believe that this is already a banned practice in Canada. However, as we know, the minister can sign off and essentially provide an exemption to it, just as a former environment minister of the Liberal government has done previously, and that should concern us all.Increasingly, what we see with the Liberal government is that environmental policy is being applied in a discriminatory manner. While I could provide a number of different examples, I would much rather not. Politicizing this issue is ultimately not helpful in this debate. I would like to think that if there is one thing we can all agree on in this place, it is that it is never a good thing to dump raw sewage into fish habitat. I hope that we would all agree on that point. It should be a basic guiding principle of environmental stewardship that we do not contaminate fish habitat. While I believe there is much we can agree on in principle with the bill, I also recognize that there are criticisms.Critics have raised the cost to municipalities as one of the criticisms. It is a fair point. However, it also acknowledges that some municipalities are currently adding to the problem, and that a lack of revenue to fix the problem is the primary reason. On that note, I will point out that the bill proposes that it will not come into force until five years after the day on which it receives royal assent. That is five years to take action, five years to ensure that this becomes a bigger priority for the federal government and five years to work out the details with local governments. Yes, I realize that there are many challenges and many reasons why some can argue this cannot be done in five years. However, to those people I would ask a very simple question: Does anyone want to argue that this should not be done? On that point, I would like to think we can all agree.(1810)[Translation]I am hopeful about it. If we can agree that it should be done, let us ask ourselves how. If we do not start taking steps in that direction, it would be fair to say that this bill is not perfect, but few ever are.Having said that, we need to send the message that fish habitat protection is a priority. Critics raise valid points: It might be difficult and it does involve costs. On the issue of costs, it is important to say that we must also consider the cost of inaction.In my former riding, the water supply for a small rural community was contaminated with fecal matter, which made the drinking water supply unsafe.To secure the drinking water supply, the source of the contamination had to be found. The process is not as simple as it sounds. They changed the source of the water supply. Costly, unpleasant and heavy chlorination in the water treatment system was to blame.(1815)[English]Back-flow valves were installed. All of that cost a lot of money. Finally, a proper sewage treatment plant was installed. That occurred under a former Conservative government, but that is not the point. The point is that today that community water system is no longer contaminated and, more importantly, the groundwater is not contaminated.This all matters because the Okanagan River system passes through this unincorporated community, where currently local indigenous communities have been working in partnership, and very successfully I might add, to restore lost salmon habitat. It is an incredible success story. Obviously, it also speaks to the importance of not dumping raw sewage into fish habitat.To those who raise the valid concerns of cost to local government, I point out that there are many costs of inaction that can result from the situation. More importantly, critics aside, I come back to one simple point: While some have raised concerns over getting this done, I have yet to hear anyone suggest that it cannot be done or that it should not be done. I have only heard that it could be challenging.Current government members, in 2015, told Canadians, hand on their hearts, that better was always possible. I submit that Bill C-269 proposes better protection for our fish habitat than is currently available. This bill is an important next step in moving forward to better protect our environment.Before I wrap up, I would like to thank the member who sponsored this bill, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, for his ongoing leadership and commitment to seeing this gap in our governance addressed. This gap, whether it was intentional or not, exists. We cannot let this go by saying there is a cost. We need to count the current costs to the environment. There are challenges here, but it is because of members like the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle that we are debating this important subject, adding a spotlight to an issue that has haunted this country for too long.As I said before, I hope we can all agree in this place that dumping raw sewage into fish habitat is wrong and that we need to do our part, in partnership with communities, local government, the provinces and indigenous communities, to make this problem go away so that we all can have clean water and feel proud of the contributions we have made to this issue.I thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for helping to elevate this argument and for this debate. I hope that all members will put aside partisanship and say yes to his proposal.C-269, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage)Habitat conservationPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingSewage treatment and disposalKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1820)[English]There is just enough time to invite the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his right of reply. The hon. member will know he has up to five minutes.The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.Right of replyMarilèneGillManicouaganAndrewScheerHon.Regina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerHon.Andrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionHon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): (1825)[English]Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate all the members of Parliament who spoke in favour of this bill. Out of respect for the House's time, I will not repeat the points that I made in my original speech, but I would like to just take a few moments to address some of the misinformation that I heard throughout the debate from members who are opposing this bill.First of all, and we hear this argument all the time from them, the Liberals are making the false allegation that Conservatives were not going to make the same commitments to infrastructure spending as they did. This is completely false. In the last campaign, our platform committed the same amount of money to be partnered with the provinces and municipalities in order to rehabilitate our cities, towns and municipalities. It is the current Liberal government that has allowed billions of dollars in infrastructure spending to be lapsed, so there is no doubt that cities and towns are feeling the burden, the weight of the lack of action and the extra burden that follows when the federal government does not partner with those dollars. When it allows those dollars to be lapsed, it means that there is further pressure on cities and towns and further pressure on property tax payers.Another bogus argument I heard was that somehow this bill would weaken protections. Only to a Liberal would banning something lead to weaker regulations. Right now, the minister is able to grant these types of permits, and as was already referenced this evening, did just that when the government allowed the City of Montreal to dump billions of litres of untreated raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. This is clearly just a case of the Liberals projecting onto another party what they themselves are guilty of.The Liberal member for Lac-Saint-Louis asked in debate about why the Conservatives did not include it in their platform if this idea was such a good idea. That is an easy one to address. We did include it. We made a campaign announcement, and it is on page 27 of the previous campaign platform our party ran on. This is a long-standing commitment that our party has been in support of.Another member this evening talked about how this bill would permit the dumping of raw sewage in northern communities. They have that completely backwards. This bill would ban the dumping of raw sewage, but it leaves an exemption for northern communities, recognizing the additional burdens that they face in terms of meeting the needs of their infrastructure requirements. That means that this bill would not immediately apply to them, but they would be covered under existing regulations. Those existing regulations that are already out there, as was mentioned, would not disappear with the passage of this bill. These are complementary pieces of legislation, and this is no excuse not to support this bill.I heard, just a few moments ago, from the Bloc member who was wondering why there were not other types of harmful substances covered in the bill. Again, that is not a reason to vote against this bill. If we can all agree that raw sewage should not be dumped into our rivers, lakes and oceans, then surely we can pass this bill. If there are other substances that members would like to see added to the list of things that would be banned from being dumped, Conservatives are all ears for that. However, members would know that, in a private member's bill, there is a need for much greater focus. Focusing on something that is achievable and practical, something that we can certainly all immediately agree to, is necessary in terms of a private member's bill. Private members do not have the same ability or the same tools as government ministers have. If the government were saying it was not going to pass this bill because it is coming with a comprehensive list of harmful substances that should not be dumped into rivers, lakes and oceans, then I would be happy to participate and coordinate on that, and I would be happy to support that type of initiative, but it is not. There is nothing on the Order Paper coming down the pipe. Therefore, why would we not take this easy step to ban the dumping of raw sewage?I know members have talked about the cost. There is no doubt that this would add a significant cost on municipalities, and here is where Conservatives have the answer. The Liberals are talking about the fact that they do not have the funds available to do that. They have no problem costing our economy billions of dollars, attacking our energy sector or cancelling pipelines, even though there is no evidence that those measures have a positive effect on the environment, as we shut down production here in Canada only to see emissions go up in other countries. However, we have a simple, tangible, practical, achievable proposal, and suddenly the Liberals are pretending they are worried about the cost. That is where we know where we can find the money.(1830)The Liberals have put $35 billion into the Infrastructure Bank, an institution that has completed zero projects in four years, so there is plenty of existing funding that Conservatives would make available to municipalities so they can comply with this new law. As my colleague from British Columbia mentioned, there is a five-year term clause coming into force, so the government has time, and a future Conservative government has the time, to partner with these municipalities to ensure they have the investments they need to upgrade the systems, so once and for all, we can stop dumping raw sewage into our waterways. It is 2021, and Canada is a developed nation. There is no excuse for this practice to continue. That is why I am so pleased to present this bill to the House.C-269, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage)Private Members' BillsSecond readingSewage treatment and disposalBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1830)[English]It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired. Accordingly, the question is on the motion.If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division, or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate so to the Chair.The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.AndrewScheerHon.Regina—Qu'AppelleKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—London//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would request a recorded vote.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFisheries ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1830)[Translation]Accordingly, pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredThe hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent is rising on a question of privilege.C-269, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act (prohibition — deposit of raw sewage)Private Members' BillsSecond readingSewage treatment and disposalKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1830)[English]MotionMr. Speaker, tonight I rise on a question of privilege. I move:That this House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the Order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, orders its President to attend at the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsMotionsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRaising a question of privilegeStewart, IainSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1830)[English]Hon. members may recall that the Speaker made a statement on this particular matter earlier this day and is satisfied that it meets the notice and admissibility requirements.Debate is on the motion. The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1830)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to take part in the debate tonight. This is a very important debate that we have to address.We are talking about transparency. We are talking confidence of Canadians in their institutions. We are also talking about the role of the House of Commons and the role of each and every member of this Parliament. We are here because we have received a mandate from our constituents. Those are our real bosses. It is not the Prime Minister who can dictate what the House can do and how the truth can be provided. This is why this debate tonight is of key importance for the way we see the House functioning and how democracy can work in Canada.(1835)[Translation]In the next few moments, I will reiterate the circumstances surrounding our being gathered here today in the House to speak to an order of the House involving a public agency.This is about the surprising ties that may have existed between the National Microbiology Laboratory located in Winnipeg, a national Canadian laboratory, and the Wuhan laboratory linked to the militaristic communist government of China.Surprising events have occurred in the past few months in this, Canada's most important and highest-security microbiology laboratory. We have confidence in this institution, but that confidence may fall away if we do not get to the bottom of things. That is why, here in the House, we want to get to the bottom of what happened.Four events that occurred in this lab are of particular concern to us. When I say us, I do not mean the official opposition, I do not mean the Conservatives, I mean all Canadians. We have seen recent reports on CBC and Radio-Canada, and in The Globe and Mail, where the story originated, featuring fairly neutral witnesses and observers with no political affiliations who believe that some troubling events took place in Winnipeg. There are four such events.First of all, the Winnipeg lab gave a top security clearance to a researcher with ties to the Chinese military. How did this happen? We want to know why, but we are not able to as yet.I want to be very clear. When we talk about the Chinese military and about China, this has nothing to do with racism or xenophobia, as the Prime Minister had the audacity, and I would even say the intellectual dishonesty, to say in the House. Nor are we fuelling conspiracy theories, as a parliamentary secretary speaking for the Prime Minister so insultingly said last week. No, we are not playing chicken, as the Minister of Health so shamefully put it last Friday in the House, when I asked her some embarrassing questions. That is too bad, because that is my job, and I will keep doing it.The questions we are asking about the relationship between the Winnipeg lab and the Wuhan lab have nothing to do with xenophobia or conspiracy theories. Nor are we engaging in a game of chicken on this, contrary to what Liberal members and the Liberal Prime Minister have said in the House.First, a researcher with ties to the Chinese military was given the highest security clearance for the work he could do inside that lab.Second, two deadly viruses were sent from the Winnipeg lab to the Wuhan lab. It is possible that everything was done by the book and that there is absolutely nothing to it, but we still need the documents to prove it. However, as long as they refuse to be transparent, we do not have the answer. The second point then is the transfer of deadly viruses.Third, two senior researchers, the ones who played central roles in the microbiology research being conducted at this institute, were escorted out of the lab by the RCMP. A few weeks later, they literally lost their jobs. Losing a job can happen to anyone, but when people are escorted out by the RCMP, it seems to me they do not necessarily have a clear conscience.According to CBC reports, these two researchers—they are a couple, a man and a woman—were earning a combined salary of about $250,000 Canadian. That is a very respectable amount of money for that level. The problem is that they were living in a $1.5-million house around Winnipeg and Gimli. The banks there seem to be pretty generous: They were willing to lend people making $250,000 enough money to buy a $1.5-million house. That raises some questions.Lastly, after these three events, two senior executives at the Public Health Agency of Canada suddenly resigned and retired. Why? That is what we want to know.Because this is a public agency, the following four events trouble us as parliamentarians: A foreign researcher obtained the highest security clearance; two deadly viruses were shipped from Winnipeg to Wuhan; two highly placed researchers—the institute's leading researchers—lost their jobs and were expelled and marched out under RCMP escort; and, finally, senior executives at the institute suddenly left their jobs.These are legitimate questions, which were actually raised by The Globe and Mail. I want to point that out.(1840)[English]As members of Parliament, we have a job to do. This is why the opposition tabled a motion a few months ago to create a special committee on Canada-Chinese relations. This is quite important in the events of today, and also in the relations we should have with this country.This committee worked on those issues, and wants to know what happened in this institution, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory. Then twice, on two occasions, the committee asked the Public Health Agency of Canada to table documents about those events, on March 31 and on May 10.[Translation]On two occasions, the Special Committee on Canada‑China Relations asked senior officials at the Public Health Agency of Canada, which is responsible for the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, to table documents concerning these four events. At the time, the fourth event, the sudden departure of two executives, had not yet occurred.On two occasions, the director refused to properly respond to the committee's request. That is why, on June 2, here in the House, we, the official opposition, put forward a motion to demand that the government, through the Public Health Agency of Canada, table the documents that are key to understanding this matter. This was not a wish or a request, but an order of the House to get to the bottom of these events. Unfortunately, the government did not act on this request, and I will come back later to the circumstances surrounding its unfortunate decision.Some may be tempted to say that we should calm down since this is a matter of national security, microbiology and international relations. People may think that it is not true that all these documents can be published easily and that we have to be careful. Of course we have to be careful; we are well aware of that.That is why our motion on June 2 was quite clear, as were the two motions adopted at committee. We established a framework that was absolutely relevant. The Clerk of the House of Commons, with the support of experts, can identify, detect and ferret out any items that might be truly sensitive and do not warrant being made public for national security reasons. He can look at the administrative facts that may have led to two researchers being escorted out by the RCMP or another researcher who is associated with the Chinese military being given a very high security clearance. These are perfectly legitimate questions. However, once the documents are made public, they can be sifted through, as is done in many cases, by the experts and specifically by the Clerk of the House of Commons, whom we trust.However, the government decided to override the House's order to produce the documents. The Prime Minister raised national security concerns and claimed that the Liberal government had already created a body that had all the necessary latitude to examine and analyze these types of situations. That body is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, and it was created in 2016 by the Liberal government.The Speaker noted that it was not a parliamentary committee, but a committee of parliamentarians.The Prime Minister was quite proud last week to say that the government had struck this committee to get to the bottom of this without jeopardizing national security, and he was proud to say that all political parties were represented on the committee. That was a mistake: The second opposition group had not been represented for months. Need I point out that we requested transfers for our representatives in September and he did not respond until last week? What a surprise. For months and months, he had no interest in this and, all of a sudden, he is interested.The committee of parliamentarians the Prime Minister created is his instrument. That is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it has its limits. The group can receive documents. Actually, the Prime Minister and his ministers love to talk about how they gave the committee documents and the committee will do the work, but they leave out the rest. The Prime Minister leaves out the part about how he has the right to veto every single document that is analyzed, every single committee resolution and every single committee finding.If the Prime Minister personally does not want a document to be released, he is the one who decides that, nobody else. If the committee's recommendation does not suit him, he alone can decide if it is made public or not. If the committee finds that there is a national security issue but the Prime Minister disagrees, he can decide not to talk about it.I do not even have the right to ask members what happened in that committee, because its members took an oath to not say anything to anyone. I would never jeopardize the legitimacy, honesty and integrity of my colleagues who sit on a committee and who have sworn an oath to not say anything. However, what is the point of setting up a committee of parliamentarians if those who are part of that committee are unable to talk about what goes on there? The words “Parliament” and “parliamentarian” come from the same root word as “parler”, a French word that means to speak, which only makes sense. This committee is the Prime Minister's personal instrument, because he is the one who has the right of veto over everything.In the ruling the Speaker gave about two hours ago, he very clearly indicated that this committee existed but that it was not a parliamentary committee. I am not going to put words in the Speaker's mouth. However, we believe that this committee is completely under the yoke of the Prime Minister because he gave himself the right to veto the committee's decisions.We raised a question of privilege because the motion had been adopted, it was about an order of the House, and the government had defied it. We challenged the government's approach by raising this question of privilege and not two hours ago the Speaker of the House of Commons recognized that, on the face of it, we were indeed right.We are gathered here this evening to determine whether we want to move forward and continue working on this file. We believe that the director of the Public Health Agency of Canada was wrong in refusing to hand over these documents and that is why we are asking that these documents be tabled here.We also want the director of the agency to be admonished for failing to obey an order of the House, as stated in the Speaker's ruling. We are also asking for relevant documents to be delivered to the House and reviewed by the Clerk of the House to ensure that national security is not jeopardized and, above all, that the orders of the House are obeyed. That did not happen under this government and it is disgraceful.(1845)Since some members have spoken at length about it, I would like to remind members that there was an incident in 2010 concerning the release of documents that could pose a threat to national security. At the time, Speaker Milliken ruled that the documents had to be made public. It has to be done in a certain way, but documents can be made public.Some members will say that at the time the Conservatives did not want to release the documents, but now that we are in opposition that is what we want. Stop right there. These are two completely different situations.Members will recall that the 2010 issue pertained to the Afghanistan war. It must be pointed out that we were involved in a military operation, we were in a war zone. Our soldiers, our men and women, were deployed to a war zone and were risking their lives. We had allies, and Afghan interpreters were helping us in the war we were waging against terrorism together with our international allies. We had Afghan nationals who were risking their lives. We had Canadians in uniform who were proudly serving in the military and putting their lives at risk.That is not at all the case today. We are talking about questionable administrative decisions that resulted in an agency giving the highest security clearance to a researcher associated with the Chinese military. We are talking about an agency that decided to give two extremely rare and dangerous viruses to a foreign laboratory. We are talking about an agency that gave a very high security clearance to two researchers whose career ultimately ended in a shameful and dishonourable manner. They were expelled and escorted out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We are talking about two civilian executives who left the administration unexpectedly.These are questionable administrative decisions that cast a shadow on Canada's great, proud and honourable reputation in the field of research. To my knowledge, that is not at all like what happened in Afghanistan. As far as I know, no one's life was at risk in Winnipeg, at least I hope not. We are not talking about a foreign army like the one we were fighting in Afghanistan. I hope not. We are not talking about allies and friends like our Afghan interpreters putting their lives at risk. These are two completely different things.Woe, then, to those who dare to draw a parallel between the events of 2010, President Milliken's decision or our entirely legitimate and pertinent reluctance when we were in power because we were in a war zone, and what is going on today when we are in the opposition and are demanding information that would allow us to get to the bottom of things and shed light on situations that deserve our attention. We believe that this situation compromised our national security.Let us take a quick look at the facts. Ten days ago, the House ordered the government of Canada to table documents in the House. It was an order of the House. The government did not obey the order. Rather, it flouted the House of Commons and the will of the majority of members elected by Canadians, eventually doing its own thing and giving the documents to an entity literally created by the Prime Minister. This entity is entirely under the Prime Minister's control; he has veto power over anything that happens in the committee and anything that might come out of it.We are asking for the documents to be made public. We asking for the head of the Public Health Agency of Canada to come back to the House and take the blame, as written and defined in your decision, so that Canadians can learn what happened in these questionable relations deserving of an investigation between a key research and scientific institution, Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and another laboratory located in Wuhan following four events that cast a shadow on Canada's reputation and integrity, especially since our scientists must work under the most secure conditions possible, with the support, assistance and confidence of all Canadians. They deserve nothing less.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBruceStantonSimcoe NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1855)[English]Mr. Speaker, I pay all my respect to my colleague from Winnipeg North. He has served in his provincial legislature and in the House of Commons for the last 30 years. As a member from Winnipeg, I am sure he was very concerned with what happened a few kilometres away in his riding.I want to address the two points in the question from my colleague.First, the member talked about the committee, but he did not name the committee. We are not talking about a parliamentary committee; we are talking about a committee created by the Prime Minister for which the Prime Minister has all the authority and power to decide whether some information will be made public. This is a huge difference.The other point is on whether this is an issue of national security. For sure it is a national security issue, which is why we want to know what happened, but based on the fact that we will correctly address this issue. This is why we follow the rules that have been established for many years. The clerk and some experts will review those documents to be sure no one will lose his or her life over it. We are talking about four administrative decisions on security in the highest-ranked laboratory that we have in our country. We shall know what happened there and learn the lessons so as not to repeat the bad decisions that may have been made in that kind of situation. Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1855)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia. Again, I am very pleased to commend him on his exceptional French. It is truly impressive and it inspires us all to learn the other official language so that we can speak both official languages.My colleague raises a very good question. Personally, no, I have never seen a situation where national security was the key issue in a decision we had to make here as parliamentarians. I did not see that in the Quebec National Assembly.My colleague from British Columbia remembers very well what I said a few moments ago in the House, that there is indeed a precedent. It was in 2010, when Speaker Milliken said that, indeed, documents could be made public. We Conservatives were in government at the time, and we had more than a few reservations.Need I repeat that these were two completely different situations? One involved a war situation in Afghanistan about ten years ago, and now we are talking about unfortunate administrative decisions involving a Canadian government agency and laboratory.These are two completely different situations that require us to get to the bottom of things. That is what we want to do.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1900)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford. I appreciate the effort she puts into her work here in the House and in her parliamentary duties.She used the phrase, “for all the tea in China”. I, for one, am not going to make offensive parallels, as the government did in referring to xenophobia, for example.Being transparent is important, especially for a government that got elected in 2015 by saying that Canada was being obfuscated by the government of the day, that it was going to bring in transparency, that it was going to do everything to be accountable to the public, and so on.The government just forgot one thing: It no longer remembers what it said in 2015, just as it no longer remembers promising that this was the last time we would have this type of election in our parliamentary system. It also told us that we would run three modest deficits and then achieve a zero deficit. Four years later, the exact opposite is true.There is one thing, however, that the government did promise—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAndréanneLaroucheSheffordAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I was very pleased today to hear the Speaker rule that Parliament does reign supreme. Six years ago, the government said that it would be transparent by default. In fact, as the hon. member was speaking, I was reading the mandate letters of many of the ministers, and every single one of those mandate letters speaks to that. However, what we have seen from the government is a pattern and a history of trying to hide things.Could the hon. member speak about this pattern, this history and the impact that has not just on our democracy, but on the transparency and accountability of Parliament.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to pay all my respects to my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil. I deeply appreciate his work as a member of Parliament for his constituents and for what he believes in and fights for. I can assure him that he is a very important key player in each and every decision we have to make in caucus.This is why we want to address the issue of transparency. Yes, it is important to know what happened in the country, especially when we are talking about laboratories. When the Prime Minister and his party were elected in 2015, we remember them saying they would start a new era in Canada, that Canada was back, that they would be more transparent, be more close with people and they would tell the truth at each and every step of the way.However, without a shadow of a doubt, six years later we can see so many broken promises, especially the one about transparency, except for one. The Prime Minister said during his campaign in 2015 that he would create a committee for national security. He just missed one thing in his promise. He did not say that at the end of this committee, the veto would be held by the Prime Minister. This is the key element of that decision.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell: (1900)[English]Madam Speaker, the answer is in the hands of the clerk. The clerk is the one who will review documents and will realize if there are some lives in danger. However, let me remind members that in 2010, we were talking about a war zone. I do not think Winnipeg is in a war zone, and I hope the army of a foreign country is not there. If it is, for sure we want to go deep into this situation, but I really hope it is not the case.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard: (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While I appreciate the hon. member's intervention, we are dealing with the motion related to the question of privilege, so perhaps the member would like to spend time talking about why his government redacted the document and is not being transparent.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Although I am enjoying this, I find that you have given the member lots of leeway. Could we get him back to, perhaps, where he is going on this? It seems like it is just an attack and not actually talking about the relevance of this motion.Mr. Mark Gerretsen: On that point of order—Mrs. Karen Vecchio: No, no, you are speaking. I do not think you have to make a point of order.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, I just want to add briefly to the point of order from the previous member.The member for Kingston and the Islands frequently rises on points of order with respect to the relevance of other members' comments. I wonder if there is some basis for insisting that he be held to the same standard that he seeks to apply to other members.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyKarenVecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88742KarenVecchioKaren-VecchioElgin—Middlesex—LondonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VecchioKaren_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMrs. Karen Vecchio: (1915)[English]I am rising on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this, but I find that he continues with the irrelevance of this conversation that he continues to have. If he could get back to it, because he is now absolutely misleading people. I believe in climate change, and I do not feel—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1920)[English]Madam Speaker, we have had a number of points of order made, all pointing to the fact that this member is not following the rule of relevance. If you wish, I would be glad to read the motion that is before us. It is a motion of contempt against the Liberal government and the Public Health Agency of Canada. That is what we are debating—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1920)[English]Madam Speaker. I have now heard this member address everything but the motion. He has touched on the budget implementation legislation, Bill C-30. He skated over to Bill C-10. Then he skated over to Bill C-6. What other legislation is he going to touch on before he gets back to this motion?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1925)[English]Madam Speaker, the question of relevance was previously raised and the Speaker gave instruction for the member to resume. Since that point, the question of privilege that the House is debating has not been raised, but, instead, all items except for that item have been raised, including naming other items on the Order Paper in the coming days and questions of privilege other than one that is currently being debate, including the one raised by the member for Carleton earlier today. The member is not being relevant to the topic at hand.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1925)[English]Madam Speaker, I found it very interesting to listen to the member's speech. His speech emphasizes the exact point that the government is contemptuous of the very idea of what Parliament represents, and that is democracy. It is telling that he wanted to talk about everything other than the fact that the government has done everything it can to obstruct, limit access and ensure that Canadians do not get the answers that the majority of parliamentarians want. The member keeps saying that somehow partisanship is driving this. My constituents would suggest very much otherwise. I will not use the unparliamentary language that the member used to describe Conservative actions, but Canadians are tired of politicians playing politics. The member's conduct is exactly what Canadians are sick and tired of.I would ask the member to take some responsibility for the fact that we find ourselves in a position where we are debating the absolute contempt that the member and the government have shown for Canadian democracy.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1935)[English]Madam Speaker, this member has given a long speech and he has ridiculed and pointed fingers at certain members and their intentions, but he sounds like he is speaking from a position of absolute truth. Does the member have security clearance to be able to say that those documents say exactly what he wants to say? That is the problem. He is not part of the executive. He has a duty, like all of us who are not part of the executive in this place, to hold the government accountable.Does he have some sort of confidential information that says that those documents say exactly the narrative he is trying to frame tonight?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1935)[English]Madam Speaker, handing over these documents is not a matter of political choice; it is actually a matter of law. The Liberals should not think of themselves as being above the law.I will observe for the benefit of the member that when PHAC was first asked about these issues, the president of PHAC did not invoke national security. He actually invoked the Privacy Act. The idea that there is a national security problem with handing over these documents is a talking point that was invented later. It was not the rationale used in the first place for not handing over the documents.Finally, I want to put to the member that the second motion, adopted by the committee on May 10, was moved by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, a Liberal member. A member of his own caucus moved a motion to demand the documents. That motion was adopted unanimously by the committee. Every single Liberal member of the committee voted to have the documents handed over to the law clerk, reviewed by the law clerk and redacted by the law clerk, and then given to the committee in camera, which was a secure process endorsed by the Liberal members of the committee.The member does not have to like the Speaker's ruling, but the Speaker has ruled on a matter of law and on the obligations of Parliament. The Speaker has ruled that NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee. That is clear in law and it is clear in the Speaker's ruling.Does the member believe that the government has an obligation to comply with the law in this case?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1955)[English]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier when the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent was speaking, we have seen a really disturbing pattern in this place with the government's lack of transparency and accountability. There was an order of Parliament to provide these documents. Thankfully, the Speaker ruled today, as a last line of defence for this Parliament and this democracy, that what the government had done was in fact a breach of parliamentary privilege. That is the reason we are here tonight to debate this issue. It was the Speaker who said that it was up to the opposition to come up with a motion. The motion was presented, yet we heard the indignation of the member for Kingston and the Islands when he spoke about everything except this privilege motion. I want to ask the hon. member if, in his opinion, he feels this is a fair debate to be having tonight given the systemic pattern of lack of transparency and accountability in this Parliament by the current government.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologySimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2000)[English]Madam Speaker, in his intervention, the member certainly chronicled a large number of concerns regarding China, but ultimately this motion is more about holding our own government to account. The government has said that it is concerned about national security and laid out a plan to have NSICOP do a review, but ultimately, the Speaker ruled that was not a committee of Parliament. Now the government has to come clean, and we want to have the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada come, be censured by the Speaker and then supply the information to the law clerk. Does the member agree that through that process we will be able to ascertain the government's managerial confidence, while at the same time preserving this country's national security interests?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologySimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2005)[English]Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask the member about the broader question of research co-operation with the Chinese military, because this is an important values question and a policy question that underlines this debate. One gets the sense there might be information about this co-operation in these documents that the government does not want to see shared.We know now that of the people working at the Winnipeg lab, one in particular was an official from the People's Liberation Army's Academy of Military Medical Sciences. We know there has been interchange and other forms of co-operation between Chinese military institutions and Canadian labs. When this issue was raised at committee, the health minister seemed sort of broadly comfortable with the fact that this kind of co-operation was happening. However, it is happening in the context that a genocide is taking place. A genocide is being committed by this very same military as we speak, and we know how viruses can be used in military applications.Can the member share his thoughts as to whether it is right, appropriate and just for the Canadian government to allow Canadian labs to be collaborating with the Chinese military on research that the military might use to harm our interests or to commit human rights violations?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologySimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2020)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the member for his presentation tonight. Last night he also made a presentation in a just-in-case speech, so I want to thank the member for his service.More importantly, the issues he spoke about were more about his commitment to this democracy and to this House. I think there is no greater honour than to be called a House of Commons person, because this institution is important.When it comes to our duty to hold the government to account, if we are not part of the executive, the cabinet, as was impressed on me in my first year in this place, we have a responsibility to hold it accountable. That is how we have responsible government.Would the member agree that by supporting the motion, we would not just be protecting the rights of this chamber but also giving information? The government has stonewalled us at every attempt to get this information so that we can truly know whether there was a lack of confidence in the execution of its duties or whether there were legitimate national security reasons that it would not say anything. Do the backbenchers on the Liberal side not deserve to know their own government's confidence or lack thereof?When we present a motion such as this, do we not put forward every member's duties by giving them the information to hold the government to account?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJackHarrisSt. John's EastJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2030)[English]Madam Speaker, the member touched on a number of very important points about why this debate is important and how concerning the flippant nature of the Liberals is on this very serious issue.I would, however, like to ask the member a specific question. The government has referred this issue to NSICOP. Some of the concerns that have been brought up are related to the structure of that committee, which is a committee of parliamentarians and not a committee of this House. This is a manifestation of some of the concerns that were brought forward when the initial act that created NSICOP was debated, and how the pinnacle of what was claimed to be accountability was left in the hands of the Prime Minister.I wonder if the hon. member for St. John's East would have further comments on that.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJackHarrisSt. John's EastJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2040)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the member's service on that committee, but we are here to debate a specific motion. He has yet to address this. He is giving us background of his committee, of which I am sure he is proud. Perhaps, Madam Speaker, you could get him to come to the motion.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa SouthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2050)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Five minutes ago I raised a point of order with you, and you asked the member to be relevant. He is basically reviewing the annual reports of his committee, which is not the subject of tonight's debate. He is not a rookie. He certainly has a committee role that is important, but I would ask you to rule whether he is being relevant to the issue or simply disregarding your ruling and this House.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102653ScotDavidsonScot-DavidsonYork—SimcoeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DavidsonScot_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Scot Davidson: (2050)[English]Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the hon. member could table the report that he is reading, or go on to the report about the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund, which we are waiting for in York—Simcoe. We would love to hear that.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryNational securityParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaRequesting tabling of documentsSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (2055)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the member. In his speech, he talked about the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians as a proxy of Parliament. I remind him that, unlike similar bodies in other Five Eyes countries, such as the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament in the U.K. or the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in Australia, the NSICOP is not a special committee nor a standing committee of the Parliament of Canada. It is, in fact, part of the executive of government. Therefore, it does not report to the House, it reports to the Prime Minister.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa SouthDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2105)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a quick comment and then two brief questions.First of all, I want to congratulate the member for completely ignoring the question before the House today. He read his way right through it.Second, the member did give a very good, non-partisan overview of his committee, and so I would ask if he would be willing to come to my rotary club to give that presentation. We do not talk politics at our rotary club. Finally, in his capacity as the member of Parliament for Ottawa South, will he be voting yea or nay for the actual motion?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa SouthDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (2105)[English]Madam Speaker, the motion on the floor of the House tonight asks the House to find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey three orders, one being an order of the House and the other two being orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, and to order the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to appear at the bar of the House to receive a formal admonishment and deliver the unredacted documents ordered by the House.The issue in front of us today is simple. Has the government complied with the order made by the House on June 2 of this year and the two orders made by the special committee on March 31 and May 10 of this year, orders which mandated that the government provide the unredacted documents concerning the government's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba? The answer is clearly no.These three orders are binding. They are not resolutions of the House or its committees. They are not an expression of the opinion of the House or of its committee. They are orders that must be complied with, just as Canadians have been required to comply with the public health orders of the government during the last 15 months of the pandemic, orders that concerned quarantines, movement, mask-wearing and many other things.Since the adoption of the order on June 2, the government has said it has given the unredacted documents to NSICOP. That is not where the House order specified the unredacted documents be delivered to. The House order was clear. In part (a) it states:(a) these documents shall be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, in both official languages, within 48 hours of the adoption of this orderNSICOP is not the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. It is that simple. The government does not get to decide what part of a binding House order it gets to comply with and what part of a binding House order it gets to ignore, just as Canadians do not get to decide what part of quarantine orders they get to comply with and what part of quarantine orders they get to ignore.Let us set aside for a moment the fact that the House order compels the government to deliver the documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Let us set aside for a moment that House order. Let us think about, in general terms, in the absence of these three orders, whether or not NSICOP is the appropriate place to hold the government accountable.In our Constitution there is only one place to which the government is accountable and that is the House of Commons. We do not elect governments in Canada. We elect a legislature of 338 members, out of which a prime minister and government are appointed by the Governor General, on the assessment of the Governor General as to which member has the support of the majority of the members of the House. That is why this place is the only place in the land where the confidence convention exists.The government's accountability to the House is not just a singular moment when it is appointed based on that assessment. The government's accountability to the House is not just the confidence convention. It is the daily and ongoing proceedings of the House and its committees, through question period, through committees, through debate, through votes and through so many other proceedings.One reason that NSICOP is not the right place to hold the government accountable is that NSICOP is not a committee of this place. It is not a committee of the other place. It is not a committee of Parliament.The act that governs NSICOP is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, and in subsection 4(3), under “Not a committee of Parliament”, it states:The Committee is not a committee of either House of Parliament or of both Houses.(2110)Not only is it not a committee of Parliament, but MPs and senators on NSICOP actually give up their parliamentary rights. Subsection 12(1) of the act says:Despite any other law, no member or former member of the Committee may claim immunity based on parliamentary privilege in a proceeding against them in relation to a contravention of subsection 11(1) or of a provision of the Security of Information Act or in relation to any other proceeding arising from any disclosure of information that is prohibited under that subsection.Furthermore, subsection 5(1) of the act governing the committee says:The members of the Committee are to be appointed by the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, to hold office during pleasure until the dissolution of Parliament following their appointment.In other words, members of NSICOP hold office at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.Subsection 6(1) of the act says:The Governor in Council is to designate the Chair of the Committee from among the members of the Committee, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.In other words, the Prime Minister decides who will chair the committee.Subsection 16(1) gives the minister the authority to refuse information requested by the committee. Paragraph 8(1)(b) gives a minister the right to block the committee's review of any matter. Subsection 21(5) gives the Prime Minister the power to direct the committee to revise reports and remove information. It says:If, after consulting the Chair of the Committee, the Prime Minister is of the opinion that information in an annual or special report is information the disclosure of which would be injurious to national security, national defence or international relations or is information that is protected by litigation privilege or by solicitor-client privilege or the professional secrecy of advocates and notaries, the Prime Minister may direct the Committee to submit to the Prime Minister a revised version of the annual or special report that does not contain that information.These provisions allowing the Prime Minister to direct the committee to revise reports on the Prime Minister's opinion that information is injurious to national security, national defence, international relations or solicitor-client privilege are so broad and all-encompassing that they give the Prime Minister great latitude to see reports revised that might be embarrassing to the government.NSICOP is not a committee of Parliament. Its members give up the rights they have as parliamentarians. Its members and its chair serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Any minister has the broad latitude to refuse the committee information and to block a committee's review, and the Prime Minister has the broad power to change committee reports before they are made public.All of this is not new. It is the exact criticism Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault gave in her testimony about Bill C-22, which passed in the last Parliament and now governs this committee. Clearly it is the wrong committee to hold the government accountable. It is like the fox guarding the henhouse, and that is why it is the wrong committee for the redacted documents to be sent to.The argument I have just made about NSICOP being the wrong committee is really beside the point, because the three orders of the House and its special committee are clear. The unredacted documents are to be sent to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, not to NSICOP.I have heard the government make reference to the fact that NSICOP is similar to committees that exist in other democracies. That is not accurate. NSICOP is not similar to the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee. Unlike NSICOP, the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee is not under the control of the British prime minister. In addition, the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee is a committee of Parliament. It consists of nine members, one of whom is the chair. While the prime minister nominates candidates for the committee, both houses of Parliament must confirm their respective parliamentarians, and both the House of Commons and the House of Lords have the power to reject the nominated candidates. Also, the chair of the committee is not appointed on the recommendation of the prime minister, but is elected by committee members at the first meeting of the committee.(2115)As a result, the U.K.'s Intelligence and Security Committee has autonomy from the Prime Minister and the government. It is a committee of Parliament, with the ability to hold the British government accountable.The government has said it will not hand over the documents because it is concerned about national security. That argument is not cogent, because in all three orders of the House and its special committee, a provision was made to protect national security or any details of an ongoing criminal investigation. In the order adopted by this House on June 2, paragraph (d) says:(d) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall confidentially review the documents with a view to redacting information which, in his opinion, could reasonably be expected to compromise national security or reveal details of an ongoing criminal investigation, other than the existence of an investigation;There is a difference between the three orders with respect to the Winnipeg lab documents and the House order of December 2009 that required the previous Conservative government to hand over documents concerning Afghan detainees. The difference is this. All three orders of this House and its special committee in this Parliament regarding the Winnipeg lab documents have provisions to protect national security and any details of an ongoing criminal investigation. The House order of December 2009, which had been moved by Mr. Dosanjh on December 10, 2009, contained no such provisions. It simply ordered the government to hand over the documents about Afghan detainees in their original and uncensored form forthwith, which meant they would have to be immediately and publicly released without any redactions. We took great pains in the drafting of these three orders for the Winnipeg lab documents to address the national security concerns expressed by the government at that time.Another point to make is this. The first two orders adopted by the special committee had the support of all members of the committee, including members of the ministerial party. That was not an oversight. The members of the ministerial party knew exactly what they were voting for and knew exactly what the order of the committee said. Therefore, even members of the ministerial party believed the government must hand over these documents to the House and the special committee.Since March 31, two and a half months ago, the government has ignored these orders, and now its ignorance has caught up to it. Initially, the government hid behind the Privacy Act, ignoring parliamentary supremacy and ignoring the fact that paragraph 8(2)(c) of the Privacy Act itself grants an exemption for personal information that is disclosed in compliance with an order made by a body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information. After that argument did not seem to hold any more water, the government hid behind the excuse of national security, ignoring the fact that all three orders made provisions for the protection of national security. The reality is that one has to conclude that the government is doing nothing more than buying time to avoid providing this House and its special committee with information, hoping the clock will run out with the adjournment of the House next week on Wednesday.My colleagues and I have not taken this decision lightly to pursue this motion of censure and to call the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to the bar. We understand the constitutional implications of this and we understand the stress that public servants at the Public Health Agency of Canada must be feeling. However, there are bigger issues at stake here, including the strength of our parliamentary institutions, their rights and their privileges, which have been under immense pressure in the last year, some would even say in retreat because of the restrictions of the pandemic.(2120)Since March 31, we have repeatedly urged the government to comply with the order. We have given the government ample time to comply with the orders, making clear the consequence of not doing so, including earlier this week at the special committee meeting on Monday evening. Despite all these admonitions, despite all these urgings, the government has chosen not to comply.I make one last appeal to the government at this late hour. I urge the government to comply with the orders of this House and its special committee and deliver the unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House. I urge all my colleagues in the House to vote for this motion if the government continues to refuse to comply with these orders.Access to informationBiosafetyC-22, An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and to make consequential amendments to certain ActsChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDavidMcGuintyHon.Ottawa SouthJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong: (2125)[English]Madam Speaker, I think it is clear that the government is delaying and obfuscating. It is clear the government is trying to cover this entire matter up and I base it on the following evidence. Initially, as the member for St. John's East pointed out, the government hid behind the excuse of the Privacy Act and the protection of personal information. Then it shifted its argument and started to make the argument that it was not about the protection of personal information under the Privacy Act, but rather about national security.I have come to the conclusion, and I think anyone would have to come to the conclusion, that the government is delaying and obfuscating on this matter because there is information that it does not want to come to light because it would embarrass the government and demonstrate it was lax in its oversight of national security and policy at the Winnipeg lab.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong: (2125)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for his question. He also attended the meeting on Monday night, and over three hours we did not get any answers to our questions.[English]That we did not get any answers to our questions I think demonstrates a profound lack of respect for Parliament, a profound lack of respect for our parliamentary democracy. If we watch committees of other legislatures around the world, parliamentarians get real answers about the questions they are asking. Through the Internet and through other media, we can see what happens in legislatures in Europe, the U.K. and the United States. When elected officials ask questions, they get answers. It speaks to the government's profound lack of respect for this place the fact that after asking repeated serious questions about the Winnipeg lab, we continue to get stonewalled and we continue not to receive answers.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2125)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to work with the member on the Canada-China committee and various other fora. I know that fighting for democracy and parliamentary institutions has been a core part of what he has done, both in foreign affairs and domestically.I would ask the member to expand on some of the very important comments he has made about the broader attacks that we are seeing on the ability of Parliament to do its job, this increasing pressure from the government to minimize the role of Parliament and minimize its real powers to hold the government accountable. What is the trend that he is observing in this respect? What do we need to do as parliamentarians from all parties to assert the privileges, the rights and, indeed, the important role that any Parliament should play in a democracy in the face of the approach of the current government?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton HillsMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton Hills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong: (2130)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very worried about the future of our country. Our institutions have been weakened in recent years and all Canadians should be very alarmed at the state of these institutions. I have never seen institutions so weak in my lifetime and possibly never so weak in our history as they are now. We do not have a governor general because the previous governor general resigned due to scandal. We do not have a permanent clerk of the Privy Council. The previous clerk resigned because of scandal. Eight senior members of the Canadian Armed Forces have resigned or have been removed from their posts in recent months. We have a Parliament that is unable to get documents about a serious matter that concerns the government's National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have institutions that are failing Canadians and the government just snubs its nose at all of these issues. We need to wake up. We are in trouble as a country. Our institutions are in trouble. It is—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michael Chong: (2130)[English]Madam Speaker, I do believe there is a pattern here, a pattern of contempt for Parliament from the Government of Canada. I am often shocked at the lack of knowledge the government has about Parliament and its function within our system. The member notes the government's failure to provide the documents ordered to be given to the health committee. We are now seized with the issue of the documents the government has refused to give to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.I can point to another example that came to my attention recently, which is the fact that someone in the government thought it appropriate in the 2021-22 departmental plans for the NSICOP Secretariat to list its core responsibility as parliamentary review when the act itself says it is not a committee of Parliament. On and on the list goes.It speaks to institutions that are much weakened and that are struggling to keep up. It should be a wake-up call for all of us about the need to strengthen and reform these institutions so they can serve Canadians in a much stronger fashion than they have been in recent months.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDonDaviesVancouver KingswayGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2135)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this important debate. Although I am rarely speechless, I must say it is a little intimidating to follow the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, with such powerful and historic words about the state of our institutions. I would encourage all members to reflect on those words. They go beyond any party. They go beyond any particular issue of the day. However, they do speak to particular problems that we see right now in our national life, particular problems that reflect actions and decisions of the government.Prior to getting elected, the Prime Minister was asked which other regime or political system around the world he admired most. He said that he actually had some degree of admiration for China's basic dictatorship. This is what we are talking about. We are talking tonight about the fact that the Prime Minister has a problem with understanding democratic values, their importance, how they operate and how they constrain a Prime Minister. We are also dealing with the fact that as a result of his admiration for the Chinese regime, the Prime Minister has allowed our country to form dangerous associations, which threaten our values and our security, and which threaten global security.I am going to talk about those two issues. I am going to talk about the rule of law and democratic values, and then I am going to talk about the particular issues raised by the associations that we have seen, in terms of Chinese military-affiliated scientists working at Canadian labs, and the fact that the health minister does not seem to see any problem with this.On the issue of the rule of law, we are seeing, make no mistake, regular assaults on the rule of law by the Liberal government. Last year, at the beginning of the pandemic, under the pressure of very challenging circumstances, the government tried to pass a law that would have effectively given it unlimited law-making power for more than a year and a half. Conservatives stood up to that. We put a stop to that, thankfully.It should never be forgotten that the government thought this was the appropriate thing to try to do in the face of a pandemic, that it wanted to seize on the very real fear and concern that Canadians were feeling to try to pass a law that would have given it unlimited law-making power for over a year and a half without Parliament.We have a Prime Minister who has repeatedly been found in violation of ethics laws, multiple reports, multiple violations, according to the Ethics Commissioner. It has become clear that the Prime Minister who said he admired China's basic dictatorship simply does not feel that the laws apply to him. We are seeing that again tonight.In the last week, we have had back-to-back rulings from the Speaker calling out the government for failing to respect the rules of Parliament and for failing to abide by them. The first ruling was on Bill C-10. After the government shut down committee debate, the committee then proceeded to vote on amendments without debate, without those amendments even being read. Thankfully, our Speaker recognized that that was a clear violation of the rules of this place.Today we have a very clear ruling, a ruling that, while giving full credit to the Speaker for making, I think we should acknowledge came as no surprise to anyone. It was clearly aligned with all the past precedent, the well-established powers of Parliament to send for documents.Why does Parliament, as the voice of the people, as the democratic representative of this country, have the right to send for documents in every case? It is because if we are to hold the executive accountable, if we are to do our job on behalf of the people who sent us, if we are to exercise our industry and our judgment, as Burke said, then we have to have the information available to us to consider what is going on and to consider the steps that need to be taken.Speakers, since the beginning of Parliament, have recognized powers and privileges that must accord to Parliament in its role. Once again, the Speaker recognized that those precedents recognized those rights, and affirmed that Parliament has the right to request these documents and that the government has to hand them over.(2140)Continuing this debate today, in spite of the Speaker's ruling, the government is not at all chastened, it seems. We have members like the member for Kingston and the Islands simply reverting back to the same old talking points that have been clearly rejected by the Speaker.I do not think that NSICOP is the appropriate forum. I think the Canada-China committee had a right to look at these documents, but frankly, it does not matter whether or not one thinks that NSICOP should be the one looking at this. The point is that the Speaker, the lawful authority in this case, has ruled clearly based on the precedent, and the government must follow the law. Again, we have a Prime Minister who simply does not think the rules and the law apply to him and his consistent behaviour, since taking office, of breaking ethics laws, ignoring Parliament and, in back-to-back cases in the last week, being chastened by the Speaker. The Prime Minister is trying to behave as if the law does not apply to him.I want, again, to go through the events at the Canada-China committee, where I have the honour of serving as vice-chair, to illustrate how this came about. The government had many, many opportunities, and we put in place very clear and reasonable checks. Because of the reasoned process through which we proceeded, there was substantial support throughout the committee to proceed in this fashion, but the government thinks it is in its political interest to try to make this all about the Conservatives: the Conservatives this, the Conservatives that. This is not about the Conservatives. This is about the fact that a parliamentary committee unanimously asked for those documents.This process started when the president of the Public Health Agency, Iain Stewart, was before the committee and members started asking very simple questions about these two scientists who transferred deadly viruses to Wuhan and then were expelled. We were asking some very basic questions about what happened. The president of the Public Health Agency refused to answer. These questions were asked by Conservative, Bloc and NDP members consecutively.We asked some very general questions as well: Has there ever been a case where somebody has been expelled for a policy breach? How many of these cases have taken place? Identifying numbers of cases in which there has been an expulsion for policy breaches certainly does not hurt anybody's privacy, as was claimed at the time. There was a complete refusal to answer these questions.At that initial meeting, the committee agreed unanimously to give the president of the Public Health Agency until that Friday to provide additional information. No additional information was provided, so we used Standing Order 106(4) to summon the committee for a special meeting on March 31. That initial Standing Order 106(4) letter was signed by members of multiple parties already. Then we had a motion adopted at that meeting to send for the unredacted documents. We did so in a collaborative way, involving the whole committee in the discussion. We compromised on the number of days. The Liberals at the committee agreed that we had the right to request the documents. They said we needed to give the Public Health Agency more time. We agreed to give the Public Health Agency more time, and it still refused to comply. As a result of its failure to comply, the consequence was that Iain Stewart, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, came back to the committee for further discussion in a three-hour meeting. There are a few things that are very important about that subsequent meeting that happened on May 10. One of them is that the justice department shared that its legal advice to PHAC had been that PHAC did not have to provide these documents. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs directly told them, “You need a second opinion. Your legal advice is wrong.” Actually, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, obviously a Liberal MP, went further than that. He said that the Department of Justice is often wrong. He cited a number of precedents of cases where he felt the justice department had given bad legal advice. When I questioned the justice department lawyer, I said, “Look, we have the ruling from Speaker Milliken that says you have to hand over documents and that Parliament has an unfettered right of access. You are saying Parliament does not have an unfettered right of access, so that means you disagree with the Speaker's ruling.” The justice department essentially said that, yes, it was hard to square the two. It was hard to square its position with the position of the Milliken ruling.(2145)Then I asked if they thought that Speaker Milliken had the lawful authority to make the ruling, and there was acknowledgement that yes, Speaker Milliken had the lawful authority to make that ruling. He was the authority accountable for making this ruling. He made the ruling, and the ruling is different from the justice department's opinion.Do members know what happens when we have a different opinion from the lawful authority about what the law should be? We have to comply with the lawful authority. That is how the rule of law works. In a rule of law society, there is an authority that is empowered to make determinations about law. We might disagree with that authority. We might disagree with the Speaker. We might disagree with the judge. We might disagree with the police officer on a given day. However, we have to adhere to that lawful authority and, where available, seek appeal. We cannot just say that our legal opinion is different from the lawful authority that made that decision, so we are just not going to listen.That was the really strange testimony we heard from the justice department at the May 10 meeting. It was testimony that was directly called out by the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the end, another Liberal member, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, moved a motion to order the unredacted documents again. That was the second motion to order the unredacted documents. It was not only supported by the Liberals, but it was actually moved in the first instance by a Liberal member, the member for Cumberland—Colchester. That motion was adopted unanimously, ordering the production of the documents. We compromised again with the Liberals on the timeline. We wanted seven days; they wanted 10 days, and we said okay. Then the report was tabled. We have two separate orders, very much driven by a collaborative process at the committee, one motion proposed by myself, one motion proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, and unanimous support. Then we have an opposition motion that says the government has to comply with this order and provide this information. Again, the government refuses. We have three consecutive orders, two by committee and one by the House, and the government refuses to comply. We have lawful authorities telling the government to follow the law, and the government is saying, effectively, that the rules do not apply to it.On Monday, we had the Minister of Health before the committee. I was precise in asking her whether the decision not to provide the documents was made by Iain Stewart alone, or whether she was consulted on that decision. That was about the only question she responded to directly, but she told the committee that she met with Iain Stewart, they discussed it and she agreed that they should not hand over the documents.This is not just a decision being made by public servants. Public servants need to be accountable for their decisions in terms of following the law. However, we see how the Minister of Health, in her position by the Prime Minister, does not feel that they have to follow the law.What are the Liberals saying about these issues? Right now, they are saying this should be a matter for NSICOP. On the issue of NSICOP, I was very interested in the speech by the chair of NSICOP, the member for Ottawa South. Notably, the member for Ottawa South, who is the chair of NSICOP, did not discuss whether the committee had received the documents.He did not discuss whether his committee was studying the documents, because he cannot talk about what the committee is working on. He can only share information with respect to the committee that the Prime Minister allows him to release. He made the argument that the Prime Minister's discretion in terms of limiting the release of information is constrained by law, but we have seen how the Prime Minister reacts when he is constrained by law. He does not believe himself to be constrained by law.It was evident in the speech from the member for Ottawa South why NSICOP is not the appropriate body, because he, himself, was not able to address very basic questions. He could not even answer how he was voting on the motion. He cannot actually, because of his role in NSICOP, speak at all about this issue in a serious way in the House, because to do so might give some indication as to whether his committee is studying it.We know that NSICOP is not a parliamentary committee, but the point is that the Speaker has ruled. These questions about NSICOP have been answered definitively by the Speaker in his ruling, the Speaker being the lawful authority to make these determinations.We hear the government making arguments about national security issues. The reason these efforts to get documents got so much support throughout the committee, including from Liberal members, including the motion being proposed by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, is that we put in place those protections for national security.(2150)Yes, Parliament should use its powers in a responsible way. Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. That is why we established a process by which the documents would be given to the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel and redactions would be made at that level, but we wanted an employee of Parliament, not of the executive, to make those determinations. That was a reasonable process that respected national security and, at the end of the day, it was our right as a parliamentary committee, it was our right as a collective Parliament in the context of the opposition motion to make these decisions.The fundamental point is that in every case, the authorities with the constitutionally given powers to make these decisions made decisions. In every case, in three consecutive instances dealing with this issue alone, and in many others, as we have discussed, the government said that the rules did not apply to it. We know now why the Prime Minister believes it would be so much better to have a basic dictatorship. We see how the Prime Minister treats our institutions as if we live in a basic dictatorship. Truly respecting the values of a parliamentary democracy means we do things as an executive that we might not want to do because we are accountable to the people's representatives. We do not get to do exactly what we want. We are bound by law.At the Canada-China committee, we have discussed the distinction between rule of law and rule by law: rule of law characterizing our system where leaders are bound by law; and rule by law whereby leaders use law to their advantage to get the kinds of outcomes they want. The Prime Minister is behaving as if he thinks this is a rule-by-law system instead of a rule-of-law system. The Prime Minister needs to know the rules apply to him.On the issue of research co-operation with the Chinese military, we have a case where two scientists were involved in transferring deadly viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The head of the lab at the time, Matthew Gilmour, raised concerns about this. He raised the fact there was no materials transfer agreement in place. He raised other concerns about the credibility of what was to happen. His concerns were ignored and a few years later he resigned suddenly and left the country.After these deadly viruses were transferred, even in a context, by the way, where security concerns had already been raised about the Wuhan lab, people were expelled who were involved in this transfer, but no explanation was given as to why they were expelled or what the context of the investigation was. We found out since that another person, Feihu Yan, was affiliated with the People's Liberation Army's Academy of Military Medical Sciences while working at the Winnipeg lab. Some of these issues are complex but some of these issues are fairly simple. When we hear that somebody from the Academy of Military Medical Sciences is working and gathering information at a Canadian lab, it should not be difficult to identify that is a problem. The government of China is currently, as we speak, committing genocide. It is running concentration camps for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims.We know the government of China is deploying all of its most up-to-date technology in its suppression of minority communities like Uighurs. We know it is always trying to access new technology, the most sophisticated surveillance, to control and repress minority populations and indeed to inflict this ongoing genocide.When we are engaged in research co-operation around virology with the military of a country that is involved in genocide, that should just horrify the basic moral sensibilities of Canadians. There are all these questions around what kinds of co-operation were happening between the Winnipeg lab and the Wuhan Institute for Virology. There are very serious questions that need to be investigated about the lab leak theory potentially being a cause of COVID-19. There are security questions. There are obviously intellectual property questions. There are human rights questions.I posed these questions to the Minister of Health at committee on Monday. She just piled this in layers of complexity, saying that it was complicated, that the world worked together, that we needed to have this research co-operation, that this was the way the research system worked and everybody was working together on research co-operation. I am in favour of research co-operation with like-minded countries, but I do not want us engaged in research co-operation when there is a very serious risk that research done in Canada contributes to repression of minorities, contributes to genocide and contributes to threats to our own security. These are questions of our fundamental values.(2155)The government, in addition to talking about a basic dictatorship, is just so naive to the risks to our values. This privilege motion is critically important. We need to stand up for Canada, stand up for our values and hold the government to account.Access to informationBiosafetyC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichaelChongHon.Wellington—Halton HillsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2155)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is accusing me of threatening the career of a public servant. I will simply say this. I would put at risk the careers of thousands of public servants if it were necessary to defend the rule of law, because the rule of law is important. The rule of law is critically important. It is more important than our comfort. It is more important than anyone's career. It is far more important than my career.The minister told the committee that she had discussions with the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada and agreed with his decision. The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada is accountable for this decision and he must bring the documents to the committee.The government also clearly bears responsibility for its own failures, and we hold it accountable every day in question period and other fora. The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are part of this decision to refuse to hand over these documents. Members can be sure that not just Conservatives, but multiple opposition parties, working together, will hold the government accountable, defend the rule of law in our country and demand that we not engage in the deeply troubling practice of research co-operation with a military committing genocide.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2155)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I do not have much to add to what my colleague said. In general, I agree with him.I just want to say that I appreciated the Bloc Québécois's co-operation on the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. We worked together very effectively to hold the government to account.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarioSimardJonquièrePeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2200)[English]Mr. Speaker, why is the government not taking these issues seriously? Let us distinguish between members like the member for Kingston and the Islands who, unfortunately, is likely simply being given a line to deliver. Why are the Prime Minister, the health minister and the powers that be repeatedly refusing orders of the House? I would suggest that they have decided there are things in these documents that they do not want to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that should very much worry members. We know the government wants to move its legislative agenda forward. It has had many opportunities to simply hand over the documents, and then this whole thing goes away. It all would go away. It would all go away right now, if it hands over the documents. That is all the government has to do.It would not be handing them over to the public; it would be handing them over to the law clerk, who would then review the redacted items and hand things over to a committee. The government could make all of this go away tomorrow, but it has repeatedly, knowing the consequences, refused to do that. This suggests that there is something in these documents that the government is so afraid of seeing any kind of light of day, even through the law clerk and a committee would be looking at them in camera. Recognizing that fear in the government should just underline the urgency of continuing to push very hard on these issues.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2200)[English]Mr. Speaker, first, I think it is pretty clear to everyone here that the member is speaking in support of this motion. In the motion, it actually calls for the president of PHAC to come with the documents. It says right in the motion, contrary to what some members of the Liberal Party have said, that there are safeguards to ensure that the confidentiality and the national security concerns that are raised will be addressed by the law clerk, who has experience ensuring those vital interests are maintained.Does the member believe this is a good compromise that will protect national security and at the same time allow parliamentarians to do our job?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (2200)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work previously on the Canada-China committee prior to the leadership transition.The previous ruling of Speaker Milliken emphasized that Parliament had a right to unfettered access to documents, and also that Parliament was enjoined to exercise that right in a thoughtful and responsible way. In this case, Parliament has exercised its right and has put in place very judicious safeguards. The documents would be handed over to the law clerk and the parliamentary counsel. They could be redacted and then transmitted on to the committee, which would look at them in camera.However, the critical difference between the government's procedure and our procedure is that in our procedure, it would be employees of Parliament, who understand and respect the privileges of Parliament, who would be making determinations about appropriate redactions rather than the executive having carte blanche to make its own determinations about redactions based on criteria that they are not sharing with us.It is important to remember that on these issues of national security, the government did not even start invoking national security in its arguments until substantially into the process. At the beginning, the Liberals were not talking about national security; they were talking about privacy. However, when we clearly pointed out that there were exceptions in the Privacy Act that addressed the very issues they were talking about, exceptions in the Privacy Act that talk about the right of lawful authorities to request documents, then they changed tactics. They stopped talking about privacy and started talking about national security. The point is it was an invented excuse part way through.When we are asking very general questions about whether there are Chinese military-affiliated scientists at Canadian labs, those questions should be answered, if not in public, then certainly in private.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (2205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to our privilege motion, which I am going to take the time to reread for those who are watching at home. This is what we are calling for:That the House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, order its President to attend at the bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by the House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that order.As we can see from reading this privilege motion, this is an extremely important issue for democracy and respect for the authority of the House.Today, sadly, we are not surprised by the way this government has acted over the last five, almost six, years. However, rarely in over 150 years have such events occurred in the House of Commons. Such a profound lack of respect for the institution will go down in history, but for the wrong reasons.I would like to come back to the issue at hand. How did we get to where we are today? First of all, this all started with a CBC news story in July 2019 reporting that two Chinese scientists had been expelled from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, a level 4 facility. This news came as a surprise to us, but it was a bit nebulous as we were unsure, waiting for more information. Meanwhile, the COVID‑19 pandemic began, and we went into “COVID mode” all through 2020.During that time, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations was doing a study on Hong Kong. Later, after passing a motion I presented to the committee, it undertook a study on national security in Canada-China relations. This study included evaluating various levels and aspects of security, like defence. One of the points studied just happened to be the relationship between China and the Public Health Agency of Canada, and that is where everything began to point to the problem we face today.On March 22, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Iain Stewart, appeared before the committee, only to tell us that he would say nothing. Committee members exchanged some glances and asked the usual questions about various files, but especially about Winnipeg. The agency remained secretive and we had no way of finding out anything at all. As a result, we became suspicious and questions were asked.Then we asked for an emergency committee meeting on March 31 and summoned the House of Commons law clerk, Philippe Dufresne, and the deputy law clerk, Michel Bédard. We asked them for advice. We asked them to explain our rights and how to exercise those rights. They explained the procedure and said it was normal for a committee like the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations to ask questions and get the documents it sends for. At that same meeting, we moved a motion calling on the Public Health Agency of Canada to turn the required documents over to the law clerks so they could redact personal information and anything to do with national security.Several weeks later, we got another surprise. The agency produced documents, and those documents were redacted, but not by our House of Commons law clerks. The president of the agency and his team had taken it upon themselves to decide what should be redacted.On May 10, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations held another meeting, which was attended by the law clerks, who are officers of the House, and the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada with his lawyer. We asked them to explain the process to us, and the law clerks once again clarified that it was their job to analyze documents provided by a government agency because they had the authority and credentials to do that analysis.(2210)That is great, so why did they not proceed that way? At that same meeting on May 10, there was another surprise when the Liberal member for Cumberland—Colchester moved a motion calling for the documents to be provided, for the law clerks to do their job and, if that did not work, for the matter to be referred to the House of Commons. What was bound to happen did happen; once again, that did not work, and the matter was referred to House.After the debate on the motion in the House on June 2, the House adopted an order requiring the Public Health Agency of Canada and its president to provide the documents, as requested, to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.Someone, somewhere, then had the idea to send the documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, simply to get the job done and be able to say that the documents had been sent to a committee.The order of the House called for the documents to be sent to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, which has law clerks in place who can do the work. Despite that, the documents were sent to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians in an effort to have Canadians believe that this committee could do the work because it included Conservative members and now Bloc members. This was done in the hope that everyone would be happy. However, that is an ultra-secret committee. The two Conservative members and the one Bloc member who serve on it must keep quiet for the rest of their lives about anything they might learn, see or hear. They will eventually conduct an analysis and submit a report to the Prime Minister, although he will not learn anything new, since he already has the information and knows what happened in Winnipeg, as do all government members. Sending this to the committee of parliamentarians is a charade. Three opposition members who are sworn to secrecy for the rest of their lives will know what happened, but they can never tell, so nothing will ever come of it.It is quite obvious that this is the government's plan. This is yet another affront to the House of Commons, because that committee of parliamentarians has nothing to do with this file and because it is not a parliamentary committee like other House of Commons committees. Furthermore, this violates the order given to submit the documents to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.Not only is it an affront to parliamentarians, but it is also an affront to officers of Parliament, which shocks me. Law Clerk Philippe Dufresne and Deputy Law Clerk Michel Bédard are members of the House of Commons team, just like the clerks. They are not elected members or members of the opposition. They are members of the staff who were chosen on the basis of their skills and abilities to deal with information so as to ensure that security and personal information are protected. Why would we not trust our law clerks and submit the documents to them as requested? These documents would have been processed and submitted to the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations according to the rules. Why play around with that?This means that there is an even more serious problem and that something dangerous beyond our imagination happened between the Winnipeg lab, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese army. There is something very serious going on. The Liberals' manoeuvres are only amplifying the problem, making the situation more sensitive and creating a huge issue.The Conservatives do not want to fearmonger. We simply want to know what happened. There are ways to talk with the opposition. We are all Canadians, no matter our political allegiances. We all have the right to know what happens here in our country.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSplitting speaking timeSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. My answer will be the same as the one he got from my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. The individual in question is a public servant and is not responding to orders from the House. It does not matter if we are talking about one, 10, 20 or 100 employees; what matters here is the rule of law and the primacy of the House, and this individual must respond.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean for his question. I do not want to be rude, but I have to say it turned my stomach to witness the Minister of Health's three-hour appearance at the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Let us not forget that the House ordered the Minister of Health to appear before the committee to explain and answer our questions. Such orders are not uncommon. The answers we got were just like those we heard during this afternoon's question period: evasive and indicative of total ignorance of the situation.What most impressed me were answers to questions like this one: Were you briefed on what happened at the lab?The minister's answer went something like this: No, I was not briefed about it. Was she not Canada's Minister of Health? That was either blatant disrespect or utter incompetence.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus: (2215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.I would say that it is more than a pattern. This government's lack of respect for the institution of the House of Commons is a systematic pattern.I remind members that a few years ago, the Prime Minister said that he admired the Chinese dictatorship and how the Chinese could turn the economy around on a dime, since they did not need to negotiate with a parliament and opposition parties. The Prime Minister said that he found that kind of system interesting.Based on the things this government is doing, it is easy to see where it gets its inspiration.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDonDaviesVancouver KingswayMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (2220)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this question of privilege, though not under happy circumstances as we find ourselves yet again with the Liberal government brazenly defying an order of the House in the name of a cover-up. The government operates in cover-ups, so we should not be surprised. Multiple times the Canada-China committee ordered documents from PHAC regarding the Winnipeg lab leak, and each time it was met with pages and pages of blacked-out documents that did not satisfy the order of the committee. Again, this was not much of a surprise. Blacked-out documents came nowhere close to satisfying the order of the committee, and that is why we find ourselves here today.We have serious questions about what happened at the Winnipeg lab. This is a level 4, high-security lab. Scientists there were working with the Chinese military. To this point, foreign state actors were given access to some of the world's deadliest viruses, which were stored in the lab. We have seen the human rights violations that the CCP will publicly carry out on its own soil. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan detailed the problematic relationship involving scientific co-operation and information collection between our country and the Chinese government, which is frankly perpetrating a genocide on its own soil.We have a situation where the Government of Canada is unwilling to provide answers about the access, samples and personnel involved in this case. The two scientists who were fired were locked out of the Winnipeg lab, and we know that their security clearances were revoked because of the concerns of our national intelligence agency, CSIS. This raises serious questions.Now that the opposition has dialed in on this failure, the government is doing everything it can to hide from accountability. The documents were ordered twice by the Canada-China committee, and twice the government failed to provide the information. The House ordered the information to be provided and the government refused to do that.We have seen it before, and I will speak to that because this is a disturbing pattern that we have seen from the government: It is willing to do anything to save its political skin. It will scream that the Conservatives are acting in some kind of hyper partisan way by exercising our function as the official opposition in this place; however, in this case the orders from committee were unanimous. Members sitting on the same side of the House as the cabinet voted unanimously for the order of these documents, unredacted, to be reviewed by appropriate independent authorities. It was not just the Conservatives. The Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP voted to have the parliamentary Law Clerk review the unredacted documents and then make an assessment on what information needed to be protected on the grounds of national security. It is frankly quite troubling, and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills really laid out the case well.This is a dangerous pattern and it threatens our democracy. It certainly threatens Canadians' confidence in our democracy. We have a Prime Minister who promised to do politics differently, and what he has done is not a record to be proud of. It is not open by default. It is not transparent. The government will say that this accountability mechanism that is being exercised, a check against the power of the executive, is some sort of delay, but we know that the government has not prioritized moving legislation through this place.(2225)When the government sought it, it received the unanimous consent of all parties in the House to advance the necessary supports for people during the pandemic. This is not about that.Let us talk about the record that the Prime Minister has. We have reports from the Ethics Commissioner, one titled the “Trudeau I Report,” in which the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening sections of the Conflict of Interest Act, namely sections 5, 11, 12 and 21. That was for his trip to billionaire island. We had the—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPierrePaul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will just ask that my time should reflect more than four minutes left on the clock, because I know that for five and a half full minutes I have talked exactly about this motion and did start to build the case for an additional 30 seconds. The point by the member for Kingston and the Islands is disingenuous at best. What I am demonstrating is that the government, led by the Prime Minister who is named in those two reports, has a pattern of disregarding the rule of law. The Liberals believe that the rules do not apply to them. This is certainly germane to the subject of them defying an order of the House, and that is obviously why you, Mr. Speaker, found the prima facie case of privilege that we are debating this evening to be decided by this place.As I was saying, in the Trudeau II Report tabled by the Ethics Commissioner, the Prime Minister was found guilty of contravening section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, again seeing him disregarding the rule of law as the government did in this case with the PHAC documents. That, of course, was when he attempted to politically interfere in the prosecution of his friends at SNC-Lavalin.Twice in a four-year term, that Prime Minister was found guilty of breaking ethics laws. In that same term, we saw a pattern of law-breaking in which the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada was found guilty of contravening sections 6 and 21 of the Conflict of Interest Act. We saw that same pattern with former finance minister Bill Morneau. He was found guilty of breaking the Ethics Act twice: first with his failure to disclose his directorship in a numbered company and his forgotten French villa, but also contravening sections 6, 7 and 21 of the act with respect to the WE scandal.It goes on and on. The Liberal government went so far as to shut down Parliament to avoid scrutiny, again, when parliamentarians were looking to—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2225)[English]Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, again, I will speak to something he raised in his speech.He raised the question of Conservatives looking to obstruct the business of the House. That was raised directly by that member. I would like to share with the House that the Liberals filibustered PROC for more than 73 hours, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics for 43 hours—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsMembers' remarksNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Ottawa South did not refer to the motion once during the entire speech. I can understand that some Liberals are getting a little sensitive, but the member has clearly been talking to the motion. Yes, he has walked a wider field than perhaps the member for Kingston and the Islands would like, but I believe he is on target.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaRelevancySummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2230)[English]Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I noticed the member for Kingston and the Islands asked in his last two questions, for which no rulings were made by the Chair occupant at the time, who should be named in the motion. Of course, the president of PHAC is named because he signed the letters, but I am wondering this: Which ministers would he like to amend the motion to name to also have admonished or censured? Would that then bring him onside to vote in favour of this transparency mechanism?In saying that, I would also remind the House that the Liberals filibustered the finance committee for 35 hours, the Standing Committee on National Defence for 16 hours and the foreign affairs committee for more than 10 hours. There were many other filibusters, including at the health committee, where there was also an issue with documents not being tabled in keeping with an order from parliamentarians.We have this gross problem with the current government because it believes that if it provides a rationale, the laws do not apply to it anymore. That is not how this works. Canadians expect us to govern ourselves to the highest standard, and we have seen anything but with the government. This is a straight up-and-down issue. It is a question of whether the government believes the rules apply to it or not. If the Liberals do not believe the laws apply to them, frankly, that is an admission that they are not fit to govern, because the arguments they have put forward this evening are absolutely insufficient. Canadians deserve better than a government that is unwilling to follow the rule of law. The lawful authority has made decisions, with respect, and there is precedent that establishes that these documents can be ordered. We have confidence that the Law Clerk will exercise its function appropriately and provide these documents to parliamentarians in a way that provides consideration for national security interests. It is not a question of giving them to a group of parliamentarians who report to the Prime Minister: We are asking the government to demonstrate its ability, or a minimum willingness, to be accountable to Canadians.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have not had a conversation with the opposition House leader at this point, but I am confident that if the member for Kingston and the Islands would like to move an amendment to the motion to include a set of government ministers to be censured by this House, opposition parties would enter into a discussion with the government. I think that would be an important first step in the government recognizing that it has been complicit in damaging our democracy, and that would be a good first step in admitting it had done wrong.In the meantime, the president of PHAC signed the letters that acknowledged he was in breach of a lawful order to tender those documents, so he will be called to the bar should it be the will of the House. Again, if the member for Kingston and the Islands would like to name some of his colleagues or individuals from the ministry, I would certainly be willing to broker those discussions to have them added to the motion, and would of course enjoy his support in voting for this motion and for transparency for Canadians.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been on full display for six years as being unwilling to do what they promised Canadians in 2015 and 2019, which was to be the most open government in history and to let the sun shine in, as it is the best disinfectant.It is disingenuous and demonstrative of the issue when NSICOP is the committee that this issue would be sent to and the nominations from the official opposition for the changes in membership were made in October. To have the third party in the House, the Bloc Québécois, not have its member added until this morning, on the eve of this ruling from the Speaker, is disingenuous. We have seen the Liberals shut down Parliament. We have heard them threaten to go to an election during the pandemic. We have heard hours and hours of filibustering from them. They seem allergic to being transparent and accountable, and that is why we cannot count on them to do the right thing. It looks like an order of this House may be needed and that individuals may need to be censured. If that is the will of this place, I am confident that it will bolster Canadians' sense of confidence in this institution.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarioSimardJonquièreJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (2235)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.I want to begin my comments by saying thank you for the ruling today. I know that the opposition requested you to deliberate over what had happened with respect to the redacted documents, and you came back with a very fair ruling that respects the democratic principles of this institution. You ruled that Parliament does in fact reign supreme and that the committees do have significant powers. It was a very respectful ruling and one that leads us to this evening and this debate. I will remind you of what you said this afternoon as you ruled that the government breached parliamentary privileges by failing to provide the parliamentary body with secret documents that would explain the firing of two scientists at Canada's top infectious disease lab in Winnipeg. You went further, Mr. Speaker, as you know, to say that it is up to the opposition House leader who asked for the ruling to decide on a follow-up motion that might censure the government or refer the matter for more study. That is precisely where we are this evening. The motion that was put forward by the opposition House leader speaks to the fact that the House finds the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the order of the House adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations adopted on March 31 and May 10. That is a very important issue here, because there have been three orders, two by committee and one by this body, for those documents to be provided to the parliamentary law clerk and to House administration officials. The order is for the president to:attend the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House on June 2, 2021 to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order.For any Canadian who is watching this debate tonight, and I have sat here for most of it, it is rather disturbing to see the government trying to not provide the information that has been ordered by Parliament or by these committees. This is a systemic problem that has been going on for as long as I and many members on the opposition side have been in this Parliament. We see a government that really, despite the words of openness and transparency that the Liberals ran on in 2015, is anything but open and transparent. What the government would prefer more than anything, especially given the time that we are in right now, would be to have an audience rather than an opposition. All parties in opposition in this House have effectively done what they are mandated to do, and that is to hold the government to account.When the facts of this case came out, they were disturbing. I will remind the House again, for the sake of Canadians who are watching, how we got to this point. This is critically important.There were two scientists who were dismissed in January from the Winnipeg lab after their security clearances were revoked in July 2019, and the RCMP was called in to investigate. Xiangguo Qiu, the former head of a key program at the lab, and her biologist husband, Keding Cheng, had been the focus of parliamentary debate for weeks as opposition members became aware and had sought information about this situation. In May, Canada's spy agency had urged the removal of security clearances for the two scientists and an unknown number of Dr. Qiu's students from China relating to the Wuhan facility and other national security matters.(2240)For months before the couple were expelled from the lab in 2019, access to information documents show that Dr. Qiu played a key role in shipping two exceptionally virulent viruses, Ebola and Henipah, to China's Wuhan Institute. When this became public, the first response from the government was that it was an issue of privacy. It even sprinkled a little racism in there as the opposition, as a result of these published reports coming out and the fact that the RCMP and Canada's spy agency were involved, tried to get answers about what was going on. Then it went into national security issues. As I said earlier, two committees of Parliament, plus this body itself, ordered the government to provide those unredacted documents to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel so that they could be studied by, as you said, Mr. Speaker, a body that is supreme in this place, yet those documents were not provided in the manner in which they were requested.It is somewhat disturbing that we have seen this systemic pattern, as I said earlier, of a government that has failed in many cases over the last six years to be transparent and accountable to what ultimately reigns supreme in this place, and that is Parliament. It is quite disturbing that we have come to this point.We have seen that this is the government that ran in 2015 on the issue of transparency and accountability. Over the course of the government being in power, we have seen the WE situation. We have seen the Prime Minister charged with ethics violations and found guilty. The list of the government's violations of accountability and transparency is as long as the day. This has caused me as a parliamentarian, my constituents and Canadians in general to be extremely cynical about what the government is doing by not being transparent.I know the government's argument and I have listened to some of the arguments tonight. The argument has been that this information would be provided to the national security committee, but as the Speaker ruled, it is not a committee of Parliament. I think it was important to make the distinction that it serves at the whim of the Prime Minister and the executive branch of the government, which, by virtue of that association, makes it unaccountable to this Parliament. The information that the committee can create and develop is only given to the Prime Minister. That means that Canadians run the risk of not having that information available to them.We do not naively think that national security is not important. We all know that the first and primary role of government, any level of government, is to make sure that its citizens are secure. That is why, in the best interests of our national security, both the committee and Parliament itself in its order made sure that there would be processes in place to protect information.Mr. Speaker, this motion that we are debating tonight as a result of your ruling today is a critical one to indicate to the government that it cannot just run roughshod over parliamentary authority. There have been examples of that in the past. An example that occurred when this pandemic first started was brought up earlier tonight. One of the first pieces of legislation that the government tried to introduce was an attempt to impose unreserved, unconditional tax and spending powers that would have effectively made Parliament irrelevant until January 2022. If it were not for the opposition, all of us, and if it were not for Canadians and journalists pushing back on this power grab by the government, I would hate to think where we would be today. It is not surprising to me and it should not surprise any Canadian when the Prime Minister says that there is something about China's basic dictatorship that he likes and admires. He was not kidding. We have seen this pattern over and over again over the course of the last six years.(2245)Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by thanking you for protecting this institution, for being the last line of defence in our democracy and for being there for Canadians.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSplitting speaking timeSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on a number of important points, and a number of Conservative speeches over the last couple of hours have emphasized a couple of very important things. One specific and unprecedented thing is twofold. First, opposition parties and the majority of parliamentarians are united in the belief that the actions of the government are contemptuous. Second, this is once again a demonstration of the serious need to ensure that all aspects, agencies and institutions of government are accountable to Parliament, given the supremacy of Parliament within our democratic system. These are two unprecedented things that have been demonstrated here today.I ask the member to comment on how unfortunate it is to see the Liberals using this as an opportunity to try to play politics and pivot away from being found in contempt of Canadian democracy.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard: (2245)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills said it best: It is up to all of us to protect the democratic institutions that we hold so dear, Parliament being one of them, obviously. We have seen, as I said earlier in my speech, a systemic pattern of what I would call abuse, on the part of the government, of the parliamentary privilege of members. We have seen it over and over in committees and in Parliament. We saw a prorogation of Parliament to take the heat off of the Liberals for a pretty significant issue that was happening with the WE scandal.It is incumbent on all of us to protect this institution, and we must do so because we are privileged to sit in this place. I have said it many times, and I feel this way as the critic for veterans affairs and in all that I am as a Canadian. Lives have been lost, blood has been spilled and families have been decimated by war to allow us the privilege to sit in this place, and we must defend it, as they did.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. John Brassard: (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member makes a very important point, because we have seen, over the course of several Parliaments, a lack of consequences. We have certainly seen it in the ethical violations of the Prime Minister, who effectively got a slap on the wrist. Some of the other consequences we have seen are the resignations of ministers.This is why I know, as my party does, how important it is, for the sake of protecting democratic institutions, public trust and confidence among our fellow Canadians, to bring in measures of accountability, as we will be proposing in the next election, that have real consequences if members of Parliament act in a manner that is not respectful, breaks the law or amounts to ethics violations. This is the type of thing we can do to improve the confidence of our public institutions, of those who represent us and certainly of this Parliament.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDonDaviesVancouver KingswayDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (2250)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and join this serious debate. Obviously, the privilege motion and the finding by the Speaker mean that all business needs to stop so that we can discuss this issue, because there are some critical things at stake.I will quickly read the motion so that people who are just joining in can hear it. It reads:That this House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the Order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, orders its President to attend at the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker; and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order. I would like to share my thoughts with the House tonight, and I hope members will indulge me, because I will be relevant.First of all, I believe that any government in Canada, regardless of its stripe, should have the following three qualities: (a) it should try to be ambitious; (b) it should be competent in carrying out its duties; and (c) it needs to be accountable.With respect to ambition, the Conservatives might say that we love this country as it is, we want to keep the country moving and we just want to be excellent at delivering public services. I certainly saw a lot of that during the Harper government. However, this government decided it would do things differently, and with hand on heart said it was going to be open and transparent.Then Bill C-58 came along. Members and many people will know that it changed the Access to Information Act. However, it did not achieve the goal that was stated in 2015, which was opening up ministers' offices to access to information. Now, today, I hear more criticisms of it because of COVID, as access to information is not there.Then we heard, “Let's plant two billion trees." Well, we have lost a number of seasons already since that promise was made in 2019, and the Liberals said this year that they were going to plant 30 million trees, which is 1.5% of the total amount. To put that in context, in British Columbia last year we planted over 314 million trees. Again, words and actions are not in line.Lastly, on electoral reform, many people in my riding still remember that the Liberals made a promise, hand on heart, that the 2015 election would be the last one under first past the post.The reason I raise those things is twofold. First of all, it gives people a sense of where they are going. Second, as parliamentarians, we really want to be able to engage with people, and people want to be engaged. They want us to tell them what we are going to do. Now let us move to the competence side.I share an office with MLA Dan Ashton in Summerland, and when people come in, there is one thing I hear most often from them. When we found out that the government, through the Canadian Armed Forces, was going to be doing joint military exercises for winter training with the Chinese military, people got really upset. They came in huffing and puffing. The same goes for the CanSino Biologics vaccination orders. When the government said in May 2020 that it was going to be doing this, people asked, “Why would the government work with a country like that?” This has nothing to do with nationality or ethnicity; it is just about working with the Communist Chinese government, which is known for breaking international norms. This brings me to what has happened at the Winnipeg lab. It is a world-class facility, but there are some serious problems there. People have asked what is going on.This leads us from ambition to competence and now to accountability. This is where I come in, because my role is to hold the government to account. In fact, anyone who is not part of the executive, the cabinet or the government, and is a member of Parliament, must hold the government to account. That is responsible government. If the government cannot maintain the majority of support in the House, it falls and a new government comes in. Maybe it is after an election, maybe not; maybe a new government will form. However, that is the key point of accountability. (2255)People ask these questions, but when we come to this place or go to a committee like the Canada-China relations committee or the health committee and ask questions of ministers, the ministers will not give substantive answers. In fact, they give answers that seem totally unrelated. They might be talking points, but the problem we have is that we cannot take those talking points back to our citizens, tell them these things and have them take us seriously.Tonight, we heard from the member for Kingston and the Islands and the member for Ottawa South. The member for Ottawa South totally disregarded the motion. However, I asked the member for Kingston and the Islands something specific during debate: Does the member have knowledge of what is in the confidential documents that we are asking to look at so we can hold the government to account? He said no.The ministers are not talking, but the members of Parliament who carry the government's water say there is no story here, there is nothing to see here and we are barking up the wrong tree. What are we supposed to take to our constituents? Multiple committees were stonewalled by the Public Health Agency of Canada. Maybe it was by order of the government. It sounds like there were some discussions back and forth, but ultimately we deserve the answers.The government originally put out arguments about privacy. We know that the law clerk has a means to deal with that. The process is established and well done. I do not think anyone here would say that the law clerk has not done a spectacular job when it comes to monitoring privacy.Then the Liberals spun off about national security. I take national security incredibly seriously, but by the same token, as a parliamentarian and an opposition member I want to hold the government to account. The ministers will not say anything, and the members who we debate with tell us that everything is magically fine and not to worry. They say we are barking up the wrong tree.Where do we go now? How do we get these things done? We settle this by democracy. As Speaker Milliken pointed out, it is the right of Parliament to get unfettered documents.We have put in place a process to make sure that national security and privacy risks are dealt with, but the Liberal government tried to slide this issue off to the NSICOP committee. It is a committee of parliamentarians, yes, but it is not of this chamber. It is not run in such a way that we, or even backbench Liberal MPs, can find out the information so we can judge for ourselves whether the government is doing a competent job regarding national security.There may be serious breaches at the lab, where people need a very high security clearance. We have heard that the president resigned unexpectedly and that two members were fired. However, we cannot get basic answers about it. Then we found out that Ebola and other serious viruses were transferred with no material transfer agreement in place. We need those answers.I do not know what is in the documents, but what I do know is that we have questions that need to be answered, and we will get answers. If we do not, what then? With a Prime Minister who has shown very little regard for Parliament as an institution, where will we go? This is what I always worry about.We have been given a very special trust by Canadians. They basically tell us to hold the government to account and make sure it does good things so they can be proud of our institutions. That is a tall order. We will do that, but we will only be able to do it if we get the correct information. All members in this place want to be proud of being in this country. We want to know that our government is doing all it can to protect national security, and that it is doing so in a competent way.(2300)Asking questions is not anti-patriotic. In fact, it is patriotic for us to say that we expect the best of our government. I do hope members will vote in favour of this motion.Access to informationBiosafetyC-58, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and to make consequential amendments to other ActsChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyJohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I like to stay rooted in practical reality and not let overheated rhetoric rule the day.What I will say is that the Public Health Agency of Canada is the trustee of those documents. We want to have those documents. We would like to call them to this place so they can be deposited, and to send a signal from Parliament that we have asked for the information and that we and this institution will be respected. That is protecting the integrity of this House.The second thing I would say is that we would look at the documents, and we would be careful with them because obviously we want to be sensitive to both privacy and national security. Then we would make our judgment on whether or not a further censure of the government, the Prime Minister, or perhaps the Minister of Health, needs to be carried forward.However, we do not need overheated rhetoric. We need a better sense of what is going on, please.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister has set a tone from the top down in his government. Quite honestly, that tone is one of disregard for Parliament. I do not take it as being personally against parliamentarians in general. I believe he simply thinks that this is the way he would like it, so this is the way it should be.NSICOP may be valuable for our national security agencies and our intelligence committees to be able to see what the values of parliamentarians are based on the context of their operations. The Prime Minister could also learn from those as well.However, that is not accountability. That is a form of checking in with the values of parliamentarians that are on that committee. It is not the accountability of this House, and it is not a committee of this House. As has been said before, NSICOP could actually be ordered by a minister or the Prime Minister to stop reviewing a particular file. That is not what we are asking for here.We need more light and less deflection from the government.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, if one is not part of the cabinet, the executive, then one has the responsibility to hold the government to account. Maybe that happens in the government caucus. However, I imagine that there are many people who just kind of raise their eyebrows. The member for Cumberland—Colchester made the motion for the production of documents on the Canada-China committee. There are members, backbench Liberals who want to know. What we need from the government, as I said, is more light, more clarity and less deflection.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (2305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to start, as I have started a number of speeches throughout my career, by talking a bit about one of my favourite political philosophers and building on what the previous member said. He talked about more light. To me, that brought up one of the greatest allegories in the history of political philosophy, which is The Allegory of the Cave.The Allegory of the Cave is of course foundational to political philosophy. It has been cited literally millions of times in the preceding 2,000 years. The Allegory of the Cave says to imagine children who, nearly since birth, instead of being raised in the sunlight of day, are put in front of a wall with a flame behind them, so the only thing they see are shadows on the wall. Because it is all they have ever seen, they believe that is reality. They have no possible way of knowing there is a great big world outside. All they see are these shadows of these puppets on the wall, and so they believe that what reality is.As the story goes, as Socrates tells the story, one individual gets up and sees the outside world. He sees it is amazing and that there is so much than just shadows on the wall. The tragedy of the story is that, when he comes back, because his eyes have difficulty seeing in the dark, all the other prisoners think he has been blinded, so they never want to go outside in the world.The relevance, as I am sure the member for Kingston and the Islands is about ready to raise a point of order, is that this is directly relevant to what is happening here, as we are just seeing the shadows. We have newspaper reports and little bits of the story. The Prime Minister is willing to explain and give the unredacted documents to a committee of parliamentarians but not a committee of Parliament. This is the very definition of seeing the shadows on the wall but not actually getting to see the reality.With that, I would like to go through some of the chronology of what has happened here. This has not been a rush to order. This has not been any type of parliamentary tactic. The evidence being that the first issue occurred on March 31 when with the committee of Canada-China relations adopted a motion ordering the Public Health Agency of Canada to produce within 20 days unredacted copies of all the records of dismissal of the two individuals in question.On April 26, what PHAC finally provided was heavily redacted. This goes against parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary supremacy. Speaker Milliken ruled that Parliament has the absolute unmitigated right to demand whichever documents they have. It should also be noted Parliament did not demand these documents be publicly disclosed, but that they go to an officer of Parliament, the law clerk, an individual in whom I am sure all parliamentarians have the highest level of confidence, for review.On May 10, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations adopted a second motion ordering the production within 10 days of the unredacted copies of all documents related to the dismissal of Dr. Xiangguo Qiu and her husband Dr. Keding Cheng relating to the transfer of deadly viruses to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The motion called for the documents to be reviewed in camera by the special committee with the law clerk of the House to determine what information was to be made public.After the committee failed to receive that, on May 20, the Public Health Agency of Canada provided heavily redacted documents, which did not satisfy the order of May 10. On May 26, this matter was of course reported to the House, at which point we brought a motion for those additional documents. The motion of censure that is in question today—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Alex Ruff: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member forgot to mention that he intends to split his time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePoints of orderPublic Health Agency of CanadaSplitting speaking timeSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence: (2310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was honestly getting to that. I would never forget the fabulous member for Calgary Nose Hill, who, I am sure everyone will agree, is one of the best parliamentarians in all of Canada. I would certainly never ever forget about her or any others, although the reminder is greatly appreciated.I will read the motion into the record. We went through a series of steps, and we asked over and over again for the documents. Unfortunately, the government failed to provide them. The motion reads:That this House find the Public Health Agency of Canada to be in contempt for its failure to obey the Order of the House, adopted on June 2, 2021, as well as the orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, adopted on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and, accordingly, orders its President to attend at the Bar of the House, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions on the second sitting day following the adoption of this Order, for the purposes of (a) receiving, on behalf of the Agency, an admonishment delivered by the Speaker, and (b) delivering up the documents ordered by this House, on June 2, 2021, to be produced, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that Order.The Speaker made an excellent ruling on this. If we were to follow the rules of criminal justice, and I am not saying this is criminal, but using it as an analogy, once we got to the realm of deciding what the punishment should be, we would look at a suspect's former conduct. We cannot decide guilt or innocence on this, but we can use the Liberals' previous conduct to decide what type of censure or penalty we should focus on. We look at the SNC-Lavalin affair, which was a significant potential interference in our judiciary system, and we look at the WE scandal, or the numerous other ethical breaches of the government, and we have take this seriously. We have to review the past indiscretions when we see this indiscretion, which is disobeying the supremacy of Parliament.Another great political philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.” When we know there is no more powerful office in the land than that of the Prime Minister and there are no concerns more important than that of national security, we have to take this with the utmost seriousness. I am sure that all parliamentarians will agree and look forward to unanimous support for this censure motion. I continue to be extremely disappointed. As I said at the outset, I want to wake up from looking at the shadows and seeing the bits and pieces to see the outside world and the real threat posed by the Communist regime in Beijing.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyAlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence: (2315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his concern with respect to national security. Let us look at what is in front of us today. There was a serious breach and we need to focus like a laser on making sure that what happened does not happen again. We do not even know what happened because once again we are looking at just the shadows on the wall. Sunlight, as the Prime Minister famously said, is the best disinfectant. We need to get transparency while balancing that with the confidentiality required for national security. Clearly, Parliament has spoken. We want those documents.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his prolonged service and many words in the House. Clearly this is not mischief and I would take great offence to that. This is national security. There is nothing more important than protecting the citizens of this great land. To call that mischief is just ridiculous.On top of that, it was the member's government that prorogued Parliament. We could have passed Bill C-10 and other bills already passed if the Liberals were not so busy trying to avoid the WE scandal by proroguing Parliament.Access to informationBiosafetyC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence: (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the member for his excellent advocacy. Quite frankly, what upsets me is not that the Liberals flouted Parliament. We are the representatives of the people, so the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South, the great people decided to send me here and I am their representative. When the government says no, we cannot have that, it is saying no to the people who are our ultimate bosses and it is that connection to people that separates us from so many despotic regimes around the world.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDonDaviesVancouver KingswayMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (2320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech by saying that the ultimate role of any member of Parliament is to hold the government to account. If a member of Parliament does not hold a government appointment, such as parliamentary secretary or minister, and is not part of the executive branch of government, the member's job is to hold the government to account regardless of political stripe. What we are debating here tonight is an issue of Parliament holding the government to account on a very serious issue. Parliament heard of a potentially very serious national security issue that occurred at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg, involving two scientists who may have ties to the Chinese Communist Party and also be involved in the transfer of very serious biological materials that could have public health consequences.In terms of the role of Parliament holding the government to account, there was a pretty obvious question which ensued, which was what happened here. Were national security protocols followed? Are the national security protocols that are in place to prevent this type of situation adequate? Do we need to fix it? That is actually the role of Parliament to address.On June 2, there was a House of Commons order which passed. Parliament debated and passed a motion that would require the government to hand over to the House of Commons documents about what happened in this situation. Again, this is the role of Parliament holding the government to account.The government elected to defy this House order and proper procedure was followed. A question of privilege was raised in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, you ruled that privilege was broken because the government had an obligation to follow the order of the House so that it could be held to account. What we are debating here tonight is a motion to address the consequence of that breach of privilege. This is very important because when the government chooses to defy the will of Parliament, it is choosing to defy the will of the Canadian people. Each of us here represents a group of Canadians. There need to be consequences for that action in order for democratic principles to be upheld, but, more important, to ensure that we can get to the bottom of this and that good public policy is applied. This matter is not a light one that we are addressing here tonight. It is a very serious potential national security issue. It is our role to ask those questions of adequacy of procedure and then also to determine measures of censure for those who were involved in defying the House order. That is actually our job, and that is what we are here to do tonight.The motion that we are debating tonight, in terms of censure, would require the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to attend the bar of the House for the purposes of receiving an admonishment delivered by you, Mr. Speaker, and to also deliver up the documents as passed by the House order. Why is this an appropriate censure? I want to debunk a few of the Liberal talking points tonight. I am actually hoping that Liberal members of Parliament will understand that their role is to first hold the government to account, not to be partisan. Let me debunk the three Liberal talking points that I have heard in debate tonight.The first is that some documents were handed over to a committee, NSICOP. I want to be very clear. This is not a committee of Parliament. For the government to hand over documents to a committee that was not specified in the House order that meets in secrecy is not meeting the terms of the House order, so that is a bunk talking point. The government is factually not in compliance with the House order and requires to be censured on that point alone. The Liberals do not get to choose where it goes. To take the acronym out would be like the government saying it decided to send the documents to any other committee of their choosing. That is not how it works. It was a House order. The government has to be compliant with the House order. That is debunked Liberal talking point number one.(2325)Number two is another one that I heard, which was that if the House decided to it, it would be trying to destroy a public servant's career, but that is also bunk. The president of the Public Health Agency of Canada serves at the pleasure of the people of Canada, not the Liberal Party of Canada. In choosing to be complicit in the Liberal Party's decision to not hand these documents over, he is also complicit in violating this House order. He had a role. His salary is paid by the taxpayers of Canada. He had a role to actually advise the minister and government that they have to be compliant with this or resign. He had a choice and he chose to be complicit in this, so he should be admonished.I could list a variety of other issues where the Public Health Agency of Canada has failed Canadians over the last year. We are debating a matter at the health committee right now about the government being in violation of the order to hand over vaccine contracts in an unredacted format. We will be addressing that at health committee. I could also address his flippancy or his lack of understanding of the gravity of the situation of sexual assaults at quarantine hotels and the response that he gave to me at committee. I could address the fact that today there were reports that the former president of the Public Health Agency of Canada spent close to $19,000 on a personal toilet at the agency. Clearly, something is amiss there.To the matter at hand, defying an order of Parliament is something that a public servant should think twice about. We are not a dictatorship, yet, I hope, and public servants do not get to just defy the will of Parliament. That is not what we pay them to do, so censure in this matter for him is important because it sends a message to the rest of the public servants to understand who they are accountable to.The third point that I heard tonight was that this is not about mischief. Let us think about that for a second. This is a very serious matter. There was an order from the House to the government to hand over documents and it was not complied with. This is a very serious matter. The government members also talked about using up time with House debate for other matters. This is a matter of privilege. It takes precedence in the House.My colleague who just spoke and graciously shared his time with me talked about the fact that the government prorogued Parliament and used a lot of time up that it could have used for a legislative agenda. It is not Parliament's problem that the government House leader cannot figure out how to schedule legislation. That is not my problem nor of the people I represent. A breach of privilege surely is and there needs to be consequences for that.There is no talking point on which this stands. We are either a democracy or we are not. Getting to the bottom of what happened with a potential major and national security issue is fairly important, but understanding that the will of Parliament is supreme is equally as important, as are my privileges in the House. There is no talking point on which the government stands.I think what I am hearing tonight in debate is that there is consensus emerging certainly among opposition parties that, in the interest of democracy, this censure motion should be supported. I certainly think it should be supported.As was said in debate by other members tonight, it does not matter what flavour of government is in power. There has to be some consequence for this sort of an issue. We have outlined that tonight. I will just make one more point as well. The original order actually talked about the ability to address matters of national security right in it. I will just say this. This is a very important issue. I feel that the censure that is provided in this motion is well addressed and well aimed. There should be consequences for violating the will of Parliament and breaching the privilege of members like myself. I encourage all of my colleagues, including members of the Liberal Party, to support this motion in support of democracy and in support of the primacy of Parliament.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (2330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo my colleague's compliment back at him. It has been a pleasure to serve with him and work with him on the health committee over the last several months. He has a shared commitment to serving the interests of Canadians in the best way possible and to work across party lines to get that done in a time of need.His question relates to the severity of the situation at hand. In a prior life, I worked with the intellectual property management part of the University of Manitoba. We did work with the National Microbiology Lab. I understand the types of materials that are transferred through there in a very intimate way. They need to be treated with a great degree of security and safety. It is up to Parliament to ensure those protocols are adequate and are followed. We cannot do that unless we have the information that was requested in the House. That is why this order must be completed and this motion tonight should be adopted.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDonDaviesVancouver KingswayGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was doing a little research today and on November 27, 2015, there was a document posted on the Prime Minister of Canada website. It is a 107-page document entitled, “Open and Accountable Government”. I want to quote a couple of lines from there.It states:The trust of Canadians will also rest on the accountability of our government. In our system, the highest manifestation of democratic accountability is the forum of Parliament. My question for my hon. colleague is this. She has been here many years more than me. I am a relatively new member and she has much experience. Is she surprised or shocked at all at how far the current government will go to cover up the details of the transfer of these dangerous viruses to China?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. Parliament should review what happened because we need to understand what happened and how to fix this problem to ensure it never happens again. That is our duty to the Canadian people. We need these documents so we can propose policy to move forward, ensure that if protocols were not followed those who were in charge of that are censured and not put in positions of responsibility, so the Canadian public can be assured of their public safety. That is the role of Parliament and the government should not be preventing Parliament from undertaking its role in that regard.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGaryVidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are seriously getting gaslit on this, especially around the accusation of mischief. The whole point of this is the government is failing to answer to Parliament and the Liberals are accusing us of holding up this place. We have seen this not only with these documents, but also with the recognition of the Uighur genocide and calling the IRG a terrorist organization. The current government completely ignores Parliament, but when Parliament does not do exactly what it wants, it accuses us of mischief. I wonder if my colleague has any comments around that.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose Hill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, Parliament is supreme. I would love to get the vaccine contracts that were promised under a House order and a subsequent order of the health committee. We have spent billions of taxpayer dollars on them and we do not understand what recourse is available to us regarding the contractual obligations that have clearly not been followed up. The Canadian public has the right to know that so they can make decisions on who is governing them in the future and whether or not the policy is adequate. This is how democracy functions and it is not functioning right now, which is why the Speaker made this ruling and why we need a censure in place. I certainly hope all colleagues will support this motion so we can get on with the business of making adjustments to ensure Canadian public safety is put in place. Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2335)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this House to address the pressing issues facing this country, but the subject we are debating here tonight is unfortunate. It is a very serious question that has been brought forward to all parliamentarians about the actions of the government, specifically an agency of government, that has truly called into question some of the very basic democratic principles that our nation is built on.In the Speaker's Ruling earlier today, it very specifically outlined why this debate needs to take place, that the actions of the government are contemptuous and violate the privileges of who we are as a democracy. I want to touch on that word “privilege” for all of those, and I am sure there are many folks watching these proceedings, who need to understand.Privilege is a word that is often referred to as something that has to do with status. Parliamentary privilege is a little different. It speaks to the primacy of what democracy is in our country, the fact that our democratic system elevates Parliament, the House of Commons, the lower chamber of Canada's Parliament, to be the voice of its people. Every square inch of this nation is represented by the 338 seats within this chamber.I do find it very interesting. A question I ask students when I am speaking to classes is simply this, “What is the highest elected office in our land?” Many students think it is a trick question. They point out a number of things. Sometimes they will refer to the executive, the Prime Minister and the Governor General on occasion. It kind of depends on where they are in the social studies curriculum. There are a few students who do understand the reality of the member of Parliament, and the primacy of Parliament, the role that Parliament plays in our nation.It is absolutely key to the discussion that we are having here tonight, and how fundamental it is for the future of our country. I want to thank the Speaker for being that custodian of this House, that custodian of Canada's democracy in so thoughtfully addressing such an important issue, and for the opposition House leader to bring forward a motion that outlined some specific action items that would be an adequate response to the contemptuous behaviour of government, and specifically an agency of government that is called to the bar.Again, this is kind of a parliamentary term. Most people out there would not understand the history behind the bar of Parliament, what that represents and the strong millennia of tradition associated with that dating back centuries in the United Kingdom. To call an individual to the bar is a significant thing with significant symbolism, which bears out how significant this debate is. Further, the action item of calling upon the government to actually do what Parliament has said that it needs to do.I find it tragic that we have to have this debate, that the Liberals have taken it upon themselves and developed a culture where they refuse to acknowledge that Canada is even a democracy. That is troubling on every level. I often hear from constituents about how absolutely fundamental it is that we steward our democracy well, especially at a time where we see so many aspects of that being challenged.I would note how this particular motion has done something that is quite unprecedented. It has united the majority of members of Parliament, representing a number of different opposition parties, the official opposition being one of them. I have heard very thoughtful speeches from members representing all opposition parties this evening that acknowledge the significance of what we are debating here tonight.(2340)It is fascinating and unprecedented, I think, to see how united all opposition parties and a majority of members of Parliament are in acknowledging how serious this is. Further, the second thing that is unprecedented is to see the flippant attitude that the government has used to approach such a serious issue.I find it incredible and disappointing beyond belief that the government would take such an unserious approach and contemptuous approach to this. In fact, I find it interesting. A number of the speeches from the governing Liberals emphasized why this debate is even necessary with the ignorance and arrogance they approached Canada's democratic institutions with.This has to be met with a serious tone and it is so unfortunate that has not been the case. I would note this motion that came from the committee that started this whole process included Liberal support. I would simply ask, where those members are now? Why are they not taking this seriously? Is it possible that the executive branch of our government, the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers, have demanded silence on such an important issue?It is a national shame; those members stood up in committee, to much political risk, I would suggest, especially with how the government has responded to the motion here today. It is a significant political risk. They have been silenced or are silent here tonight, and that is incredibly unfortunate and chips away at the strength of Canada's democracy.When we look at this, we need to expand the context a bit. This is not a singular event. That is a key part of what we are discussing here. This motion and the actions leading up to it are not a singular event. I know some of my colleagues who have spoken before me have outlined aspects of that.From the position of being on Zoom, we kind of have an interesting window into the perspectives of Liberal members. Whenever things are brought up about the Prime Minister, specifically his record, they are often shaking their heads. They are dismissing the seriousness of what some of his actions, or actions of the cabinet ministers, will have and the serious implications that will have on Canadian democracy.The trust for what our democratic system is needs to be at the very forefront of everything we do. Democracy is fragile and the failure to recognize that could have disastrous consequences for the future of our country.We see numerous examples from the Prime Minister's conduct, whether it be the numerous ethics violations, or the contemptuous way he treats Parliament and the will of Parliament, especially during a minority. It was not bad when the government was in the majority status because there was a level of control exerted, but ever since losing that, there has been a massive deterioration that has taken place.We have seen time and time again the disregard for ethics, disregard for effective leadership and the absolute disregard for morals and ethics through cabinet decisions. It has been incredibly tragic and an erosion of trust within government.There have been international embarrassments. Even this past weekend, when Bloomberg reported that the Prime Minister piped up and said he could be the dean of the G7 to help negotiate between the United Kingdom and Europe. The sense that I got when reading the response of international players was one that clearly shows that Canada is not taken seriously on the international stage. We see examples of judicial interference, and cabinet ministers being—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2345)[English]We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2345)[English]I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands with respect to his point of order. Members know that they have to address their arguments in a way that is relevant to the motion before the House. I was listening to the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot and while, yes, he has been on this tangent, he opened with framing that as a example for the point he was making. In these cases, when members choose to use these kinds of examples, it is relevant to the topic at hand as long as they tie those two elements together. I note the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is halfway through his remarks and I am sure he will keep his remarks germane to the question at hand.The hon. member.Decisions of the SpeakerPoints of orderRelevancyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2350)[English]Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I did preface some of these examples by saying that this debate tonight was not without context, the larger context of what has been six years of failure, contempt for Canada's democratic principles. I know there is also other important business that the House has to get to and I will simply bring my speech to a conclusion. I know I have articulated a number of concerns as have other members from all parties, especially the opposition parties, which have articulated very well some of the concerns our nation and our democratic infrastructure are facing. This motion strikes to the heart of what Canadian democracy is about. I would call upon all members elected to this esteemed chamber to take seriously the need to support the motion in order to steward that democracy, which we all have the responsibility to do, to ensure that our democratic institutions are protected, not only for today but that they do not simply become a footnote in history, that the supremacy of Parliament and all that means is ensured for us today, tomorrow and for future generations of Canadians.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBruceStantonSimcoe NorthTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member touches on an important issue. I have noted in question period over the last number of weeks and throughout the Liberals' history that whenever something starts not going their way, they simply pivot and blame everyone else. They yell and scream at the top of their lungs and concoct, manufacture, fabricate, in many cases, a story that has little resemblance to the truth. That is what we see here today.Members have said that this is somehow delaying things that could have been passed months ago. Parliament did not have to be adjourned for so many months, especially when other democratic countries figured out a way to make their parliaments work. In fact, provinces in this country figured out a way to make their legislatures work in the midst of the pandemic. I see members of the Liberal Party shaking their heads. They must not like the democratic accountability aspect of what parliamentarians are calling for and demand, and what Canadians need.There is a lot more that I could say on this, but absolutely, it is a national shame that the Liberals would suggest this is somehow a filibuster when it touches the very heart of what Canadians—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2350)[English]Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed listening to the debate tonight and the intervention from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot as well as many thoughtful interventions from many members from all the opposition parties.There is a simple solution for government members who did not want this privilege debate to happen: They could hand over the documents. It is not as if the government defied one order of the House; there were three consecutive orders that repeated the same demand. In at least one of those cases, Liberal members of the Canada-China committee joined us in making that demand. Therefore, if the Liberals are frustrated that we are having this conversation tonight, they only have themselves to blame. All they had to do and all they have to do now is say that they will abide by the ruling of the Speaker, that they will recognize the authority of Parliament and that they will hand over the documents in a secure way to the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I will implore the government again. None of this has to happen. None of this is what anybody here wanted. We are imposing necessary consequences to defend the rights of Parliament. All the government has to do is hand over the documents and if it refuses to hand over the documents, the real question is, what is it hiding? What is so important to hide that the government brought us to this point?Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBruceStantonSimcoe NorthDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true. We would not be here today if the Liberal government had a shred of respect for Canada's democratic institutions. Again, it is a national shame that there is such disregard for Canada's institutions, members of Parliament and the will of Parliament, that the Liberals would play games, putting our very democracy at risk. The answer is quite simple. Canadians deserve better, full stop. The mandate given to this Parliament after the last election was very clear. A majority of the House is not Liberals, and we have, as members of Parliament, as a Parliament as whole, the ability to make decisions accordingly.Our traditions and history have shown that there is a Liberal minority government and the Prime Minister is leader of the executive. That is fair and that is fine. However, opposition parties are the majority in the House, and we see a tremendous amount of unity—Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2355)[English]Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that the member obviously did not listen to my speech, and I would encourage him to simply go back and read carefully or watch the video of what I said. I think he would find that he has become so blinded by partisanship and the inability to respect the institutions of Parliament, that the Liberals will to turn a blind eye to actions of contempt. When it comes to protecting and stewarding the democratic principle of our country, every member of Parliament needs to take that incredibly seriously. The fact that Liberals, and that member in particular, many times this evening have dismissed that with such utter disregard, speaks to the attitude that obviously comes from the top, of an admiration for a basic dictatorship that would bring democracy down in our country. As I have said a number of times, it is a national shame that it has come to this point in our country. Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsKerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White Rock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/20878Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.Kerry-Lynne-FindlaySouth Surrey—White RockConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FindlayKerryLynne_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC): (2400)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I came to the House I was a lawyer. When trained in the law, one understands and learns about debate with respect, treating our institutions with respect and treating our courts with respect. Therefore, when I became a member of Parliament, I actually thought I had elevated myself to a place where the rule of law, the decorum and the credibility of the institution were even higher. Unfortunately, I do not always find my colleagues have that same viewpoint.What kind of precedent does my colleague feel this sets? If this is allowed to go without sanction, if there is a purposeful and open contempt for an order of Parliament, where does that leave us as a governing body to go forward? Then what rules would apply? I am interested in what the member might say about that.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2400)[English]Mr. Speaker, although I am not a lawyer but a student of Canadian politics, the member strikes on such an important issue: the need and the demand that we have as parliamentarians to steward the processes, what this institution represents, and to ensure that it is done with the utmost respect for the benefit of Canadians.I spoke often in the last election, from when I first announced my nomination all the way up to referencing it often to my staff and constituents about the need for good governance. We see at the very heart of so many of the challenges we face that this is a symptom of a failure of good governance. We need to return this country to a point where there is good governance once again, that Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, can at least trust the government that is in power and although they may not like the decisions, trust the institutions and the fact that their government is working for the best interests of the nation.We need a return to good governance in our country. The precedent that is being set time and again by the government is troubling and is eroding the trust that is necessary to sustain democracy in Canada.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyKerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White RockBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2400)[English]Is the House ready for the question?Some hon. members: Question.DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2400)[English]The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?Some hon. members: No.[Chair read text of motion to House]The Deputy Speaker: If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request either a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBlakeRichardsBanff—Airdrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Blake Richards: (2400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I believe it is critically important that all members of Parliament stand to be counted on this important matter of government democratic accountability. Therefore, I request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2400)[English]Division deferredAccordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until later this day at the expiry of the time for Oral Questions.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaSummoning a witnessViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBlakeRichardsBanff—AirdrieDeanAllisonNiagara West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): (2405)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is great to rise virtually in the House today to speak to such an important topic, a topic that is of interest to all Canadians: jobs and the economy. First, I would like to point out that here we go again with another omnibus bill by the Liberals. Let me remind the Liberals what their leader, the Prime Minister, said about omnibus legislation: “I wouldn't use them, period.” It is not surprising they are breaking yet another one of their promises. After all, that is the rule for the Liberal government, not the exception. Canadians are tired of their broken promises and poor performance, especially when it comes to creating jobs and growing our economy. Their tenure in the past six years has been a massive economic letdown. They will try to respond with well-crafted talking points after I am done with my speech, I am sure of that. I must admit that they are pretty good at the rhetoric. In fact, they are probably the best at it. Unfortunately for them, Canadians see what Conservatives see: The Liberals' rhetoric is just that, words, rarely any actions. The same is also true of their record on the economy. The government's philosophy of growing the economy and creating jobs is by doing everything it can to get in the way. Unemployed Canadians were hoping that the government would put forward a plan to create new jobs and economic opportunities. These families are going to feel let down by this budget. Workers who have had their wages cut and hours slashed, hoping to see a plan to reopen the economy, are also going to feel let down. Families that cannot afford more taxes and are struggling to save more money for their children's education or to buy a home are going to feel let down by this legislation.Speaking of buying a home, it is becoming more and more out of reach for far too many Canadians. The cost of housing continues to rise, making it nearly impossible for first-time homebuyers to enter the market. That is why last week Conservatives demanded that the Prime Minister take immediate action to address the housing crisis in Canada. It does not seem like the Liberals are taking it seriously, however. In fact, they voted against addressing the growing housing affordability crisis. On a larger scale, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has noted that a significant amount of Liberal spending in the budget will not stimulate jobs or create economic growth, as is always the case with that side of the House. It is very clear that the Prime Minister's stimulus fund was more about spending on Liberal partisan priorities than anything else. The Prime Minister will add more to our national debt than all previous prime ministers combined. What has the Prime Minister achieved with all this spending? For one, Canada has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7 and a record economic decline. In fact, the Liberal government has spent more and delivered less than any other G7 country. This bears repeating, considering the Liberals come up with all sorts of talking points on excuses for their failures. The government and the Prime Minister have spent unprecedented amounts of money, more than all previous Canadian governments combined. The Edmonton Sun writes, “Canadian babies born on federal budget day 2021 had more than $28,000 of debt the moment they open their eyes.” That is each Canadian's share of the federal government's $1-trillion debt, and it is only going to go up.The Liberal government has delivered less than any other G7 country and is responsible for one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7, along with a record economic decline. Last week, Statistics Canada reported that Canada's unemployment rate climbed to 8.2%. It also reported that 68,000 jobs were lost in the month of May alone. We lost 68,000 jobs while our American cousins added 559,000 jobs. What is more, businesses in the U.S. are hiring at such speed that they cannot find enough workers to fill vacant positions. Yes, it is also important to keep things in perspective. I cannot say this enough. We support getting help to those who have been hit hard by the pandemic, and to the government's credit, programs rolled out and have helped many people. Conservatives were there with the government, working together to extend emergency support programs during the crisis. We have worked tirelessly to make these programs more effective, and I think my hon. colleagues across the aisle would agree. We are also fully aware that the jobs lost in May were, in large part, due to provincial restrictions put in place as a result of the third wave of the pandemic. That is a fact, but why did the third wave come with such ferocity, forcing provincial governments to implement yet another lockdown? Why did Sean, a small business owner in my riding, in business for the past 30 years, have to take on $160,000 in additional debt just to stay afloat, and that is after he spent his life savings?(2410)The answer is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, the government's delays in closing the border and the government's ineffective rapid-testing strategy. Why did the travel and tourism industry and so many other sectors have to suffer so badly and for so long? By the way, many of those businesses are not coming back. The answer, once again, is the government's delays in procuring vaccines, its delays in closing the border and its ineffective rapid-testing strategy.I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the travel and tourism industry has been nearly crushed. It is terrible, what has happened to those businesses. I have heard many of the sector's concerns in the tourism recovery caucus, headed by my colleagues from Niagara Falls and Banff—Airdrie. My two colleagues have done an incredible job staying connected to stakeholders, listening to industry challenges and taking action where they can. These are two great members of Parliament, and I commend them on their efforts, as we all try to deal with the fallout of this pandemic in its hardest-hit areas.Back to my question, why are so many small businesses hurting to this extent at this time? The answer is simple. For the most part, they were not allowed to stay open, because of the government's and the Prime Minister's failures to act on vaccines, the border and rapid testing. Furthermore, this is what the National Post had to say about the Liberal government's pandemic response: “The Liberals' most galling pandemic failure—they couldn't even master basic inventory control”. That is a pretty accurate statement.Last year, the Prime Minister was denied vaccines by the Chinese communist regime, and, most importantly, he did not sign contracts with other companies until it was too late. That is a classic example of putting all eggs in one basket. In this situation, the Prime Minister relied on a Chinese-based company, which basically means that he relied on the Chinese communist regime. What could possibly go wrong? In doing so, he neglected other companies working on the vaccine, which delayed procuring vaccines from them.This failure to act is why we are seeing many countries, including our neighbours to the south, ahead of us by at least three months in their vaccination efforts and reopening plans. I think we have all seen the packed sports events on TV in many U.S. cities, but here in Canada we are still on lockdowns. It is important to mention that Conservatives were first to call for strong and clear border measures at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unfortunately, the Liberals dragged their heels, going as far as to say that border control measures do not work, while calling us racist for suggesting that border measures are necessary to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 virus.We also fought hard to get Canadians better tools to stop the spread of COVID-19, like vaccines, therapeutics, rapid tests and better data. Those tools now exist; however, the government has not come up with a comprehensive and effective plan to use them to safely lift the restrictions. The government loves to blame provincial premiers, but let us face it, the Liberals do not provide the necessary tools for the premiers to defend their provinces properly against the virus. They left premiers scrambling. Without the responses, the resources or proper action by the federal government, the premiers implemented the only tool they thought would work: lockdowns.At this time, as we hopefully see the last of this pandemic, the government needs to start thinking of ways to secure the future of Canadians. This could be done by creating jobs, introducing policies that result in better wages, and introducing policies that help small businesses, especially now when so many are struggling, to get back on their feet.In conclusion, this is not a growth budget. It fails to put forward a plan to encourage Canada's long-term prosperity and leaves millions of Canadians behind. We were very clear that we wanted to see a plan to return to normal that would safely reopen the economy and get Canadians back to work, and that is not what this legislation would do. We were also looking for a plan to create jobs and boost economic growth. Once again, that is not what this legislation would do. For those reasons, I cannot support it.I would also like to say, to those watching at home, that Canada's Conservatives got us out of the last recession. We can, and we will, do it again. We are ready, we have a plan and we will get it done. BordersBudget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresConsumer priceCOVID-19Economic recoveryEmployment statisticsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment contractsGovernment expendituresGovernment performanceHome ownershipImmunizationPandemicPublic debtReport stageTourismTravel restrictionsUnemployment and jobseekingBruceStantonSimcoe NorthLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2415)[English]We will need to go to the hon. member for Niagara West for a response.LarryBagnellHon.YukonDeanAllisonNiagara West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dean Allison: (2415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the tourism industry. I come from Niagara. My riding is Niagara West. I am a couple of ridings over from Niagara Falls. The tourism industry has been devastated, absolutely devastated, in this country, because of a failure of the government to get things we need, like vaccines and rapid testing. There was a perfectly decent program happening in Calgary with rapid tests as people returned to the country.What did the Liberal government do? It implemented a worse plan that took more time. It failed to use rapid testing. Our tourism industry continues to be crushed. It is unbelievable, the amount of negligence the government shows when it comes to tourism and small business. Small businesses are in lockdown after lockdown because of the government's failure to act. We need a plan to reopen the economy.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsHealth screeningReport stageTourismBruceStantonSimcoe NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Dean Allison: (2415)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with the member over the years, on trade in particular. We have not always agreed, but the member is a huge champion for his constituents, and I have always appreciated that.Originally, how fast the programs came out was a good thing. There was a lot of discussion amongst all opposition parties about how things and people had fallen through the cracks. People are still falling through the cracks, as the member mentioned. It is important for the government to listen and realize that small businesses and people who are dependent on some of these programs still need them when the only option is lockdown and these people cannot actually go to work, through no fault of their own. I believe we need to constantly push the government to do better when they are rolling out programs. I know there has been lots of great input from all opposition parties here in the House.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCanada Emergency Wage SubsidyCanada Recovery BenefitCOVID-19Government billsIncome and wagesPandemicReport stagePeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2420)[English]I would like to thank the hon. member for Yukon for his kind comments.Resuming debate, we will go to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.DeanAllisonNiagara WestFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2425)[English]Mr. Speaker, during the second reading stage of debate on this bill, I asked the parliamentary secretary for revenue why this bill fails to address issues on direction and control. These are issues that the international development sector and the rest of the charitable sector have been raising for a very long time. “Direction and control” is about needless red tape piled on charitable organizations. It relates to them spending more money on lawyer fees and sending less money to the front lines. When I raised this issue on March 6 during second reading debate, the parliamentary secretary did not give me a very specific answer. He told me he would love to learn about this further. Again, this bill is a missed opportunity to address the direction and control regime that needs to be changed to strengthen opportunities for the charitable sector. Has the member had a chance, since our last exchange on this issue, to do more research on it? He could update the House on what, if anything, the finance department is prepared to do in subsequent bills to address direction and control.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCharitable organizationsFinancial managementGovernment billsReport stageFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (2430)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you and your family on your 15 years of public service. You have been a leader in our caucus for many decades. Last night, I caught your retirement speech, whenever that retirement comes. You reflected very well on your years of service. You have done our country very proud and I want to wish you all the best when you do leave that chair and you leave this place. On behalf of me and my family, thank you very much for your years of service.Now to the topic of the budget implementation act, 2021. It was one of the most important budgets in recent memory. Canadians were waiting for it. Why do I say that? We waited over two years for the budget. The pandemic started last March and the Liberals continued to delay the budget and the numbers went higher and higher. Then we found out we are $600 billion, or so, down over a trillion, in debt in this country. It was interesting when the numbers started popping out and Canadians from coast to coast to coast were surprised at the big numbers.As we see a little inflation here in the last while, they are really going to be surprised at the results. We all know workers faced a year and a half of uncertainty about their employment, about their wages. In fact, now the question is when will they be able to return to work and will a job be there for them in the coming weeks.Business owners continue to face uncertainty whether they have a small, medium or large company. Tonight while I was listening to the speeches, I received a text from Allan who owns SaskWest Mechanical in Saskatoon. He told me the costs are skyrocketing in his business. Sheet metals are going sky-high. He said that last August they were $24 a sheet. Today, suppliers are charging him $49.21 and they will not even hold pricing for more than 24 hours. Think of the uncertainty even quoting a job for the employees that he has. I cannot imagine quoting a job. It was nice to hear from Allan today. He has been in my office a couple of times. There is uncertainty with his business. He employs a lot of people. Heating is his business. He does a lot of commercial jobs and he faces the rise in costs as he quotes for jobs. Prices are going up, for food, meat, lumber, almost everything that we have talked about. I hope I do not jinx it, but I think we are seeing the end of the light. I look at my province of Saskatchewan and I am going to give some kudos here tonight. Saskatchewan wants to be fully open by July 11. I have had my second dose of vaccine, so I am happy. I had the first one in April and my second one last week, so we are pretty good. I arrived in Ottawa on Sunday, and here in Ontario it is night and day. Shops are still closed. People can only go to restaurant patios. In my province of Saskatchewan we are almost wide open right now. I credit that to the Saskatchewan Health Authority and Premier Scott Moe.The goal is to have everyone age 12 and over completely vaccinated. Right now the goal is to get to 70% of people having at least one vaccine. Today, we are at 67% in Saskatchewan. We are only 3% below that goal. In fact, Saskatchewan officials said today we only need 28,000 more people to get their first shot and then we are going to open things up. Is that not a great story in the province of Saskatchewan.(2435)However, for the last 14 months, the province could not get the vaccines it needed, especially up in northern Saskatchewan where vulnerable situations exist. The first thing the Province of Saskatchewan tried to do was work with the indigenous communities. In fact, I am so proud of Saskatoon Tribal Council Chief Mark Arcand who took it upon himself to have vaccines made available at the SaskTel Centre for indigenous people and everybody else in the Saskatoon area. It has been a wonderful outreach by the Tribal Chief of Saskatoon. People in the community have been able to get their vaccine.Today, for football fans, it was announced that Saskatchewan's premier wanted to see 33,350 people at the Mosaic Stadium for the home opener on August 6 against the B.C. Lions. That is now a goal in the province of Saskatchewan. However, the last 14 months have been devastating in Saskatchewan and across the country. We are all asking ourselves, “When are we going to reopen? How are we going to manage the debt. How much debt will there be?” I talked about inflation, which is at its highest point in over a decade. We are up 3.6% this year alone. The declining state of the Canadian economy is a major concern. The member from Niagara talked about a baby born in Canada today is already $28,000 in debt. My daughter will deliver our second grandchild next Thursday in Saskatoon. We should be celebrating. I will now have two grandchildren. One is five and a half years old and the other will be born next Thursday, but with a $28,000 debt. That is what we have done to our kids. When the baby comes next Thursday, June 24, we will celebrate, but I also have to tell my daughter and son-in-law that is $28,000 in debt. How are they going to pay for that? Canadians are resilient. They have faced uncertainty about the stability of our health care system. Thankfully, it has held up so far. We have had hiccups all over the country, but I think everyone would agree that we are coming out it now, some faster than others. We are a little concerned about Ontario and Manitoba, but they are coming out of it as we speak.Therefore, we need a plan to secure the future of our country, to secure the future of my daughter's child who will be born next Thursday. We also need a plan that secures good jobs for Canadians; that secures accountability in governments, and we have talked a lot about that tonight; that will secure mental health for Canadians and supports for those who are really struggling. Over the last 14 months, we have seen a decline in mental health. We all know someone who is struggling; some openly and others sit at home and say nothing. We see it in the House of Commons. Many of our staff have not been in the office. How are they doing at home? They get their work done, but when we come back to Ottawa and have a chance to see them, that is when we will know if things have changed in the last 14 months. We need to secure our country against the next pandemic. We must get prepared for that. We need to secure our economy in the long term. The government is woefully unprepared to implement such a plan, and budget 2021 missed the mark in providing one.The Parliamentary Budget Officer even noted that the significant amount of Liberal spending would not stimulate jobs, and we saw massive job losses in the last two months alone. In April, 129,000 jobs were lost. We had another decline in May. That cannot happen any more, because mom and dad coming home without a job does not sit well in the family. Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCompaniesCostsCOVID-19Government billsImmunizationIndigenous peoplesLayoffs and job lossesMental healthPandemicPublic debtReferences to membersReport stageRetirement from workSaskatchewanStanton, BruceTributesUnemployment and jobseekingFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLarryBagnellHon.Yukon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (2445)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary; he has been a great spokesman for northern Canada.In my province of Saskatchewan, the hospitality industry has really been hit in the last 14 months. We have hotels that had opened, and the operators have phoned my office in the last couple of months saying that they missed the timing when they opened last April. Twelve or 13 months later, there is no business. The other one is the tourism industry. The member is from northern Canada. The tourism industry is very important up north, but it is also very important in our province.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCompaniesCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageTourismLarryBagnellHon.YukonKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (2445)[English]Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is an innovation leader. Carbon sequestering in the city of Estevan was the first of its kind in Canada, and we are hoping that Alberta joins Saskatchewan. The government has talked about billions of dollars maybe in the next little while to get the carbon into the ground. Our farmers in Saskatchewan are the best. I know that when they are drying grain in the fall, carbon capture and all that is expensive, but there is zero tillage. We are on the cusp and have been for decades in our province. We are world leaders. I am very proud of Saskatchewan's innovation. Saskatchewan will beat the curve. Saskatchewan will far exceed the green economy from other regions in this country. I know that for a fact.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsGovernment expendituresGreen economyReport stageKristinaMichaudAvignon—La Mitis—Matane—MatapédiaDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (2445)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway asks that question, because my wife is a former teacher and both my kids are teaching, one in Saskatoon and one in Lethbridge, and I spent 10 years as a school board trustee.Yes, education is first and foremost in our province of Saskatchewan. In fact, it should be in Canada. It is funny that we do not even have an education minister, and yet we control education on reserves. When I asked two or three years ago what the attendance figures are on reserves, the government did not have any answers.As parliamentarians, we have to do a better job in this House. We have to ask the questions about grades and attendance. I totally agree with the hon. member.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageTuition feesDonDaviesVancouver KingswayBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2445)[Translation]Before resuming debate, I would advise the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue that he currently has about three and a half minutes left for his remarks. The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2450)[Translation]The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue will have another six and a half minutes to finish his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion, plus another five minutes for questions and comments.SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (2450)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this chamber. I will start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot, so I look forward to his comments at the conclusion of mine. As indicated, this current debate is regarding the concurring report from the foreign affairs committee, which condemns the imposition of sanctions by the Government of China on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.I will start off by saying that I am actually quite shocked that there was concurrence with this decision and with this report, because this certainly does not match the legacy of foreign affairs and foreign affairs strategy, or lack thereof, and direction from the government. From the top, it would seem that this concurrence report is about China, and, yes, it certainly is about China, so let us talk about China for a moment and its atrocities on Canada, Canadians and the world.Of course, there is the horrible genocide of the Uighurs, and it was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills speaking up about this and taking a principled stand in the House that earned him these sanctions, but in addition to that, we have more than two years of the arbitrary incarceration of Kovrig and Spavor. That is something that we can be disgusted about, regarding the People's Republic of China.In addition, there is the banning of imports. In particular, with pulses, we saw the terrible trickle-down effect this had for our agriculture and for our farmers, but Canadians have not been alone, in terms of the effects felt from China. Schellenberg remains on death row. Taiwan has faced horror as China's next-door neighbour under constant threat, but my point here tonight is not that.This concurrence report is not about China. This concurrence report is about the types of leaders in the world who are willing to stand up to the world's dictators and determine the direction that the world will go in. There are two types of leaders. There is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who I will go back to, and there is the Prime Minister, who has praised the dictatorship of China; the Prime Minister, who wrote a tearful eulogy for the passing of one of the greatest dictators Latin America has known; the Prime Minister, who has donated more than $50 million to the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank to contribute to the Belt and Road Initiative around the world that keeps developing nations captive.That is one type of leader, the Prime Minister that this world has, but it is not the type of leader the world needs. The type of leader the world needs is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who said that he would wear these sanctions like a badge of honour. He went further than that. He said in the House: The sanctions imposed on me and others have brought us together. They have backfired. I have met with elected parliamentarians who have been sanctioned in the United Kingdom, the European Union and members of national parliaments throughout Europe. The sanctions have brought us together and have brought us together in action.He continued:The sanctions imposed on me and others are a clumsy effort by the People's Republic of China to silence the free speech and open debate at the heart of Liberal democracies. They will work if we are silent. We cannot be silent. We cannot lose the hard-won and hard-fought-for ideals that underpin our democracies: a belief in liberty and freedom, a belief in human rights, a belief in democratic institutions and a belief in the rule of law. For if we are silent, we will let these hard-won and cherished beliefs be lost to a new ascendant model of authoritarianism, repression and fear.I will add that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills was in good company in the last administration of the Canadian government with Harper, John Baird and my predecessor in Calgary Midnapore, Jason Kenney, because they were a government that was governed by the values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, all of which have been lost by the current government.(2455)I am pleased to see concurrence in this report. However, this report is not about China. It is about the types of leaders in the world who are willing to stand up for the values that will put the world forward, and one of those leaders is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersSplitting speaking timeStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentBruceStantonSimcoe NorthDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (2500)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this chamber, albeit virtually this time, to address such an important matter that strikes at the very heart of the democratic principles that I would hope all Canadian parliamentarians represent.We have an authoritarian state actor, the Chinese Communist Party, that has repeatedly demonstrated disdain for modern democratic values. This is something that all Canadians need to take seriously. I would note this follows a very important debate where we discussed at length the importance of respect for democracy and the rule of law.I want to read into the record the motion we are debating concurrence on:That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development strongly condemn the unacceptable sanctions imposed by the People's Republic of China against one of the Committee's Vice Chairs, the Member of Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills, and the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights which represent an affront to Canada's democracy and parliamentary system; as parliamentarians, we will continue to actively denounce human rights violations and breaches of international law in keeping with our respect for basic human rights; and that this motion be reported to the House.This is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to demonstrate how important it is that we take the democratic values of our country very seriously. It is unprecedented to see these sorts of sanctions against a committee and against a particular member of that committee. The speaker before me, my hon. colleague from Calgary Midnapore, referenced the comments of the shadow minister from the official opposition in his statement when he learned of these sanctions. He said he would wear it as a badge of honour. That is the attitude that all of us should take seriously. We should defend, at all costs, human rights and the dignity of life and our democratic principles that define us. We are doing what we are supposed to do. The fact that the member and the subcommittee were denounced should clearly state that the committee is getting to the root and is threatening the tyrants who are, in some cases, taking lives in the People's Republic of China.I am proud to be a Conservative who is taking a stand, but I would note that this shows a clear contrast. It was not the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was sanctioned by name. It was not a Liberal member. It was not an NDP member. It was not a Bloc member. It was a Conservative member. I think it shows that the Conservatives, even from the opposition benches, are demonstrating to the world that we are leading on issues like standing up for human rights. The talking points we hear from the members opposite would suggest something very different, but there are very clear examples like this where a communist regime would sanction by name a member of the official opposition, it is clear that the Conservatives are doing something right, and I am proud to be a member of that party.This contrasts very clearly with some of the actions of the current government. I have no doubt when I mention the statement the Prime Minister made at a fundraiser prior to getting elected, where I do not think he knew he was being recorded, he said he admired China's basic dictatorship that there will be head-shaking by the members of the Liberal Party who do not seem to like to remember that he said that. There is contempt for Canada's Parliament and aspects of our democratic institution. If we look at some of the specific examples with respect to our relationship with China, many of those issues are being studied before the special committee. We see the unprecedented movement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs abstaining on behalf of the Government of Canada and breaking parliamentary protocol on a motion to condemn a genocide. It is unbelievable that would be the legacy of the Liberals.Most recently, we heard the Prime Minister parrot communist talking points that asking tough questions about Chinese state interference would somehow be an issue of racism, not to mention the many economic impacts that have been felt, and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs coming from a largely rural riding, certainly the impacts on agriculture and trade have been significant.(2505)It is clear that Canadians need to be able to trust that their government stands for the core values of what Canada is. I call upon this entire House to concur with this motion and demand respect for the rule of law and the democratic principles that define what Canada is.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentStephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (2505)[English]Mr. Speaker, again, I want to join my colleagues in wishing you a happy retirement. Thank you for the role model you have been for many of us freshmen MPs in this House.In the speech my colleague just made, he mentioned the sanction on the Conservative shadow minister for foreign affairs. It has been observed that many Chinese countermeasures or sanctions have been levelled on government officials, those who have power. It is rather an exception that in this particular case, China has sanctioned an opposition shadow minister, as well as an entire parliamentary subcommittee.Would the member have any insight into why China would do that? Of course nobody would actually know exactly why, but what are the member's thoughts on that?8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2505)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me take a brief moment to thank you for your service to this House as Deputy Speaker. It has been a pleasure getting to know you. Your efforts and service to stewarding democratic discourse in this country will be remembered. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I appreciate the member's question because it touches on something that is very important. The fact that the shadow minister of foreign affairs, an opposition member of Parliament, would be the one who is sanctioned speaks to how absolutely effective a leadership the Conservatives are demonstrating, not just in Canada but around the world, when it comes to standing up for Canadian principles at home and abroad.It further speaks to the sanctioning of a committee that there is good work being done, and I will give credit where credit is due, by all members of that committee. It is encouraging to see that the principles of Canada, principles that I would hope we all hold dear are being stood up for. That these sanctions were levelled means that we are asking the right, tough questions to demand accountability from a foreign state actor that is perpetuating injustices around the world and upon its own people. It is absolutely essential that there be accountability for that.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond EastArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (2505)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Alberta for his great speech on this topic and for coming to the defence of our colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills. He has been a long-time member of the House of Commons and one who really stands up for democracy. If there is anything that sums up the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, it is his hawkish attention to democracy and also his heritage from Hong Kong.I noticed in his speech the member referenced the fact that it is the member for Wellington—Halton Hills who is under sanction from the Chinese and not the foreign affairs minister. Could the member elaborate on that?8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (2510)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament in my first term, I was astounded when a Conservative opposition day motion was brought forward to deal with an issue of foreign affairs, which is not overly common, dealing with the genocide being brought against Uighur Muslims, which is especially significant in light of some of actions that have rocked this country with the London attack this past week and that the entire executive of a government would not only abstain but then that the Minister of Foreign Affairs would break with parliamentary protocol, break with the standard rules and procedures of this House, and announce he was abstaining on behalf of the Government of Canada. That is not leadership, it is an absolute failure to stand up for the values Canada needs to represent around the world. I am proud to be part of a party that has a member like the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who makes it clear that no matter the cost, we will continue to stand up for those democratic principles and the rule of law and justice around the world.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (2510)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am standing up in the House of Commons in these wee hours to speak to the concurrence of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. The committee, in a unanimous vote, strongly condemned the sanctions put in place by the People's Republic of China on my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, as well as the members of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has been a strong advocate for human rights for those in China and across the world who are at risk or face persecution as a result of actions by the Communist regime in China. He has fiercely defended the rights of the people of Hong Kong, who are fighting the dissolution of democracy, and of Taiwan, where people faced intimidation from the Chinese regime.In addition, he has stood up for Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims who are facing genocide, as recognized in this House by a motion presented by my colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills, and being placed in forced labour. We still have not seen effective measures from our Canadian government on that motion.My colleague from Wellington—Halton Hills has been relentless and consistent in his fight against the Communist regime in China and reporting abuses. Now the Communist regime has placed sanctions on him. These sanctions show, as my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan said when debate first started on this report earlier this month, “The stands that we take in this place have an impact on what happens in China, on the global tenor of the discussion.”Where are we now? While the government may say one thing about the Chinese Communist regime, we have not seen actions to back it up. The Liberal cabinet abstained from recognizing the genocide of Uighurs. We still do not have any concrete action from the government to make a decision on Huawei's involvement in Canada's 5G network. In 2020, the Conservatives called on the government again to make a decision.The public safety minister, back in May 2019, said they would make a decision before the 2019 election, yet here we are two years later still waiting. Canada is the only Five Eyes ally to not bar or restrict Huawei from its 5G network. June 18, 2020, at the study of the Investment Canada Act I was part of at the industry, science and technology committee, testimony was heard by the assistant director on the requirements of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In his opening statement, he said:Corporate acquisition is not the only way through which hostile actors can threaten Canada's economic security. Threat actors can also access proprietary government information through cyber-attacks, espionage and insider threats. Insiders are individuals with direct access to the systems and intellectual property in corporate and research environments. This could potentially include business people, scientists and researchers. Put another way, today's spies also wear lab coats, not just trench coats.Those comments are very relevant considering the debate that occurred in this place this evening. As I said earlier in my speech, the government put in place ineffective trade measures to stop the import of goods made with the forced labour of Uighurs. My colleagues in the Conservative caucus and I have been raising the issue of products made with Uighur forced labour getting into our supply chains now for several months.There are measures on forced labour in CUSMA and the government signed onto a joint integrity declaration on doing business in Xinjiang to tackle this forced labour earlier this year. A Conservative motion at the trade committee to study if and how these measures were working was voted down.Since then I have asked the international trade minister numerous times if these measures have stopped one shipment of products made with Uighur forced labour. Every single time I have asked, recently about parts of solar panels, we have received not an answer, but deflection.How is it that the government cannot say if even one shipment has been stopped? Could it be because the answer is zero? After all, the Minister of International Trade told me during recent questioning that these measures are still being operationalized. Well “operationalized” sounds like either these measures are still not in place or no imports have been stopped.It is not just Conservatives on this issue. The Toronto Star reported in March 2021 that despite government measures, products made with alleged Uighur forced labour, such as train parts and textiles, were still entering Canada. In May, Global News reported our solar panel supply chains might be tainted with Uighur forced labour from Xinjiang. We hear time after time about different products potentially made with Uighur forced labour coming into Canada and the government doing nothing to stop it.(2515)This is why my colleague, the MP for Wellington—Halton Hills, stands in the House to put pressure on the government to act and is now facing sanctions from the Chinese regime because of it.The government is constantly failing to report on human rights abuses by the Chinese communist regime. On this side of the House we will continue to stand up for human rights and we will ask questions that need to be asked, because the government is failing to do so.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Civil and human rightsConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForced labourForeign policyImportsReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentDamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the excellent work she is doing on the issue of Uighur forced labour. She is doing such a good job that I am sure she will have the honour of being added to the sanctions list at some point as well.It is so disappointing to see that the government seemed to want to be able to make some kind of an announcement on Uighur forced labour, yet after putting out an announcement it has been telling us it is not ready and is still working out details or backfilling things. By all indications, no shipments have been stopped. It seems to me that we need to see something modelled after the United States' Uighur forced labour prevention act: a bipartisan legislative initiative that recognizes the reality that so many of the products that come out of Xinjiang are at risk of involving forced labour.It is more of a comment than a question. I want to congratulate my colleague on the work she is doing on this front at the trade committee. It is too bad she was not able to get the support for a study on that from other members, but hopefully we can continue to put pressure on the government to move this forward.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2515)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is definitely a team effort. There are many on this side of the House who are asking very difficult questions at various committees and in the House of Commons. Many of our colleagues are definitely very concerned about these issues and continually press the government, asking the questions and looking for answers. We have not received any of the answers to the questions that we have been asking. We will continue to press.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanArnoldViersenPeace River—Westlock//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89211ArnoldViersenArnold-ViersenPeace River—WestlockConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ViersenArnold_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): (2515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. colleague that the all-party group to end modern day slavery and human trafficking heard yesterday from experts on whether Canada Border Services had stopped any shipments. Yesterday, they had not heard of any shipments being stopped.Could my hon. colleague comment on that?8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForced labourForeign policyImportsReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his update to the House. Those are the types of questions that we need to continue to ask, and to ask what is not working. If we cannot get answers, then there are some processes that are not working or there are some policies that are not working. Is there something to hide? Those are the kinds of questions that we need keep pressing.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForced labourForeign policyImportsReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (2520)[English]Mr. Speaker, once again, congratulations and thank you for all your years of service. There has never been a more honourable gentleman or lady in that chair. Thank you very much.I am wondering this: Could the hon. member comment more on the impact of the Uighur genocide and the human rights violations that are going on there? What actions should be taken to protect vulnerable people in China and elsewhere in the world?8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Civil and human rightsConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyGenocideReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentUyghurTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2520)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I would be remiss in not also congratulating you on your retirement and for the good work that you do here. On a personal note, you were one of the first people who came to me when I was newly elected and you gave me some really great advice, so I will always cherish that. Thank you.To answer my hon. colleague's question, this is absolutely very important. Human rights are something that we, as Canadians, have stood up for as part of our history and part of our heritage. It is very important that we stand against abuses and, in particular in this case, against products that are being produced by forced labour. It is important that we have processes in place to make sure that these products are not coming into Canada. Surely Canadians would want to know if some of these products might be tied to forced labour. These are the types of questions that we are asking and we are looking for answers.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Civil and human rightsConcurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyGenocideReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentUyghurPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (2520)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the House, my hon. colleague and I stand in the opposition, on the opposing side, so I will try to be the devil's advocate and think about what the government would be asking. One point that I think the Liberals would make is that it is a complicated world, and the supply chain is not easily differentiated from one country to another. Is symbolism not enough? Is virtual signalling not enough? That is the first question I have.Second, it is easy for the official opposition to keep criticizing. Does the member have anything positive to provide in this situation, maybe something about securing our future?8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2520)[English]Mr. Speaker, in our platform we have five pillars for economic recovery and one of them is securing our future. This definitely falls into that.As part of this issue, there are some procedures in place, but they do not appear to be functioning. As one example, at the committee we wanted to study one of those features, the integrity declaration, to see if it is even working and what can be amended. We did not even have the opportunity to do that. Every time we asked a question about that, we did not get any answers. This is just one example of something that appears as if it is not functioning.8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentKennyChiuSteveston—Richmond EastBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2520)[English]Questions and comments.[Translation]Is the House ready for the question?Some hon. members: Question.The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.TracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryTracyGrayKelowna—Lake Country//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2520)[English]Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [Foreign Affairs and International Development]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2520)[English]Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferred8510-432-106 "Meeting Requested by Four Members of the Committee to Discuss Sanctions Imposed by the People's Republic of China"ChinaChong, Michael D.Concurrence in Committee Reports No. 7Economic sanctionsForeign policyReferences to membersStanding Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentSubcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International DevelopmentTracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsHousingInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2530)[English]We will have to leave it there.The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.AdamVaughanSpadina—Fort YorkLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsSeniorsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (2535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here in the middle of the night to talk about something that is very important and needs to be talked about, no matter what time of day it is, specifically this government's capacity for creating division and creating different classes of Canadians, particularly when it comes to seniors. Not only did the government choose to create two classes of compensation for damages created by the Phoenix system, but it also attacked seniors by not doing right by them. What it should have done was allow them to access compensation for all the problems they had with Phoenix along with everyone else.This is not complicated. This is about a retired public servant who wants compensation because he had problems with Phoenix—Adjournment ProceedingsComputer systemsGovernment compensationIncome and wagesPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsRetirement from workBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsSeniorsInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2535)[Translation]I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but I must ask him to change his headset, because the sound quality is not good enough for the interpreters.The issue seems to be resolved. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.LucBertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsSeniorsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2535)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I think it is much better now.I am not exactly sure where I was, but I was most likely criticizing the federal government for creating two classes of seniors, especially retirees in the Phoenix system.When one retiree tried to claim his benefits, he was told there was no form to claim them. That form would not be available until the fall. That is not surprising because, in its latest budget, the government also created two classes of seniors: those aged 65 to 75, which we will call young seniors, and those 75 and up, which we will call seniors.This budget is problematic for them for one simple reason. People who were 75 or older in June 2020 will get a single $500 payment in August 2021 and, starting next year, their guaranteed income supplement will go up by 10%.Why did this government choose to help only some seniors, not all seniors including those aged 65 to 75?That is what we want to know, what everyone wants to know. That is certainly what seniors want to know, and what seniors' groups in my riding want to know. I have never received so many emails as I did after this budget announcement. People are shocked, and rightfully so. There is no reason why people 65 to 75 years of age should not also receive government assistance, because the cost of living is going up for everyone, especially the cost of gas and groceries.Am I to believe that people 65 to 75 years of age spend less than people 75 and up? Absolutely not, that would be ridiculous. It is difficult to imagine how disappointed these people are with the government's most recent budget.Gisèle Tassé-Goodman, president of the FADOQ network, which is the largest network of seniors organizations in Canada, said that providing financial assistance to seniors was a good gesture, but that those under 75 who are eligible for old age security receive absolutely nothing, zilch. She simply cannot understand why that distinction was made and why the Liberal government chose to create two classes of seniors.These people were also victims of the pandemic. They were isolated, sometimes mistreated because they were unable to see their loved ones who, in turn, could not help them during the pandemic. They literally feel abandoned by the Liberal government.Here is the question I would like to ask tonight: Why are the Liberals so hell-bent on dividing seniors into two classes so that those who just retired, or the younger seniors, receive less than seniors aged 75 and over?Adjournment ProceedingsComputer systemsGovernment compensationIncome and wagesPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsRetirement from workBruceStantonSimcoe NorthGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsSeniorsInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2540)[English]I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. I thank him for his kind words, by the way.We are having a slight problem with the audio. The member's headset looks to be the correct standard, but I wonder if the microphone in use is the one on the device. [Translation]The problem seems to be resolved.The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to the President of the Treasury Board and to the Minister of Digital Government.GregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsSeniorsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2545)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what a retired public servant wrote to me when he learned that he could not get his compensation because he would have to wait for a form that does not yet exist and will only be available in the fall.This retired public servant served our country to the best of his ability for many years and, unfortunately, for a certain time, he was deprived of his income because of Phoenix. He said he was “furious”.I hope the parliamentary secretary will hear this retiree's heartfelt message. He is furious over having to wait for a form that could help him access the compensation he is entitled to.That is why, tonight, I wanted to rise on his behalf and on behalf of all the retirees who are being told that the form does not yet exist. They are all people who are furious and who are waiting for someone to finally listen and respond to them quickly.Adjournment ProceedingsComputer systemsGovernment compensationIncome and wagesPhoenixPublic Service and public servantsRetirement from workGregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsForestry IndustryInterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (2545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity at this very late hour to stand up today for workers in forestry, contracting and home renovations in Kelowna—Lake Country, British Columbia, and across Canada, and, most importantly, the opportunity to stand up for everyday families.Softwood lumber plays a critical role in Canada's economy, and thousands of families rely on its production to supply our domestic markets and our exports. A softwood lumber agreement is critical to providing that certainty and stability. With lumber being a North American commodity, Liberal inaction has led to higher prices in Canada. The last agreement Canada had with the United States was negotiated with the previous Conservative government and expired in October of 2015. Leading up to that expiration, the current Prime Minister promised to negotiate a new agreement within his first 100 days in office. There have been three U.S. administrations and over 2,000 days since then, and we have heard of no formal negotiations.The Liberals were also outmanoeuvred during CUSMA negotiations by failing to include softwood lumber in that agreement. On February 27, 2020, the Conservative members from the trade committee wrote the Deputy Prime Minister, outlining the “adverse impacts of CUSMA” on softwood lumber and warning that CUSMA “does not prevent the United States from applying antidumping and countervailing duties to Canadian softwood lumber.” They gave many recommendations, none of which have been acted on. Taking the easy way out and failing to negotiate softwood lumber into CUSMA put Canadian businesses and workers at risk. Simply put, the Liberals keep getting outmanoeuvred.There is clear evidence that jobs and investment are going south. The charts of North America production of softwood lumber show that as of 2015, Canadian production has fallen, while it has been steadily rising in the U.S.. We have heard from within the industry that this is due to so much uncertainty over the past almost six years. Lumber production and exports to the United States are key to the industry's long-term stability and viability, as our supply chains are integrated. This situation was further exacerbated when the U.S. commerce department announced that it intended to double the tariffs on our lumber exports on May 21, 2021.That is why I, along with my Conservative colleagues on the international trade committee, called for an emergency meeting to address this potentially devastating issue. At the June 4 meeting, the minister stated during her testimony, “I think the tariffs that have been imposed are certainly causing concern for home builders and for consumers.” The minister postured, as she was unable to point to any meetings or calls that had taken place with any of her U.S. counterparts in the nearly two weeks it had been at that time since the commerce department's announcement. We have had no negotiations since the last agreement expired that we have heard of, and there are no upcoming scheduled negotiations. Prior to that meeting, I also had the opportunity to question the minister during debates on the main estimates on May 31, when I wanted to clarify conflicting comments. The U.S. trade representative, Ambassador Tai, had testified during U.S. congressional hearings that Canada has “not expressed interest in engaging” when it came to softwood lumber. Several days later, the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources implied at a natural resources committee meeting that it was in fact the U.S. that was not willing.My question to the minister is simple. When will the government quite hiding its failures behind a wall of opaque talking points and finger pointing and start getting to work for my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country, British Columbia and Canada, and when will the government get serious and start negotiations on a new softwood lumber agreement?Adjournment ProceedingsCanada-United States relationsSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsGregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsForestry IndustryInterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (2555)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is not just the livelihoods of the workers in the softwood lumber industry that are under threat. Baseless tariffs also have the added bite of increasing costs to Canadians because of integrated markets. The cost of living and the increased cost of housing are the number one concerns for my constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country and across the country. Our relationship with the U.S. continues to diminish on all fronts because of the mismanagement of our trading relationship. That is why the official opposition put forth a motion, which I tabled and was supported, to create a new Canada-U.S. economic relations committee.There are 11,000 lost jobs in the forestry sector, over $100 billion of lost investment in oil and gas, and concerns over lost business because of buy American policies. The Prime Minister talks big, yet he all but shrugs at these issues. The minister says softwood lumber is her top priority, but she could not point to any actions or conversations, since the announcement of tariffs, that she has had with any of her U.S. counterparts when she testified at the trade committee.When is the government going to get off its hands and start taking any concrete actions on a new softwood lumber agreement?Adjournment ProceedingsCanada-United States relationsSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsGregFergusHull—AylmerGregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgAdjournment ProceedingsForestry IndustryInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2555)[English]Pursuant to an order made on Monday, June 14, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).(The House adjourned at 1:57 a.m.)GregFergusHull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsStatus of WomenInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Challenges Faced by Women Living in Rural, Remote and Northern Communities in Canada”.Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.8510-432-161 "Challenges Faced by Women Living in Rural, Remote and Northern Communities in Canada"Rural communitiesStanding Committee on the Status of WomenWomenBryanMayCambridgeMarwanTabbaraKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88813MarwanTabbaraMarwan-TabbaraKitchener South—HespelerIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/TabbaraMarwan_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Travel Advisers]InterventionMr. Marwan Tabbara (Kitchener South—Hespeler, Ind.): (1005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of speaking with over a dozen travel agents and I have three petitions to present.The petitioners call upon this House to recognize the negative impact COVID travel restrictions have had on the economic situations of travel advisers, especially independent travel advisers. They call upon the House to respond with sector-specific remedies until travel resumes for a sufficiently long time to ensure a return to a sustainable income flow. The petitioners call for the continuation of the CRB at $500 per week for six months past the full-time resumption of travel. Further, they call for sole proprietors to be qualified for the RRRF in urban areas. Finally, they ask the House to ensure that any financial assistance to airlines and their subsidiary travel companies will be conditional on the protection of travel advisers' commissions and that any commissions already clawed back be repaid to travel advisers.AirlinesCanada Recovery BenefitCanada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19PandemicPetition 432-01114Petition 432-01115Petition 432-01116ReimbursementTravel agenciesMarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonHanDongDon Valley North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105807RobMorrisonRob-MorrisonKootenay—ColumbiaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorrisonRob_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Rob Morrison (Kootenay—Columbia, CPC): (1010)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition virtually on behalf of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia. The signatures on this petition were submitted out of great concern by my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia regarding the Columbia River Treaty.The petitioners, therefore, call on the Government of Canada to act as follows. The Columbia River Treaty impacts the lives of all Kootenay—Columbians. The federal, provincial and regional governments have varying levels of responsibility for the protection of Canadian interests with all aspects of the Columbia River Treaty negotiations. The Columbia River Treaty requires the co-operative development of water resources, flood risk management, power generation and recreation, like Lake Koocanusa.The treaty displaced over 280,000 acres of ecosystem, including local farmers, ranchers and indigenous communities. They call upon the Government of Canada to focus on the importance of the Columbia River Treaty and to meet the priority, development and planning of the construction of a weir on the Canadian side of the international border on Lake Koocanusa, British Columbia.I support this petition and present it to the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia.Canada-United States relationsColumbia River TreatyDamsLake KoocanusaPetition 432-01118HanDongDon Valley NorthElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1040)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.[English]Does the leader of the Bloc believe that the ability to amend the Constitution affects all provinces or just Quebec?Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecProvinces, territories, statesQuébécois nationYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—ChamblyYves-FrançoisBlanchetBeloeil—Chambly//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1110)[English]Madam Speaker, the only way to get past the problem of remembering my riding name is for me to be appointed to some senior position, perhaps such as House leader. I hope my leader is listening right now.I would like to say to my colleague, the hon. member who just spoke, that I agree with every one of the comments he made in the first part of his commentary referring to the narrow and symbolic scope of the motion. I thank him for laying things out as clearly as that, and I suspect members would find that view represents the perspective of many people in the House.Although I have not had a chance to think it through, there is considerable merit to the amendment the member proposed to the motion. I would be interested in hearing him further explain how, in his view, we should proceed forward given the fact it is not possible to proceed with this amendment.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAnthonyHousefatherMount Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1115)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.Since the very beginning of what would become Canada, the French language has been a fundamental characteristic of our people. In 1534, when Jacques Cartier set foot on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, he did more than just discover a land unknown to Europeans, he marked the beginning of something wonderful.As an explorer, he dreamed of achieving great things. Of course, the future held a land and a culture where amazing things would happen and where a unique people would be born. Over the years, we saw Cartier's dream develop and become the country we know today. Our history is essential. We teach it in our schools. We learn from it as part of our work, and our culture allows us to remember it.Although things can change or evolve over time, one thing has stayed constant. One of the elements found in all the years of our country's history is the French language. It has been a driving force for our people and a source of pride. It continues to be an integral part of the identity of Canadians and Quebeckers.The Conservative Party of Canada understands this. We also understand the unique character of Quebec beyond the French language. A Conservative government will always respect provincial jurisdiction, including the ability of any province to unilaterally amend the section of the Constitution that deals exclusively with its own internal governance. Both the British North America Act and section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allow the provinces to do this.Most of them have already used this power. Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces abolished their provincial upper houses between 1876 and 1968. Alberta and British Columbia abolished multi-member ridings. Alberta amended its constitution in 1990 to guarantee its Métis communities land title and other rights.The province of Newfoundland used its powers to change its name to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001. Given all these examples, it would be discriminatory to prohibit Quebec from using these same laws to do what is best for its people. As a province and as a people, we stand out in Canada and in the world, and our party has always supported this.Provincial autonomy is important and is something that the Conservatives, unlike our Liberal colleagues, deeply respect. Members will recall that, in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper fought to give Quebec a seat at UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This important step was a proud moment for the province. Its natural beauty, rich history and wonderful culture are international jewels and deserve to be recognized.Quebec is one of the many things that make Canada so unique. Internationally, Quebec makes a valuable contribution to the arts, science, technology and culture. Our solid industries, talented artists and creative students have made their way to many parts of the world. This deserved to be celebrated in 2006, as it does today. That is a good example of the Conservative Party's determination to promote Quebec globally, its pride in la belle province and its commitment to provincial autonomy.Prime Minister Harper, in particular, defended Quebec and ensured that we were not forgotten. His motion for recognition of the Quebec nation by the federal government was a major step forward. Mr. Harper and the entire Conservative Party wanted the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.(1120)That second example makes me think of our founding fathers, who shared that same vision. Thanks to the efforts of Macdonald and Cartier in the second half of the 19th century, we became a unique and magnificent country unlike any other the world over. Their work laid the foundation for our political system and ensured that the French language maintained its important status in our society when Upper Canada and Lower Canada united. Cartier himself played a pivotal role in the formation of the Great Coalition, which was one of the first steps along the path to Confederation. His presence in London, Charlottetown and Quebec City was of crucial importance, and it was largely because of him that Quebec became part of the Dominion of Canada.Our Confederation and our provincial structure function harmoniously and in unison when the government does not overstep its bounds and respects the provinces' authority and responsibilities. That applies just as much to Quebec as it does to Alberta, Ontario and every other province and territory in our great country.While that authority applies for all provinces, I believe it is important to single out Quebec's unique history. That deserves our special attention because French Canadians are a minority in Canada and in North America. As a proud and confident people, we have too often felt forgotten. It is time to take action and get on top of things. When we want something, we have to go get it. Nobody is going to serve up what we want on a silver platter. We have to speak up about what we want and fight to get it. One of the Conservative Party's fundamental beliefs is that the people of this country are capable of working hard to get what they want, and I see that value reflected in today's political system. Quebec knows what it has to do to get what it wants, and that is exactly what is happening.Even today, provincial autonomy and jurisdictions are not fully respected. When it comes to health transfers to the provinces, the Prime Minister made some promises with exceptions attached and agreed to some requests, but again only with conditions attached. The Prime Minister has never been a partner to the provinces, and he keeps interfering in provincial jurisdictions by making promises with strings attached. Federal centralization is an ongoing phenomenon that leads to complications with the provinces. It is time to stop this back and forth and properly recognize the authority of the provinces.This is not a new issue. Quebec has always had to fight for its language, from the time French and English settlers fought hundreds of years ago until the implementation of laws like Bill 101 in Quebec. The Quebec Act, the Official Languages Act and many others were battles fought at the expense of the French language. The 2016 census found that nearly 80% of Quebeckers speak French as their mother tongue. That is more than six million people. Despite this huge number of French Canadians, the Liberal government continues to neglect Quebec. The Liberals have had since 2015 to overhaul official languages, but they have not done so. The government needs a better understanding of the importance of provincial jurisdiction and the Quebec nation.Today's motion has my support and the support of our party. Under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Quebec and the provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions. It is not that Quebec wants to enshrine its nationhood in its constitution, it is that Quebec needs to preserve our heritage and our nation in a meaningful way.Although we recognize the presence of anglophone minority groups in Quebec, the common language of the Quebec nation is French, and it should be the only official language of our province. In other words, our house is built on a French foundation. We must ensure that the foundation remains solid, and we must upgrade the structure over time to ensure its integrity.(1125)Our history is rich and complex and goes beyond language laws, but it guides our identity and shapes our culture.Constitutional amendmentFederal-provincial-territorial relationsFrenchLinguistic minoritiesOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecProvincial jurisdictionQuébécois nationSplitting speaking timeCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1125)[Translation]Madam Speaker, our leader recognizes the importance of French. He is prepared to apply bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. He also recognizes that the Official Languages Act needs to be modernized, and respecting jurisdictions is part of his values.Constitutional amendmentFrenchIndigenous languagesOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1125)[Translation]Madam Speaker, protecting culture is, of course, very important to us. However, we will not compromise on freedom of expression, because that is extremely important to us. Constitutional amendmentCulture and creativityFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationRadio broadcastingMartinChampouxDrummondAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the important thing is that the Conservative Party recognizes provincial jurisdiction. That is of the utmost importance to us. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationSuperior court judgesAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we do need to protect our culture, but right now, freedom of expression is what is at stake, and our party will not compromise on that.Constitutional amendmentCulture and creativityFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationRadio broadcastingMartinChampouxDrummondMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the motion from 2006 recognizing Quebec as a nation inside a unified Canada. Does the member support that motion?Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le FjordRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le Fjord//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Richard Martel: (1130)[Translation]The answer is yes, Madam Speaker.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationMichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, practice makes perfect.[Translation]The motion that is before us today has two parts. The first part says this, and I quote: That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions... The second part says, and I quote:[That the House] acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.[English]One cannot vote for or against one part of the motion without doing the same for the other part. However, I have very little to say about part two, which asks us to take note of two expressions of what is called the will of Quebec and also to take note of the obviously true fact that French is the common language of the Québécois, which it has been since 1608.We all deeply and sincerely hope that this foundational fact that French is the lingua franca of the Québécois will continue to be the case for the next 400 years, just as it has been for the past 400 years.[Translation]For me, a Quebec nation in which French is not the lingua franca is unthinkable.[English]Likewise, it is a fact already acknowledged by the House that the Québécois are a nation. Fifteen years ago, the Commons voted for that by a margin of 265 to 16.[Translation]That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.[English]The words “au sein d'un Canada uni” are absent from today's motion, as one would expect from a motion produced by the Bloc Québécois. Nonetheless, it is true that the motion, as it is worded, is by no means incompatible with a united Canada. It is quite the opposite.Beyond this, I am not sure there is much to say about the second half of the motion. My interest, as a student of the Constitution, is in responding to the first assertion of the motion, which says, in its English version, “That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions.”My comments on this subject are primarily intended to sway the views of my anglophone colleagues, and therefore I will be speaking only English as I address this subject. The wording of section 45 is, “Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.”Members will notice the internal reference to another part of the Constitution, section 41. This reference is necessary because unlike the constitutions of other federations, like Switzerland or Australia, Canada's Constitution contains multiple amending formula instead of just one. That is to say that different parts of the same Constitution can only be amended using different combinations of legislative instruments from different legislative bodies.For example, there are some parts of the Constitution that may only be amended if identical resolutions are passed in Parliament and in all 10 provincial legislatures. This amending formula is contained in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and of course, section 41 is the clause specifically referenced in section 45. I will not mention section 41 except to observe that it was referenced in section 45 to prevent provinces from unilaterally altering the powers of their lieutenant governors.Other parts of the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, can be amended only by means of identical resolutions in Parliament and in the legislatures of the seven provinces containing at least 50% of Canada's population. This is colloquially known as the 7/50 amending formula, and it is described in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982.On the other hand, to enact an amendment to the charter designed to place further restrictions on the powers of only a single province, another formula that is found in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, applies. Identical resolutions must be adopted by the legislature of that province alone and by Parliament. It was the use of the section 43 amending formula that in 1993 made it possible to add a new linguistic right to the charter that applied to New Brunswick alone, which was section 16.1 of the charter.(1135)Likewise, section 43 is also the only formula that may be used for either of the two following matters. It states:(a) any alterations to boundaries between provinces; and(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,The existence of multiple amending formulae for the Constitution of Canada is not new. Section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 was the predecessor to section 45. It was in force for over a century. Section 92(1) stated:...in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant-Governor.The ability of Quebec or of any other province to amend its own Constitution is uncontroversial. The more challenging question is what constitutes a provincial constitution.In other federations like Switzerland, Australia or the United States, this question would never arise. Each Swiss canton and each American state has its own stand-alone constitution. The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, is the oldest written constitution in the world, dating back to 1780, which makes it a decade older than the constitution of the United States.In Canada, such tidy, clearly defined provincial constitutions do not exist. In this province, provincial constitutions can take one of three forms, which leads to some surface confusion. In the three provinces that were created by federal statute, the relevant federal statute is the constitution of the province: the Manitoba Act, the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, respectively. Despite being acts of the Parliament of Canada, these statutes can, under authority of section 45, be amended only by the provincial legislature. Parliament is constitutionally precluded from being involved.In the five provinces that existed before Confederation, the pre-existing British statutes under which they had been created are their constitutions. Despite being acts of the Parliament at Westminster, these too can be amended unilaterally by the province under authority of section 45. Again, there is no permitted role for Parliament.That leaves Quebec and Ontario. Their constitutional situation is summed up by eminent constitutional scholar Professor Peter Hogg in the following words: The Constitution Act, 1867, which, it will be recalled, created Ontario and Quebec out of the old united province of Canada, contains a set of provisions (ss. 69 to 87) which are essentially the constitutions of those two provinces. Therefore, sections 69 to 87 are the provisions which could potentially be subject to amendment, using the section 45 amending formula, which is to say that they could be potentially subject to amendment by means of an act of Quebec's national assembly or Ontario's legislature.It is Professor Hogg's view, and my own as well, that Parliament, once again, is not permitted to play a role in such amendments. This leaves the question of whether amendments can be made to the Constitution of Quebec or Ontario that involve making any amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, in which the subject matter falls outside subjects covered in sections 69 to 87, which are sections that deal solely with the functioning of the two provincial legislatures.In particular, could changes be made such as those proposed in Quebec's Bill 96, which seeks to add two new sections immediately following section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867? I have several tentative answers to this question. First, the fact section 90 falls outside of the section 69 to 87 envelope is irrelevant. Second, this is a matter that is outside the remit of Parliament. We are not decision-makers on this. The courts ultimately will have to decide whether sections 158 of Bill 96, which is the part of the bill in which these two amendments are proposed, is intra vires or ultra vires the section 45 amending formula. We MPs can weigh in on this subject but our views are not binding on anybody.Third, and this is the last point I will make, and most important, although the motion we are debating today deals with the same subjects as the two contemplated additions to the Constitution Act, 1867 contained in Bill 96, we have not been asked to vote for or against Bill 96. We have been asked to vote on a specific question regarding the section 45 amending formula and a specific statement about what the motion refers to as the will or volonté of the Québécois, as expressed by the national assembly. On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes—ConstitutionConstitutional amendmentCourt ordersFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecProvincial and territorial legislative assembliesProvincial jurisdictionQuébécois nationRichardMartelChicoutimi—Le FjordCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I will start by finishing the last sentence of my speech, which was the only sentence I did not manage to get in. On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes and therefore that is how I will be voting.[Translation]To answer my colleague's question, it is not up to us as members from ridings outside Quebec to determine what measures are required to make Quebeckers happy and to make them equal partners in Canada. We need to respond to Quebeckers' initiatives. Today's motion is an example of that.My colleague asked another question, but honestly, I cannot remember what his first question was.Constitutional amendmentFrenchNational unityOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I actually do not have a large population of francophones in my riding. It is a perpetual problem trying to keep up my French because I do not get the chance to speak it daily. Lately, I have taken to listening only to music with French lyrics as a way of helping myself not lose too much, which is a very enjoyable way of maintaining one's language.With regard to maintaining academic institutions in other provinces that assist the francophone minorities in those provinces and also those who want to learn and educate themselves in French, who are not necessarily francophones themselves, there can be a role for the federal government in funding them. Ultimately, we also need to ensure, as members of the relevant communities, that we put the right kind of pressure on university administrations to assign funds appropriately. This is not an issue only in Edmonton, but also in places like Sudbury, for example, and some spots east of Quebec as well in the Atlantic.Colleges and universitiesConstitutional amendmentFrancophones outside QuebecFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationSchool management and fundingHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaScotDavidsonYork—Simcoe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102653ScotDavidsonScot-DavidsonYork—SimcoeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DavidsonScot_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I noticed the member had a number of notes and I wonder if there is anything else he wants to expand upon today.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationScottReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonScottReidLanark—Frontenac—Kingston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1827ScottReidScott-ReidLanark—Frontenac—KingstonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ReidScott_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Scott Reid: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I always write very long speeches, which could not possibly be given in the time allowed. My self-editing cut out a considerable amount of material.With regard to the issue of dealing with this within the framework of the Constitution. if we look at Canada's constitutional history, some of the leading figures, some of the most distinguished and thoughtful figures, were francophone Lower Canadians. The term “Québécois” did not exist at the time. People like George-Étienne Cartier and Étienne-Paschal Taché believed profoundly in the importance of establishing a Constitution that had detailed divisions of power. They rigorously followed the idea that the provinces would be independent, like independent states, which is where the term “state” comes from in the United States, in their areas of jurisdiction, and the federal government would be completely independent in its area of jurisdiction. I suggest that model of federalism is the only one that will work in Canada, and we should all embrace it.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationScotDavidsonYork—SimcoeAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a simple question. When it comes to Canada's francophonie, Quebec is seen as the brightest light in the country. The member mentioned the Acadians, who are part of Canada's francophonie. Can he tell us how Quebec can work with the provinces to promote small francophone communities in the rest of Canada, like mine, where the common language is French?Constitutional amendmentFrancophones outside QuebecFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105340ScottAitchisonScott-AitchisonParry Sound—MuskokaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AitchisonScott_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersParry Sound—MuskokaInterventionMr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, as Canadians are now finally receiving their vaccinations, and we are slowly getting past this pandemic, Parry Sound—Muskoka is eager and ready to be open and welcome visitors again.From the towering windswept pines clinging to the rocky shores of Georgian Bay in the west to the pristine canoe routes of Algonquin Park in the east, and from the Trent-Severn Waterway in the south to the Dokis first nation on the shores of Lake Nipissing in the north, the natural beauty of Parry Sound—Muskoka will rejuvenate one's soul.Whether one camps, glamps or stays at a five-star resort, whether one prefers s'mores by the campfire or fine dining by the water's edge, whether one prefers the nighttime chorus of the forest or the stage performances of world-class artists, Parry Sound—Muskoka is the destination. To seasonal residents, visitors and tourists, Parry Sound—Muskoka is ready when they are. Let us bring on the summer.Statements by MembersTourismLloydLongfieldGuelphJeanYipScarborough—Agincourt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLiberal Party of CanadaInterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, as this session draws to a close, Canadians are upset with the Liberal government’s “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. The Prime Minister has failed to set a clear plan for international travel, and all of the jobs that go with it, yet he has no problem jet-setting into quarantineless, maskless, distanceless and, frankly, senseless behaviour. The Prime Minister says he is appalled with harassment in the workplace and the mistreatment of women, but turned a blind eye to General Vance and gave him a pay increase. The government hoodwinks Canadians, saying it cares about public safety, but really it is targeting law-abiding hunters and sport shooters with one bill and reducing penalties for serious crimes in another. Canadians want us back here in this place in September, not prorogued like last year and not tossed into a pandemic election that we voted unanimously against, and hopefully hearing from a government that has deeply reflected over the summer and is finally ready to put Canadians' interests ahead of its own.Government performanceStatements by MembersSorayaMartinez FerradaHochelagaTimLouisKitchener—Conestoga//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersLyme DiseaseInterventionMr. Chris d'Entremont (West Nova, CPC): (1405)[English]Mr. Speaker, Lyme disease is a huge concern in Nova Scotia. People can suffer undiagnosed for years, pleading with their health care professionals to be tested and referred. In 2018, Nova Scotian residents reported the second-highest number of Lyme disease cases in Canada, with 451 people. With these high numbers in such a small province, one would think we would have the best Lyme treatment program in Canada, but sadly, residents continue to travel outside our country for treatment. While this is unacceptable in regular times, it is almost impossible during this pandemic. Bill C-442 was unanimously passed in 2014. This bill was supposed to identify and implement new diagnostic treatments or protocols for tick-borne illnesses, changes that have been painfully slow.I recently read the story about Hailey Kane from the Annapolis Valley, a 17-year-old girl who lost her life to Lyme disease. Hailey's family can never escape the nightmare that is a result of this undiagnosed, untreated Lyme disease. We need to do better. We need to call on all levels of government to do better for these patients, who have had their quality of life taken from them or, worse, pass away before ever getting the help that they need.Lyme diseaseMedical techniques and proceduresStatements by MembersRubySahotaBrampton NorthJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersCanada DayInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada Day is a time to both celebrate and reflect, a time to embrace who we are as Canadians and all that has brought us here, a time to reflect on what we must protect or risk losing, a time to imagine a vision of what our country can become. To be Canadian means believing in diversity, respect and humility. To be Canadian is to be part of something bigger than ourselves.Canada is a free and sovereign nation governed by democratic values, a charter of human rights and the rule of law. It is a country where Canadians alone define our future.Our democracy is fragile, never to be taken for granted and always to be defended. The challenges we face today will not defeat us. For 154 years, we have overcome adversity and emerged stronger. We will do so again, together and united as one Canada, one country. Happy Canada Day.Canada DayDemocracyStatements by MembersJulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthEricDuncanStormont—Dundas—South Glengarry//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersWorld Blood Donor DayInterventionMr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday was World Blood Donor Day. Here is how the United Kingdom celebrated it: For the first time, all donors will now be asked the same questions about their sexual behaviours in a gender-neutral manner, meaning that gay and bisexual men in monogamous relationships can donate blood and make a difference for the first time. Israel's new coalition government, on day one of its new mandate, pledged to end its gay blood ban.By contrast, here at home, this is how the Liberals celebrated World Blood Donor Day: On Friday, they lost in court when they tried to silence a gay man for asking the government to keep the promise the Liberals made six years ago. The Conservatives are on record with a very clear and safe solution, just as the United Kingdom, just as Israel and just as numerous other countries around the world are doing. It is time to stop the court cases. It is time to stop the delays. It is time to end the blood ban in Canada, now.Blood supplyDiscriminationGay and lesbian personsStatements by MembersWorld Blood Donor DayLeonaAlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersSmall BusinessInterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, my riding of Kenora is full of natural beauty that attracts visitors wishing to enjoy the great outdoors. However, the small business owners in our communities are facing a second COVID summer and their life's work has been pushed to the brink.These job creators face mountains of red tape and regulations at the best of times, and with the added failure of the Liberal government to secure our economy through the pandemic, these businesses face an uncertain future. Small business owners across the country cannot afford any more economic mismanagement from the Liberal government.Canada's Conservatives have a plan to secure the future that includes recovering one million jobs and supporting every sector and region of the country. Canadians will soon have a choice. If local jobs are not their priority, they will have many priorities to choose from. However, if they care about securing Canada's economic future, there is only one choice and that is Canada's Conservatives.COVID-19PandemicSmall and medium-sized enterprisesStatements by MembersAndréanneLaroucheSheffordPeterFragiskatosLondon North Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEmploymentInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs because of the Prime Minister's failed vaccine rollout. Canadians cannot live like this while the Prime Minister goes around meeting celebrities and claiming to be the dean of the G7.How can this trip help recover the 300,000 jobs already lost by these Canadians who are losing hope?COVID-19Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsPandemicPeterFragiskatosLondon North CentreChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is not just the job market that is becoming unstable. Yesterday The Globe and Mail reported that a private investor purchased hundreds of Toronto homes just to turn a quick profit. It is no wonder housing prices are up nearly 40% this year. First-time homebuyers literally cannot afford more of the same from the government.Does the Prime Minister really expect first-time homebuyers to compete with billionaire investors?Consumer priceFirst-Time Home Buyer IncentiveHome ownershipInvestmentOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister admits it is his plan that is failing, and it is worse. According to Bloomberg, Canada is in danger of experiencing a housing market crash similar to the 2008 financial crisis. Unlike the Liberals and the minister, the Conservatives have a five-point plan to secure Canada's future, including for first-time homebuyers.Can the Prime Minister guarantee Canadians that housing prices will stabilize and ultimately decrease before the end of the summer?Consumer priceHousingOral questionsAhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, speaking of records speaking for themselves, falsifying one's service record, throwing Admiral Mark Norman under the bus and covering up sexual misconduct is not the record of a minister who can be trusted to implement the necessary changes at National Defence. With a record as shameful as that, it is no wonder that senior military leaders do not respect their minister. We cannot afford more of the same. The Canadian Armed Forces are literally falling apart before our eyes.When will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent minister?Canadian ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.AhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72773ErinO'TooleHon.Erin-O-TooleDurhamConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OTooleErin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Erin O'Toole (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, he says “an inclusive environment”. Three years ago a woman came forward with an allegation of sexual misconduct against the top general, a close friend of the minister. The ombudsman brought the report to the minister three years ago. The minister fired the ombudsman, covered it up and failed that woman serving her country.The minister, if he respects the institution he once served, should do the honourable thing and resign. If not, the Prime Minister must hold the minister to account.Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister did what he had told all other Canadians not to do. He travelled abroad to the G7. While he was gone, business leaders called for him to immediately lay out a plan to safely reopen our economy. The chamber of commerce called for clarity and a timeline and said that Canada was a G7 outlier because the Prime Minister had failed to deliver a reopening plan.While other countries are helping their businesses reopen, our Prime Minister will not even provide us with a plan. When will he do his job and stand up for Canadian businesses?COVID-19Economic recoveryOral questionsPandemicCarlaQualtroughHon.DeltaChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, not only is Canada behind the rest of the G7 in reopening its economy, the Prime Minister has made things worse by making the whole economy more expensive. The rise in the inflation rate and cost of living is making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet. That includes major increases in the price of meat, fish, dairy, gasoline and, of course, the skyrocketing housing prices. Under the government's mismanagement, Canadians are falling further and further behind.Why has the government not made life more affordable for Canadians?Cost of livingOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodForestry IndustryInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, according to an article on the CBC, softwood lumber experts expect that prices will continue to go up. They are also saying that it could take several years before things get back to normal.In the meantime, the United States is taking advantage of the vulnerability of our forestry sector and threatening our industries with tariffs.Canadian workers had to deal with a pandemic last year and do not need any more problems. Why is the government leaving them defenceless?Canada-United States relationsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesOral questionsSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleMaryNgHon.Markham—Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/100521RichardMartelRichard-MartelChicoutimi—Le FjordConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MartelRichard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodForestry IndustryInterventionMr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): (1430)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have repeatedly assured workers in our softwood lumber industry that a new agreement with the United States will be negotiated.It has been nearly seven years since they came to power, five year since the softwood lumber tariffs were imposed and three years since CUSMA was renegotiated, but nothing has been done to protect our forestry workers.Does the Liberal government have any plan to stop talking and start taking action?Canada-United States relationsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesOral questionsSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsMaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillMaryNgHon.Markham—Thornhill//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the finance minister decided to delay her own budget by punting debate on that budget in order to ram through Bill C-10, this at a time when our unemployment is higher than the U.K., the U.S., Japan, Germany, the G7 and OECD, and there are half a million missing jobs. That same budget said that all the pre-COVID jobs would be recovered by this month.Will the finance minister keep her word and guarantee that every single pre-COVID job will be recovered by this month when the numbers come out early next month?C-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCOVID-19Oral questionsPandemicUnemployment and jobseekingMaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25524PierrePoilievreHon.Pierre-PoilievreCarletonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PoilievrePierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, if she likes her budget so much, it is so strange that yesterday she decided to delay it. Maybe it is for the better that she is delaying her own budget. So far what it has delivered is the second-highest unemployment in the G7; the highest inflation in a decade; the fastest increases in housing prices, preventing the poor working class and young from ever owning a home; and the prospect of a forthcoming debt crisis. All I am asking is whether she will keep her promise from chart 35 in that same budget.Will the government have reinstated all the pre-COVID jobs by this month, yes or no?COVID-19Oral questionsPandemicUnemployment and jobseekingChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedalePabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-Mercier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are in the middle of a pandemic where most of the government staff in Ottawa have been avoiding travel, staying put and working from home, so it is quite the coincidence that on the day after the election was called in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Minister of Natural Resources would send two of his staffers under dubious reasoning to that province. Wait a second, that does not sound like a coincidence at all.Will the Liberal Party repay taxpayers for sending two ministerial staff, at taxpayers' expense, to help their friends in the provincial Liberal Party get re-elected?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsPabloRodriguezHon.Honoré-MercierSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, that simply does not hold water. Canadians cannot believe that these staff were there doing anything other than supporting the minister while he was campaigning. It is always the same with these Liberals. When it benefits them or their friends, they will throw any considerations about ethics or pandemic rules to the wayside.Now that he has been caught, will the minister commit to have the Liberal Party of Canada repay taxpayers for this inappropriate, partisan expense?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts.The minister's staff arrived when the election was called in Newfoundland and Labrador. They stayed there for the duration of the campaign. They went door-to-door and cost Canadians almost $9,000. Public health rules required workers to stay home. The minister knows that. He is trying to apologize by saying that he needed his staff close to him, but away from the department and their homes. He admitted that he broke the rules.Is the Liberal Party going to reimburse Canadians?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1440)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is always the same thing with the Liberals. They are always willing to do anything and bend the rules to help their friends.The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, Dr. Tam, the Treasury Board, the provinces, all had one message at the time: stay home. That was not good enough for the Minister of Natural Resources and his staff. The rules do not apply to them; they are Liberals.Not only does the minister deserve to be reprimanded, he also has to pay that money back to Canadians.Will the Liberal cronies refund the $9,000 to Canadian taxpayers?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the seventh vice-chief of the defence staff since 2015 resigned yesterday because he went golfing with one of the two chiefs of the defence staff who are under investigation for sexual misconduct. This tragic narrative is a direct reflection on the weak leadership of the defence minister. The minister wilfully turned a blind eye to evidence of sexual misconduct against General Vance and refused to implement the Deschamps report. This is a dereliction of duty to the victims of sexual misconduct. Instead of leading by example, the minister failed our troops and lost their respect. Will the Minister of National Defence do the honourable thing and resign?Canadian ForcesConduct at workMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.MélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister can say what he wants, but one thing is certain: Right now the Canadian Armed Forces is in chaos.Things have only gotten worse since this minister took office in 2015. The minister is always saying that he is absolutely determined to bring about a culture change in the Canadian Armed Forces. What did he do with the Deschamps report that was submitted in 2015? He did nothing.Why did he not implement the 10 fundamental recommendations to protect women? We do not know.Will the minister do the right thing and resign?Canadian ForcesConduct at workExternal Review into Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment in the Canadian Armed ForcesMinister of National DefenceOral questionsReferences to membersResignation of MinisterSajjan, Harjit S.Sexual behaviourSexual harassmentHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTelecommunicationsInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, once again, eastern Ontario municipal leaders are leading our country when it comes to improved Internet and cell coverage in our region. They are ready to go with another massive project to increase Internet speed up to one gigabit per second for their households and their businesses. Recently, local Liberal and Conservative MPs heard the group tell the minister directly that her department is once again refusing to fund their projects. How can this be? Why does the Liberal government continue to put up unnecessary roadblocks that delay projects that are ready right now to help our residents? Broadband FundBroadband Internet servicesEastern OntarioOral questionsRemote communitiesHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105422EricDuncanEric-DuncanStormont—Dundas—South GlengarryConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DuncanEric_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodTelecommunicationsInterventionMr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was not even close to an acceptable answer. They cannot even get the okay to apply to the universal broadband fund that the minister and the government continue to tout provides better Internet access. One hundred and four heads of council in eastern Ontario are behind this project, and it is valued at $1.6 billion.No more wishy-washy teamwork. Can the minister just give a straight answer? It is very simple. Can the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus and the regional network apply through the universal broadband fund to improve through their gig project, yes or no? Broadband FundBroadband Internet servicesEastern OntarioOral questionsRemote communitiesMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—KawarthaMaryamMonsefHon.Peterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105210LianneRoodLianne-RoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RoodLianne_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodAgriculture and Agri-FoodInterventionMs. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, in June 2020, Canadian vegetable growers lost millions of pounds of vegetables because of COVID. For almost a year they have been asking for compensation for the losses they incurred, and they have been exceedingly patient. Recently, the Government of Ontario wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to ask for the activation of AgriRecovery for vegetable growers who incurred substantial losses and extraordinary costs.When will the minister make funds available under AgriRecovery to compensate vegetable growers for their pandemic losses?AgriRecovery ProgramCOVID-19Government compensationHorticultureOral questionsPandemicMélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—Stanstead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89407JoëlGodinJoël-GodinPortneuf—Jacques-CartierConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GodinJoël_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodImmigration, Refugees and CitizenshipInterventionMr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in Portneuf—Jacques‑Cartier, many agri-food, construction, agriculture and landscaping businesses are reaching out to me because they are short of employees. This Liberal government is blaming a lot on COVID‑19. The reality is that it has done nothing in the past six years about accessing foreign workers. Is it normal for certain applications to drag on for more than a year? It is unacceptable. The process urgently needs to be sped up to allow our businesses to stay above water and participate in the economic recovery. When will this government take action?BacklogsForeign workersOral questionsPart-time workersTemporary Foreign Worker ProgramMarie-ClaudeBibeauHon.Compton—StansteadMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—Lawrence//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHealthInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, my constituents are very frustrated with the government's handling of the border. The government has insisted on forcing Canadians into hotel quarantine despite the Liberals' own science expert panel recommending that the government scrap the program. These are the same hotels that have had reports of sexual assaults and a lack of food and water.On what date will the Liberals finally listen to the science and end the hotel quarantine program?COVID-19Oral questionsPandemicQuarantine of personsTravel restrictionsMarcoMendicinoHon.Eglinton—LawrencePattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89179KellyMcCauleyKelly-McCauleyEdmonton WestConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McCauleyKelly_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic Services and ProcurementInterventionMr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, for four straight years, the minister of public works could only muster up a feeble “to be determined” when setting targets for government contracts for indigenous businesses, yet in the operations committee we heard evidence that public works invoked the national security exemption in order to sole-source a contract for PPE from China instead of from a qualified indigenous business.Why is reconciliation with China more important to the minister than reconciliation with indigenous people?CompaniesGovernment contractsIndigenous policyOral questionsKarinaGouldHon.BurlingtonAnitaAnandHon.Oakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89156ZiadAboultaifZiad-AboultaifEdmonton ManningConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AboultaifZiad_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, home prices have risen to an all-time high. While the minister is patting himself on the back, young Canadians and families are simply giving up the Canadian dream of owning a home due to historic price increases of almost 30% since last year. Can the minister tell us, if his housing plan is truly perfect, why Canadians across the country are giving up on owning homes? Consumer priceHome ownershipOral questionsAnitaAnandHon.OakvilleAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, what is a joke is the Liberals' existing plan for affordable housing, which is not working for anyone. I have been asking for funding for affordable housing in Sarnia—Lambton for years. In our opposition day motion, we highlighted the failure of the government in this area.Considering the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion with all of its common-sense solutions, I would like to know this: What is the Liberal government going to do to ensure Canadians can have affordable housing?HousingNational Housing StrategyOral questionsAhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35699PeterKentHon.Peter-KentThornhillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/KentPeter_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionHon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): (1550)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I have the utmost respect for the language of Vigneault, Nelligan, Roy, Carrier, Gagnon and even Charlebois. This morning, the Bloc leader talked about the humility and pride of Quebec francophones, but what does my colleague have to say to Quebec anglophones who worry about the loss of their official language?Anglophones inside QuebecConstitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1605)[Translation]Questions and comments.The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.MélanieJolyHon.Ahuntsic-CartiervilleCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1655)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, in her speech, earlier, my colleague spoke about the opposition across the aisle. Today, the government introduced its long-awaited official languages bill. We have wanted to reform the Official Languages Act for such a long time. The bill was introduced at the very end of the parliamentary session, on the eve of an election campaign.Does my colleague believe this to be a coincidence or a very clumsy political stunt on the part of her opposition, which just happens to be the government?C-32, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsConstitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationMarilèneGillManicouaganMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1700)[Translation]The hon. member for Saint‑Laurent is rising on a question of privilege.MarilèneGillManicouaganGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, indeed, I am rising on a question of privilege.I would like to briefly respond to yesterday's intervention by the member for Kingston and the Islands. His intervention was in response to the question of privilege I raised in the House on June 7, which made reference to the fact that the Public Health Agency of Canada did not comply with the order of the House of June 2 to turn over critical documents in a case that every Canadian is interested in, that of the laboratory in Winnipeg. We have a number of important elements to address. First, the member cited page 986 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, concerning the three options that a committee has when a person or organization does not turn over documents. The comments by the member for Kingston and the Islands were interesting. The problem is that he read the first and second option, but not the third.[English]Let me complete the citation by adding the third option. “The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and uphold the order to produce the entire record.”Second, the member claimed that security safeguards are “nowhere to be found” in my proposed privilege motion. This is simply not true. He based his argument on the motion that I offered to the House last week and not on the draft motion.As you know, page 145 of Bosc and Gagnon states that a member raising a question of privilege should provide, as part of the written notice to you, the text of the motion that is proposed to be moved. The draft motion, which was attached to the notice I provided to you last week, refers in part to the health minister “delivering up the documents ordered by this House on June 2, 2021, so that they may be deposited with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel under the terms of that order.”In any event, whether the House may demand redacted or unredacted documents, with or without security precautions, is something for the House to determine and is not a procedural prerequisite. Regardless, this is obviously a red herring from the Liberals because they have shown no interest to date, in response to three different orders with security safeguards, in producing these documents.Finally, the member has called upon you to exercise your authority under page 150 of Bosc and Gagnon in such a way to allow me to put forward one of two motions: either hold the government in contempt or refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee. Of course, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands overlooks, for example, the 1891 case of Michael Connolly, recounted at page 121 of Bosc and Gagnon, which I discussed with you last week. In brief, the House ordered Mr. Connolly to the bar of the House when he had refused to turn over documents that the committee required.[Translation]Reading between the lines, it appears quite clearly that the Liberal government is trying to say that the House simply does not have the authority to consider a motion that could enable it to obtain information that it ordered the government to produce, when the government is refusing to do so.In fact, if we accept this view of things, as the member for Kingston and the Islands proposed, that logic invariably leads to this situation. The government declares that it has a veto on the tabling and publication of all documents.[English]Under the member's proposed arrangement, he could choose to comply to have yet another committee discuss their intransigence or to be found in contempt. Nowhere among the options that the government contemplates would the House actually get the documents it ordered.To allow that would be to allow the government to frustrate the objectives of the House in securing the information it requires to discharge its constitutional responsibility of holding the government to account. To allow the government's claim to succeed would not, in my respectful opinion, be consistent with your duties as the guardian of the House's rights and privileges.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersPrivilege [Government's Alleged Non-compliance with an Order of the House]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1705)[Translation]I thank the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his additional comments on this question of privilege. For the moment, there is still a 10-minute period left.The hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent.Access to informationBiosafetyChinaContempt of ParliamentDecisions of the SpeakerInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryParliamentary privilegePublic Health Agency of CanadaViral diseasesWuhan Institute of VirologyGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentGérardDeltellLouis-Saint-Laurent//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1705)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, without getting into the finer details, I will say that I preferred to use up my time rather than that of other parliamentarians.Indeed, the debate we were invited to take part in today on the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois deserves to be appreciated in all its splendour and all its legitimacy. That is why, as a Quebec member and as a Canadian member in the House of Commons, I am proud to participate in this debate and to support this proposal.What does this proposal, which contains three elements, say?First, it says that Quebec and all the provinces can, if they so desire, amend their constitutions, which are enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. Second, it recognizes that Quebec is a nation. Third, it recognizes that French is the official language of Quebec.I may not go as far as to say that it is a truism, but it is almost one. In fact, the three elements raised in this motion are facts that, constitutionally, historically and factually, are indisputable. Let us examine them one by one.Let us start with the French fact in Quebec. If, after travelling across North America, a person comes to Quebec, they will obviously notice a difference right away: the French fact. That has been the reality in that part of the world since 1534, when Jacques Cartier was the first European colonist to set foot in what is now known as Quebec. A more permanent settlement was then built under the leadership of Champlain in 1608. After founding Quebec on July 3, 1608, Champlain ensured that it was the first permanent, fixed settlement of European conquerors on this land, which had been occupied by the first nations since the beginning of time.That brings me to this: the French language has been the official language of Quebec since 1974. Quebec has had French as its only official language for nearly 50 years. Attempts were made before that.French was always at the heart of Premier Maurice Duplessis's proud, enthusiastic and very hands-on defence of French, but there was no question of enshrining in law the fact that French was the language of Quebec at that time. It took Bill 63, which was introduced by Minister Jean‑Guy Cardinal in 1963, under Premier Jean‑Jacques Bertrand's Union Nationale government, for that to happen. That bill gave people the choice between receiving an education in French or in English. In a way, one could say that Bill 63 made French and English the languages of Quebec. It took many social events to get Robert Bourassa's government to pass what is referred to as Bill 22 in 1974.It always makes me laugh because some historians and people who lived through that era often talk about Bill 22, Bill 63 and Bill 101, using the English world “bill” when talking about protecting the French language. It always makes me smile when I hear the impassioned speeches of people like Pierre Bourgault where they talk about “Bill” 22 and “Bill” 63. I would like to remind all proud separatists that “bill” is an English word and that it would be better to use the French term “loi” or “projet de loi”.Bill 22, passed by the very federalist and very Liberal Robert Bourassa, has cemented French as the official language of Quebec for almost 50 years now. Then, in 1977, Bill 101 was passed by René Lévesque's PQ government. Naturally, this legislation went a lot further. It had quite an impact, in fact, even back then. Historians all agree on this. Premier Lévesque believed, and all the biographies can confirm this, that Bill 101 went way too far in certain regards. The fact remains, however, that history tells us that French has been the official language since 1974.The motion states that French is the official language of Quebec, and that has been the case since 1974. We are not saying anything new.The motion also states that Quebec forms a notion. I have the pleasure and the great privilege of bringing back fond memories for the House. On November 22, 2006, the House passed a motion stating that Quebec formed a nation within a united Canada.(1710)Who first got the idea of Quebec being a nation? It was the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, head of the Canadian government, leader of the Conservative Party. We, Conservatives, are the ones who recognized Quebec as a nation. I did not have the privilege, honour and dignity of sitting here at the time, as I was still a journalist, just like some of my other colleagues in fact. I do not dare name them since they are in the House as I speak and I can never manage to remember the name of their ridings.[English] The member for Thornhill had a very respectful career as a journalist.[Translation]When I was a journalist back in 2006, I remember meeting former prime minister Harper when he was at the Quebec National Assembly in May 2006. I asked him whether Quebec formed a nation and he gave me a vague answer. Not long after, on June 23, he hosted a cabinet meeting in Quebec City and I asked him the same question. Once again, he gave a vague answer. However, on November 22, 2006, he gave a clear answer right here in the House: Quebec forms a nation. It was Stephen Harper's Conservative government that recognized Quebec as a nation. This is nothing new.Since the facts are undeniable and the whole story is worthy of being told, I also want to remind members that on October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly, led by Liberal premier and proud federalist Jean Charest, adopted a motion stating that Quebec formed a nation. The third part of the motion has to do with the provinces having the ability to amend their constitutions. This has been true since 1867. When four provinces joined together to create Canada, this provision was included in the British North America Act. It gave the four founding provinces and the provinces that later joined the right to amend their constitutions, within the Canadian constitution, on matters that affect them directly. This provision was reaffirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. All of the provinces, including Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Newfoundland, Manitoba and so on, who wished to do so had the right to amend their constitutions. Almost all provinces have made use of this provision, Alberta being the most recent case. The Bloc Québécois's motion contains three parts that are factually indisputable.[English]This is why I strongly support this motion. First of all, it provides that each province has the right to amend its own constitution: all provinces, not only Quebec, but Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Each and every province of this country has the ability to amend its own constitution.Quebec has been a French province since 1974. It is not brand new. It is the truth and the reality. It has been a historic fact for almost half a century, so there is nothing new there.Quebec is a nation in the House of Commons. Under the former Conservative government of the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, we recognized here in the House of Commons, with a strong majority vote, that Quebec is a nation. For sure, there are some people who have some concerns with that but who would think that Stephen Harper was not also a proud Canadian? It is because we are such proud Canadians that we shall respect each and every province and we shall respect the will of the provinces as long as they address their own jurisdictions, which is exactly the case in that statement.The law in the Constitution has provided that Quebec's official language should be French for almost half a century. Also, Quebec as a nation was recognized 15 years ago by a Conservative government. That is why I will proudly support this motion.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationBruceStantonSimcoe NorthBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1715)[Translation]It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.The question is on the motion.As usual, if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.The hon. member for Saint‑Jean.GérardDeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1715)[Translation]Pursuant to order made on Monday, January 25, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 16, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredThe hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.Constitutional amendmentFrenchOfficial languages policyOpposition motionsProvince of QuebecQuébécois nationChristineNormandinSaint-JeanMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBusiness of Supply [Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation]InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1715)[English]Is it agreed?Some hon. members: Agreed.The Deputy Speaker: The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.Decisions of the HousePrivate Members' BusinessProceeding to next item earlyMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsBruceStantonSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFederal Dental Care PlanInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1715)[English]When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands had eight minutes and 20 seconds remaining in his time for his comments on the motion, and we will go to him now.The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.BruceStantonSimcoe NorthMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFederal Dental Care PlanInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Motion No 62, the proposal for national dental care.All Canadians need dental care. The statistics today show that one in three Canadians lack dental insurance, so if we look at things positively, that means two thirds of Canadians have a plan. However, for that one third of Canadians who do not have a plan, this is a serious health concern. Also, one in five do not go to the dentist when they need to for financial reasons. People, even if they do have coverage, may not have full coverage for the work they need to have done on their teeth.Definitely, when we look at dental health, we have to consider how that relates to the overall health of people. Many conditions can result from poor dental care and cause other health care issues. For example, people can have gum disease, which is a common thing if they do not have their regular cleaning and keep up on their oral hygiene. This can lead to many conditions, including cancer, kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, all kinds of very costly and aggravating conditions. Gingivitis is another one that is a byproduct of poor dental hygiene. People have also linked poor dental hygiene to conditions like Alzheimer's. When we think about that and about the impacts, we know we need to find a way to ensure Canadians can have good dental care.The member who spoke before me talked about the costs of this program, and that is definitely a consideration. There has been a number of estimates by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A number of other people have looked at this as well and have put the cost somewhere just less than $1 billion or up to $3 billion a year, depending on what is covered. How will we pay for that? We already have a huge debt, $1.3 trillion, and the government is looking at raising the ceiling on that to $1.8 trillion. This means every individual in the country will have to pay $250 every month for the next 10 years to pay for that. Let us think about that. Spouses, kids, everybody would owe $250 a month.Interestingly enough, if we think about dental care, I used to be a contractor and worked for a company with which I did not have a plan. For $100 a month, I could get a plan that had dental care, pharmacare, health coverage, all that kind of stuff. If we were not racking up such debt in the country, which will cost the equivalent of $250 a month per person, people could afford to get their own plans and choose what they want.The concern I have with these national plans when they come forward is that, first, Quebec will always say that it has its own plan, that it is a provincial jurisdiction and that it does not want to participate. Therefore, we really never have a national plan. Then we have situations where some provinces already have some types of coverage. I mentioned that two-thirds of people actually have a plan. Then we come to the part of it that is the federal jurisdiction, which is the indigenous people. Therefore, we would end up with a patchwork at the end of the day. That really is not a nationwide program.When we look at some of the services the government provides, such as the CRA and immigration, the level of service is not pleasing to Canadians. They are having to wait hours and hours, calling in multiple times, to speak to people who are not always polite to them and at the end of the day, they wait years and years for results. When it comes to dental care, we certainly would not want to that. Therefore, in addition to feeling that the jurisdiction of this whole situation is provincial, the execution of these kinds of things is also not the expertise of the federal government.The affordability issue for Canadians is really what is keeping many people from having good dental care. Wages are not going up the way the cost of everything else is going up. We have a lot of inflation. The cost of housing is huge. We have a crisis in the country where even in my riding, which is a smaller urban-rural mix, the cheapest house that one can get is $1,000 a month. It is becoming unaffordable. If we think about Toronto, Vancouver and the big cities, people's dream of buying a house is gone. They cannot afford to pay the price.(1730)We think about this pandemic and the costs that have escalated through the pandemic, like the cost of groceries and gasoline. The government has had two carbon tax increases in the middle of a pandemic, and a CPP increase at the same time. All of these things are taking money out of people's pockets.If we talk about the $100 people would need to buy a plan that would get them pharmacare, dental care or health care, we see the amount of burden that the government is putting on them by these taxes. As I mentioned, that is part of the problem of affordability.I hate to do a rabbit trail here on the Line 5 issue, but this is where issues like Line 5 become very important. People do not always make the link with why that is important to them. A lot of people have called my office on this issue and have asked why they should care about that. It is a pipeline and they want to shut it down.I ask them if they live in Ontario or Quebec and if they buy gasoline for their car. If they do, the cost of that will go up significantly if Line 5 goes down. Do they have a barbecue? Does it have a propane tank? That is where propane comes from for that propane tank. Do they heat their house with fossil fuels? These are all considerations where people will see increased costs.Do they buy food? All the farmers heat their barns. They have their greenhouses heated. They are often running their farm equipment with all these kinds of fuels. Those costs will escalate again, and then it is back to unaffordability, where people cannot get the coverage they need for the health care they really want to have.When I was on the health committee, we did get a few different updates. I heard the member before me speak about how there is a proposal to have another study, and I think that is a good idea. It is always worthwhile to find out where the gaps are in Canada and to see if there is something the federal government can do to address that.I also remember sitting through a report and update from the Auditor General on the state of the nation on indigenous reserves in this country, where people do not have good dental care and where it is causing health issues that cost more. The gaps have been there for a long time and have not been addressed. We should be doing the things that are in our purview, the things we could do right now.Instead, we have situations where, and I do not know if members recall from a couple of years ago, indigenous people were being taken to court by the government over their dental bills, which makes no sense at all. The government spent more money litigating than it would have if it had just paid for the dental work, which would have reduced the overall cost in the health care system because of the health impacts that poor dental care will have.At the end of the day, when I look at Motion No. 62, I know it is well intentioned. There is a need that exists in the country for that one-third of Canadians who do not have dental care and the one in five who are not going to get the dental care they need because they cannot afford it. I do not think this is the right way to go about fixing that. I think the right way to go about fixing that is to get government spending under control, quit raising taxes on people, quit reaching into their pocket at every opportunity, and return that money to them so they can have the option to get a plan that works for them.With that in mind, I think we also have to be very careful about provincial jurisdiction. The province is supposed to execute all of the health care services. That is its purview. The federal government can help. I know the provinces need our money in health transfers. We can work together and co-operate, but it is really not for the federal government to tell the provinces how to execute. That is their jurisdiction. That is why when we hear about these national programs, we constantly see resistance, especially from Quebec, which is very particular about its jurisdiction in the area.In summary, I am a fan of dental care. I am a fan of finding solutions to get there, but I do not think this is it. I think the answer lies in reducing the amount of money that we are taking out of taxpayers' pockets, addressing the housing crisis in this country so that housing becomes more affordable, and making sure that people have good wages and well-paying jobs. That is where I would like to see the focus.Cost of livingCostsHealth care systemM-62Oral and dental healthPrivate Members' MotionsProvincial jurisdictionMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89334KennyChiuKenny-ChiuSteveston—Richmond EastConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/ChiuKenny_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessFederal Dental Care PlanInterventionMr. Kenny Chiu (Steveston—Richmond East, CPC): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, our country’s health care system is nationally seen as a source of great pride. Canadians deserve and have come to expect a health care system that meets their needs and that does not leave anybody behind. I believe the government should always strive to improve the care Canadians receive while maintaining fiscal responsibility.It has been made particularly clear over the last year that oral health and overall health are inextricably linked, as we saw people with poor oral health fare worse during COVID-19. We Conservatives believe the citizens of this country deserve the best care possible, in order to live a happy and healthy life, that our nation can afford to provide within our means. We believe in empowering Canadians to be able to look after themselves and trust them to make responsible choices. Rather than an Ottawa-knows-best approach, Canadians should be able to make decisions regarding their health, and our government should be able to support them without breaking the bank. For example, the previous Conservative government under Prime Minister Harper had made strides toward sufficient Canadian health care. His government refined the Canada health transfer to create a stable and predictable increase in funding Canadians need while restoring a balanced budget.With that said, it has been shown through various reports that our health care system lags far behind those of other developed nations, such as the U.K. and Australia, which is made all the more damning when we take into account that Canada and Australia share a similar percentage of GDP spent on health care and dollars spent per person.Currently, the federal government transfers roughly $42 billion to the provinces each budget year. However, during that same time, even with a historically low borrowing rate, we still pay over $20 billion in interest payments alone on our ballooning national debt, a simply unnecessary waste of $20 billion in tax dollars that could be beneficially repurposed elsewhere, had our Liberal government had the foresight to act responsibly in preparation for hard times. It is therefore obvious that the health care challenges we are facing are not a resource problem. How is it that Canada cannot seem to adequately provide for its people or responsibly manage our fiscal resources? Better yet, what can we do about this? These are two of the many questions I doubt my NDP colleagues could answer.The Parliamentary Budget Office has weighed in with an analysis of the cost of the proposed program. It estimates that financing the plan would cost almost $10 billion over the next few years. Even that estimation, however, does not necessarily reflect the true price we might have to pay. The report released by the PBO states that its assumptions and calculations reflect moderate uncertainty as it is difficult to predict how behaviours might change from an increase in demand. With that said, it can be understood where the NDP is coming from. After seeing how the current government spends money like it is an eight-year-old playing a game of Monopoly, it is no wonder the New Democrats are not worried about the potential cost of their proposal. After all, they must be thinking what does a few more billion spent matter when we had accumulated close to $100 billion in debt pre-pandemic, lost our nation’s AAA credit rating and are now almost $1.3 trillion in debt. Motion No. 62 proposes a measure that would bring a health benefit, but likely at a cost, which would require unfortunate austerity elsewhere, or worse yet, transferring even more debt to future generations.The Conservatives cannot support being so cavalier with our hard-earned taxpayer dollars. We believe in approaching the issues of inadequate access to dental coverage from a practical and realistic perspective. What other concerns might the NDP not address? Most obviously, there is policy that fails to recognize the important separation of powers that exist in our country. In Canada, the operation and funding of health care programs fall under the authority of the provincial governments. This way, the specific needs of individual provinces are met without interference. An Ottawa-knows-best approach breaches the fundamental partnership that is supposed to exist between the federal and provincial governments.(1805)The framework proposed by the NDP fails to allow for provincial participation, and instead eliminates what is supposed to be a collaborative agreement between the two levels of management. This is particularly the case given that the provinces are the ones that best understand the needs and intricacies of their respective health care systems. As such, a solution should work to support existing provincial programs or increase health transfers to the provinces for them to be better able to meet the needs of their constituents.We have also heard from major stakeholders that say the NDP’s plan misses the mark. The Canadian Dental Association, CDA, which is the national voice for dentistry, representing tens of thousands of dentists across the country, has voiced its concerns. Although the association agrees that any steps taken towards addressing issues of oral health are commendable, a bad proposal with the best intent may cause more harm than good. This is just like when the dentist gives a child a sugary lollipop after her visit. (1810)The CDA further notes that they believe a superior approach to increasing access to oral health care would be to improve funding for existing public programs. This speaks volumes, as it means that the largest organization in Canada authorized to speak on the behalf of dentists from coast to coast to coast does not endorse the proposed policy. Why would the NDP purport to believe it knows better than the dentists themselves what would constitute an improvement to the current system?Conservatives believe that there exist better options for improving access to dental care instead of the NDP’s proposal. COVID-19 has negatively impacted the global economy and has greatly increased near-term uncertainty. Historically Canada’s health care expenditures have dwindled and grown with the status of our economy. Given the magnitude of health care spending brought forth by this pandemic, we may be in a position to see this trend change. However, this change will be because we take steps to secure Canada’s future.In short, national dental care, like national pharmacare before it, is an NDP proposal we could not afford before, and we certainly cannot afford it now. Though personally, I do hold hope for a future where we can. Canada Health TransferCostsHealth care systemM-62Oral and dental healthPrivate Members' MotionsProvincial jurisdictionAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJackHarrisSt. John's East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMembers Not Seeking Re-election to the 44th ParliamentInterventionMr. Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North, CPC): (1830)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to believe that this is my last official speech in the House of Commons. Since 2011, I have generally participated in the debates in this august House only as the Chair occupant.[English]What a journey these last 15 years have been. My interest in politics started about a year or so after I graduated and joined the family business. As a young man I attended this huge nomination meeting for local federal Conservatives. There were more than 2,000 members in attendance, seven or eight candidates, speeches, placards and a political buzz that I had never seen or experienced before. After that, I was hooked. That nomination event replaced the retiring member of Parliament, Philip Rynard, who had been the MP for my riding for eight consecutive terms. The candidate they chose to carry on after him was the Hon. Doug Lewis, who would go on to serve in former Prime Minister Mulroney’s cabinet until 1993. Doug remains a valued supporter and confidant, and I thank him for blazing the trail and being a great mentor to me. Oddly enough, only one MP separated Doug and me. That was the Hon. Paul DeVillers, who served here from 1993 until just prior to my election. I quickly learned that the high standards of service they all provided set the tone for what kind of work would be expected of me.I say all this because I am only the fourth member of Parliament for Simcoe North in my lifetime. The next MP for this amazing riding would be well advised to heed the lessons that Rynard, Lewis, DeVillers and I learned from the great people of Simcoe North. May I take this moment to thank them all profoundly for the honour of being their voice in Parliament these 15-plus years.(1835)[Translation]I would now like to make some other acknowledgements. One of the things that I am very grateful for is having the opportunity to learn French. Since 2006, I have taken courses from the language training service, here, in the House of Commons. I have spent two hours per week to keep up my comprehension and vocabulary as well as to improve my language skills over time. Thanks to Roseline Lemire, my teacher for 15 years, I can speak and understand this beautiful language. I thank her and the entire language training team very much.I also want to thank Lorraine Bergeron, who was my part-time teacher in my riding.They opened my heart to the richness of the francophone culture in my riding and across the country. I will always be proud of this particular life achievement.[English]I want to properly thank the people of my riding who helped me win these five consecutive elections. All of us, as MPs, can look back to the volunteers who helped fundraise, put up signs, knocked on doors, phoned and got the vote out. I salute the hundreds of them who helped me win. I want to give special mention to several who led those efforts with extraordinary commitment: Wayne Edgett, Rod Williams, Phil DeBruyne, Steve McFadden, Claire and Dave Dusome, Charlene Anderson, Avery Bassett, Diane Bell, Kirk Farquhar, Alison Stoneman, Frank Takacs and Jim Hutchinson. After serving these many years, I have inevitably had exceptional volunteer leaders in my campaigns who are no longer with us. I think, in particular, of George German, Edna Parker, Scott Macpherson, Andy Durnford and my eminent adviser and counsel, Dave Anderson. There is a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that says, “I'm a success today because I had a friend who believed in me and I didn't have the heart to let him down.” As I reflect on these amazing women and men who gave their valuable time and energy to my success in politics, I am moved beyond words by their unfailing support. When it came to the essential work of being a member of Parliament, I do not have to look any farther than the talented people in my riding and my parliamentary offices. For my constituents, these were the first people they would see: They were the first smiling faces, the first voices that would greet them and the first impression they would take of the courtesy and services of our office. They earned the praise, the kind notes and the small gifts of chocolate and candies that constituents would leave for them, whether after solving a tough case or even for their simple courtesies. They are the best, and I am going to miss working with them.I have to name some of them. Here in Ottawa right now is Connie Kennedy-Pearsall. Prior to Connie were Ashley Peyrard, Sarah Pendlebury and Linda Rudd. All of them helped me here on the Hill immensely. In the riding, Kurtis Schlueter, Christine Elsdon, Judy Fulsom, Kelly Banks, David Dalrymple and Diane Bell have been doing yeoman's work these past years and building upon the outstanding work of former staff members James Nicol, Judy Forma, Brooke Leishman and the volunteers and interns who helped along the way. Mr. Speaker, you will realize that working as a presiding officer in this chamber teams you up with an impeccable group of professionals always on the administrative aspects of the House. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and our fellow Chair occupants, the hon. members for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing and Brossard—Saint-Lambert, for their advice and friendship. What a pleasure it has been to work with you all. Since 2011, we have had the honour to work with these remarkable clerks and table officers of the House. Their learned counsel, their deference to parliamentary traditions and practices and their untiring devotion to their work provides a constant source of confidence and integrity to the operations of the House. It is unbelievable each and every day what they do. To the pages and page supervisors, you are an irreplaceable support to the work of presiding officers. I thank you for your kind and capable service, not just to us but to all members of the House. To sergeants-at-arms, interpreters, TVOs and journals staff, who are not here but down below, I thank you for your quiet and meticulous attention literally to each and every second of our proceedings. While I am at it, may I finally salute all those in the operations of the parliamentary precinct, food services, maintenance, security and administration, who make this a safe and proficient workplace, even when the unusual or the perilous threatens to disrupt our work.However, I could not have done this work without the support of family, especially my wife and best friend in the world, Heather. When we started, she was just finishing her teaching degree at York University. We did not know really what we were getting into, but we managed as best we could. Thank you, honey, for your love and devotion and for assuming the role of, by the way, a superb public servant by association these last 15 years, and for the support of your parents, Ian and Joan MacDougall.Our kids have been incredibly patient and kind of proud of their old man in some ways. They helped us on campaigns, accepted weekly absences and busy weekends and were always completely supportive of the work that often put some distance between us. Valerie and Lauren were age 10 and 7 when we started here, and now they are off on their own careers. Our older children, Stephanie and her husband John, and Jason and his wife Amanda, have families of their own, and we can hardly wait to spend a bit more time with them. To Carter, Sienna and Vivian, and to Lyla, Jack and Leo, nana and granddad are going to be around a little more in the years ahead, and what a blessing that will be.My brother, Doug, and sisters Sandra and Dianne may be watching this. I want them to know how much I have appreciated their constant encouragement. They will know that our dad, Ron, was the inspiration for my entry into politics. Dad passed away in 2014, and I know he was immensely proud of my work and service. They know that his legacy lives on in us, and my mom has continued that interest and affection for public service that he taught us so well.Now, as the late Jim Flaherty would say, I have probably gone on about as long as it seems, so let me finish by simply saying what an incredible privilege it has been to serve here since 2006, to work alongside and learn from the energy and dedication of members of Parliament from across our country, to be in our parliamentary caucus with Prime Minister Harper and party leaders since, Rona Ambrose and the honourable members for Regina—Qu'Appelle and Durham, and my fellow members of caucus who leave no task wanting when it comes to keeping our rather intricate Conservative coalition united and ready to serve as Canadians call upon us to do.(1840)I will be taking my leave when the next election comes, whenever that may be, but I will always remember the friends that we made along the way and the special honour it has been to be a humble servant of this House and the member for Simcoe North.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment Business No. 7Members of ParliamentResignationSimcoe NorthTake-note debatesAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingLouiseCharbonneauTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31715DavidSweetDavid-SweetFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SweetDavid_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersMembers Not Seeking Re-election to the 44th ParliamentInterventionMr. David Sweet (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): (1920)[English]Mr. Chair, for almost 16 years, I have had the honour of speaking in the House of Commons chamber to represent the interests of Canadians. As the adage goes, all good things must come to an end. On the day of the next election, I bid you and my colleagues adieu and express my appreciation for the many individuals who have made it possible for me to serve as a member of Parliament and to serve my country.First and foremost, my thanks go to my amazing and beautiful bride of almost 40 years, Almut Sweet. She has had to tolerate too many absences, interruptions and stress that, unfortunately, our partners must endure for us to be present in Ottawa. In Almut's case, she also endured two cancer surgeries and the tragic loss of our daughter, Lara. My sweetheart not only has my undying love, but also gratitude and deep respect for her willingness to sacrifice for my service and for our country.My next thanks go to all my children, who, along with my wife, suffered many absences due to my being here in Ottawa. All of them have been so gracious. They always referred to my absences as a mission they approved of and were thankful for my work representing our country. I am so looking forward to spending more time with them, more time with Theresa, Christopher, Lucian, Reuben, D.C., and grandchildren, far too many names to name.Next are the constituents of Flamborough—Glanbrook, but also those of Waterdown, Westdale, West Hamilton, Dundas, and Ancaster, whom I served for quite some time as well. I ask them to accept my heartfelt thanks for placing their trust and confidence in me to represent them here in this House of Commons. Their vote gave me a privilege very few Canadians have been able to experience throughout the history of our great nation, and for that they have my sincere, undying gratitude.I hope my colleagues forgive me, because one of the missions we had in my office was to launch young people into successful careers in politics. My staff over the years, and the list is long, deserve to be named: Doug, Carolyn, Diane, Steph, Laurie, Aaron, Justin, Kaisha, Michael, Catherine, Rebecca, Justin, Jacob, James, Nathan, Rachel, Monica, Alicia, Sandra, Luwan, Chris, Jacob, Colin, Tracy and presently Patricia, Liz, James, Simon, Denise, Alex, Dan, Ben, Olivia and Caroline.All members should readily admit that without hard-working, dedicated, patient staff, they would accomplish very little. I thank team Sweet for all they did to make me look good, and more importantly for all they do for Canadians. They are a gift to our nation.As I just said, all of my staff are amazing, but there are very special staff who believed in me and were with me from the very beginning, and they deserve special mention. Doug and Carolyn Brown took on the task of shepherding me through the process of establishing a constituency office, and by so doing they set the standard remarkably high for all future staff. Their professional, mature approach to constituent service meant that we had a stellar reputation throughout the entire greater city of Hamilton and consequently were able to successfully sort out the problems of thousands of people, everywhere from rescuing Canadians from despot dictatorships around the world to those dreaded CRA files. I am in Doug and Carolyn's debt for the rest of my days for their service and friendship. Canada is a better nation for them. Stef Rose was my first legislative assistant, who had such a drive to excel that he interviewed many senior staff on the Hill to make sure he was able to serve in his capacity with excellence, and he sure did. Stef, three times, rewrote legislation for me that became one of the few private members' bills to pass with all-party support, the Fairness for Victims of Violent Offenders Act. He managed committee work and so much more, but ultimately always stood out because he was ready to go the extra mile. I am so happy that my friend Stef is where he always wanted to be, and Canada is a better and safer place due to his efforts.Somehow I convinced a fine man named Dan Muys that I was the candidate who needed to be elected to serve Canadians alongside Stephen Harper. Dan started his career as a special assistant to Jean Charest, when he was elected as a member of this House.(1925)The riding was known as Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale in those days, and, beginning in 2004, Dan helped me with virtually every aspect of my parliamentary career, including when I was able to dump my frustrations on him after particularly rough days. Dan has served this country in ways that many will never know, and he will never be adequately rewarded for it, yet Dan is not the kind of person who does what he does for reward. His dedication to Canada is his love for the same. I thank Dan for his service, hard work and dedication, and for our deep friendship.Then there are our best friends who help us keep our feet on the ground and bring us a better perspective to life than what we get within this thing we call the Ottawa bubble. They are the ones who helped us early in life, and who know who we are and who we are becoming. Bob Baxter and Reid Meyers have both departed this world for eternity, but they mentored a young man who had a fleet of tow trucks back in 1982 and encouraged him to grow in character, intellect and spirituality. My best friends, Larry and Leslie Bruin, have assisted me and my family in every imaginable way. Their generosity, hospitality, dedication and kindness are, in no small way, one of the substantial reasons I am here today. These two individuals I speak of have quietly helped hundreds of people, and they have done it so humbly and quietly that few know the amazing impact they have had on large groups of Americans and Canadians. Their selfless efforts to serve others is so great, the human language falters at trying to explain their love for others.I extend a special thanks to my friend Franc, a reserve officer in the Israel Defense Forces, who always welcomed me to Israel. He is such a good friend and brother, who I get to see so seldom. I wish peace and protection to Franc and his family.My thanks go to so many supporters and donors who gave of their time, their talents and their money to make sure I could continue to wage successive successful campaigns. Their assistance is so important in our democracy, and it often goes unnoticed, but they really are the engine behind every candidate and determine their ultimate success. I thank them.I would now like to give a message to my colleagues. All of us in this chamber should reflect often on the magnitude of responsibility we have and the fact that we live in a nation that still, for the most part, elects individuals on their merit and not on their social status or their wealth, as we see in some other nations. We are blessed to live in a country where voters determine the outcome of an election and not individual political parties with the right to establish lists for voters or a regime of evil elites who tell voters how they should vote. This is a rich gift that has been carefully protected by past generations. It has been fought for with Canadian blood in past conflicts. No matter which party members are from in this chamber, their individual responsibility as a member is to guard this cherished institution. That is exactly why we are obliged to swear an oath to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. We do not protect this institution because we are privileged. We guard and protect this institution because this chamber is where critical issues that concern individual Canadians are debated and resolved.I thought I had a good handle on what I was just talking about until the evening we were to vote on whether we would sustain our troops in Afghanistan. I knew the issues, and I knew the good work our troops had accomplished. I knew about the young girls and women who had never experienced freedom until our troops arrived. However, when the bells began to ring, the weight of what we were about to vote on reached a much higher level of severity than it had in my entire life. I realized that my vote would not only allow a continued effort by our troops to accomplish their good work, but it also meant that our young men and women were going to continue to be placed in harm's way, and it meant Canadians would die.There were many poignant times in my career that were transformative and gave me a deeper clarity regarding the magnitude of our responsibilities, but sustaining our troops in one of the most dangerous areas of Afghanistan, areas other countries had abandoned, was the most sobering. I encourage all of my colleagues to think for themselves, bearing in mind the oath we have taken, and their concerns for their constituents and all Canadians.(1930)Political parties are great institutions in and of themselves, and I am very grateful for my party, the Conservative Party of Canada, and my band of brothers and sisters, my colleagues. Consequently, I want to encourage all members from all parties to, yes, be a team player but also be ready to think through all issues and steward their own integrity. Members want that confidence when they look in the mirror every day, that they are their own person. Some of my colleagues have become good friends, and I will keep them long past politics. The member for Niagara West is such a good friend. He phoned me up after I was elected and said, “Come on up here. I'm going to show you the ropes so you can hit the ground running and you're not going to have to figure everything out for yourself”. He has been profoundly generous, and I want to give Dino my gratitude. The member for Brantford—Brant is a great gentleman, and I have appreciated his character and candour. When we have colleagues we can disagree with, debate and still be friends, it is priceless.Dave Van Kesteren retired before the last election, but for all the time he served with me and was my seatmate, we became great friends and sorted out a lot of important issues, and we had a lot of fun.The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame made our trip to London and Scotland a special treat as did the member for Gatineau in joining me for the most scenic jog in my life down the River Thames in London.For almost 15 years, I served with the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights and with two fine Liberal members, Mario Silva and Irwin Cotler. We worked together to stand up for people who were being jailed, persecuted, tortured and killed. We were able to save many lives working together. I am so grateful for their co-operation and work with me.Finally, some have asked me why I am leaving Parliament. Well, the truth is, I am not fully well. I want to take this opportunity to encourage others who are not well to get help. I thought a lot since January, when I made the decision not to run in the next election, about what caused my mental health jaundice. I do not know if it was the four years of incarceration in a juvenile institution when I was 12. It may have been when I was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant in Lockport, New York; or the betrayal of business partners when I was a young businessman; or losing two children, one who died in my hands while I was trying to deliver her and another who took her own life. Maybe the terrorist attack here on Parliament Hill played a role and the too many funerals I planned, because I was always looked to as the guy who could handle it. The fifteen years of hearing the worst stories of human suffering in the human rights committee, I know, played a role. Likely, the entire lot played a role as did the current draconian lockdowns. We should all respect that everyone has a limit, and that it is different for everyone. Thankfully, there are many who have greater limits than us, like many who are in the Canadian Forces, and for those individuals, we are so grateful. All of us need to be conscious of what our limit is and ensure that we get relief and help when needed well before it becomes crippling. This is what I am doing, and I encourage all those who can hear my voice and need help to seek it and be relentless to get what they need. They need not feel any shame. We all need help sometimes. I also plead with those who do not currently need help to be patient and help others. Just this past weekend, my friend, Nick Lauwers, a psychotherapist himself, was there for me and helped me to get back on track just by being willing to listen. I thank Nick for that. My final but most important thanks goes to the Lord Jesus Christ. The reconstruction of my life that happened after I made a commitment to Christ is what animates every aspect of my life. Of all I am grateful for, my gratitude to God is far beyond all the other thanksgivings I can give.On the Centre Block arches are three scriptures, “Where there is no vision, the people perish”; “Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king’s son”; and “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea”.(1935) These are words that guided principled people, as imperfect as they were, to build a nation that people from the four corners of the world want to get to, to call their home. People are not staying up all night thinking they have to plot and scheme on how to get to Iran. They are not saying if they could just get to Russia, everything would be okay.All around the world, people are plotting, scheming and thinking if they could just get to Canada. May God continue to bless Canada and make it glorious and free.Consideration in a Committee of the WholeFlamborough—GlanbrookGovernment Business No. 7Members of ParliamentResignationTake-note debatesNavdeepBainsHon.Mississauga—MaltonPatFinniganMiramichi—Grand Lake//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105521RaquelDanchoRaquel-DanchoKildonan—St. PaulConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DanchoRaquel_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessNational Strategy for a Guaranteed Basic Income ActInterventionMs. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, it is very good to be back on the floor of the House of Commons. Like so many parliamentarians, I have been participating virtually for months, so it really feels great to be here today with you and everyone in the House.I am pleased today to put some thoughts on the record concerning Bill C-273, an act to establish a national strategy for a guaranteed basic income.What is a guaranteed basic income? There are many different policy iterations of it. On the whole, it would essentially be monthly cheques to every Canadian. Some of the policy iterations of this would provide basic cheques to children as well. The amount tends to vary depending on the plan, some having a few hundred dollars a month and others seeing it more as a means to cover all basic necessities, like CERB, which was of course $2,000 a month. In simple terms, a guaranteed basic income is like CERB, but for everyone, forever.The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that a national guaranteed basic income could cost $85 billion per year, rising to $93 billion per year in 2025-26. To pay for this at the federal level, Canadians could expect to see a tripling of the GST, which currently sits at 5%, or an increase of personal income taxes to 50%. Introducing a basic income following the costliest year in Canadian history, where federal government spending hit $650 billion in 2020 and is predicted to hit $510 billion in 2021, is cause for concern, especially since we have received no viable, tangible strategy of how the Liberals are going to raise enough revenue from taxpayers to responsibly pay back the $354 billion of deficits from 2020 or the $154 billion of deficits predicted for 2021. Just six short years ago, the federal budget was a mere $298 billion. The Liberals have doubled Canada's national spending during their time in office, and now want to talk about adding another $93-billion permanent spending program to the bottom line. I think Canadians are reasonably concerned about this. The basic income proposal is about more than spending, of course. One of the main arguments is to address poverty, and policy proponents argue that the benefits to the country's social fabric will outweigh the costs. In 2019, Statistics Canada estimated that 3.7 million Canadians, or one in 10, live below the poverty line. A 529-page report, quite a lengthy report, by researchers and economists at three leading Canadian universities concluded after a three-year investigation that a basic income would not be the best way to address poverty. Rather, the report found that government should focus on improving existing programs that already target those who really need them, for example help with rental assist, youth aging out of the child welfare system or perhaps Canadians living with disabilities. Proponents of basic income argue that it will help those living at the extreme inequalities in Canada, those who are homeless, for example. We know that often those who suffer from homelessness also suffer from severe addictions, with the two often feeding into one another.I have grave concerns about the impact of a basic income on Canadians suffering from addictions. We know that COVID‑19 has had severe, extreme and deadly outcomes in Canada since the pandemic began. In fact, overdoses have killed more young people, by far, than COVID‑19. In Toronto, fatal suspected opioid overdose calls to paramedics were up 90% in 2020. In Manitoba, 372 overdose deaths were recorded last year, which is a full 87% jump from the year prior. In British Columbia, the latest data tells us that an average of five people die every single day from illicit drug overdose, with 500 people having died in the first three months of 2021 alone. In fact, Canada-wide, in the six months following the implementation of the COVID‑19 lockdowns and restriction measures, there were 3,351 apparent opioid toxicity deaths, representing a 74% increase from the six months prior, a truly devastating statistic.What happens if we send a monthly cheque of thousands of dollars to those who are severely addicted to drugs? When CERB was first introduced, a constituent of mine, a mother, called me in desperation, terrified that her adult son, who was unemployed and did not qualify for CERB, would apply for CERB, get it and have a severe and possibly deadly relapse. Frontline workers confirmed this fear, like those at Winnipeg's Main Street Project, who have said they believe that CERB has hiked drug use and contributed to opioid abuse and addiction. This is a real concern I have about a basic income, and I really have not heard a coherent solution to address it.It is difficult to break out of the poverty cycle. We know this. The data tells us that once a person has been unemployed for more than a year, it can be extremely difficult to rejoin the labour market. It can create a dependency on social programs and a disincentive to work. In this sense, a basic income could create a permanent underclass in Canada.(1130)Importantly, there is an inherent dignity in work. MPs are hearing from small businesses in our communities across Canada, particularly in the service industry and the construction field, that it is more difficult now than ever to hire workers and that prospective employees are opting to stay home on government emergency support programs rather than going to work.Millions of Canadians are, of course, working and taking whatever work they can find, but some are not. We know working and earning an income provides both economic and social benefits. It is necessary for providing for oneself and one's family, and it also boosts confidence through the earned satisfaction of a paycheque. It provides purpose and builds personal responsibility, personal growth and perseverance. It provides daily structure and a reason to get out of bed in the morning. We know it contributes to our personal identity. Many people say “I'm a nurse”, I'm a truck driver”, “I'm a scientist”, or “I'm a small business owner”. It is part of who we are.As Sean Speer said in the Financial Post a few years ago, “Work is one of those crucial activities and institutions that underpins the good life.” Recently my grandfather passed away. He was 91, and he was born in the Prairies in the last pioneer generation in Canada. There were very few government support programs in his early days. CERB and public health care were unheard of at the time. People simply had to work very hard every day or they would not eat. Now, we have developed a kinder, more compassionate society that takes care of people when they fall on hard times, and that is very good. My grandparents' generation built the strong prosperous country that allows for this type of public generosity in Canada. However, near the end of his life, my grandfather remarked that sometimes it seemed to him that young people feel a sense of entitlement to an easy life of comfort, free from struggle. As a young person, I do get that sense as well.Last year, when CERB was first introduced and the Liberals were creating a student version of it, it happened to be at the same time that our country's food resources were at risk. Every year Canada brings in about 40,000 temporary foreign workers, generally from Central America, to work in our agriculture sector to produce the food that feeds Canadians and, in fact, feeds the world.However, with the border closures, it was very difficult to get these workers in and our food supply chains were at risk. Now, with tens of thousands of service sector jobs in tourism, hospitality, and the restaurant and bar industry closed, many students who relied on that work for summer employment, and I use to be one of them, obviously did not have the same opportunities.At the time, just over a year ago, the Conservatives suggested to have able-bodied young people, full of energy, work, as a temporary measure, in our agricultural sector. They could be picking fruit, working in the fields, living on farms for the summer, contributing to the COVID effort and really securing our food supply chains.This proposal was met with quite a bit of apprehension, to say the least. In fact, when I consulted university student leaders during committee on this idea, one student, and I will never forget this, said that students go to university so they do not have to do those jobs. That is what she said. This was coming from a student who was at a committee meeting asking for government handouts for students.The student benefit was important, and I am glad it was provided. However, I found these comments very discouraging, not just for the younger generation but also for what was implied, which was that a labour job or an entry-level job with limited requirements for complex skills or education was somehow not respectable, or that those jobs were beneath certain Canadians, notably some student university elites, apparently, who looked down their noses, perhaps, at an honest day's work in the sun.What does that message send to those aspiring to break into the job market at the bottom of the ladder, or the millions of Canadians who have to work at minimum wage jobs. I was one of them. I worked in dozens of these types of jobs, in restaurants, retail and manual labour. I have done them all, and I am a better person for it. It taught me the value of hard work. It shaped my work ethic and character. I learned many valuable skills that really carry me today. I could go on about the value working part-time since I was 14, on and off, has added to my life.We know there is no better way out of poverty than getting a job, even when someone has to start from the bottom. The experience, skills, and socialization are ultimately unmatched.In conclusion, that is why the Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Durham, are focused on a jobs recovery plan from the economic destruction of the COVID-19 pandemic. Priority number one for a federal Conservative government would be to recover and create one million jobs, and get every industry in Canada firing on all cylinders and leaving no demographic or region of the country behind.Meanwhile, the Liberals are here today to talk about basic income, which is more money for everyone forever. We know that is not a jobs plan. It is certainly not an economic recovery plan. Conservatives want to create an inclusive economic recovery that will build a stronger Canada with more opportunities for everyone, so they can succeed in the job market and not need to collect cheques from the government every month. That is our focus and will be our number one priority should we form government after the next election.C-273, An Act to establish a national strategy for a guaranteed basic incomeCanada Emergency Response BenefitDrug use and abuseEmployment and labourFarm workersGovernment expendituresGuaranteed annual incomeIncome and wagesPovertyPrivate Members' BillsSecond readingStudentsVulnerable personsJulieDzerowiczDavenportGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 [Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1205)[Translation]Madam Speaker, unfortunately, for the second time in only a few days, the government will shut down debate to keep parliamentarians, the elected representatives of the people, from doing their job and participating in a fair and balanced debate where every point of view can be properly heard. Once again, as it did with Bill C‑10, the government is shutting down debate on Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.(1210)[English]It is never a win for Canadians when the government does this. Unfortunately, it has done this twice: last week on Bill C-10, which is an attack on freedom of speech; and today, on a main issue of the government, which is the debate on the budget.[Translation]Why did the government not do its homework?Why did it not let us debate Bill C-30 when required? Why did the Minister of Finance move an amendment last week in the House when she very well could have done so at the parliamentary committee?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsParliamentary democracyReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 [Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, why is it that the minister does not want the opposition to do its job? Our job is to hold the government accountable and to exercise scrutiny and oversight. This is the biggest budget in Canadian history. It is the biggest debt, at well over a trillion dollars and heading toward $1.8 trillion. Canadians have never seen this.As Kevin Lynch, the former deputy minister of finance said, this is the largest intergenerational transfer of risk and debt in Canadian history, and this minister wants to give us just two meetings at the finance committee to review this legislation. We are doing our job. With this huge debt and interminable deficits facing Canadians, does the minister have a plan to return to balanced budgets, yes or no?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89472JamesCummingJames-CummingEdmonton CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/CummingJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 [Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. James Cumming (Edmonton Centre, CPC): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, it has been two years since there was a budget, and this is a budget that is spending like there is no tomorrow. Parliament was prorogued and the natural resource sector is missing from the budget. Why is it that the government cannot manage its time and is going to restrict debate on this very important piece of legislation?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 [Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1235)[Translation]Madam Chair, I am really shocked by the words of the Minister of Finance, who spoke earlier of “juvenile games”, when it is the Liberals themselves who have been the most obstructionist over the last session of Parliament.The minister is asking why we want to talk about the budget. It is because the Liberals decided to wait until next year to extend EI sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 26 weeks, because the Liberals created two classes of seniors and abandoned those between 65 and 75 years old, because this is the biggest budget and the biggest debt we have ever seen, and because the rich are getting richer while everyone else is getting poorer, since everything costs more.We should make a list of all the members who are being deprived their right to speak to all the measures I just mentioned. Why is the government preventing members from speaking?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsMotionsParliamentary democracyReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocationChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1 [Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Blake Richards: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30812AliceWongHon.Alice-WongRichmond CentreConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WongAlice_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to rise again to talk about this very important bill.I had the privilege to serve as the Minister of State for Seniors for four years in the Harper government. In the ensuing days, my passion for being an advocate and champion of the golden generation has not waned. Indeed, in the last months of the previous Parliament, the House unanimously passed my motion, Motion No. 203, calling for action on fraud against seniors, which is a form of elder abuse. June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day, so it is perfect timing that I am speaking to this very important issue.Unfortunately, little has been done since my motion passed. For example, in the Lower Mainland, there has been a wave of scammers and thieves targeting seniors through phone calls or emails and taking advantage of those with weaker digital literacy. People of all ages are locked out of their Canada Revenue Agency accounts. Calls on the government to take further steps to address the systemic increase in elder abuse have once again fallen on deaf ears.Of course, let us not forget those who take the time out of their day to provide support and aid not just to seniors, but to anyone who is struggling to meet the basics of everyday life. They are the informal and unpaid caregivers. Caring for the caregivers must be a central plank of any government steps to address a post-COVID-19 recovery. Unfortunately, there is little support for them in the budget.In conclusion, the way forward needs to be treated through a reasonable, responsible, fiscally sound approach that spends Canadian tax dollars in a way that will best help Canada weather the fiscal storm on the horizon while also caring for the most vulnerable citizens. Moving forward, the government should seriously consider these urgent needs.I am happy to take any questions.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCaregivers and health care professionalsGovernment billsReport stageSenior citizensAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30812AliceWongHon.Alice-WongRichmond CentreConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WongAlice_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionHon. Alice Wong: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, because of COVID, a lot of seniors have been left alone and have not been able to seek assistance. Also, as I mentioned in my speech, a lot of fraud has been committed against them. Protecting seniors against all forms of elder abuse, including physical, mental and financial abuse, is very important. That is exactly what everybody should be doing, but I am afraid the government has done little or close to nothing about it.Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresGovernment billsReport stageSenior citizensLeahGazanWinnipeg CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105410TerryDowdallTerry-DowdallSimcoe—GreyConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DowdallTerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersBudget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1InterventionMr. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly agree. Seniors between 65 and 74 do not think this budget is doing enough for them. That is quite obvious and has been brought to the House many times by the parties in opposition, but my question comes to another issue that has been going on during COVID. The Liberals have had two years for this budget. For businesses that opened during the period of COVID, there have been no supports. I have had all kinds of calls to my offices. Callers are told this budget has something for everyone, but it does not have anything for them.My question to the member opposite is this: Why did the Liberals not have any supports for existing businesses during this time and why are the Liberals, once again, trying to pick winners and losers?Budget 2021 (April 19, 2021)C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19, 2021 and other measuresCOVID-19Government billsPandemicReport stageSmall and medium-sized enterprisesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86260DavidYurdigaDavid-YurdigaFort McMurray—Cold LakeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/YurdigaDavid_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersGovernment PoliciesInterventionMr. David Yurdiga (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, energy security should be a concern for all Canadians. Distribution of Canadian energy through networks of pipelines is paramount to withstand shocks from a wide range of sources, like natural disasters, geopolitical conflicts and other merging threats. Energy distribution like Line 5 potentially being shutting down will initiate shortages, causing astronomical increases in the cost of everything. The Liberal government's lack of understanding of the importance of ensuring reliable and cost-effective energy has put Canada at a huge disadvantage compared to other nations. As the Liberal government continues to spin the narrative of our economic standing globally, it is only countered with the facts. Thanks to the pending Bill C-10, the Liberals will be able to shut down what we can hear and see, just like North Korea. Canada was once a nation that embraced freedom of speech, but I guess that will be a footnote in history if not censored by Bill C-10.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsEnergy securityFreedom of speechOil and gasPipeline transportationStatements by MembersMarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGudieHutchingsLong Range Mountains//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88770JamieSchmaleJamie-SchmaleHaliburton—Kawartha Lakes—BrockConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SchmaleJamie_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBaltic RepublicsInterventionMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): (1400)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today as chair of the Canada-Nordic-Baltic Parliamentary Friendship Group. Eighty years ago, between June 14 and June 18, 1941, citizens of the Baltic republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania were forced at gunpoint and taken to communist prison camps. Many were elderly and nearly a quarter were children.Thousands died on the way to Siberia and many more faced executions when they arrived. Forty-five thousand were only the first during what would become known as the June deportations. Tens of thousands more would follow. The horrific actions of the tyrannical Soviet government to assimilate the Baltic nations was unspeakably brutal, violent and merciless. During those forced relocations, they silenced cultural and religious minorities and arrested, tortured or killed perceived threats to the regime. Let us stand with Baltic Canadians as we mark June 14 as a day of commemoration for all freedom-loving people.EstoniaInvasions and raidsLatviaLithuaniaOppressionSoviet UnionStatements by MembersRenéArseneaultMadawaska—RestigoucheScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89156ZiadAboultaifZiad-AboultaifEdmonton ManningConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AboultaifZiad_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersEdmonton Manning ConstituentInterventionMr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): (1405)[English]Madam Speaker, I stand today to highlight a constituent and friend I have known for over 15 years who has served in the Canadian Army.Major Alexander Tsang has served our country for 28 years and has deployed across the globe representing Canada. He served in Bosnia and Sudan to help peacekeeping efforts. He continued working with the UN to track down war criminals. This guy is nothing short of courageous.After his time at the UN, he committed to help our veterans and increase awareness for our soldiers. I have had the honour of working with him on Edmonton Salutes to help recognize our troops. Unfortunately, Alexander is in a battle of his own against cancer. I wanted to take this opportunity to wish this extraordinary Canadian the best treatment against this horrible disease. Alexander has this, and he has my support. Get well soon, my friend.Community organizationsEdmontonInformation disseminationStatements by MembersTsang, AlexanderVeteransCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarcSerréNickel Belt//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25446DeanAllisonDean-AllisonNiagara WestConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AllisonDean_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersThe EconomyInterventionMr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government's philosophy on growing the economy and creating jobs is doing everything possible to get in the way. What is more is that the Prime Minister will add more national debt than all the previous prime ministers combined. All that money spent under his watch and still Canada has consistently had one of the highest unemployment rates in the G7. The unemployment rate climbed to 8.2%, losing 68,000 jobs last month.Small businesses are struggling, falling through the cracks, and a staggering amount will never reopen. Sean, a small business owner in my riding of Niagara West, in business for the last 30 years, had to take on over $160,000 in debt just to stay afloat. That was after he spent all his life's savings. The travel and tourism industries have been destroyed.It is time for the Prime Minister and his party to own up to their failures and change course. Our small businesses and our economy are done waiting.Economic recoverySmall and medium-sized enterprisesStatements by MembersMarcSerréNickel BeltRobMooreHon.Fundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersBill C-10InterventionHon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, the priority for Conservatives is getting Canada’s economy reopened and back on track. The Liberal government’s priority is ramming through Bill C-10, its Internet censorship bill. I have heard from constituents across my riding who want to see this bill scrapped. New Brunswickers in Liberal-held ridings are frustrated by their MPs' failure to commit to opposing this bill, a bill that fundamentally would alter how the Internet would operate in Canada. Canadians are even more bewildered by how the government is so focused on Bill C-10 rather than pressing issues that impact their health and the economy.I will not support Bill C-10, a bill that puts freedom of expression in peril. The government should listen to Canadians who are telling it to abandon this poorly thought-out bill that is focused on political power rather than protecting the freedom of speech that Canadians so rightly enjoy.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechInternetStatements by MembersDeanAllisonNiagara WestNikiAshtonChurchill—Keewatinook Aski//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerHon.Andrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgStatements by MembersRCMP Constable Shelby PattonInterventionHon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I pay tribute to RCMP Constable Shelby Patton. Originally from Yorkton, Constable Patton was stationed at the detachment in Indian Head, Saskatchewan. Early Saturday morning in Wolseley, he stopped a stolen truck. Tragically, the criminals driving the truck ran over Constable Patton and ended his life, ripping apart a family and devastating a community. This young man, a 26-year-old hero who was killed in the prime of his life, was a husband, a brother and a son. Shelby Patton, like the thousands of police officers across the country, literally put his life on the line to protect us. He went to work every day knowing the risks and was willing to make the greatest sacrifice to keep us safe. When we call 911, we often take it for granted that a police officer will come and help. Without people like Shelby Patton, who have the bravery and dedication to their communities, there would not be anyone on the other end of the phone. I ask all of my colleagues in this House to join me in sending our deepest condolences to the Patton family, to his fellow officers in his detachment and to the communities of Indian Head and Wolseley, Saskatchewan.Deaths and funeralsIndian HeadPatton, ShelbyPolice officersStatements by MembersWorkplace fatalitiesMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, what a weekend our Prime Minister had in the U.K. hobnobbing with the rich and famous. He seemed to have forgotten his mask a few times, and he will not have to quarantine like everyone else when he gets home, because, after all, there is one set of rules for the Prime Minister and another set of rules for everyone else. While he was enjoying his wine and cheese, back here in Canada our economy is shedding jobs, supply chains are crumbling and housing prices are skyrocketing.Instead of trying to impress his celebrity friends, why is the Prime Minister not focused on getting Canadians back to work?Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1415)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is so embroiled in scandal that there is no doubt he is not thinking about the economic storm that is brewing. He has been too busy rewarding his friends at the WE foundation, appointing Liberal donors as judges—Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Candice Bergen: (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Prime Minister is so embroiled in scandal, there is no doubt that he is not thinking about the economic storm that is brewing here. He has been very busy rewarding his friends at the WE foundation, appointing Liberal donors as judges and covering up sexual misconduct in the military. Now, he has no time left to deal with issues like people losing their jobs and businesses shutting down—A hon. member: Start again.Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EconomyInterventionHon. Candice Bergen: (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am sure the government members will have a very substantial answer because this will have been the third time they have heard the question.Of course, the Prime Minister is not thinking about the economy, because he is so busy dealing with all of his scandals, whether it is the WE scandal, whether it is appointing his Liberal donors as judges or covering up sexual misconduct in the military. Let us be honest: It is hard work for the Prime Minister to put the interests of Canadians first when he is so focused on polishing up his own image and helping out his Liberal friends.Layoffs and job lossesOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingChrystiaFreelandHon.University—Rosedale//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59110CandiceBergenHon.Candice-BergenPortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BergenCandice_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1425)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canadians will not believe this, but this weekend a top officer with direct connections to the Vance investigation was golfing with General Vance.Not only does this show zero respect for Operation Honour and zero respect for victims, it shows there is zero respect for the defence minister among the top brass. The minister has refused to stand up for victims and continues to cover up bad behaviour of his buddies.When will the defence minister admit the top ranks of the military are fast becoming a shambles, and it is a direct result of the minister's failures?Canadian ForcesConduct at workConflict of interestInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsRouleau, MikeSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.ChrystiaFreelandHon.University—RosedaleHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party created the “Liberalist”.What is the “Liberalist”? It is the list of Liberal Party members, supporters, volunteers and donors. I have no problem with that, but there is a difference between the Liberal Party of Canada and the Government of Canada.I have a simple question for the Minister of Justice: Did he or anyone from his office or anyone from the Department of Justice check the infamous “Liberalist” before appointing a judge, yes or no?Federal judgesOral questionsPatronage appointmentsHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88535GérardDeltellGérard-DeltellLouis-Saint-LaurentConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DeltellGérard_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodGovernment AppointmentsInterventionMr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): (1425)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, really, how sad to see the Minister of Justice, a man with a distinguished judicial career, play partisan games and unfortunately be unable to respond to a clear question. Did he, yes or no, consult the Liberalist? The answer is clear, and it is “yes”.However, he lacks the courage, the honour and the dignity to say so. The Liberal Party has two lists, the list of their cronies and the list of other Canadians.Why did the government even consult the Liberalist for the appointment of judges? It makes no sense.Federal judgesOral questionsPatronage appointmentsDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government is not answering my questions, so I will ask this again. We know from peer-reviewed academic papers, which are public documents, that a Chinese military scientist, Feihu Yan, of the People's Liberation Army, was granted access to work in the government's Winnipeg lab, a level 4 facility where the world's most dangerous viruses are handled. How did this individual gain access to the lab in apparent contravention of security policy?BiosafetyChinaInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsSecurity checksHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25488MichaelChongHon.Michael-ChongWellington—Halton HillsConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChongMichaelD_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionHon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC): (1430)[English]Mr. Speaker, the government is still not answering the questions. I have another question. According to the WHO's director general, the G7 discussed the Wuhan lab leak theory last weekend. President Biden has directed U.S. intelligence agencies to report back in late August on whether the pandemic came from human contact with an animal or from a lab accident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Given that government scientists at the Winnipeg lab closely worked with the Wuhan lab, will the government tell us if it is making available government scientists and their relevant documents, including lab notes, to U.S. investigators?BiosafetyChinaCOVID-19Inquiries and public inquiriesInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPandemicUnited States of AmericaPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodPublic SafetyInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations twice asked the Liberal government to provide unredacted documents concerning the security breach at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The government refused to do so twice.We then moved and adopted a motion in the House to make these documents available. Instead of complying with the will of the House, the Prime Minister has been obstructing the work of the committee by sending the documents to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians to ensure that Canadians will never get the information that he wants to keep secret. How can the Prime Minister shamelessly take Canadians for fools?BiosafetyChinaCommunication controlInternational relationsNational Microbiology LaboratoryOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71454PierrePaul-HusPierre-Paul-HusCharlesbourg—Haute-Saint-CharlesConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PaulHusPierre_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): (1435)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister will never get the findings because the committee must keep the information secret. Only the Prime Minister can know.On another topic, we learned that Lieutenant-General Mike Rouleau played golf with former chief of defence staff Vance, even though Mr. Vance is under investigation for sexual misconduct. Mr. Rouleau has authority over the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and is responsible for the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service, which is investigating Mr. Vance.The findings of this inquiry are now tainted. The Minister of National Defence lacks leadership and has no control over his department or over the chain of command. Everyone is doing as they please. Once again, what message does this send to the women of the Canadian Armed Forces?Canadian ForcesConduct at workConflict of interestInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsRouleau, MikeSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.PattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, Canada's military is in crisis, and those at the highest levels know they are untouchable. General Vance is under police investigation, but that did not stop the boys from enjoying a round of a golf. This brazen act by two of the military's most senior commanders is a public declaration that they are neither impartial nor think that the rules apply to them. The problem starts at the top of the chain of command with this defence minister. When will he admit he has failed in his duties as minister?Canadian ForcesConduct at workConflict of interestInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsRouleau, MikeSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88671LeonaAlleslevLeona-AlleslevAurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond HillConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/AlleslevLeona_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNational DefenceInterventionMs. Leona Alleslev (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC): (1435)[English]Mr. Speaker, yet, despite months of devastating testimony and four generals under police investigation, the old boys' club is stronger than ever. General Rouleau has the power to intervene in military police investigations, and golfing with Vance sends a clear message that the fix is in. Vance and the senior military brass are untouchable. By turning a blind eye, the defence minister ensures that the military's toxic culture can continue unchecked. Will the minister admit that he is part of the problem and not part of the solution?Canadian ForcesConduct at workConflict of interestInquiries and public inquiriesOral questionsRouleau, MikeSexual behaviourVance, Jonathan H.Harjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver SouthHarjit S.SajjanHon.Vancouver South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1440)[English]Mr. Speaker, today we learned that a Toronto developer is purchasing hundreds of houses and converting them into rentals, eliminating the dream of home ownership for even more Canadians. For months, we have been demanding that the government stabilize house prices and come up with a plan to restore the dream of home ownership for Canadians. Sadly, all the recent budget did was impose a tiny 1% tax on foreign owners, which will do nothing to make housing more affordable.Why is the minister failing the families he is supposed to be serving?Home ownershipOral questionsDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—VerdunAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government cannot hide from the fact that thousands of Canadians are being forced to abandon their dream of owning their home. The current government has had six years to act, with nothing. Now, developers are taking advantage of skyrocketing house prices by scooping up houses and turning them into rentals, removing even more houses from the market. Meanwhile, the government stands idly by as the home ownership dreams of Canadian families fade away.Why will this minister not act?Home ownershipOral questionsAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1445)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is not the quantity of the spending, it is the quality of the spending. We have an affordability crisis in this country. The price of everything is going up: groceries, gasoline, clothing and lumber. In fact, inflation is now well above the government's target of 2%, and it is only going to get worse before it gets better. We are also in a full-blown housing crisis, with millions of Canadians realizing that their dream of home ownership is now out of reach.Why has the government made life so unaffordable for so many Canadians?Home ownershipOral questionsAhmedHussenHon.York South—WestonAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources sent two Liberal staffers to Newfoundland in January at a cost of thousands of taxpayer dollars as the pandemic raged and just in time for the provincial election. Predictably, these same staff were campaigning for the provincial Liberals. During a pandemic while businesses were closed and staff were working from home, the minister had taxpayers pick up the tab under questionable reasoning.Will the Liberal Party repay Canadian taxpayers for sending ministerial staffers to help its friends in the provincial Liberal Party get re-elected during the pandemic?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsBardishChaggerHon.WaterlooSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/102275MichaelBarrettMichael-BarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarrettMichael_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1450)[English]Mr. Speaker, these staffers were in Newfoundland on the taxpayer dollar during a pandemic and were campaigning for the provincial Liberals. It is crystal clear. While Canadians were locked down, losing their livelihoods and their lives, the minister was skirting the rules to help his friends. The Liberals operate under two sets of rules: one for their friends and one for the rest of us.Will the Liberal Party reimburse taxpayers for this clearly partisan trip?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1450)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is an embarrassment and a scandal. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be extremely upset over what happened. Why is the leader of the Newfoundland and Labrador Conservatives so outraged?It is because two of the Minister of Natural Resources' staffers campaigned for a provincial Liberal candidate at Canadian taxpayers' expense. Geordie Summers-Lubar and Ian Cameron billed taxpayers nearly $9,000 to campaign for a Liberal friend. Does the Liberal Party intend to repay Canadians for the minister's partisan zeal?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodEthicsInterventionMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): (1455)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, these staffers from the Minister of Natural Resources' office would never have gone to campaign in Newfoundland and Labrador if their expenses had not been approved by the minister himself. They arrived in the province on the very day the election was called, and they only left weeks later.At a time when everyone was teleworking, does the minister expect us to believe that he needed his assistants by his side, in the middle of a pandemic? Nonsense. The Treasury Board directives are clear: Door-to-door canvassing is not cabinet business. Will the Liberal Party repay the expenses they claimed, yes or no?Cabinet ministers' staffGovernment expendituresNewfoundland and LabradorOral questionsPolitical influenceProvincial and territorial electionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNatural ResourcesInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1455)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have shown the U.S.A. and the world that it is okay to openly disrespect our Canadian oil and gas sector. The Liberals' anti-oil and gas crusade has real-world consequences. The proof is the cancelling of Keystone XL, energy east, Pacific Northwest, northern gateway, Aurora LNG, Grassy Point LNG and Saguenay LNG. The Liberals’ “reimagined” agenda has set the course of the newest anti–oil project, with Governor Whitmer trying to cancel Line 5.Did the Prime Minister even attempt to talk to President Biden about Line 5 or are we just going to add it to the ever-growing list of cancelled Canadian energy projects?Canada-United States relationsEnbridge Inc.Oil and gasOral questionsPipeline transportationMarcMillerHon.Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-SoeursSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodNatural ResourcesInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, last week the Keystone XL pipeline was the latest casualty in the Prime Minister's assault on Canada's energy sector. This follows the cancellations of energy east, northern gateway and several other projects that would have meant thousands of well-paying jobs, along with significant economic growth, across western Canada.When will the Prime Minister just admit that he wants to see Canada's energy sector shut down entirely?Oil and gasOral questionsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105562GaryVidalGary-VidalDesnethé—Missinippi—Churchill RiverConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VidalGary_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodIndigenous AffairsInterventionMr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks, reconciliation has become a very important topic in the House. The infrastructure, health and education gaps faced by first nations across Canada will not be solved by government programs alone.In northern Saskatchewan, the forest industry provides tremendous opportunity to address these gaps. Last month, the U.S. announced plans to double the tariffs, literally taking money out of the pockets of indigenous people.When will the government finally get a softwood lumber agreement? Can the minister confirm that 100% of the duties collected will be returned?Canada-United States relationsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesOral questionsRemanufactured lumberSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlSeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount Pearl//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/72029DanAlbasDan-AlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AlbasDan_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodForestry IndustryInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1500)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had five years to to reach a softwood lumber agreement and he has failed. In fact, in this place, he has referred to the subject of softwood lumber about four times each of the five years he has been in office. Contrast that with the subject of his predecessor, Stephen Harper, whom he has referenced over 220 times.I have a simple question. When will the Prime Minister start getting focused on his job, like getting a softwood lumber agreement, rather than passing the buck to others or putting the blame on his predecessors?Canada-United States relationsCustoms tariff and customs dutiesOral questionsSoftwood lumber industryTrade agreementsJoyceMurrayHon.Vancouver QuadraRachelBendayanOutremont//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105031DougShipleyDoug-ShipleyBarrie—Springwater—Oro-MedonteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShipleyDoug_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodHousingInterventionMr. Doug Shipley (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, the cost to rent a one-bedroom apartment in Barrie now averages $1,530 per month, the fifth-highest rental rate in Canada. In May, the average home price was $720,000, a 38% increase from last year. Everyone, especially first-time buyers and renters, is finding these prices out of reach. Last week’s Conservative opposition day motion had a tangible solution to address affordable housing in Canada, but the Liberals voted against it.It is clear that the Liberal housing plan is not working. Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the housing needs of Canadians?HousingOral questionsRachelBendayanOutremontAhmedHussenHon.York South—Weston//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1505)[English]Mr. Speaker, a fixed-income senior recently shared how he was excited about the new Canada greener homes grant to upgrade his coal-fired furnace. His excitement quickly turned to disappointment after learning the details of the program. With the rising cost of living, he cannot afford to pay up front for the pre and post EnerGuide evaluations, let alone front the cost to replace the furnace itself. This is yet another example of the “Ottawa knows best” bureaucratic-heavy policy that clearly misses the mark. It makes great talking points, but leaves regular folks behind. When will the Liberals actually figure out a plan that helps Canadians? Canada Greener Homes GrantHousing repairs and renovationOral questionsRetrofitAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—TimiskamingJonathanWilkinsonHon.North Vancouver//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89494JodyWilson-RaybouldHon.Jody-Wilson-RaybouldVancouver GranvilleIndependentBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/WilsonRaybouldJody_Ind.jpgOral Question PeriodThe EnvironmentInterventionHon. Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, Ind.): (1510)[English]Mr. Speaker, recent rumblings over the Constitution are not without significance, causing some to ask if we are necessarily heading towards renewed constitutional talks.If so, the environment must be top of mind. In 2008, Ecuador's Constitution gave nature legally enforceable rights to exist, flourish and evolve, the first country to do so. In 2014, Te Urewera, the home of the Tūhoe people, became the first natural feature in New Zealand to be recognized as a legal person with rights.Like New Zealand, and prior to any possible constitutional change, will the government consider granting legal personhood to significant natural features in Canada?Constitutional amendmentEnvironmental protectionOral questionsPattyHajduHon.Thunder Bay—Superior NorthDavidLamettiHon.LaSalle—Émard—Verdun//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59235BlakeRichardsBlake-RichardsBanff—AirdrieConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RichardsBlake_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPoints of Order [Admissibility of Amendments in the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage]InterventionMr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.The point of order concerns the report that was just tabled: the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage respecting Bill C-10. I would respectfully submit that several of the amendments contained in that fifth report must be struck out because the committee exceeded its authority.Last Monday, June 7, the House adopted a time allocation motion limiting committee deliberations to only five further hours. The part of the House's order that is relevant to this point of order says, at pages 104.3 and 104.4 of the Journals:That, at the expiry of the time provided in this order for the committee stage, any proceedings before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the said bill shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.At the committee's second meeting, on Thursday, June 10, those five hours had expired and the Canadian heritage committee proceeded to the disposal of the committee stage of the bill, in accordance with the House's order. The chair of the committee, the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, informed the committee that, by the terms of the House's order, the amendments that had been placed on notice could not be moved and therefore could not be voted upon by the committee. The Liberal-Bloc-NDP majority on the committee, however, then overturned the chair's ruling, thereby forcing the committee to consider these amendments without any debate, without any opportunity to question expert witnesses from the department of Canadian Heritage and without any opportunity to hear the wording of the amendment read aloud.Those events are recorded in the relevant minutes of proceedings for the committee's second meeting on June 10. The amendments subsequently considered by the committee are recorded in those minutes of proceedings, as well, for the committee's meeting on Friday, June 11. Both sets of minutes, as noted in the comment in the fifth report immediately preceding the chair's signature, have been laid upon the table, among others.House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition says, at page 779: Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative. That is why I am rising today on this point of order. In overturning the committee chair's ruling and forcing amendments that had not been properly moved to be voted upon, I respectfully submit that the committee exceeded its authority by contradicting the House's order, which required that “every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.”To be clear, the questions necessary to dispose of the clause by clause consideration of the bill are questions on the clauses themselves, not amendments that have simply been placed on notice.The Chair has previously considered a similar case, from which I believe in the current circumstances a distinction may be drawn.On November 29, 2012, Mr. Speaker, one of your predecessors, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, made a ruling at page 12,609 of the Debates, concerning the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance respecting Bill C-45, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012. In that case, the committee had adopted a time-tabling motion concerning its study of the bil. It contained language that was similar to that which the House adopted last week in its time allocation motion concerning Bill C-10. In the case of the finance committee, the chair made a similar ruling to the one made by the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and, again, the committee had overturned that ruling.Following a point of order in the House concerning the finance committee's report on the former Bill C-45, the former Speaker did not set aside the committee's report on the bill. The distinction between these two cases, I would argue, is that the finance committee was interpreting a motion that the committee itself had adopted. In the current case, seven members of the Canadian heritage committee substituted their own judgment for how an order of this House, voted upon by the entire House, should be interpreted.(1600)We often refer to committees as masters of their own proceedings, but Bosc and Gagnon put that in a very important context at pages 1057 and 1058, which state:The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized or empowered to do so by the House.While the case of former Bill C-45 was of a committee majority preferring its own interpretation of a committee motion, the current case of Bill C-10 is of a committee majority seeking to override the House's instruction. It was, to borrow the words of Bosc and Gagnon, taking an action that it was authorized or empowered by the House to do. Therefore, I would respectfully submit that the amendments made to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10 must be ruled out of order and therefore struck from the fifth report.I would further ask that the committee's consideration of amendments after the proceedings had been interrupted under the provisions of the time allocation order be disregarded by the Chair for the purposes of applying the note attached to Standing Order 76(1)(5) respecting the criteria considered by the Chair in the selection of motions at the report stage.I do not make this point of order lightly. In fact, one of those amendments that I refer to was sponsored by my own party and several others were voted for by my colleagues, but that is beside the point. Our rules must be followed. Parliamentary procedure is not a body of play pretend rules that can just be set aside at the first moment of inconvenience. It does not matter whether these flawed decisions were taken by majority vote or even with unanimity because the rules of the House must be followed.The hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, in a different ruling on May 1, 2014, at page 4787 of the Debates, concerning Bill C-30, the Fair Rail for Grain Farmers Act, found that amendments that were adopted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, without procedural objection and without dissent, had to be struck from the bill because the committee had acted outside of its authority in adopting them, commenting:The Chair has no difficulty agreeing with the parliamentary secretary that the amendment is relevant to the subject matter of the bill. Indeed, as a fellow Saskatchewan MP who represents a large number of grain producers, I can certainly agree on the importance of this issue. As Speaker, however, not only can I not simply act according to my personal beliefs, I must respect House of Commons precedents which, in the case before us, are only too clear.The correct place to put forward the amendments to clauses 8 through 47 of Bill C-10, in light of the proper application of a time allocation order, is at the report stage here on the floor of the House.Additionally, and in the alternative to the matter I have already raised, I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the amendment known as amendment LIB-9.1 that was made by the Canadian heritage committee to clause 23. The Chair ruled the particular amendment out of order for exceeding the scope of the bill and that it breached the so-called “parent act” rule, which is explained by Bosc and Gagnon at page 771, by proposing to amend a section of the Broadcasting Act which was not touched by the provisions of Bill C-10. The committee, however, voted to overturn the Chair's ruling in that regard as well. In that particular case, the Chair may simply have to regard the fifth report and note that the amendment on its face does something which the committee was not permitted to do and therefore should be ruled out of order and struck from the fifth report.The solution for the government here is, like the case of the former Bill C-30, to propose an amendment at third reading to recommit Bill C-10 to the Canadian heritage committee so it may, once properly instructed and empowered, make Liberal-9.1 amendment in the proper manner.Admissibility of an amendmentBeyond the scope of the billBroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCommittee amendmentsConsideration in committeeDecisions of Committee ChairsGovernment billsPoints of orderStanding Committee on Canadian HeritageTime allocationScottSimmsCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameAnthonyRotaHon.Nipissing—Timiskaming//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105802TracyGrayTracy-GrayKelowna—Lake CountryConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GrayTracy_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsCommittees of the House [International Trade]InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be presenting the dissenting opinion today on behalf of Conservative committee members on the Standing Committee on International Trade. I want to thank the analysts, clerk and staff of the committee in working to prepare the report on select impacts of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as ISDS. Attached with the report is the dissenting opinion from Conservative members and in this we highlight the role ISDS still has in trade agreements and between countries in depoliticizing the process of dispute settlement. We hope the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of this when it comes to settling investment disputes. We heard from many experts, academics and lawyers in the field during our study on why ISDS mechanisms were still relevant in today's world. When studying these selected impacts of something as important as ISDS, it is important that we paint a comprehensive and well-rounded picture on ISDS. I hope the government will continue to consider the full picture as it looks to negotiate trade agreements in the future. 8510-432-158 "Investor-State Dispute Settlement: Some Considerations for Canada"Dissenting or supplementary opinionsInvestor-state dispute settlementStanding Committee on International TradeTrade agreementsJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekMumilaaqQaqqaqNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105665JagSahotaJag-SahotaCalgary SkyviewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/SahotaJag_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPrivacy ActInterventionMs. Jag Sahota (Calgary Skyview, CPC)(1615)[English]Bill C-310. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, An Act to amend the Privacy Act (prevention of violence against women).She said: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to introduce my very first private member's bill today, an act to amend the Privacy Act, prevention of violence against women. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, for all her hard work on this very important issue and for seconding the bill.Gender-based violence is an epidemic that disproportionately affects women. Just recently we heard of another woman who was attacked and killed by her intimate partner. My private member's bill proposes to amend the Privacy Act to provide that personal information under the control of the government institution that relates to an individual who has been charged with or convicted of an offence involving intimate partner violence may, in certain circumstances, be disclosed without the consent of the individual.I look forward to the debate on this bill, and I hope I can get the support of all members for this. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)C-310, An Act to amend the Privacy Act (prevention of violence against women)Criminal recordsDomestic violenceInformation disseminationIntroduction and First readingPrivate Members' BillsMumilaaqQaqqaqNunavutPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/20878Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.Kerry-Lynne-FindlaySouth Surrey—White RockConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FindlayKerryLynne_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsPetitions [Human Organ Trafficking]InterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay (South Surrey—White Rock, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from constituents concerned about forced organ harvesting. I think we all agree this horrific practice must be stopped. I thank my colleagues, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and Senator Salma Ataullahjan, for their advocacy on this issue, including Bill S-204, recently tabled in the House. The bill would create a new Criminal Code offence for trafficking human organs, while also amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to prohibit entry into Canada of any permanent resident or foreign national who is believed to have engaged in this abhorrent practice.Let us do the right thing and promptly pass this important legislation. Lives hang in the balance.ChinaCivil and human rightsFalun GongHuman organs and other body parts traffickingPetition 432-01098S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertPaulManlyNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTravel AdvisersInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of independent travel advisers across the country. There are over 12,000 independent travel advisers in Canada who have been without income for one year because of government-imposed COVID travel restrictions, and these small business owners are sole proprietors. Federal assistance programs like CEBA, CERB, CEWS and RRRF exclude the majority of these small business owners, leaving them to slip through the cracks and forcing them into bankruptcy.The petitioners are asking the government to provide sector-specific funding for independent travel advisers and extend qualifications for the RRRF in the urban areas to include sole proprietors. Many of them are constituents of Regina—Lewvan.Canada's COVID-19 Economic Response PlanCOVID-19PandemicPetition 432-01101Travel agenciesPaulManlyNanaimo—LadysmithElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsTraffic StopsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I am tabling 10 petitions in the House today.The first petition is signed by a group of citizens who are concerned about policies related to people being pulled over and having their vehicles impounded. The petitioners highlight a particular incident from this winter, when a young woman was pulled over on a drive from Toronto to Ottawa in the middle of the night. She was speeding, her car was impounded and she was simply left by officers on the side of the road. She asked officers what she was supposed to do in this case and she was told it was all part of the journey. She was able to get a ride to a truck stop, where she camped out for a number of hours until someone could pick her up. However, this was potentially a very dangerous situation for someone to be in.The petitioners call on the government to supply police with the resources they need to effectively uphold the law and avoid putting citizens in positions where they could be vulnerable, and to ensure that vehicles are only impounded at night if it is absolutely necessary for public safety and that arrangements for the protection of owners of vehicles are made by police in these cases.Law enforcementMotor vehiclesPetition 432-01104SafetySeizure of assetsElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsEqualizationInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the second petition is about the equalization formula. The petitioners are concerned about the fact that there is a cap on the fiscal stabilization program. This negatively impacts provinces like mine, Alberta. They are also concerned about perverse outcomes that can result from equalization in provinces where there has been a significant drop in revenue. The petitioners want the government to immediately increase and backdate the fiscal stabilization program, and they call on the government to commit to working with the provinces to address the current inequalities that exist in the equalization formula.Equalization formulaFederal-provincial-territorial fiscal arrangementsFiscal Stabilization ProgramPetition 432-01105GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the third petition highlights the fact that, following the recent conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia that dealt with the Republic of Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh, various Armenian prisoners of war were taken who, in violation of agreements, continue to be held. The petitioners want to see action on the fact that prisoners of war continue to be held. They call on the government to condemn Azerbaijan's illegal detention of Armenian POWs, call for their immediate release, use all diplomatic tools available to advocate for the release of those held captive, condemn state-sponsored anti-Armenian hatred in Azerbaijan, denounce the aggressive rhetoric from Turkey and Azerbaijan against Armenia and Artsakh, provide the necessary humanitarian assistance to ensure the safety and viability of the population of Artsakh, and facilitate the exchange of remaining fatalities.ArmeniaAzerbaijanForeign policyHumanitarian assistance and workersPetition 432-01106Prisoners of warGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition highlights the human rights situation of the Hazaras, and in particular the historical violence that has been experienced by the Hazara community, with various acts of genocide and other acts of violence. This is the indigenous community in Afghanistan. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to formally recognize the ethnic cleansing perpetrated against the Hazaras between 1891 and 1893 as a genocide, to designate September 25 as the Hazara genocide memorial day and to support Bill C-287 to ensure that all development assistance sent from Canada to Afghanistan is contributing to the peace and security of the region for all peoples.AfghanistanC-287, An Act to amend the Official Development Assistance Accountability ActGenocideHazarasInternational development and aidPetition 432-01107GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsProperty RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petitions I am presenting is about property rights. The petitioners say the government should seek the agreement of the provinces to amend the Constitution to include property rights and take steps to enact legislation to ensure that full, just and timely compensation will be paid to persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.ConstitutionGovernment compensationPetition 432-01108Property rightsGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsConversion TherapyInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition is on Bill C-6. The petitioners call on the government to move forward with efforts to ban conversion therapy. They also want the government to fix the definition in the bill. They are concerned about how a poorly drafted definition could result in restrictions on private conversations in which people are not engaged in any kind of quasi-therapeutic practice, but are simply having conversations and expressing personal views. They want the House to protect freedom of speech, clarify the definition in the bill and then move forward with a ban on conversion therapy.C-6, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conversion therapy)Conversion therapyGender identity and gender expressionPetition 432-01109Sexual minoritiesGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman Organ TraffickingInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, the next petition is in support of Bill S-204, a bill that would make it a criminal offence for a person to go abroad and receive an organ without consent. The petitioners are supportive of that bill and want to see it passed as quickly as possible. The bill is currently before the House, having unanimously passed in the Senate. It unanimously passed in the House in a previous form.Human organs and other body parts traffickingMedical tourismMedical transplantationOrgansPetition 432-01110S-204, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs)GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsFreedom of SpeechInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, the eighth petition is about Bill C-10. It notes that the CRTC already has sweeping regulatory powers over traditional forms of media. The original mandate of Bill C-10 was to expand those regulatory powers to include online platforms, but Liberal members have since used their position on the heritage committee to amend Bill C-10 to include social media platforms and other Internet platforms. This would amount to a significant attack on freedom of speech.The petitioners want to see the government reverse its position on this and defend the freedom of speech of all Canadians. This petition calls on the government to respect Canadians' fundamental right to freedom of expression and to prevent Internet censorship.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechInternetPetition 432-01111GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsHuman RightsInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, the ninth petition highlights the genocide of Uighurs and other Turkic Muslims in China.The petitioners call on the government to formally recognize that Uighurs in China have been and are being subject to genocide, and to use the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, the Magnitsky act, to sanction those who are responsible for the heinous crimes that are taking place as we speak in the People's Republic of China. The petitioners would also like to see the government reform supply chain legislation so that we are not importing products made from slave labour.ChinaEconomic sanctionsForeign policyGenocidePetition 432-01112UyghurGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgRoutine ProceedingsReligious FreedomInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, the 10th and final petition highlights religious freedom and some of the challenges around public worship during the pandemic.The petitioners note that restrictions on public gatherings during the pandemic are legitimate as long as those restrictions are evidence-based and are applied on an equal basis. They therefore call on the Government of Canada to seek dialogue with faith communities in Canada with an eye to the development of mutually agreeable guidelines for allowing public worship to occur during times of pandemic while preventing the spread of disease.I commend all of these petitions to the consideration of my colleagues.COVID-19Freedom of conscience and religionPandemicPetition 432-01113Public healthGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage was right when he admitted this bill could be improved.The last two days in committee, we rammed through everything. There were no amendments and no discussion. There was nothing. Forty per cent of this bill was never talked about in the heritage committee, yet now we have another gag order thanks to the Bloc's support of the government.How can the minister of heritage stand here today and say that this bill is good for Canadians when over 40% of the bill was never even debated in committee?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105581WarrenSteinleyWarren-SteinleyRegina—LewvanConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteinleyWarren_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I find it funny for the minister to be asking what happened to the Conservatives. We always have stood up and always will stand up for free speech. We believe that citizens across the country should not be censored on what they put on social media, like Facebook and YouTube. We believe people have a right to their own personal thoughts and opinions, unlike three-quarters of the front benches of the Liberal Party who want a basic dictatorship. Conservatives will always stand up for free speech and Bill C-10 curtails that. We will stand with all Canadians and their right to have their own opinions and own independent thought process.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-MarieStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Alain Rayes (Richmond—Arthabaska, CPC): (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today. Earlier, I listened to the Minister of Heritage talk about Bill C‑10, which he tabled, and I almost choked several times.He began by pointing out that it was important to look back at the past to understand where we are now. I will give another version of the facts for everyone out there watching, and I would invite everyone to fact-check me by consulting the unedited transcriptions, the “blues”, of the various discussions at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. People will be able to check if what I am saying is accurate and well informed and if it reflects everything we have gone through during the saga of Bill C‑10 leading up to the present day.The minister was right to say that he had all the resources he needed to table Bill C‑10 for more than a year and a half and garner a unanimous response from the outset. The minister is confusing things, talking about web giants and insinuating how he will handle them and make them pay their fair share. The ultimate goal was to produce an act that ensures a level playing field between digital broadcasters such as Disney Plus, Spotify and Netflix, and conventional broadcasters such as TVA, CBC/Radio-Canada, Global and CTV.The minister even chose to ignore the important elements that everyone wanted to see, including copyright issues and CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate, explaining that he divided these challenges into three parts and was only introducing one in the House of Commons so that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage could work on it.When he introduced the bill, the committee worked diligently and co-operatively to improve it. This bill was clearly imperfect even though the minister had had a lot of time to draft it with his experts. More than 120 amendments were proposed by all parties. Surprisingly, these amendments were moved not just by the Conservative Party, but also by the Green Party, which had been given authorization to move them, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, Liberal members of the committee and even the government. In fact, the government and the Liberal Party moved almost 30 amendments, not to mention all the amendments to the amendments along the way, to try to address all the shortcomings of this bill. As the minister pointed out, the committe's study of the bill was moving along relatively well, which I can vigorously and honestly confirm. We even worked with the minister and his staff, who were telling anyone who would listen that the Conservatives were slowing down the process. That was completely false. All the committee members even agreed to do a preliminary study and use that evidence in the committee's official study, to avoid holding up the work.At no point in the legislative process was the bill delayed, despite what the minister and his aides implied. I am saying so in all honesty, and I challenge everyone to take the time to read all the speeches and everything leading up to that infamous Friday when the minister, surreptitiously and without warning, withdrew clause 4.1 that he was proposing to add to the Broadcasting Act. This made the bill altogether different by including social networks, which had originally been excluded.(1700)Why do I say that? It is because, when we did our job in good faith as Parliamentarians, each party had the opportunity to call witnesses to testify about various aspects of Bill C‑10. That gave us the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible to do the best we could, based on the knowledge of every member and staffer, to formulate proper opinions during our study of the bill in order to improve it. That is our job as legislators, of which I am extremely proud.The problem is that the Minister of Canadian Heritage left social media out of the original version of Bill C‑10. Furthermore, despite the minister's assertion from the get-go that it is a historic bill, to my knowledge, only one organization has said that. The other organizations highlighted the bill's good parts and said that it was indeed time to modernize the act and to align the way we deal with digital with the way we deal with what we call conventional broadcasters. However, I met with all the organizations the minister mentioned, and every one of them pointed out several frightening provisions in Bill C‑10.The Minister of Canadian Heritage said that the Conservatives delayed and filibustered. I am sorry, but it was not the Conservatives who did that. The Conservatives have merely given a voice to a number of organizations, individuals and experts who wanted to point out the flaws in Bill C-10. The minister can go ahead and play his partisan games in the run-up to an election to try to scare everyone into believing that the Conservatives do not support the cultural community. However, it is all complete and utter nonsense, pure theatrics, a show worthy of our Prime Minister, who is a great stage actor.The heritage minister should stop with the games, because nobody is against culture. On the contrary, we are against censorship, against this attack and the way the minister undermined freedom of expression one Friday by removing section 4.1, which was supposed to be added to the Broadcasting Act.That is when we began what could indeed be described as filibustering or slowing down the committee's work. We are talking about a maximum of three weeks during the six-plus years the Liberal government has been in power. Those three weeks have allegedly been catastrophic, but the Liberals are filibustering in many other committees with regard to the corruption scandals they were involved in, whether we are talking about the former justice minister, SNC-Lavalin, the WE Charity or the Standing Committee on Health, where we have been requesting access to the vaccine procurement reports. The Liberals have definitely done their share of filibustering.Why have we been filibustering for approximately three weeks? The heritage minister was right. Let us give some background on all of this. It is important to understand it, so that people know how we got to where we are today, muzzled by the Liberals with the support of the Bloc Québécois.By amending the bill one Friday afternoon, the heritage minister set off alarm bells all over the place. During the weekend, law experts and university professors sounded the alarm, telling us to look out because the government was doing something that would undermine freedom of expression.What did the Conservatives do? We just asked to hear from the heritage minister again and get a legal opinion from the Minister of Justice stating that the rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not violated by the removal of clause 4.1.In response, the Liberals objected incessantly for more than two weeks until the member for Mount Royal moved a new version of the motion asking for exactly the same thing we had proposed, which was to have the justice and heritage ministers come explain the situation and answer our questions, as well as an opportunity to hear the other side of the story from experts who had concerns about Bill C‑10.(1705)They ended up appearing, and we were finally able to put an end to the committee's three-week-long standstill. That is the truth about the delay that has the minister up in arms.I have to wonder whether the minister really wants to pass Bill C-10, because the reality is that the work of the House will be over in just 10 days' time. When the bill is passed by the House at third reading, it will have to go to the Senate. The Senate will have to examine the bill, although 40% of the amendments will not even have been discussed by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It is pretty preposterous to hear the minister lecturing us, given his behaviour.Earlier, the minister said that some 30-odd organizations from across the country had highlighted the importance of the bill for the cultural community. They are right, it is an important bill for the cultural community, but that does not release us from the obligation to make sure we protect freedom of expression. I can already picture the minister pointing out that the Minister of Justice tabled his report with his experts. I am sorry, but what he tabled was an explanatory document, which was not in the motion we had presented.We did not get any answers to our questions, and people started to wake up. The committee heard from former CRTC officials including Timothy Denton, CRTC commissioner from 2009 to 2013, Konrad von Finckenstein, CRTC president from 2007 to 2012, Peter Menzies, the CRTC's vice-president of telecommunications from 2013 to 2018, Michel Morin, the CRTC's national commissioner from 2008 to 2012, and Philip Palmer, legal counsel at the Department of Justice and senior counsel at the Department of Communications from 1987 to 1994. The heritage minister never names them, but all those individuals said that what the minister was doing made no sense. Peter Menzies went as far as to say that this was a full-blown assault on freedom of expression and the foundations of democracy. He said it is difficult to understand the level of hubris or incompetence, or both, that would lead someone to believe that such an encroachment on rights can be justified.When the minister attacks the Conservatives, he is also attacking all those individuals, not to mention the thousands of Canadians who support us and have said they want us to keep up the pressure on the minister about his bill and his encroachment on their rights.These are facts, and I have not even mentioned Michael Geist, who is very often referred to as a professor emeritus of law at the University of Ottawa. His expertise is so sought after that even the Liberal government supports his research in this field. He was one of the strongest critics of the Liberal government's attitude, and the Bloc Québécois's as well since it supported the Liberals' gag order. Imagine: a gag order that has not been used in 20 years, that the Conservative Party never used during its 10 years in power, a House of Commons gag order that the government imposed on a committee when the House leaders keep telling us that committees are independent every time we question them.Given what the Liberals just did to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, they can never again say that a committee is independent. This is something unique. Even when people used this measure in the past, they granted a minimum of 10 hours to work on the document in question. All we were given was five hours.This law professor, Michael Geist, is not alone. There are others from other universities. I do not have the documents with me, but I have quoted them several times. People can go and check.I therefore want to reiterate that, when the minister attacks the Conservatives, he is attacking all those who spoke out via social media, press releases, written correspondence, speeches and interviews with the media and who said that what the minister was doing did not make sense.Does this mean we are against culture? No, absolutely not.Does it mean that the minister made a mistake with his bill? The answer is yes.If the work had been done properly to begin with, we would not be where we are today. It is because of all the delays that we are dealing with this mess, which will certainly not ensure a level playing field between digital broadcasters and conventional broadcasters.(1710)My NDP colleague's question to the minister was entirely justified. That is what happened. Those are the facts. Back when we started studying this bill, the government made a big show of saying that this was to be a partnership, so it is pretty funny that the opposition parties did not get so much as a phone call to let them know that clause 4.1 was being removed from the bill. That was the event that triggered this crisis.No other conversations about collaboration raised problems when they were in the Liberal government's interest. I cannot talk about them because they happened in private, but I was involved in those conversations several times.It is sad that things have come to this. It is sad that the minister is now stooping to partisan behaviour and attacking Conservatives over this file. As I said, we are just speaking on behalf of all these industry stakeholders, the ones who wanted to protect net neutrality and freedom of expression and avoid these flaws that will almost certainly be challenged in court.The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission now has more powers, even though former CRTC commissioners and chairs say that giving the CRTC that kind of power is not a good idea. I am not kidding.At the beginning of his speech the minister talked about $70 million a month, which was an approximate amount, with the calculations planned for later. People deserve to be told the truth. The CRTC now has nine months to tell us on what percentage it will base the calculations, because no one knows. The only response from the minister is that if the CRTC uses the same calculations as conventional broadcasters, the amounts will be somewhere between $800 million and $1.1 billion, which leaves a margin of $300 million. We do not know anything about it, however, and neither do we know whether the CRTC is going to use the same rules. Once the bill passes we will no longer have any control over this.That is the current reality of this bill. Time allocation was imposed, and over the past week we have been forced to hold many votes on amendments without those watching us having access to the text of nearly 40% of them. Imagine that scenario, where the only thing the audience heard was the number of the amendment, preceded by the abbreviation of the party proposing it and followed by the question on whether members of the committee were for or against it. What transparency. The Liberals said that the people would have access to the text at the end, when it was all over. It will be too late by then and we will not be able to move forward. The minister says that we delayed the process, but I would have him know that the committee agreed to hold as many meetings as the chair wanted. We even held meetings every day of the break week, when we were meant to be working in our ridings. Some meetings were extended to four or five hours, on barely an hour's notice. That is the truth, but the minister never mentions that when he talks about his bill.That really stings, because these kinds of politics hurt us all. The session is ending in a few days. We know full well that the Liberals will call an election before the House comes back. All the minister is trying to do here is play politics. He wants his bill to make it into the election platform, since he knows perfectly well that he will not get it passed in time.The Bloc Québécois helped the Liberals out of some hot water. I do not recall ever seeing an opposition party support a government gag order. The Bloc members are proud of it. They are boasting about supporting a gag order. It is crazy to think about it.At times, I found myself wondering what was going on. The minister was weaving a story that did not make sense and that was looking like a horror story for a while there. We have tried our best to do our jobs as legislators, but it has unfortunately been extremely difficult.(1715)The minister, through his work, has attacked net neutrality. He has created a breach. It may not be a big breach, but it is a breach nonetheless. It will be challenged, that much is clear. On top of that, the CRTC is also being given increased powers. That is the reality.If people listening right now think that my story is not true and that I lied, if they think, as the Prime Minister has implied in the House, that I misled people, I invite them to go back and look at the record, because it is all there.People know that that is how it happened. They know that everyone started out in good faith, until that Friday when the Minister of Canadian Heritage removed clause 4.1 without any warning. Everyone knows what happens when something is done on a Friday. It means they want to slip it through quietly. After all the theatrics to try to make people believe we do not support the arts community, which is not the case, because it is censorship that we oppose, here is what the Liberal government did instead: It censored us by imposing time allocation.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsCanadian Radio-television and Telecommunications CommissionFreedom of speechGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateSocial networking sitesUser-generated contentAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertStevenGuilbeaultHon.Laurier—Sainte-Marie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1715)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not know what to say to the minister, who is being particularly partisan with respect to Bill C-10. It is always the same thing, and there are always attacks. The few times that he tried to defend his Bill C‑10, the media had a field day. This only exacerbated the lack of confidence and cynicism towards this bill.I will repeat that he alone is to blame if we find ourselves in this situation with this bill. The minister missed the mark. He tried to change the bill. When quoting something I said in the House of Commons, he took it out of context. I was pointing out that he was suggesting to people that social networks would be subject to legislation, which was false. I never said that I agreed with what he was doing. I was quoting him because he was suggesting in his arguments that that was the case, when it was not. He is trying to say that is what I was saying, when instead I was correcting him.I hear that, and it is always the same thing. He quoted the member, who later apologized, just like several members apologized for statements they made. This is all petty politics and we are tired of it.Bill C-10 is a disaster, and he is going to move it forward by ramming closure down our throats—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateSocial networking sitesAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from my neighbouring riding of Drummond for his question. I appreciate him as a colleague, as he is well aware.What he said is entirely true. Following the testimony of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Justice, we heard from experts with diametrically opposed opinions. I agree with him. It is true, and it is healthy in a democracy.Among the experts who agreed with the Conservatives were law professors. I think that these people also deserve a voice in Canada's Parliament because of their vision, their advice and their warnings. It is appalling to see the minister attack these opinions. It is obvious that, if you do not think like a Liberal, you are not worth anything. That is not true, we are worth something. Our constituents are full-fledged citizens. These people deserve a voice, and it is thanks to these divergent voices that we can exchange ideas and improve bills.The problem is when the minority government across the way operates in a dictatorial fashion and pays no mind to what is going on, which means that it can only get its bills passed under a gag order. Instead, it should try to understand these voices and see how it can improve its legislation.I will say it again: If clause 4.1 had not been removed, we would not be in this situation today. We would not be engaged in these never-ending arguments that we have been having for some time—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateMartinChampouxDrummondAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1720)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not know exactly which motion the hon. member is talking about; there have been so many. I apologize for not being able to answer her question directly.However, I can confirm that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were themselves at some point surprised by the removal of clause 4.1. Both parties supported our efforts to hear what the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Canadian Heritage had to say about the concerns about freedom of expression.I presume that, when the hon. member mentions elements of the bill that supposedly protect freedom of expression, she is referring to clause 2.1, which addresses individuals. However, the issue we are debating, the issue that was raised by the legal experts, is content.I myself asked the Minister of Justice if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects individuals as well as content. He has always refused to answer that question—BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsFreedom of speechGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105410TerryDowdallTerry-DowdallSimcoe—GreyConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DowdallTerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I was listening to the conversation, and what made me want to stand and ask a question is the partisanship of this bill. I can say quite definitely that, in my riding, this is probably the one bill that I got the most emails about, not necessarily even from my Conservative supporters. When I talk about the other parties here, these are real concerns. I am just wondering why the government, once again, is ramming through a bill that has this many concerns from this many parties. What is the goal? Why would the government have that as its goal right now, near the end of the session?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlainRayesRichmond—Arthabaska//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88600AlainRayesAlain-RayesRichmond—ArthabaskaConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RayesAlain_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Alain Rayes: (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question.He is perfectly correct, many Canadians criticized this bill and had concerns about it. I am deeply convinced that even Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc members can confirm that many of their constituents have approached them about this.That is why I am even more surprised at the minister’s reaction. He is attacking us and trying to criticize the Conservatives when thousands of Canadians and Quebecers have expressed their dissatisfaction with the way he has approached and presented the bill. Yes, there are several concerns, because freedom of expression is a value near and dear to the hearts of all Canadians. Unfortunately, the minister decided to turn it into a partisan game on the eve of an election. That is unfortunate, because we should all stand up for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Rules of debateTerryDowdallSimcoe—GreyMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89226GarnettGenuisGarnett-GenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GenuisGarnett_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member on some aspects of Bill C-10, but what I really want to ask him about is democratic norms and democratic process. It is fair to take the position that the member does on a bill, and we can have debate about the bill, but what ended up happening, as a result of decisions made by the government as well as by the Bloc, is that we had amendments that were put forward and not read at committee, no opportunity for subamendments, and then a vote on amendments that had not been read. There was no opportunity for further discussion or consultation on the particular implications of individual amendments. Of course, it takes time at committee, but when we are talking about over a hundred amendments, each of those amendments matters. It matters for artists, it matters for freedoms and it matters for Canadian society as a whole. As someone who works in international human rights and foreign affairs, I just think it sends a terrible message to other countries, to developing democracies, about what democratic decision-making is supposed to look like.Could the member share his reflections on whether he thinks this is an appropriate way to proceed? It is fine to agree or disagree with the bill, but is this an appropriate way to proceed in a democratic legislature? What message does this send to the rest of the world?BroadcastingC-10, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other ActsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 10Parliamentary democracyRules of debateMartinChampouxDrummondMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35724BruceStantonBruce-StantonSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/43/StantonBruce_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 10—Broadcasting ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1750)[Translation]The hon. member for Drummond.CarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixMartinChampouxDrummondINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE