//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96081AnitaAnandHon.Anita-AnandOakvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandAnita_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Anita Anand(1815)[English]Third reading moved that the bill be now read the third time and passed.C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282552CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRubySahotaHon.Brampton North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88698RubySahotaHon.Ruby-SahotaBrampton NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SahotaRuby_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Ruby Sahota: (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, I believe that if you seek it you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote with Liberal members voting in favour.C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282553AnitaAnandHon.OakvilleKerry-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 OrdersInterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote with Conservatives voting nay. C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282554RubySahotaHon.Brampton NorthLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1815)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote and will be voting in favour of the motion, including the members for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel and Abitibi—Témiscamingue.C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282555Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White RockRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney: (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting in favour.C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282556LucThériaultMontcalmKevinVuongSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110654KevinVuongKevin-VuongSpadina—Fort YorkIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VuongKevin_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Vuong: (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting against.C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseGovernment billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282557RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1815)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-67, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseDivision no. 678Government billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary Estimates (C) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282559KevinVuongSpadina—Fort YorkAnitaAnandHon.Oakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96081AnitaAnandHon.Anita-AnandOakvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandAnita_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Anita Anand(1825)[English]Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Supply billsThird reading and adoption8282658CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRubySahotaHon.Brampton North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88698RubySahotaHon.Ruby-SahotaBrampton NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SahotaRuby_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Ruby Sahota: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you would find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting in favour.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoption8282659AnitaAnandHon.OakvilleKerry-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 OrdersInterventionHon. Kerry-Lynne Findlay: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting nay.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoption8282660RubySahotaHon.Brampton NorthLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1825)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and will be voting yes.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoption8282661Kerry-LynneFindlayHon.South Surrey—White RockRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoption8282662LucThériaultMontcalmKevinVuongSpadina—Fort York//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110654KevinVuongKevin-VuongSpadina—Fort YorkIndependentOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VuongKevin_Ind.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Vuong: (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting nay.C-68, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025Government billsInterim supply 2024-2025Recorded divisionsSupply billsThird reading and adoption8282663RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1600)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 650Private Members' BillsRecorded divisionsSentencingThird reading and adoption8247433Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1615)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)[Translation]The Deputy Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 51 minutes.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 651Extension of debateGovernment ordersInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime82474378247438Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk(1825)[English] moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Third reading She said: Mr. Speaker, as all parents know, the arrival of a new child is life-changing. It comes with great joys and excitement. It is a precious time of bonding and many firsts, but it also comes with added expenses, time constraints and new challenges. While we all know that Canada’s employment insurance program helps to ease some of those pressures, we must confront the fact that not all families are treated equally. It is not a fair program, and it does not reflect the diversity of families here in Canada. Families formed through adoption and surrogacy continue to be entitled to 15 fewer weeks of leave, and this is a disadvantage that must be rectified. My private member’s bill, Bill C-318, does that through the creation of a new 15-week time-to-attach benefit for adoptive and intended parents. It also adjusts entitlement leave accordingly in the Canada Labour Code. It is a common-sense bill; addressing the inequity in our EI system should truly be a non-partisan issue. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has instead chosen to politicize it. While it claims to support equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents, the Liberal government’s actions suggest otherwise. At second reading, the member for Winnipeg North indicated that this was not a priority for the Liberal government when he said, “We might have had to put some limitations on some of the things we wanted to do as a result of the pandemic”. The member for Kingston and the Islands said that this bill would not get a royal recommendation because his own bill did not get one. Of course, this was followed by all but a handful of Liberal members of Parliament voting against the bill at second reading. Following the committee’s consideration of this bill, the Liberal government challenged amendments that sought to remove any ambiguity around parental benefits for indigenous peoples. The opposition to this from the Liberals raises concerns about their intentions around achieving equal access to EI benefits for indigenous families with customary care arrangements. Now, at third reading, this bill risks being dropped from the Order Paper altogether if a royal recommendation is not provided by the Liberal government. By all indications, unfortunately, this does not seem to be forthcoming. The Liberal government’s decision to include a benefit for adoptive and intended parents in Bill C-59 was a clear declaration that it does not intend to collaborate on this issue and that it is more focused on political games than rectifying the discrimination in our EI system in a timely manner. Bill C-59 is an omnibus budget bill that would not course correct the harmful policies of the NDP-Liberal government, which are fuelling the affordability crisis in this country. The Liberal government not only tied its proposed benefit to a costly and convoluted omnibus bill but also did not even make this legislation a priority. It is the Liberal government that sets the agenda in this place, and it has not brought Bill C-59 up for debate since January. Frankly, it has just not been a priority for the Liberals. In fact, they have never made it a priority to address the discrimination in our EI system. They have been promising this to adoptive parents since 2019; they extended this promise to intended parents last year, after I introduced Bill C-318. Providing equal access to EI leave for adoptive and intended parents should not be a complicated problem to solve, especially with the agreement of all opposition parties. However, the Liberal government has voted against Bill C-318, failed to provide the royal recommendation needed, refused to work collaboratively and failed to exercise the political will necessary to just get the dang job done.(1830)Shamefully, the Liberal government’s broken promises, delays and political games are happening at the expense of families. These families are hopeful and anxiously waiting to know if they will get the time they need and deserve with their child. The children who do not get the time they need with their parents are the greatest victims. Adoptive and intended parents are not less deserving, and they certainly do not need less time with their children. It is often the case that these families face additional challenges in bonding and attachment. Access to equal leave can go a long way to support them. The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities heard compelling testimony from adoptive parents and adoptees about the challenges they experienced attaching. We heard repeatedly how meaningful additional time to form strong and secure attachments would have been for their families and how 35 weeks was not enough time. We need to listen to those voices and act in a timely manner. Cassaundra Eisner, an adoptee herself, shared with the human resources committee: “Moving in with people who were recently strangers is intimidating and very scary. Time to attach is something that would have helped that 11-year old little girl.”Shelley Rottenberg, also an adoptee, shared that, if there had been more time early on, her mother would not have had “to worry about going to work and leaving me with someone else” and that it “would have sped up that process of growing and building that trust and the bond to have a more secure attachment.” Cathy Murphy shared that it took three and a half years for her son to call her mama instead of “Hey, lady.” Julie Despaties shared that she ultimately did not return to work after her leave, because she needed more time to support her three adopted children. Erin Clow wrote that, near the end of her leave, she felt “a weight which is difficult to articulate, laden with the emotions of sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach.”There are many more examples. Providing adoptive families with an extra 15 weeks of leave is not only fair but will also help improve their long-term outcomes and help set these children up for success. I have also heard from a lot of intended parents who are growing their families through surrogacy. These parents need to make a decision about their leave options in the immediate term; many are expecting their child and are hopeful that they will have access to an additional 15 weeks of leave. I have also heard from parents who have made the decision to take the extended parental leave, at a significant financial disadvantage. Often it is not because they want to take a two-year leave, but rather because they want the same opportunity to be home with their child in the first year of their life. Canadians growing their families via surrogacy face a lot of added costs, and the disparity in benefits add to those financial pressures. Child care is another consideration. It is more costly to get child care for an infant under a year old, and the reality across the country is that there are limited infant child care spaces. These added costs are made even worse given the growing affordability crisis. Baden Colt shared with the human resources committee: “Having a child through surrogacy poses challenges that are not faced by most new parents, and these financial obstacles are compounded by the inability to access the same 15 weeks of maternity leave that most new parents get.” She said that children like her daughter “deserve every opportunity that her peers have in life and that begins with having the same amount of time to bond with her parents as any other Canadian child.” Her daughter does deserve the same time with her parents that is afforded to other children. The Liberal government needs to set aside the partisanship and the political games that are costing families across this country the time to attach and bond with their children. It is well past time that all families, including adoptive and intended parents, get the time they need and deserve with their child. AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Care for childrenEmployment insuranceFamilies and childrenIndigenous peoplesParental leaveParentsPrivate Members' BillsSurrogacy and surrogate mothersThird reading and adoption82475628247563824756482475658247566824756782475688247569824757082475718247572824757382475748247575824757682475778247578824757982475808247581824758282475838247584Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaDamienKurekBattle 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' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the speech that my friend, colleague and neighbour from Saskatchewan made regarding this issue.I would ask the member if she could share additional stories of examples in which the practical change she has proposed would be truly life-changing to adoptive parents and the adopted children who are given that chance to form the appropriate bonds and whatnot that are required for the development of children in those essential relationships.AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475858247586RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, there are countless stories that I have heard from adoptive and intended parents. I have one here from Luke, who says, “The existing leave time was insufficient to help me build an attachment relationship with my son, who had a history of abandonment and childhood trauma, and needed to have additional time with me as his new parent in order to feel secure and settle into my home...As such, I needed to take additional time off at expense to my family.”Hearing from Canadians across the country, this is not just a regional issue, but literally from coast to coast, from every area of the country. These parents just want time to attach with their children in a safe and secure environment.AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption824758782475888247589DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootIrekKusmierczykWindsor—Tecumseh//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71820IrekKusmierczykIrek-KusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusmierczykIrek_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.): (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for her excellent speech and advocacy for this really important policy change.Could the member talk about the importance of having leave time between parent and child before the arrival, to prepare the home and the family for the arrival of the child?AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475908247591RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, leave is important, as is that time to prepare for a baby or an older child to come, because a lot of children who are adopted are not necessarily infants but of ages all the way up to 18. Yes, it is important to have that time to prepare as well as the time to attach.AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption8247592IrekKusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehMichelleFerreriPeterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110604MichelleFerreriMichelle-FerreriPeterborough—KawarthaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FerreriMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMs. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC): (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for all of her hard work on this file and this bill. As a mom of four herself, she has done incredible work.My question for the member is this: What is different in the member's bill versus what was in the Liberals' Bill C-59? Why is it still really important that this bill get passed and get royal recommendation, so that intended and adoptive parents will get the leave they deserve?C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475938247594RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, it is very important. I would actually say that this bill is more important than the provisions that are put into the FES. As I mentioned in my remarks, the Liberal government has not even brought forward that piece of legislation to debate. With my legislation, there is actually an enactment on royal assent. We have no idea at all when this would be enacted, if it is like anything that they have done, such as child care, which is a mess, or the disability benefit, which Canadians with disabilities still have not received. It would do Canadians, especially adoptive and intended parents, a great service if they just gave Bill C-318 a royal recommendation, which would make sure that these intended and adoptive parents would know the date that they could apply for these benefits. C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475958247596MichelleFerreriPeterborough—KawarthaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, the member knows well, because she has already made reference to it, that the changes are actually incorporated into the fall economic statement, which will in fact be passing. It does seem to cover a bit more in terms of the concerns that have been raised by parents of adopted children. We recognize the value. In fact, it was part of our election platform and part of the mandate letter.The question I have for the member is this: Does she support that aspect of the budget, and, if so, can we anticipate that she will be voting in favour of it?C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475978247598RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterRosemarieFalkBattlefords—Lloydminster//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, this promise was in the Liberal Party's 2019 and 2021 mandate letters, and nothing got done until I and my office did the work. We actually wrote legislation. Then the Liberals scooped it up. The member across the way is being a little presumptuous—C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82475998247600KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71820IrekKusmierczykIrek-KusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusmierczykIrek_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, Lib.): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to participate in this debate on the bill introduced by the hon. member of Parliament for Battlefords—Lloydminster.I want to thank the member for bringing attention to an issue that matters to Canadians. Adoptive parents have been telling us that they want a new employment insurance benefit that provides them with the same number of weeks as birth parents. Currently, under the EI program, workers who are pregnant or have recently given birth, including surrogates, can receive 15 weeks of maternity benefits to support their recovery from pregnancy and childbirth. This is in addition to the 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 shareable weeks under the extended option.Adoptive parents also have access to support under the EI program. However, parents of adopted children are eligible for only 40 shareable weeks of standard benefits, or up to 69 weeks of support. In short, the difference lies in the fact that adoptive parents do not have access to the 15 weeks of benefits that parents who give birth do.In 2024, this needs to change. That is why these improvements to the EI program are included in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The measures in Bill C-59 would create a new 15-week EI benefit that would add flexibility and better address the needs of adoptive parents and parents of children through surrogacy during the weeks surrounding the actual placement of the child.The comprehensive measures in Bill C-59 reflect what we heard during our consultations with Canadians on the EI program in 2021 and 2022. They reflect the diverse and inclusive way families are formed today, and they provide needed flexibility.Before I go into more detail about Bill C-59, let me outline how it resonates with the consensus we heard at the EI consultations on the issue of an inclusive program. In particular, the government absolutely acknowledges in Bill C-59 that adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy have income support needs that are related to their unique processes. Time devoted to a child helps create a family bond. This is true for birth and adoptive parents.In the case of adoptive parents, it can help the child make up for any developmental delays or health setbacks and give that child a better chance to reach their full potential. Every extra week spent with an adoptive child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others. There is no question that for any new parent, having the time and resources to welcome and care for their child or children is precious and requires support. Also, additional time for adoptive parents to be with their children can be beneficial for their employers, as it would put these parents in a better state of mind when they return to work.There is no doubt that what the member opposite proposes, and what we propose, is important. Leave with income support for adoptive and intended parents, so they can welcome and care for their children, needs to be part of a modern and inclusive El program.The proposal in Bill C-318 does this in part, but we consider our approach in Bill C-59 to offer the better, more flexible and more responsive solution to address this important need.We expect that each year, the government's proposed benefit would provide approximately 1,700 Canadian families with additional time and flexibility as they welcome a new child in their home. Parents through surrogacy, including 2LGBTQI+ families, would also be eligible for this benefit, and rightly so. The government's proposed El adoption benefit would make El benefits inclusive and reflective of families in Canada. It would support parents going through adoption or surrogacy by providing temporary income support before the child arrives at home, for example, while they are finalizing the placement or travelling abroad to bring the child or children to Canada. That support would also extend to the early weeks of the child's arrival into the new family.This equalization was a key ask by our stakeholders. It is the right thing to do, and it is an idea whose time has come. All of this will happen if Bill C-59 receives royal assent.(1845)I also want to note, as we were told during the EI consultations, that the profiles of children and youth being adopted are often unique. Adopted kids are typically older, have sibling groups and have special needs. Cathy Murphy, chairperson of the Child and Youth Permanency Council of Canada, told us this during the consultations:Even if a youth is joining their family at age 12 or 13, it's really important for that parent or caregiver to be there, to be able to meet them after school or to maybe take them out to their favourite lunch spot over lunch hour once a week, because that's usually the only way you're going to get them out to lunch.By continually showing up and being actively involved in their life, they are going to realize after an extended period of time that their parents are there for them.For the past eight years, we have been busy improving important programs so that life is more affordable for Canadians. From day one, the government has kept its promise to protect all Canadians, and we are using all the tools at our disposal to do so. Canadians want an EI system for the 21st century. The government has heard these calls. It is a long-haul commitment, but we are taking the time to get it right, and we are not waiting for a grand reveal to make improvements along the way. Let me reassure my colleague opposite that the Government of Canada is taking a thorough approach to EI to ensure its continuous improvement for the benefit of all Canadians. Adoptive parents have asked for equal treatment. They deserve equal treatment, and the government has answered.AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023Employment insuranceFamilies and childrenParental leavePrivate Members' BillsSurrogacy and surrogate mothersThird reading and adoption824760382476048247605824760682476078247608824760982476108247611824761282476138247614824761582476168247617824761882476198247620AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1845)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑318, which seeks to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with respect to adoptive and intended parents.We know that when a child comes into our life, it is a huge moment that changes everything, but that also comes with a lot of stress. Those of us here who are parents have all been there. When we enter our home for the first time with our infant and our partner, we tell ourselves that it is time to step up to the plate. I had the good fortune of carrying my two daughters. I had easy pregnancies. I even worked as a coach during one of my pregnancies. Not every woman is so lucky, however. Sometimes, nature forces some of us to put our dream of pregnancy aside and turn to alternatives such as adoption or surrogacy. It is not easy for these women to grieve their infertility. I have a great deal of empathy for them. However, these women will become mothers, maybe not in a traditional way, but they will experience motherhood. They will have a chance to know what it means to love and be loved unconditionally. At this time, women and couples in Canada who adopt a child are entitled to only 35 weeks, or eight months, of EI benefits. They have eight months to bond with their child, which does not sound like much. The bonding process needs to happen under the best possible conditions. In the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process is equally important, precisely because it is atypical. Every story is different. Every family is different.I would like to quote Julie Despaties, the executive director of Adopt4Life, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities: Today, children who are waiting to be adopted are often over the age of 7, and often in their teens and part of sibling groups. In fact, across Canada, we are seeing an overrepresentation of children with coexisting medical and neurodevelopmental challenges within the child welfare system.It takes time to integrate a child into a new family environment, and it takes selflessness, compassion, kindness, patience and tenderness. The government's primary mission should be to give every child, regardless of their history or place of birth, an equal chance. This requires a solid foundation, first and foremost.I want to read another quote, this time from Anne‑Marie Morel, president of the Fédération des parents adoptants du Québec. Here is what she said when she appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities:Every extra week spent with an adopted child in the first year after adoption has an impact on their development and their lifelong relations with others.As elected officials, we have the responsibility to make that possible. We must restore equality and fairness.The changes proposed in the bill would also have a major impact on male couples. Although, in 2024, our society is open to the rights of members of the LGBTQ community, we still have a way to go when it comes to same-sex parenting. Gay men who want to have a family are discriminated against by their very nature. They cannot have children unless they adopt or use a surrogate. However, we know that international adoption is an extremely difficult process. I have many friends who have tried it. It is basically impossible for same-sex couples. The countries that still allow international adoption are often ones where the mores are such that the state discriminates against members of the LGBTQ community.(1850)Surrogacy is not the easiest option, either. When a gay couple decides to have a child, the process can be long, arduous and expensive. Although neither parent can claim to carry a child, they should not be relegated to a separate parental category. As legislators, we have a duty to ensure that the parent-child bond is deep, enduring, strong and unshakable.These new parents have the same rights, duties, feelings and questions. Most of all, they share the same desire to give their child everything.A healthy bond helps children cope with a variety of situations as they grow, including separation from their parents—when they start day care or school, for example—co-operation with other children, and self-control. Bonding teaches children to trust others, which helps them form healthy relationships later in life.I felt like sharing my thoughts this evening. That said, this is clearly an issue that only affects Canada, because Quebec introduced the Quebec parental insurance plan in 2006. Once again, Quebec was a forerunner; once again, Quebec took care of its people; once again, Quebec showed empathy. In 2020, Quebec went a step further by ending benefit discrimination for new parents.Tonight, I call on my colleagues to show the same kind of compassion and kindness shown by the members of the Quebec National Assembly. We must give women and couples who use adoption and surrogacy the same rights as those who have natural pregnancies. Let us stop creating two classes of parents; stop with the injustice, inequity and discrimination; and stop basing benefits on a certain method of starting a family.Motherhood, fatherhood and parenthood must be respected, no matter the path that is used to get there.2SLGBTQI+ communitiesAdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsProvince of QuebecSurrogacy and surrogate mothersThird reading and adoption8247621824762282476238247624824762582476268247627824762882476298247630824763182476328247633824763482476358247636824763782476388247639IrekKusmierczykWindsor—TecumsehLeahGazanWinnipeg Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/87121LeahGazanLeah-GazanWinnipeg CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GazanLeah_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMs. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, my thanks for your guidance today as I start my speech on Bill C-318.This is a very important bill. I want to congratulate the member of Parliament who put forward this bill, as well as all the family members and advocates who pushed to make this a reality today.This was a very good bill in its original form. However, I was deeply disappointed that the amendments to the bill, which I pushed forward at committee, to uphold Canadian law were thrown out. Those amendments would have ensured that this new piece of legislation, which hopefully will go forward, would be consistent with Bill C-15. That was adopted in the last Parliament, and it ensures that all legislation going forward is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Rather than upholding that law and upholding our constitutional obligations to ensure they are reflected in this current legislation, the Liberals at committee, first of all, voted against it, and then the member for Winnipeg North brought forward a point of order to throw out my amendments.This is a pattern of behaviour I have witnessed from the government, a failure for this current government, to uphold the very law that it put forward in the last Parliament, a government bill. I want to point specifically to Bill C-15, section 5, which states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” By failing to uphold Bill C-15, the current government is wilfully not respecting Articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.I want to read into the record Articles 19, 20 and 21 so that we can have a permanent record of the specific human rights that the government is flippantly violating in refusing to amend this bill, even though the sponsor of the bill supported the amendments I put forward at committee and indicated that they were in the scope of the bill. Article 19 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reads:States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.I would like to remind the government that when we are talking about adoption and when we are talking about child welfare systems, in Manitoba alone, 90% of kids currently in child welfare are indigenous. Many families choose customary and kinship care arrangements. We have so many grandmothers in our communities who look after their loved ones without financial assistance, without the option of leaving work, doing double duty with no financial resources.The Liberal government has been held in non-compliance over 14 times with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and it was to immediately stop racism against first nations kids on reserves. Once again, the government is showing a commitment to having a two-tiered system in this country: one for indigenous children and one for everybody else. The current government is demonstrating, through throwing out these amendments, that the human rights of indigenous kids are still not being respected.(1900)Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and develop their political, economic and social systems or institutions, to be secure in the enjoyment of their own means of subsistence and development, and to engage freely in all their traditional and other economic activities.Traditional means parenting. They need to be given the resources to be able to parent kids the way they choose. Let us not forget that there are more kids in care now than at the height of residential schools. It was well reported in the TRC report that we need systems reform in our child welfare system. The residential school system has left a legacy of intergenerational trauma and healing within our nation.Not only did they throw out my amendments, but they are also throwing out the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. If the government is not ready to respond to the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is mainly giving our kids back, the government is far from reconciling with indigenous peoples in this country.Article 20(2) states, “Indigenous peoples deprived of their means of subsistence and development are entitled to just and fair redress.” That includes financial resources so we are able to raise our kids in the way that we choose, not in poverty, so that we do not have to go to the Human Rights Tribunal and go after the government for years for it to finally settle $17 billion, more than what was asked. It is abhorrent what has happened in this House.Article 21(2) states:States shall take effective measures and, where appropriate, special measures to ensure continuing improvement of their economic and social conditions. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities.I would like to remind the government, which threw out amendments to ensure that human rights of indigenous peoples would be upheld, to ensure we would be upholding Canadian law and to ensure that it is consistent with section 5 of Bill C-15, that the child welfare system has been named the pipeline to murdered and missing indigenous women and girls in this country.We have a legacy of sixties scoop survivors who were separated from family and community, who have nowhere to return home to. However, on the very subject of our children, the government, once again, fails to take the opportunity to reconcile with indigenous peoples in Canada by giving us the resources we need to uphold our human rights to be able to raise our children in kinship and customary care arrangements.Although the Speaker ruled my amendments as being out of scope, I would like to remind the House that they, in fact, were in scope because the government has the legal obligation to make sure all legislation going forward is consistent with Bill C-15 . I am going to urge the government because it still has the power to make a royal recommendation, with the amendments I put forward, to make sure it is consistent with human rights law. If it is serious about reconciliation, it will give our kids back.AdoptionC-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous PeoplesC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Care for childrenChild povertyEmployment insuranceIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsParental leavePrivate Members' BillsRacial equalityThird reading and adoption824764082476418247642824764382476448247645824764682476478247648824764982476508247651824765282476538247654824765582476568247657Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleMichelleFerreriPeterborough—Kawartha//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110604MichelleFerreriMichelle-FerreriPeterborough—KawarthaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FerreriMichelle_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMs. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC): (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Battlefords—Lloydminster for this incredible bill, which will bring parity and equity in mental health and attachment to adoptive and intended parents.What we are talking about today, for folks watching, is Bill C-318, which was created by my friend and colleague, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. I will give an overview and some compelling testimony that we heard at the human resources committee today. I am really going to hammer home how common-sense this bill is and how it should have been done long ago. However, like so many things in this House, here we are. Bill C-318 introduces a new 15-week benefit for adoptive and intended parents through the employment insurance program, and adjusts the Canada Labour Code accordingly. A lot of people, including me, did not know this was an issue. I have biological children and just assumed that adoptive parents, or intended parents, which means parents through surrogacy, were entitled to the same amount of unemployment leave, or mat leave or paternity leave, which are the common names a lot of people know. I was entitled to 52 weeks, but the reality is that the way the current system works is that they do not have access to that. They are cut 15 weeks short. One would ask why, which is a great question. It does not put any more financial stress on the system, and we know these parents need this time to attach. I want to tell members a bit about the politics that always bleeds into this place and why common sense often gets left behind.It was an election platform promise by the Liberals in the last two elections that they would have this in their policy. Here we are, and it is still not here, which is not a shock. That is the reality of what we have in this country. The bill has gone through first reading. What we are asking for in this debate today in the House is royal recommendation. Nothing will happen if we do not get that. We have had the support of the House; the bill has passed through first reading. In fact, everybody voted in favour of it except the Liberals. Four Liberals supported it. I thank those who did and parked their partisan politics for the greater good and for parity.I want to go through this article with members, because I think it really highlights the human component of this. I think sometimes, when we talk about policy and legislation, it feels very clinical, but there are very real human consequences to the decisions made in the House. Everything does come back to policy. This is an article that was written by Erin Clow. It was posted in The Province, which is a news publication. I want to read some of the words she has written:At the end of my first leave in 2020, I longed for more time with our son. Nearing the end of this leave, I feel a weight that is difficult to articulate, laden with sadness, fear, guilt, and grief, knowing that we as a family need more time to attach. In the early days of both parental leaves, the hours, days and weeks seemed long. Honestly, we were strangers who overnight became a family. We knew very little about each other and, most importantly, we didn’t know how to trust, let alone love one another. Each day was a monumental exercise in courage. We spent our time learning about one another. Learning about routines, what they liked and what they didn’t like. Learning how to be parents. Learning to love one another.Again, I come back to my own experience as a first-time mom, and that is exactly how it feels when one gives birth, but imagine adopting a child who has already lived in the world and formed feelings and emotions, and trying to attach and make up for all of that time. Ideally, adoptive and intended parents should have more, if we think about the biology and physiology of what they have to overcome, yet they have less under this legislation. It makes no sense.She continues, “It took months for me to start becoming the parent they deserved.” I would challenge Erin on that. I bet she was exactly the mother they needed from the day they were born and they were meant to be together, but I know that feeling of mom guilt.She goes on, “Now all that remains are 27 days. This supported parental leave will end in 27 days and I can say without a doubt we need more time.”(1910)Is that not the most valuable commodity we have on this planet? She continues, “Our daughter and son need additional time. We need months, not days, to continue the process of facilitating secure, enduring attachment for all members of our family.” She has written a very powerful article that really reiterates what it is like for these adoptive parents.I want to go through some of the testimony that we heard in committee. I want to reiterate the common sense of this, in terms of the financial piece. Parents are already paying into the system. It is not like we would be trying to find this money. It is already funded.So many programs that we see the Liberals pushing out to people right now are not funded, such as their pharmacare program and their child care program, which are underfunded and not working. They are not funded. This is. This is a really common-sense bill that would make it easy to give the foundation for kids and families to thrive.Quite frankly, another conversation a lot of people do not want to have in this country is that the cost of living is increasing so much. My daughter has said to me that she could not have kids, that she could never afford it. What a feeling to have. What a feeling to have in this country, to not feel like one can afford to have a house, to feed one's family or to choose to have children, which is the greatest gift in the world. For people who choose not to have children, it is totally fine, but I am saying that, to take away that choice, is a realist issue in our country.Another quote details, “Most children adopted in Canada are over the age of 10 at the time of placement and many have a history of trauma or serious loss. Having their new parent or caregiver(s) at home longer, in the critical first year, gives them time to form attachments and begin processing their grief and loss.”I believe the member opposite may be able to chime in, and I know that she is over my shoulder. There was one woman in particular, and I think it was Cathy Murphy, who talked about how her child did not call her “'mama'” for three years.It was three years of just “'Hey lady'”. That is so powerful because, whether one is an adoptive parent, an intended parent or a biological parent, showing up for one's kids when they are having a hard time is tough. It is the toughest responsibility any of us parents will ever face in our lives. Their behaviour is communication. These kids need so much more time to build trust. They do not have that. They have never had that. The trauma that many of them have faced is very real.Financial stress is one of the biggest stressors in a family dynamic. If one is sitting there worried about how one is going to pay the mortgage, pay for food, pay for groceries or put gas in the car, guess what? One cannot be the parent one needs to be to the kid who needs one.It is so simple to say to not worry, that one's EI, which one has already paid into, is here to help one be the best parent they can be. This is a very simple bill.Another quote is that, “Of the 63,000 children currently in care, 30,000 are eligible for permanent adoption by loving families—” and listen to this, “only 2,000 children are adopted each year.” How many of those children are out there who do not know where they fit, who do not know that they have somewhere they belong? What a feeling. Maybe if more parents knew that there were incentives and help for them to give the love that they have in them to give, that number would go up.Kyla Beswarick was adopted at age 10 with her two siblings. She said, “It took me two or three years to form that attachment.” An article explains, “Her mom had to quit her job to take care of Kyla’s high needs, including doctor and therapist appointments and adjusting to school, and couldn’t access parental leave.” Kyla, who is now 21, and who is amazing, said, “Imagine how I perceived the world, enduring such big breaks in trust and new environments. I was so young. That extra time would have helped me”.Ashley Bach also testified at committee.(1915)I will read this final one into the record because I think it is most powerful. It is from Julie Despaties, executive director of Adopt4Life:I would like to leave you with these thoughts.If we want a stronger tomorrow for our children, we must do right by them. As my good friend Irwin Elman, a former Ontario child and youth provincial advocate, says, you can't legislate love, but you can legislate the conditions in which love can flourish.AdoptionC-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)ChildrenCost of livingEmployment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsSurrogacy and surrogate mothersThird reading and adoption8247658824765982476608247661824766282476638247664824766582476668247667824766882476698247670824767182476728247673824767482476758247676824767782476788247679824768082476818247682824768382476848247685LeahGazanWinnipeg CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1915)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to what is a very important issue. I trust there are many people following this debate, and for good reason. Our young people and children today are in fact a treasure. The member referred to love at the end of her speech, saying we cannot legislate love, but there are certain things we can do to provide supports that would enhance the relationships that are so critically important.Many of the comments that have been made with regard to Bill C-318 are really good, and all members of the House, no doubt, would support them. When I listen to many members talk about the importance of the legislation, I cannot help but reflect on the last election. When we spoke with our constituents and voters, one of the issues that people enjoyed talking about was our children and how we can improve the system.The government has demonstrated in that past a commitment to look at ways we can make changes to the EI system. We would love to be able to do more, and we constantly look at ways to improve EI and the resources affiliated with it. During the election, we as a political party made a commitment to do what is, in essence, being proposed by the member through her private member's bill.What surprises me is that there is legislation today on this very topic that is at second reading. If the member proposing Bill C-318 were to look at the fall economic statement, she would find that there would be even more of a benefit for those who are adopting. It talks about having supports even before the date on which the family is united. I would suggest it is healthier legislation all around.When the member introduced the bill for third reading, I posed a question with regard to what she and others are saying. Why would we not support that aspect, at the very least, of the fall economic statement? I would argue that there are lots of wonderful things in the fall economic statement, but that one is specifically there. The discussions and debates on the floor here should be a good indication of support for Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, and although I was not at the committee, I suspect there were good, healthy discussions there also. We know the bill is going to pass.Because Bill C-318 was at report stage today, we could have very easily played a game and said we wanted a recorded voted, but we did not do that. We supported the Conservatives because they wanted to get to third reading today. There will often be recorded votes on private members' bills, but we did not request one because we recognize it was important for the member to have the debate, and it allowed us to have the discussion we are having right now, which is a good thing.The changes, which are even greater and more beneficial for adoptive parents, are in Bill C-59. Today, where is Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, which was introduced last year? It is still at second reading. Why is it? It is because the Conservative Party is playing games with it.(1920)Her own party is actually preventing Bill C-59 from passing. If Bill C-59 were to pass, then I suggest that the type of benefits that we are all talking about would be there, because it was not only an election platform issue for us as a government but was also supported by all members of the House. It was also in the mandate letter. It was referenced indirectly through the budget of 2023 a year ago and then brought in through the fall economic statement, so it is there. People can open it up and read it. The real issue is, why did it not pass in December 2023, or even earlier this month? The answer to that question is that the Conservatives, as we are going to find out shortly when we get into the next step after Private Members' Business—C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023Employment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption82476868247687824768882476898247690824769182476928247693MichelleFerreriPeterborough—KawarthaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessEmployment Insurance ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1920)[English]The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has expired and the order has dropped to the order of precedence on the Order Paper.C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)Dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order PaperEmployment insuranceParental leavePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption8247694KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1730)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C‑320, which amends the Criminal Code with respect to disclosure of information to victims. The Bloc Québécois supports this bill.As vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women since 2020, I have contributed to numerous studies aimed at addressing violence against women. The figures are very alarming. Many cities in Quebec and Canada have gone so far as to describe the situation as an epidemic. We need to come up with concrete solutions for victims, to prevent the violence from creating more victims. In a recent article, I promised to make this a priority in my status of women file.Today, I will explain the Bloc's position in greater detail. Then, I will elaborate a bit on the benefits of this bill. In closing, I will reiterate the importance of making this a non-partisan issue. First, the Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with its commitment to support initiatives that keep women safe and that address violence against women. We believe that victims have everything to gain from getting as much information as possible about their assailant and the situation surrounding the assailant's potential release. This position is in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑233. As a small reminder, that bill amended the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The Bloc Québécois will always stand up to protect victims of crime and strengthen the relationship of trust between the public and our institutions.Secondly, the bill before us now seeks to amend the Criminal Code to enable victims of a criminal offence to get an explanation about how certain decisions were made about their assailant. This includes the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences, work release, parole or statutory release. Adding a mechanism that would give victims access to additional information about their assailant's situation and decisions being made about that person is certain to strengthen the justice system. Over the past few years, Quebec has positioned itself as a world leader in enhancing victim protection and strengthening victims' trust in the justice system. For example, the Government of Quebec has launched a pilot project in a number of courthouses to create courts specializing in sexual assault cases in certain courthouses; one of them is near me, in Granby. There is also the electronic monitoring device pilot project, which was successful and has been deployed across the province. These advancements meet the objective of recognizing how vulnerable victims of an offence are and putting all the tools at their disposal so they can be safe. This way, the justice system can evolve and adapt to better serve the needs of victims of crime. In an effort to be consistent, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑320. If they pass, these legislative changes will represent an added value for the victims, including female victims of domestic or sexual violence, for example. The justice system has to be more effective in general and more transparent, not least to facilitate the legal process and ease the long-term effects on victims or their family, especially when a decision is made about releasing the assailant. It also strengthens public trust in the justice system so that no other victim of a crime will hesitate to report it to the police. Statistics show that there has been a spike in femicide and domestic violence. Between 2009 and 2019, there was an increase of 7.5%. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to help reverse this troubling trend. The year 2024 is not off to a good start, since the first femicide in Quebec took place at the beginning of January in Granby, in my riding. Once again, my thoughts and sympathies go out to the victim's loved ones.The reality on the ground highlights the gaps, including the status quo in the justice system: Many victims continue to fear their assailant, even while that person is in custody. We can only applaud an initiative that seeks to improve the victim's experience of the justice system throughout the process, starting from the moment she decides to file a complaint. We need to rebuild their trust. Actually, “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust, is the title of an important non-partisan report that was produced by elected officials in Quebec City on the issue of violence against women, highlighting victims' lack of trust in the system.(1735)Thirdly, I would like to emphasize this non-partisan aspect that allows us to move this file forward. I know that the Conservative members will support this bill. We need to rebuild victims' trust in the justice system, which these same victims describe sometimes as lax. This bill seeks to better equip victims and their families so that they can obtain accurate and concurrent information on the court's decisions on their attacker. Victims and their families say that they are sometimes surprised to learn that the attacker is entitled to early release, long before the end of the 25-year sentence, for example. This needs to be taken into account. The Liberal caucus will also be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. The NDP caucus, too, will be in favour of this bill because it will improve the level of transparency in the judicial process. We all agree on the need to find solutions to help victims regain this all-important trust and further encourage them to come forward. I would like to briefly come back to a few other measures that were recently brought in that seek to meaningfully work on this issue of violence. We know that adding meaningful proposals and establishing a real continuum of services will help victims. No magic wand is going to fix all of this in one shot.I want to come back to the matter of the special court for victims of sexual assault. This is a recommendation from the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, that is currently being analyzed. The purpose of such a court would be to give victims a safe space where they can be heard by the justice system, a space where the workers at every level, including judges, are sensitive to the needs of victims. The first such court was set up in Valleyfield on March 5, 2022. It was a world first. Yes, Quebec became the first place in the world to set up a court specialized in domestic violence.With regard to electronic monitoring devices, Quebec has once again been a leader in better protecting victims. Quebec became the first province in Canada to launch a two-pronged monitoring system for domestic violence suspects. However, threats still exist. From what I heard in committee, we need to be careful that these devices do not create a false sense of security and ensure that they are worn properly. We also need to consider the fact that connectivity may be a problem in some places, especially remote areas, which means that the devices may not work properly there. We need to address that.I had argued from the outset that the government should follow suit and recognize Quebec's leadership on this issue. On May 20, 2022, Quebec was the first jurisdiction in the country to do this. It was ridiculous that only criminals sentenced to two years less a day should have to wear an electronic bracelet. The federal government should follow suit so that criminals with the toughest sentences could also find themselves subject to this measure under the Criminal Code.We have seen study after study in committee, but concrete action is slow in coming. There was the committee study on intimate partner violence, which also demonstrated the need to broaden our perception of violence and include the notion of coercive control. Recently, there was the clause-by-clause study of Bill S‑205, which specifically aimed to broaden the scope of electronic bracelet use. There is also this question of trust in the system that was raised during the study on abuse in the world of sport. Victims questioned the complaints system and called for an independent public inquiry to restore their trust and encourage reporting. In fact, that was the top recommendation in the report by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The government must take action now.In closing, I would say that it is important to send a strong message to the victims and to take additional measures. We have to set partisanship aside and ensure that we actually mean it when we call ourselves feminists, that we walk the talk. I have had enough of fake feminism. On the other side, they cannot claim to be feminists by boasting about getting tough on crime if they also infringe on women's right to control their own bodies.We have to remain vigilant and not fall prey to demagoguery, disinformation, and dare I say even the erosion of law and order. That would be the logical conclusion.It is going to take a lot more than common sense to find solutions. Let us all—elected members, justice officials and community stakeholders at every level—work toward a common objective: to save women's lives so that there is not one more victim.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseDomestic violenceFemicideInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionVictims of crimeViolence against women8246268824626982462708246271824627282462738246274824627582462768246277824627882462798246280824628182462828246283824628482462858246286AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of North Island—Powell River.Before I start my speech on this particular bill, I want to take an opportunity to send my love and condolences to the “real” North Island, as they like to call it. It is an area of a lot of small communities and small indigenous communities that, unfortunately, have seen several deaths of young people in the last few months. I know they are reeling from this, and a lot of constituents have reached out to express their fear, their concern and their need for support for youth. I want to thank them for doing that, and I thank all the organizations in the region that are opening up their hearts and workplaces to accommodate and work with youth and their loved ones. It is a very hard time. I just want to acknowledge that, for all of us in this place, we know that youth are the most important gift that we receive as humanity. When we lose them, in whatever way, it cuts us deeply. I just want to send my love and prayers to them and continue to work with them towards solutions so we can protect our youth much more effectively.However, we are here today to talk about Bill C-320, which is a private member's bill from the member for Oshawa. The bill talks about having a requirement to provide victims with an explanation as to why a specific parole date had been chosen, so victims can better understand the parole system. I think it would be a minor change, but it could have a significant impact on people. We know that too many people who are victimized often feel revictimized when they hear information that they are surprised to receive. Therefore, as we move forward collectively in this place, making our systems as clear as possible just helps to build that connection and provide some orientation when people are going through very hard and difficult times. When we look at the justice system, we see high rates of incarceration of indigenous and racialized people, those living in poverty and, of course, those with mental health and addictions issues, which is really concerning. I do not know if “justice” really belongs in the title. This reminds me of several indigenous communities and elders I have spent time with. Every story is a little bit different, but the main theme is this: When we have a person in our society who is behaving in a way that is hard, stressful or unpleasant for the society, we do not blame that person. Instead, we step back and look at the whole society to see what is happening within the collective that is creating this response in the person. I think that is a really hard thing to do; it shows how strong so many indigenous communities are, because they have that capacity. When the system is broken, it breaks people; it breaks communities, and we see this way too often. It is extremely stressful for those who are experiencing it, but when we objectify it, push it away and say “those people are this way”, we dehumanize them. I hope that the idea here is to actually look at ways to collect people together to better inform them of the process, to make it collectively safer for everyone and to recognize that our system is broken. As we move through these small changes, we have to start looking at what big changes need to happen to really fix some of these huge, gaping holes. We have heard a lot of talk, especially from the Conservatives, about Bill C-5. I understand that their methodology is about being tough on crime, but I am more interested in what actually works. I really believe that we should be listening to the people who spend their lives in these fields and explore these realities, because we need to make sure that our communities are safer. One thing that concerns me is that we often forget to invest in the preventative measures. Instead of dragging people out of the river, prevention means that we go upstream to find out why they are falling in the river. However, we do not see enough of that. (1745)There were some recommendations in the report from the justice committee on improving support for victims of crime. We really need to start looking at this. This is one step toward it, but we need to do some work and make sure we are working with all the provinces and territories to provide support for victims across Canada. We need to look at it from a national perspective as well. I do not want to impose on provinces, but maybe we need to have some standards we need to meet. What is really unfortunate is when one rule applies here but does not apply somewhere else in our country, which can often create divisions. Also, it can be very confusing if we ever have anything that is cross-jurisdiction.We also have to think of clarity of message so that when people are victimized, the more we are collectively doing similar processes, the more effective things will be. With more repetition, people will start to know what to expect.In the report, there was a very important recommendation, “That sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights be amended to clarify that the information to which victims of crime are entitled should be provided automatically rather than on request”. The recommendation does go on from there, but this is an important action we need to start taking. Again, when a person is victimized, it can be very overwhelming. We know that when working with people who have trauma, one needs to repeat things and make sure they understand. Asking them to request is often asking too much from people who have already been victimized.Another recommendation I want to touch on is recommendation 8: “That the Department of Justice promote and expand restorative justice opportunities, and that adequate funding be provided to restorative justice programs.” In my riding, for example, the Comox Valley Community Justice Centre does some very innovative work. It has multiple people trained. It works very closely with indigenous communities to make sure the process is inclusive. It does some very hard work. Restorative justice is not supported enough, so I would love to see more federal funding.When people who victimize have to accept accountability, have to be accountable to their community and have to really sit and hear the impact on the person they victimized, it changes the dynamics. It gives the victim a lot more power to speak out, to share and to have impact. It really starts to create community. This is an important recommendation.I will be supporting the bill the member put forward. It is a small step that is somewhat helpful, but we have a lot of work to do. The system is breaking people, and there are too many broken people in this country. We should all do better by them.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseFederal-provincial-territorial relationsInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsRestorative justiceThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8246287824628882462898246290824629182462928246293824629482462958246296824629782462988246299AndréanneLaroucheSheffordLeslynLewisHaldimand—Norfolk//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88958LeslynLewisLeslyn-LewisHaldimand—NorfolkConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LewisLeslyn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Leslyn Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk, CPC): (1745)[English]Madam Speaker, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the residents of Haldimand—Norfolk today. We have all heard the old proverb that knowledge is power, and it is for this reason that I rise to speak in support of Bill C-320, the bill my colleague from Oshawa has championed in the House.We have heard the painful story that has inspired this bill. It is about a daughter who was blindsided by the early parole given to her father's killer. Because the killer was given a life sentence of 25 years without parole, early parole was not something that was anticipated by the family. It is the tireless advocacy of Lisa Freeman that has led to this bill coming before the House. The goal of the bill is to simply lay out what needs to be done to include the families of victims in the parole process. Victims of crime would be given timely and accurate information, according to this bill, about parole eligibility. Victims would be included in the information about how those decisions are made and notified prior to the violent offender being released from the system. Bill C-320 would also provide clarity on a victim's ability to participate in the parole hearing. There is an embarrassing trend in Canada in which the rights of murderers and violent offenders seem to overshadow the rights of victims of violent crimes. In May 2023, one of the most notorious killers, Paul Bernardo, was transferred from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security facility. His victim's family was not notified of this transfer until after it had occurred. This pattern continues today.Just last week, news broke that a serial killer, Robert Pickton, who was convicted of six counts of second-degree murder and accused of 20 very similar offences, was eligible to apply for day parole. This parole application came just 17 years into his 25-year sentence. It was one of the victim's close relatives who spoke up because the families of the victims were not informed of the parole eligibility.There is an expression in law that justice must not only be done, but also must be seen to be done. In law, we are careful about ensuring that the sentence fits the crime. We are concerned that the accused should get a fair trial in every situation. All of these values are very important to the criminal justice system and to due process. It is important in upholding the integrity of our judicial system, but what is also important is how we treat victims.The justice system owes a minimal level of decency and dignity to inform victims' families of these kinds of decisions and how these decisions are approved. Without doing so, the justice system is exacerbating and adding to the trauma of the families of victims when they are blindsided by early parole hearings or transfers to low-security correctional facilities. Many Canadians assume that, when a sentence is given of 25 years, that is what the offender will serve. Victims and their families cannot continue to be retraumatized in this manner by being kept in the dark about the rationale of decisions in the parole system. Bill C-320 would be vital in ensuring that victims are able to feel free, safe and protected. I come back to the saying that knowledge is power.(1750)Take the example of the personal case of Ms. Freeman, who has inspired this legislation. Ms. Freeman's father, Roland Slingerland, a Royal Canadian Navy veteran, was murdered in cold blood while he was working in a downtown Oshawa rooming house. If the victim's family had been informed before the transfer occurred that his murderer was being moved to a facility just 10 kilometres from the victim's daughter's home, she would have been better prepared emotionally, psychologically and mentally for that. Victims' families do not deserve to be revictimized by the parole system, nor should the system provide false hope and a false sense of security that the person who harmed or murdered their loved ones is behind bars.The average person, when they hear of a sentence, does not think in terms of parole. They think in terms of that person's serving the entire sentence. Imagine that a family member could just be walking down the street and accidentally encounter, for example, their father's killer. Imagine how traumatizing this would be to the victim's family. Would it not make more sense to inform the family, or perhaps allow them to participate in the parole hearings and provide a victim impact statement?My background is in law. I know how the process by which dates for parole eligibility are determined and how transfers to lower-security facilities are determined. It is not an arbitrary process. Someone does not just wake up and arbitrarily set a date for parole eligibility. There is a process, and the bill before us would include victims in that process by giving them access to information. This would increase the transparency and the trust in the system. This simple bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to give some level of security, respect and dignity to the families of victims. Bill C-320 is a common-sense bill. The legislation would increase transparency and accountability for the government and the justice system by making sure that victims of crime are treated with respect and dignity, and are not arbitrarily left out of the parole hearing process. It would give a stronger voice to victims of crime, as advocates have said. It is quite simple: Victims should not be constantly revictimized by a system that prioritizes offenders' rights over victims' rights, yet this continues to happen over and over again.As parliamentarians, we have a duty to represent the voices of our constituents and to put forward legislation that upholds the rights of all Canadians, that strengthens our laws and that fixes the injustices in our judicial system. This is exactly what my colleague, the member for Oshawa has done by bringing forward this legislation. I want to thank and commend him for bringing it to the floor of the House and for taking it to third reading. I also want to thank Lisa Freeman for her courage, despite the loss of her father.Transparency and accountability must be at the heart of our democracy. Let us work together in unity to send the bill to the Senate and see that it is passed into law. Victims of violent crime deserve better from their justice system, and the bill is a critical step in the right direction.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime82463008246301824630282463038246304824630582463068246307824630882463098246310824631182463128246313RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-320. The legislation has gone through a very productive process in which it has generated fairly wide support in the House of Commons. It is quite encouraging.What we have witnessed over the years is a great deal of support for victims of crime. This is something that has been amplified through a number of pieces of legislation that the government has introduced and through legislation that has been introduced by private members. There is nothing wrong with recognizing when a private member brings forward legislation that would have a positive impact and it receiving the support it should.In this situation, Bill C-320 is a bill that, from what I understand, all sides of the House are getting behind. There is an expectation that it will pass, and ultimately go to the Senate and hopefully pass through the Senate in a timely fashion. It is always encouraging when we see legislation, through the draw system and priorities, that members of Parliament have brought forward as individuals that gets to the point that, in all likelihood, it will achieve passage through the Senate of Canada and ultimately receive royal assent.When we read the legislation in the form it is today, it is very easy to understand and appreciate why it has garnered the support it has. We all recognize the commitment to supporting victims of crimes and their families, and also their communities, because they too are often the victims of violent crimes, and how we can provide that support. This legislation is one step in ensuring that there is a higher sense of accountability for information.I believe, as I know my colleagues do, that we need to look at ways that individuals who have caused harm to others are held accountable for their actions. On issues such as release, parole hearings or even conditional releases, there needs to be a sense of recognition, in a very strong and tangible way, that the victims and the family members of those victims are aware when someone has been released or granted parole. As well, details need to be provided on the rationale of the system in allowing that individual to be released.The issue of protecting our victims or standing up for victims was amplified in one of the budgets we provided, through the victims fund, which was close to $30 million, that was made available to provincial and territorial governments, and non-governmental organizations, to increase awareness and knowledge of victim issues, as well as the legislation and services that are available. That was a couple years back.Not only have we taken specific actions in certain areas of legislative changes, but we have also put the budgetary resources to support victims. I find it interesting, when we can build that support base, how relatively quickly we can come up with the consent of the House.(1800)The other day I was talking about the former leader of the Conservative Party and her private member's bill regarding the education of judges, if I can put it as simply as that, on the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation. As a result of the wide level of support for the issue, not only was the House able to pass it but, from what I understand, provincial jurisdictions have also taken it into consideration, and I would like to think have actually acted on it.There are things that take place here in Ottawa that can have a positive impact on the entire system. Here, of course, we are talking about criminal law, so it is somewhat different, but the principles are the same in the sense that the legislation received widespread support and ultimately is going to pass through the House.Where I find I get a little offside at times with the Conservative Party is when its members try to give the false impression that they want to be tough on crime, such as when they talk about one of their four priorities and give the very simple statement, “We are going to stop crime.” What I refer to as bumper sticker slogans are often accompanied by misinformation to try to give the impression that, for example, the government is weak on the issue of crime.The speaker before me made reference to a case where an inmate had been transferred. The first thing that came to my mind was when Ralph Goodale, when he was minister of public safety, brought to the attention of the House the issue of Tori Stafford's brutal murder that took place in 2009. When the sentencing came down, the perpetrator ultimately was put into a maximum-security facility and was then transferred in 2014 to a medium-security facility. That happened under a Conservative regime.However, when something of that nature happens on this side, the Conservatives will say that the Liberals are soft on crime. There seems to be a double standard used by the Conservatives, one standard they will use when they are in opposition, to try to give the false impression of being tough on crime and the government of the day being soft on crime, and then another standard when they are in government. It would be interesting to know how many private members' bills dealing with the issue of crime have been debated, ones originated from the Conservative caucus. A couple of them have passed. How does this compare to the type of government legislation they brought in when they were in the position to do so?I like to believe that supporting law enforcement agencies is really important in dealing with crime. When the Conservatives say they are going to stop crime, I like to remind my constituents that it was the Conservatives who actually cut $430 million from RCMP funding. That does not help stop crime; however, it feeds into the message, while they are in opposition, that the Conservatives are going to be tough on crime.(1805)I would suggest that we need to see more consistency coming from the member opposite. In terms of Bill C-320, today, we are witnessing how the member has been able to build up a consensus that would benefit the victims of crime. To that end, I will be supporting this particular piece of legislation.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims FundVictims of crime82463148246315824631682463178246318824631982463208246321824632282463238246324824632582463268246327LeslynLewisHaldimand—NorfolkChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1810)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-320, which was introduced by the member for Oshawa.This bill is very much in line with other private members' bills that have been introduced by various members from various parties. These bills demonstrate that there is complete unanimity on this issue, unlike in many other areas. All parties agree when it comes to the issue of protecting victims and integrating them better into the justice system.For example, I can talk about two other bills that were debated very recently in the House, including Bill C-332, which was introduced by the NDP member for Victoria and seeks to criminalize coercive control. That bill focuses more on partners or spouses in a family context. I would like to read the bill summary: This enactment amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of engaging in controlling or coercive conduct that has a significant impact on the person towards whom the conduct is directed, including a fear of violence, a decline in their physical or mental health or a substantial adverse effect on their day-to-day activities. This bill seeks to create a new offence for conduct that often occurs in a domestic context. I was also pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-205, which was introduced by now former senator Pierre‑Hugues Boisvenu and has to do with intimate partners. Once again, by way of explanation, I want to read the bill summary as it appears in the bill. It states and I quote:This enactment amends the Criminal Code in respect of interim release and other orders related to intimate partner violence offences. The enactment also provides for recognizance orders to be made when there is a reasonable fear of domestic violence.This bill, which I spoke to in the fall, is rather large in scope when it comes to measures to protect victims of domestic violence.The two bills I just talked about deal with keeping women safe and protecting female victims. We know that the number of femicides increased by roughly 7.5% between 2009 and 2019. My colleague from Shefford also mentioned this. There is a great deal of work to be done to protect women. That is also the purpose of Senator Boisvenu's bill. It talks about the use of electronic bracelets, but also about the obligation to give the victim a copy of the order regarding the accused and to ensure that the victim has been consulted about her safety and security needs when a bail decision is being made. There was already a strong interest in ensuring that victims of domestic violence offences or sexual offences are given more information about, and also have a say in, an accused's release, should a peace bond be issued. The idea is to ensure that the victim is aware of the situation and that she can even be involved in the release process, in a way, by helping monitor the actions of an accused who is subject to certain conditions, such as maintaining distance. Unfortunately, law enforcement agencies do not always have enough eyes to ensure that release conditions are met. Perhaps this is one way to ensure better monitoring and enforcement of orders.Bill C-320 has some minor nuances. In this case, we are talking about victims in general. It is not just about victims of sexual offences or victims of domestic violence, but would include the families of murder victims, for example. The definition of victim as set out in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act includes the direct victim, but it also stipulates that someone else can act on the victim's behalf. This could include the victim's spouse or the person who was their spouse at the time of the victim's death, someone who was cohabiting with the victim, a relative or a dependant. This means that the bill can apply to a broader definition of victim. What this bill does is make it mandatory to give the victim more information on certain aspects.(1815)We are not calling into question the very concept of parole, for example. That is something that the Bloc Québécois supports, because we believe in rehabilitation. The parole system may not be perfect, but we must still support it in the sense that, in some cases, rehabilitation takes precedence over a very strict desire to simply keep people incarcerated when it is not necessary or appropriate and when there is a real possibility of social reintegration.Under the bill, the victim must be informed of the eligibility dates and review dates applicable to the offender in respect of temporary absences or parole, and they must be given an explanation of how those dates were determined. The victim must also be informed when the offender is released on escorted or unescorted temporary absence, on parole and on placement, meaning when the offender is sent to a halfway house. The victim must be informed of the date on which the offender will be released and how that date was determined. In short, explanations are given regarding the parole system, temporary absences and orders to place the offender in a halfway house.Without completely reforming the issue of parole, this bill ensures that the person does not learn through the media that an individual convicted of a crime committed against her or a member of her family was released without her full knowledge of the process, the mechanics of that decision. This will ensure greater confidence. In fact, I dare to hope that the bill will help give victims more confidence in the federal prison system and further involve victims in the process. If this transparency can make victims more confident, that can have an untold impact on certain aspects of the judicial process.I mentioned this during the study of Bill S-205. One of the common problems encountered in court when the time comes to lay criminal charges against someone, and particularly in the context of domestic violence, is that the victim is often not a party to the case, but simply a witness. This witness is important because, often, they are the only witness the Crown can use to put someone in jail and proceed with a hearing. If the victim does not have sufficient confidence in the justice system, she may decide not to testify, for fear of retribution. It is often for these reasons that domestic violence hearings go nowhere, for lack of a victim.This is an opportunity to improve overall knowledge of the justice system, from one end of the legal process to the other, as was done with the other two bills, and this one. We can help people understand the system better, have more trust in it and participate more in the process to ensure that those who have committed wrongdoing end up serving the sentence handed down for their actions.However, we also need to ensure that better psychological supports are available. As soon as the institution is required to properly inform victims about the parole process, for example, this can retraumatize many victims. We must therefore ensure that there are sufficient resources and supports in place for these victims if we want to get this right. We will have to make sure that there is a useful purpose, but also that we think more about the victims in the sense that this bill puts victims at the centre of the process. We must not do just one part of the job. We have to make sure that the work is done properly and that victims are fully supported. Ultimately, we have to be able to say that the victim has been put at the centre of our concerns and is part of the judicial process. She is not just an outside witness.This bill has good intentions, and that is why I am convinced that the parties decided to unanimously support it at second reading and in committee, and that they will support it now at third reading.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseDomestic violenceFemicideInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime824632882463298246330824633182463328246333824633482463358246336824633782463388246339824634082463418246342824634382463448246345KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to say that I feel quite humbled and quite happy to be standing here this evening.We have heard the speeches in the House and the comments from members in regard to this bill. We have actually had an opportunity, instead of talking about some of these crimes, to talk about victims and their families. I want to take this opportunity to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the victims and their families for their strength and for their advocacy. In particular, we have heard the name of Lisa Freeman a few times. She is a constituent of mine, who, with incredible tenacity and stubbornness, has helped make getting this bill through the House a reality.As my colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk said, “Knowledge is power.” This legislation would make a very simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act with respect to the disclosure of information to victims. It would provide and give greater respect and transparency to families and victims.This is a change, and I will agree that it is a small change, but we are in a situation in which we have heard examples of where criminals are now getting more support from the system than the victims. This needs to be reversed.Criminals' rights should never trump victims' rights, but it seems to happen every single time. It is our job to protect victims' rights. It should never be a family's job. These families, when their loved ones are murdered, get a life sentence. There is the mental trauma and cost, and it never goes away. The least we can do is be more transparent about how the criminals who changed their lives forever are being managed.As we have heard in some of the speeches, we are not going to fix all these serious matters with this one bill, but I think we can all agree that the system needs to be recalibrated. The rights of victims have to be made equal to, or rather they should always be made better than the rights of their offenders.Here we have it, colleagues. A killer could be released into a community where his victims live, at the whim of his case management team, with no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made or when the release will take place, until after the fact. I know all members will agree that this is unconscionable. It should not be a fight that victims have to take on year after year, just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong.Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of the justice system and basic common sense.Throughout this debate, we have been able to give victims' families a voice. I just want to add a more recent example, because it is very important that we pass this bill right away, as soon as we can. We heard, just last week, that Robert Pickton is now eligible to seek day parole, a murderer charged with killing 26 women and convicted of the deaths of six. I want to read some of the coverage from the families.A cousin of one of Robert Pickton's victims stated, “The fact that he can actually apply is horrific.” This is what Ms. Williams said Wednesday, ahead of the candlelight vigil taking place by Pickton's old farm. She went on, “That threw me right off. I didn't know and the other families that I'm close to didn't know.”It is extremely unlikely that Pickton would ever be released, but Ms. Williams, a fierce advocate for missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, said that the mere fact that he can apply is disgusting. She also stated, “Our justice system is horrific. It's racist and puts Indigenous women's lives in danger...It makes me sick to my stomach.”She said that no one involved in the justice system informed victims' families that Pickton's day parole eligibility date was approaching, and she found out only after talking with a lawyer she knows.This has to stop. I want to thank colleagues in the House for their unanimous support, because it is an opportunity for us to do something that is right, and we can do it now.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8246347824634882463498246350824635182463528246353824635482463558246356824635782463588246359CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCorrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1825)[English]Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredC-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8246365ColinCarrieOshawaGarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88468StevenMacKinnonHon.Steven-MacKinnonGatineauLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacKinnonSteven_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended ProceedingsInterventionHon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)(1215)[Translation] moved:MotionThat, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for the duration of the session,(a)(i) a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted,(ii) a minister of the Crown may request, at any time during a sitting, that a decision to extend a subsequent sitting, made pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i), be rescinded and such request shall be deemed adopted;(b) on a sitting day extended pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i),(i) proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),(ii) after 6:30 p.m., the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,(iii) motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,(iv) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(9) or 67.1(2);(c) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18),(i) when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,(ii) when a supply bill is considered in a committee of the whole, if a recorded division is requested to any bill elements or motions required to dispose of that stage of the said bill, the results of the vote shall apply to the remaining bill elements and motions required to dispose of that stage and report the bill to the House;(d) a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage;(e) on the last three sitting days set forth in the House of Commons Calendar for the periods ending in June, as well as the last two sitting days of the periods ending in December, a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House, provided that,(i) the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment, and that the House shall be deemed adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28,(ii) notwithstanding Standing Order 45, no recorded division requested between 2 p.m. on the third to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in June, respectively, and between 2 p.m. on the second to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in December shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Member's Business item, for which the provisions of Standing Orders 93 and 98 shall continue to apply; and(f) on any day, at midnight or thereafter, if the House has not completed a series of recorded divisions related to the business of supply or on any bill, a minister of the Crown may move, at any time, the suspension of the sitting of the House, which shall be deemed adopted, and the sitting of the House shall be suspended until 9:00 a.m., later that calendar day.He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a motion being put forward by our government to improve the work of the House.We are at an important point in this parliamentary session. Our government has an ambitious agenda to improve the lives of Canadians.This means working hard here in the House of Commons to advance legislation for the people we represent. It means working with all parties in the House to get things done co-operatively, without partisanship or political games.Members from all parties in this minority government are here to represent their constituents and to get things done on behalf of the people they represent. Unfortunately, one party is preventing that from happening. The Conservatives, led by the Leader of the Opposition have been behaving irresponsibly. They oppose for the sake of opposing, and they fail to propose responsible solutions. They are obstructing the work of every member of the House, all its committees, bodies and parties, solely for their own partisan interests. They are using political delay tactics to prevent a number of bills from being voted on. We are all witnesses to this, even when it comes to bills they actually support. They impose all-night voting marathons and, in the process, vote against the very investments Canadians are counting on.(1220)[English]That is the agenda of the leader of the official opposition of the Conservative Party of Canada for the House. It is to delay, obstruct and create chaos. By doing so, he hopes that Canadians will tune all of this out and not become invested in the work that we do here, the work that has positive impacts on Canadians every day. I will get to that in a moment. Before that, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives have prevented the House of Commons from doing its work and how their leader will never admit to Canadians what he and his MPs are doing. All his claims about who he is working for are nothing but a ruse. The leader of the official opposition is working for himself, for no one else, and the House of Commons is paying the price.The motion we are debating today is designed to address the unfortunate place we now find ourselves because of the Conservatives' political agenda of chaos and obstruction. The motion is designed to allow the House to do its work. It is designed to provide extensive time to debate bills in the chamber, something that the Conservatives claim they want. It is designed to turn this place into a healthier workplace. No one, whether one is a member of Parliament or an employee working in the House of Commons, should be forced to work throughout the night simply because the Leader of the Opposition wants to bully others into participating in his political games.Indeed, this motion reflects our government's view of what we should all want Parliament to be, which is a place for constructive debate, testing ideas, and reasoned and civil discussions. It should be a place where things get done. Simply put, it should be a place that Canadians are proud of, not a place that Canadians look at and recoil in horror because of the games played, through the night, by the official opposition. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader wants to prevent all of this from happening. He wants to turn the House into a place of dysfunction. On our side of the aisle, and I believe this is true for other MPs in the chamber, we have a different view. We have a much greater respect for this place, for Parliament. We are here every day, working hard to help Canadians in a wide range of areas that touch their lives—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!AdjournmentCommittees of the Whole HouseDeferred divisionsDilatory motionsEstimatesExtending sitting beyond ordinary hour of adjournmentExtension of debateExtension of sitting hours in JuneGovernment and politicsGovernment Business No. 35Government ordersMotion to adjourn the DebateMotion to proceed to the Orders of the DayOpposition motionsProcedurePutting the questionQuorumRecorded divisionsReport stageSupply billsSuspending a sittingThird reading and adoptionUnanimous consent8239421Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)(1330)[English] moved that Bill C-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders), be read the third time and passed. Bill C-321. Third reading He said: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise once again in this chamber to speak to a bill that is near and dear to my heart. I rise today to speak on behalf of the hundreds and thousands of brave men and women who are our hometown heroes; they are our nurses, our health care workers, our firefighters, our paramedics, our first responders and our correctional officers. Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code, assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders, would amend the Criminal Code by adding section 269.02, which would make an offence against a health care provider or first responder an aggravating factor upon sentencing. Our health care providers and first responders need to be assured that if they are attacked, assaulted or harassed while on the job, there is a strong legal mechanism in place to deliver them justice. As it stands today, that protection simply does not exist.Bill C-321 would serve three main purposes: one, it would be a powerful deterrent to those who seek to commit violence against our frontline heroes; two, it would signal to frontline workers that we value them, that we are looking out for them and that the justice system will protect them; and three, it would help throw weight behind a national conversation that needs to be had to start making these workplaces safer. To put it more simply, Bill C-321 is about protecting those who protect us. The importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. Our health care providers and our first responders truly are Canadian heroes. They put their lives and their personal safety on the line each and every day. How many people can say that same? We have fallen far when it is okay to hunt and to target firefighters, who are just trying to save lives; to hunt and to target nurses and paramedics, who are simply trying to provide care to the sick and wounded? These are our frontline heroes, and the reality is that they have to deal with these traumatic occurrences each and every day. Firefighters, police officers, correctional officers, nurses and doctors put on their uniforms each and very day to serve us and our families. They do so knowing and expecting that they are going to face violence and harassment. They heal our wounds. They run into burning buildings. They run toward danger when others run away. They dedicate their lives to protecting us and those we love: our neighbours, our friends, our families. Who protects them? Right now, there is no one. Everyone deserves a workplace free from violence and abuse. When one starts a career in health care or as a first responder, one does so to serve one's community and to make a difference. Nowhere in the job description does it say that one should be signing on for a life of violence, abuse and harassment. When did violence in the workplace every become the norm? We cannot tolerate this any longer. We have to act.Many of our great men and women, nurses and paramedics, firefighters and correctional officers have shared their personal stories with me, and I am sure they have done the same with many of our colleagues as well. We cannot turn on the TV or scroll through social media without seeing yet another story of a violent attack on a paramedic or a nurse. Recently, I visited a medical facility, and I witnessed the aftermath of a bloody assault on a nurse. It was horrible to see this young nurse absolutely battered. All that nurse was trying to do was to take the temperature of a patient. When I spoke with the supervisor of that particular nurse, I was told that it was the second incident of violence in a month. It is crazy how far we have fallen when our paramedics have to put on bulletproof vests just to start their shifts and to make it through a shift. (1335)When we hear those stories we do not know how to respond. It is difficult to imagine the things they go through. It is hard to hear. What I know is that we need to act. We need to do everything in our power to make a difference in these heroes' lives. Whether they are a nurse, a personal care worker, a paramedic, a firefighter, a correctional officer or a psychiatric nurse who is simply performing their duties, they are all facing increasing rates of violence on a daily basis. We need them to know that they are cherished and that someone is looking out for them. We need them to know that there is somebody who is fighting for them.We as parliamentarians can be their champions. We have the sole constitutional power to create law, and we must use that power to demonstrate to the world that in Canada, violence perpetrated against health care providers and first responders is unacceptable. We will not stand for it. On the contrary, we will stand firmly against it.To anyone watching or listening right now, I urge them to go look back at the witness testimony from when Bill C-321 was at the justice committee. Some of the stories these brave paramedics, nurses and firefighters have shared with us were absolutely horrific. I would like to highlight some of the testimony for my colleagues here now.Testimony from Dr. Elizabeth Donnelly, associate professor at the University of Windsor and a member of the violence in paramedicine research group reads:Violence against paramedics is wildly under-reported, primarily due to a culture of under-reporting and this idea that tolerating violence has become an expected professional competency. Violence reporting [has been slowly] increasing, and while it's still under-reported, our research has found that paramedics are reporting violence every 18 hours, are assaulted every 46 hours and experience violence that results in physical harm every nine days.Linda Silas, President of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Union, said this:The facts are shocking...In 2023, a pan-Canadian survey of nurses was done. Two-thirds reported incidents of physical assaults over the past year and 40% of those nurses reported physical abuse more than once a month while engaged in their duties.She also said:Exposure to violence predicts negative mental health outcomes, including PTSD...78.5% [of nurses] report symptoms of burnout. Similar data is seen with public safety personnel.Danette Thomsen of the B.C. nurses union said: What about the nurse in rural B.C. who, last January, entered a female patient's room and was attacked? Can you imagine being held over a chair, receiving punch after punch, with handfuls of your hair being pulled out, while waiting frantically for help to come from the RCMP?Paul Hills, president of the Saskatoon Paramedics Association and a member of the International Association of Fire Fighters, speaking on the daily experience of paramedics across Canada, said this:We normally start our 12-hour shift with a team briefing. We check our trucks and then it's go, go, go. We rarely have any breaks. That means no breakfast, no lunch and no supper as compared with the average worker, not to mention all while experiencing some of the most horrific and heart-wrenching situations that exist in society—incidents involving children being stabbed by their parents, or families tragically dying in motor vehicle [accidents].He went on: Personally, I've had my life and those of my family threatened by gang members. I've had machetes and knives pulled on me. I've removed guns from patients while attending to their medical needs.Mr. Hills continued: In Toronto just two weeks ago, a firefighter attempting to put out a fire in an encampment was attacked with a six-foot piece of PVC piping and hit in the face for no reason whatsoever.In British Columbia, interactions with overdose patients have become violent or aggressive once we've rendered medical care to save their lives. In Winnipeg, a firefighter got stabbed in the back while attending to a patient on a sidewalk.I could spend the rest of the hour sharing real-life events—my partner here could as well—of violent acts or near misses, but the takeaway is that it's real. It's happening right now.If that is not enough evidence, I am not sure what is, but the violence that our health care providers and first responders face on a daily basis has hidden consequences that go beyond the physical risks. There is a growing body of research showing that increased violence is correlated to higher rates of depression, anxiety, stress, suicidal ideation and burnout.(1340)Critically, exposure to on-the-job violence has been strongly identified with a rising intent to leave the job. We live in a time when we need our health care providers and first responders more than ever, but our nurses, paramedics, firefighters and more are looking to leave their jobs rather than continuing to suffer the abuse they experience. The violence and abuse they constantly face leads to fear, to fatigue and to burnout; and it leads to serious morale and recruitment issues. Why would they not want to leave? How are employers going to recruit somebody with that type of job description, under those conditions? Why should we expect people to keep fighting, day in and day out, for us, with no thanks and no appreciation, if we cannot fight for them?Our frontline heroes need our support. They need recognition. They need our help. Bill C-321 is the necessary first step to work toward those goals. Many parties have a role to play in addressing this crisis, and those actors and those parties need to step up to the plate. Talk is cheap. As parliamentarians, we are limited in offering solutions, but what we can do we should do. We can do our part by amending the Criminal Code and passing Bill C-321 into law now. I do not think it is a controversial debate. We all want to come together on this in a non-partisan fashion to get things done for our health care providers and our first responders. We have already heard speeches and witness testimonies that Bill C-321 is complementary to the changes made in the earlier Bill C-3, and we know that Bill C-321 came out of the 2019 HESA recommendations from the report on violence against first responders. We know that the relevant stakeholder groups are overwhelmingly supportive of this legislation. If the status quo on an assault charge were a sufficient deterrent, this debate would be irrelevant, but clearly, as so many witnesses have testified before the justice committee, there is nothing currently in the law that acts as a strong enough deterrent for the increasing rates of violence experienced by health care providers and first responders. That is why the International Association of Fire Fighters has publicly and vocally supported the legislation, and it is far from the only one. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, the Paramedic Association of Canada, the Ambulance Paramedics of British Columbia, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers, the Ontario Paramedic Association, the Paramedic Chiefs of Canada, the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs, the Saskatoon Paramedic Association, the British Columbia Nurses' Union and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions have all thrown their considerable weight behind this bill. It is imperative that we listen to what these stakeholders are telling us. They are asking us for help, and they are asking us to work toward a solution together. There are countless regional, provincial, national and international organizations that have come on board, and we know that the Canadian public is highly supportive of this initiative as well, as was reported from an Abacus Data poll conducted in November, which showed that 83% of Canadians support making assault against health care providers and first responders a more serious offence in the Criminal Code. We must take this first step toward showing our frontline heroes that we hear them, that we are here for them, that we value them immensely, that we will always have their backs, that we appreciate them and that we will fight to protect them. That is our duty. Our health care providers and our first responders need to know that Parliament, the House of elected officials and, more important, the justice system have their backs and will not let them slip through the cracks any longer.Assault and batteryC-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour CodeC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Caregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersFirefightersNursesParamedicsPrivate Members' BillsRetention of employeesSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safetyWorkplace violence8210701821070282107038210704821070582107068210707821070882107098210710821071182107128210713821071482107158210716821071782107188210719821072082107218210722821072382107248210725821072682107278210728821072982107308210731821073282107338210734821073582107368210737CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. It is a very timely bill. Just the statistics and anecdotes that were shared are just heart-wrenching, and we certainly want to support our frontline workers at every opportunity.The member mentioned that this is an important first step and as a deterrent in our Criminal Code, it is certainly important. How do we make sure that Canadians across the country are aware of this change, that they know it is there to protect those nurses, doctors and firefighters whom the member spoke of and that they know it would have those extra penalties so that the deterrent would have the impact we want it to have?Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoption82107388210739ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, just the strength alone of all the associations that have come on board will help carry that message once this bill passes. However, let us not look too far past even today. We know that this bill, if passed here in this House, has to go to the other chamber. We need this bill to pass as soon as possible. The next critical step is to ensure we get swift passage at the Senate and royal assent. Only then, when this bill becomes law, can we then start saying that we are protecting those who protect us. Then we start working on the messaging.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoption8210740JenicaAtwinFrederictonMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, it is clear New Democrats always support the notion that all workers should be safe. The member from the Conservative caucus has gone on at length about this bill. I do not feel the need to recapitulate his arguments. I am not clear this will necessarily be a deterrent, but nevertheless here we are. We do have to make sure our first responders are adequately protected.I believe all workers deserve to be protected. This House visited Bill C-46 back in 2015, and it was particular to transit operators. I am wondering if the hon. member would agree there needs to be a revisiting of that piece of legislation to include all transit workers in order to provide the same consideration for safety in the workplace for frontline workers, not just first responders.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsPublic transitSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety82107418210742ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, it is interesting our hon. colleague brings up transit workers and the issue of violence against them when there is legislation in place that does already protect transit workers. Whereas, Bill C-321 needs to be passed to protect those who protect us.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsPublic transitSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety8210743MatthewGreenHamilton CentreMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Matthew Green: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I will take this opportunity to help the member understand my question. It is clear he did not. What I said was the legislation covered transit operators, and I wondered if he would take the consideration to all transit workers, which would include the people who are cleaning up in stations or anybody who is around the system. This gives him an opportunity perhaps to better understand my question and reflect on a more adequate answer.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsPublic transitSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety8210744ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with Bill C-46, the bill that he is referring to. If he wants to talk about that further, perhaps as a PMB bill, another PMB he would like to put forward, I will work with him on that as well.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsPublic transitSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety8210745MatthewGreenHamilton CentrePatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, the member's passion for the safety of first responders is a credit to him. We support his bill. I know there is only a moment left, and I would like to give him a moment to provide more emphasis or to talk about anything he did not have time to get to in his speech.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoption8210746ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not think we can say thanks enough to those who put their uniforms on every day knowing full well they are going to experience absolutely the worst of society. They put their uniforms on to serve us and our families. With the increasing rates of violence, they now have to be worried whether they are actually going to be able to return home to their families. Imagine the traumatic toll it takes on someone to worry they are going to be violently attacked over the course of their day when they are just doing their duty, just doing the job they want to do and serving their country. That is what they face each and every day, and it is horrible. We need to pass BIll C-321.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoption8210747PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeVanceBadaweyNiagara Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88867VanceBadaweyVance-BadaweyNiagara CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BadaweyVance_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Vance Badawey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Lib.): (1350)[English]Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for bringing the bill forward.I am honoured to speak to Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to assaults against persons who provide health services and first responders, and to the amendments made by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.I also want to thank the committee for its work in developing the bill into a more inclusive and robust legislative measure, one that reflects our collective commitment to the welfare of health care workers and first responders, who put their life on the line each and every day to keep Canadians and our communities safe.Bill C-321 seeks to address the increase in violence against those who provide health services and against our first responders. It was originally tabled proposing to do so by enacting inclusion of an aggravating factor that would apply to assaults against health care professionals and first responders, as well as cases involving the uttering of threats to the same people.As a result of its deliberations, the committee concluded that the scope of victims who would be protected by this bill needed to be expanded in recognition of the diversity within our health care services sector. Bill C-321 was amended to replace references to “a health care professional or a first responder” with “a person who provides health services, including personal care services, or a first responder”. This change was made to the proposed aggravating factor, as well as to the preamble and to the title of the bill. This is the same language from Bill C-3, which the Government passed in 2021.This change in language would ensure that all individuals involved in providing health services, from nurses and doctors to personal care workers, abortion providers and administrative staff, benefit from the same protection against assaults and the uttering of threats while in the performance of their duties.The committee's amendments also align with the changes brought about by our government's former Bill C-3, which received royal assent in 2021. The amendments ensured that it would be an aggravating factor for any offence of assault or uttering threats to be committed against a person who, in the performance of their duties and functions, was providing health services, including personal care services.Former Bill C-3 also enacted new offences prohibiting intimidating and obstructing conduct directed at those providing or seeking health services. Bill C-321's proposed changes would expand criminal law measures to include first responders. This reflects our denunciation of workplace violence in these critical sectors, whose workers should never fear for their own safety or feel intimidated as they are coming from and going to work.The changes are about recognizing the diverse roles of those individuals who contribute to our safety in our health care systems, and about our recognition that they deserve to work in an environment free from the threat of violence. They should never be the target of death threats, whether in person or through social media campaigns designed to intimidate and frighten them, yet this is happening each and every day.The need for such comprehensive protection is based on the statistics and stories emerging from various sources. For instance, the 2019 report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health revealed that in just one year, 61% of nurses experienced abuse, harassment or assault.(1355)Firefighters and other first responders have also reported an increase in acts of violence during emergency responses. Behind these numbers are real people facing real threats, impacting not only their physical safety but also their mental health and job satisfaction, as well as, may I add, their families and the people close to them, and their neighbourhoods.Bill C-321's proposed amendment to the Criminal Code signals to the courts that sentences should be increased to further denounce assaults committed against persons who provide health services or who are first responders. It also acknowledges their invaluable service to society, which sometimes makes them vulnerable to violence while carrying out their duties.Additionally, this bill, with a broader scope, would provide a clearer response to conduct that disproportionately impacts women and particularly racialized women. By extending protection to all health service providers, Bill C-321 also supports the larger goals of promoting gender equality and safeguarding the rights of minority groups.The available information regarding violence against first responders, while not extensive, clearly indicates that women in these roles face a heightened risk of gender-specific violence, including instances of sexual harassment and assault.Our first responders and those in health services are working selflessly in the most trying circumstances to save lives and care for critically ill patients. Their commitment to public service often comes at a personal cost, a cost that should not include violence.I know that the government remains steadfast in its commitment to addressing the serious issue of violence against health service providers and first responders.Supporting Bill C-321, as amended by the committee, is a demonstration of our commitment to protect the well-being and dignity of those who serve our communities.I want to note that it is Sexual and Reproductive Health Awareness Week. It is important to note that this legislation, as with the former bill, Bill C-3, will protect abortion providers. We have seen rises in attacks on abortion providers in various parts of the world and we want to avoid that here in Canada.I am happy to see this bill provide another level of protection to those providers in Canada. Violence affects more than just the physical well-being of first responders and health care workers. It also has lasting consequences on their mental health. The challenges of the pandemic have intensified pre-existing problems, such as burnout and occupational stress injuries, which are often a result of traumatic experiences, including violence and abuse encountered in the workplace. These work conditions influence the decision of these crucial workers to remain in their jobs, and remain serving our communities.This bill, in its amended form, is part of a broader conversation about how we, as a society, value and protect those who work in challenging and often dangerous environments. It challenges us to think about the kind of support and resources we provide and how to ensure that every worker in Canada can perform their duties without fear of violence or harm.Let us honour the work of the people who provide health services, including personal care services and first responders, with actions that match their dedication.We will continue to work to keep all Canadians safe. I urge all members to support Bill C-321 to pass, ensuring that our first responders and health care workers are protected, and that this goes to the Senate for its approval.Assault and batteryC-3, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour CodeC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Caregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersFirefightersGender-based violenceHealth and social servicesMental healthPrivate Members' BillsSentencingSexual discriminationThird reading and adoptionWorkplace violence8210748821074982107508210751821075282107538210754821075582107568210757821075882107598210760821076182107628210763821076482107658210766821076782107688210769ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeMarilèneGillManicouagan//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88538MarilèneGillMarilène-GillManicouaganBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GillMarilène_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ): (1400)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my mother was a nurse, my father was a volunteer firefighter, and I have a son who wants to be a police officer. I have been personally aware of the violence that we are talking about my entire life, so the bill introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George is very important to me.Bill C‑321 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to consider the fact that the victim of an assault or an act of violence is a health care worker or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance. The Bloc Québécois has amply demonstrated its support for such a measure. It is clear to us that health care workers and all those who work to keep us safe every day must be protected in the line of duty. If their job can be considered an aggravating circumstance during a crime, if it can help to prevent offenders from attacking them, if it can serve as a basis for harsher sentences for offenders or if it can serve to dissuade offenders from committing such acts of violence, then we are in favour of this solution. Although Bill C‑321 is a partial solution, it is solution nonetheless.I would like to talk about the principle of prevention, which I believe should also be looked at as a primary measure, an essential measure for protecting health care providers and first responders before even considering the rise in assaults that we have seen against them—in the hope that the this rise is only incidental and will not continue any further—or before even talking about aggravating circumstances, as we are currently doing with the study on Bill C‑321. Prevention also has its place.Like all my other colleagues who have spoken in the House, I think that all workers have the right to work safely. I am talking about the security that protects their physical integrity, but also their mental integrity because violence takes many forms and is not just physical. It might be wishful thinking on my part and on that of my colleagues, but I think that we need to reach for this goal and strive for workplaces that are free from any form of violence. In my opinion and that of the Bloc Québécois, that is the heart of the problem: We need to focus on eliminating all forms of violence instead of just punishing those who commit or perpetuate it.It is true that eliminating violence is a massive undertaking if we consider, as I just mentioned, that it has been on the rise over the years. Studies show that since the pandemic, it has just kept increasing. The problem has been exacerbated.I want to share a few figures from the field of health care. I will stick to health. For example, data from the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, and the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, are unequivocal. They show that 933 assaults or violent acts were committed against health care personnel in 2012 and that 1,994 were reported in 2021 in health care workplaces across Quebec.I would like to add, as many have, including my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, that this is just the tip of the iceberg. These are the cases that have been reported. As in many situations of violence, including partner violence, we have the numbers that correspond to what people have been willing to share, but we do not have them all.We talked about prevention. My colleague also talked about the idea of opening up the discussion, making this subject public. Perhaps putting it in the public arena would make people aware that they have experienced forms of violence. It might also help them report violent incidents. In short, we are seeing a steady increase. In the figures I just mentioned, the numbers have more than doubled in 10 years. That is a massive increase.I would also like to mention the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which studied the subject and published a report in 2019, if I am not mistaken, on the issue of violence in health care.During that study, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions mentioned that 61% of its members who participated in the survey said they had experienced violence. That is just among those who took part in the survey. The percentage may be higher. Still, that is 61% of members who have experienced harassment, assault or violence.(1405)In 2014, 1,676 paramedics responded to a similar survey, and 75% of them reported being victims of violence. In 2010, according to the College of Family Physicians of Canada, one-third of survey participants said they had experienced this kind of violence.Whether it is one-third, three-quarters or two-thirds, it is too much. My colleague also talked about a case of violence. I would like to share a story that happened when I was younger and has always stayed with me. As I said, my mother was a nurse. Even little kids realize when something is not right. It makes us reflect on this violence in the workplace and on the fact that some jobs may be higher-risk. A nurse was dealing with a patient who was agitated and aggressive and became violent. He decided to kick her. He kicked her in the stomach. This violence was entirely unjustified. The nurse in question was pregnant. She did not lose her baby, but she had to be hospitalized. Guess what? She decided to stop working as a nurse after that incident.I wanted to put that on the record. All incidents we could describe here are shocking. They amount to gratuitous violence. They may all seem similar in many ways. This story illustrates the impact they can have on people's lives, on their integrity, physical health and mental health. We talked about this earlier. They also have an impact on the profession overall and on society at large. It really is a domino effect. No one is spared the consequences of such violence. As a child aware that her parent was exposed to risks at work, I experienced those consequences myself to some degree.Although this should not be the only argument, the shortage of health care workers in the sector is a factor worth considering. Health care professionals and first responders have better things to do than worry about their safety on the job. They should not feel that they have to protect themselves, or worry that they might encounter this type of situation. It is hard to promote a profession when we allow violent situations like this to continue. How can we say that we value a profession if we stand idly by while the people who practise it are at risk?The statistics I quoted are very real. These are the folks who work in our hospitals and suffer the consequences of this violence. Of course, the quality of the environment has an impact on the quality of care. I was talking about prevention earlier. The government has a duty to transfer money to Quebec. That is not the only solution, but when it comes to prevention, we need a properly funded and subsidized environment to be able to give all health care workers a break. Here, again, I am focusing on health care. This is not a justification, but we need to reduce the level of frustration that patients in the health care system are feeling.I see my time is running out. I think I could talk about this for another 10 minutes. I must have prepared for a 20-minute speech. I am really interested in this issue. All this to say that we support Bill C-321.I would like to use the last few seconds of my speech to express my deepest gratitude to all health care workers, to those working behind the scenes, and to firefighters and paramedics. I want to thank those who are known as first responders, who do just about everything. I also want to thank our correctional officers, many of whom live on the north shore. I would like to thank them for the work they do. They deserve more than just recognition. They need to be valued, protected and supported, and I will see to that.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Canada Health TransferCaregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersHealth care systemLabour shortageNursesParamedicsPrivate Members' BillsRetention of employeesSafetySentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace violence821077082107718210772821077382107748210775821077682107778210778821077982107808210781821078282107838210784821078582107868210787VanceBadaweyNiagara CentreLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1410)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I acknowledge we are on unceded Anishinabe Algonquin territory. I do so while representing my riding of Nunavut. I rise to speak to Bill C-321, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding assaults against health care professionals and first responders.I thank the member for Cariboo-Prince George for tabling his private member's bill. Since I joined this house in 2021, I have observed that the member is passionate about mental health.The content of Bill C-321 brings forward debate about the circumstances of health care workers and first responders. This amendment, if it passes, would require the courts to consider their position as an aggravating circumstance, therefore possibly impacting sentencing.What does this mean? It means a few things. First, it means that there has already been a trial and the judge is now considering the length of a sentence according to an offence. In their considerations, the judge must consider both the aggravating and mitigating factors. There exist sentencing principles, including circumstances of the individual, evidence from different facts and similarity to other decisions. Much of these form the consideration in determining how long an offender may be sentenced for.The other aspects of consideration are the mitigating factors, which are considerations to lower the sentences. These include, for example, if it is a first time offence or if there is an addiction or mental illness. If there are to be any amendments regarding aggravation in sentencing, there should be an equal consideration for mitigating factors.Addressing violence must be improved. Using the courts is not the right approach. I question the potential effectiveness of this bill in protecting health care professionals and first responders. I question this bill and whether it addresses the increasing incidences in violence that we are told are occurring across Canada.The criminal justice system in Canada is already flawed. It is a penal system that does not do justice for too many already. Currently, section 269 of the Criminal Code outlines the penalties for causing bodily harm to another person. The penalties can include, for example, imprisonment for up to 10 years, depending on the severity of the offence.Before I begin the next part of my speech, I must first honour the memory, family and friends who knew Joyce Echaquan.I struggle with this proposed amendment because there are too many stories like that of Joyce Echaquan's, an Atikamekw woman who livestreamed the abuse she experienced at the hands of hospital staff who should have been there to save her life, not abuse her. Later, it was learned that Joyce Echaquan died of pulmonary edema, an excess of fluid in the lungs. Ultimately, the Quebec coroner’s inquiry concluded that racism contributed to her death.Joyce Echaquan's story is one of too many. According to the Government of Canada’s website, there are inequalities in health of racialized adults in Canada. The website says, “Racism influences access to health promoting resources. Populations who are racialized in relation to a 'white' or non-racialized social group experience stressors including inter-personal and systemic discrimination throughout the life course”.In Canada, racialized people are more likely to be exposed as perpetrators in this system. According to the Canadian Centre for Justice and Community Safety Statistics, among those who were discriminated against, 21% of indigenous people and 16% of Black people said it was when they were dealing with police, compared with 4% of non-indigenous, non-visible minority people who experienced discrimination.(1415)In his debate, the member for Cariboo—Prince George shared that some 92% of nurses have experienced physical violence during the course of their jobs. When I hear this, I hear the need for all of us to work better together to make overall improvements and to address violence as a preventative measure, not as a punitive one.While I completely agree that health care workers and first responders must have a safer working environment, they, too, must play an active role in creating that safe space. The criminal justice system must not be the go-to for this solution. I appreciate past attempts in addressing this area, including the work by the NDP. Unfortunately, those past attempts may not have been viewed from a trauma-informed lens. Those past attempts may not have considered that most of them enter the health care and the criminal justice system because of Canada's continued effects of Canada's genocidal policies. I do not disagree that health care professionals are not important. The criminal justice system protects them too. They are not excluded from protections through the criminal justice system. Health care professionals and first responders can have any kind of reason to enter that workforce. They do so wanting to help people in pain and to help those who need treatment. As a caring field, we hope, as individuals, that all of us would be cared for. However, for racialized Canadians, unfortunately, this is not an automatic assumption. When the House of Commons committee studied this area and tabled its report, “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”, I am not sure what contributing factors it explored that might be leading to the increases observed. I do not discredit any of its work, I only ask that there be closer attention paid to how Canada's lack of investment has led to increases in the exposure to these circumstances. I only ask that there is an acknowledgement of how systemic racism might be perpetuated by accepting the bill before us. It would not address violence in the workplace, which is what the intent of the study tried to address. I would ask this Parliament and this government what they have done to implement the other recommendations made in the standing committee report.I also highlight the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action, which has offered solutions, including calls to action 18 to 23. I would also remind parliamentarians about the MMIWG calls for justice. I highlight 10.1, which calls for the mandatory training of Crown attorneys, defence lawyers, court staff and all who participate in the criminal justice system. I will conclude by sharing some quotes. The Canadian Centre For Justice And Community Safety Statistics states, “Discrimination or victimization based on individual characteristics that are visible parts of identity can also have broader ramifications beyond the individual who is targeted.”In a CBC article, the Minister of Indigenous Services said, “The systemic racism endured by Indigenous people in Canada's health care system exists because the system was designed that way.... Sadly this is not shocking to me.... Racism is not an accident. The system is not broken. It was created this way. And the people in the system are incentivized to stay the same.”Assault and batteryBlack peoplesC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Caregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersHealth care systemIndigenous peoplesNursesPrivate Members' BillsRacial equalitySentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safetyWorkplace violence821078882107898210790821079182107928210793821079482107958210796821079782107988210799821080082108018210802821080382108048210805821080682108078210808MarilèneGillManicouaganShuvaloyMajumdarCalgary Heritage//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/116022ShuvaloyMajumdarShuvaloy-MajumdarCalgary HeritageConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MajumdarShuvaloy_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC): (1420)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-321, a bill which would amend the Criminal Code to protect and defend our men and women serving on the front lines.The bill is led by my dear friend, a fierce advocate and the Conservative shadow minister for mental health and addictions, the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George. In my short time on Parliament Hill, I have seen his advocacy for the mental health and well-being of Canadians in action in our time at the health committee, from seeing him fight for Canadians with addiction issues to watching him bring in a life-changing program, the 988 suicide crisis line that will save thousands of lives. We know his legacy will be one of saving lives. I cannot think of anything more honourable or noble than that.However, his work here is just beginning. Today he is bringing forward legislation to protect our nurses and paramedics, and all those on the front lines. They are the very people who risk their lives every day to protect us, and I could not be more proud to stand to shoulder to shoulder with him as co-sponsor of the legislation.I have three reflections on the bill: the frontline heroes in Calgary, what the legislation brings to the table, and why it is needed now. In my city, there are thousands of people, from Bridlewood to Evergreen and all the way to Lakeview, who work in these jobs. Every day, they wake up and go to work, saving lives and supporting those who need it the most. Sometimes they have to endure the heartbreak of losing the people they care about. On top of that, these folks are barely scraping by due to an increasing cost of living and a gut-wrenching carbon tax. I know this because during my campaign and in the 24,000 conversations I had, I heard their stories. I saw the pain in their eyes. These are my neighbours, the heroes of Calgary Heritage. They work in some of the most honourable professions in our country, and Canada must do better in showing them how valuable they truly are.This brings me to my next point: what the legislation brings to the table and how it would protect our heroes. The bill, if passed, would amend the Criminal Code to consider an assault against a nurse, paramedic, firefighter or other frontline worker, including health care staff, an aggravating circumstance upon sentencing. With this amendment, the legislation would give greater teeth to our prosecutors seeking justice for workers assaulted, abused or violated on the front lines. It would send a message to the bad actors thinking they can walk into an emergency room, an ambulance or a care home, and hurt our frontline workers. Finally, it would ensure that the perpetrators of these horrific acts are put behind bars.What is the urgency behind passing the legislation? More and more of our people on the front lines are reporting increased abuse, violence and assault every year. In fact, we know from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians that over half of emergency department nurses are physically or verbally abused in any given week, and 43% of hospital nurses will be sexually harassed or assaulted this year. The number of violence-related, lost-time claims for frontline health care workers has increased by almost 66% over the past decade.The cost of this is absenteeism. Nurses often have to seek care or therapy because of the trauma they experience. This means that the people who care for us when we need it the most are unable to do so because of the abuse they have faced. We know that in 2016, the annual cost of absenteeism for nurses due to illness or disability was nearly $1 billion. For paramedics, 75% of them reported experiencing violence, many suffering from psychological wounds in the form of stress, anxiety and PTSD. Every time these heroes go to work, they know they may not come home. They should, at the very least, know they will not be subjected to violence or abuse from the people they serve, care for and protect.It is time for us to do the same and serve them. Bill C-321 would do just that by protecting those who protect us. It is common-sense legislation and long overdue. To my colleagues across the chamber, this need not be a partisan undertaking. Let us come together to pass the legislation and change the lives of our heroes on the front lines.Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Caregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersMental healthNursesParamedicsPrivate Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace violence82108098210810821081182108128210813821081482108158210816LoriIdloutNunavutCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1425)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Heritage. I have known him only a short time, but I value his friendship and truly respect the work that he does alongside all of us in this House.We had an opportunity here, from all sides of the House, at report stage, where all parties unanimously supported Bill C-321. The bill is not the be-all and end-all, but sends a clear message to the public and the judiciary that the protection of those who protect us is important. It sends a message that we need to be standing up for those who stand up for us.We know that 83% of Canadians support making assault against first responders a more serious offence in the Criminal Code. Eight out of 10 Canadians believe that violence against paramedics is a problem in Canada, including 31% who believe it is a major problem.Rates of violence against nurses, health care workers and first responders are growing at an alarming rate. Bill C-321 will provide much-needed support for those on our front lines. This legislation is a tangible way that we, as parliamentarians, can show those on the front lines that we care, that we respect them, that we do not condone violence in their workplace. We need to let them know that we have their backs. We need to let them know that we are listening. Bullying, abuse, racial or sexual harassment, and physical assault should never and can never be considered just part of their job. These workers care for us at our most vulnerable time and I think we have the responsibility to care for them in return. We need to send a message that violence is unacceptable.I really hope we can get this passed as soon as possible. We do not need to have an extensive study in the Senate. We have heard from witnesses. We have studied the matter extensively at committee. What we need now is action.A good friend of mine sent me a text this morning. Do members know that Australia has adopted a very similar law to what we have as Bill C-321, except it is making it even stronger? It is setting mandatory minimums when first responders are assaulted. This comes out of the violent machete attack on a paramedic in Australia. Obviously, we do not go that far yet. This bill is just a start. It sends a message that we are listening. It sends a message to the judiciary that we take violence against first responders and health care professionals seriously. I hope Madam Speaker and all my hon. colleagues will support this bill at third reading when we get back from the constituency week so that we can get it passed as soon as possible.Before I close, I want to thank my colleagues from all sides of this House who have offered their support and their feedback. I value it.We need to send a message that violence is not acceptable. It is not part of the job description. They do everything in their power to save our lives, to keep us healthy, but they are exhausted and fear for their safety and their lives. They need to know that we have their backs, that someone is fighting for them. They need to know they are valued. Passing Bill C-321 and ensuring its swift passage through the Senate toward royal assent is the very least we can do.I am going to end with this simple message. Our frontline heroes are there when we need them the most. They answer our calls for help. Should we not answer theirs?Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Caregivers and health care professionalsEmergency response and emergency respondersParamedicsPrivate Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoptionWorkplace violence8210818821081982108208210821821082282108238210824821082582108268210827CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1425)[English]Division on motion deferred Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.[Translation]It being 2:29 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 26, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1). (The House adjourned at 2:29 p.m.)Assault and batteryC-321, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assaults against health care professionals and first responders)Private Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoption821083282108338210834ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionThe Speaker: (1025)[Translation]Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 13, 2024, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Bill C-62 at third reading stage.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204709GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerAnitaAnandHon.Oakville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96081AnitaAnandHon.Anita-AnandOakvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandAnita_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Anita Anand (President of the Treasury Board, Lib.) (for the Minister of Health) (1025)[Translation]moved that Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, be read the third time and passed.Bill C-62. Third readingC-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204710GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.): (1025)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about Bill C-62 and the extremely important issue of medical assistance in dying, or MAID, and mental illness. I think all members can agree that this is a highly complex, quite sensitive and emotional issue, that raises divergent and deeply held views from the medical community, experts and the public at large. The questions of whether, how and when to expand eligibility for MAID to persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness are difficult; they do not have easy answers. The federal government believes that eligibility for MAID should be expanded to such persons. However, such an expansion should not be rushed and should not occur before the health care system is ready to safely provide MAID in all cases where it is requested on mental illness grounds. This is why we have introduced Bill C-62, which proposes to extend the temporary mental illness exclusion by three years, until March 17, 2027. The bill also includes a provision requiring a parliamentary review prior to that date. As members will recall, in 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded in the Carter case that the Criminal Code’s absolute prohibition on physician-assisted death was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that physician-assisted dying must be permitted in some circumstances, namely, for competent adults who clearly consent to the termination of life and who have a grievous and irremediable medical condition. This decision led to the legalization of MAID in Canada one year later, in 2016, through Parliament’s enactment of former Bill C-14. Our original MAID law limited eligibility for MAID to competent adults with an eligible medical condition whose natural death was reasonably foreseeable. Our MAID framework was added to the Criminal Code and was made up of a stringent set of eligibility criteria, as well as procedural safeguards to prevent error and abuse in the provision of MAID.A few years later, the “reasonable foreseeability of natural death” eligibility criterion was challenged in Quebec; in 2019, it was declared to be unconstitutional by the Superior Court of Quebec in the Truchon decision. As this was a trial-level decision, it was only applicable in Quebec. Nevertheless, the Attorney General of Canada did not appeal the decision; instead, the federal government made the policy decision to expand eligibility for MAID. This led to Parliament’s enactment of former Bill C-7 in 2021, which expanded eligibility for MAID to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This resulted in the removal of the eligibility criterion that a person’s death be reasonably foreseeable and the creation of two sets of procedural safeguards for the lawful provision of MAID. The first track of safeguards applies to persons whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable; the second, more robust, track applies to persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This second set of safeguards was created in recognition of the fact that requests for MAID by persons who are not at end of life are more complex. This is why a minimum of 90 days must be taken to assess a person for eligibility for MAID when their natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This is not a reflection period; it is a minimum assessment period. This safeguard aims to respond to the additional challenges and concerns that may arise in the context of MAID assessments for persons whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable. This includes whether the person’s suffering is caused by factors other than their medical condition, as well as whether there are ways of addressing their suffering other than through MAID. (1030)This second set of safeguards also requires that two practitioners be satisfied that the person meets all the eligibility criteria, and if neither of them has expertise in the medical condition causing the person suffering, one of them must consult with a practitioner who does. Involving a practitioner with the relevant expertise aims to ensure that all treatment options are identified and explored.Practitioners are also required to inform the person of available counselling services, mental health and disability support services, community services and palliative care; to offer them consultations with the relevant professionals; and to ensure that the person has given serious consideration to such alternative means to alleviate their suffering. Although this does not require a person to undertake treatments that may be unacceptable to them, it requires that they fully explore and weigh the risks and benefits of available treatment options.Former Bill C-7, as originally introduced, permanently excluded eligibility for MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone. This was not because of the incorrect and harmful assumption that individuals who have a mental illness lack decision-making capacity or because of a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering a mental illness can cause. Rather, this was done because of concerns about the inherent risks and complexities of permitting MAID for individuals who suffer solely from mental illness.During its consideration of the bill, the Senate made an amendment that added a sunset provision that would repeal the mental illness exclusion 18 months later. The House of Commons accepted the amendment in principle, but changed the date of repeal to two years; in other words, the provision of MAID based on a mental illness alone was set to become lawful on March 17, 2023.The decision to temporarily maintain the exclusion of eligibility was based on the recognition that additional study would be required to address the risks and complexities of permitting MAID in these circumstances. This is why the former bill also included a requirement for an independent expert review respecting recommended protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to such requests for MAID.Former Bill C-7 also required the creation of a joint parliamentary committee tasked with conducting a comprehensive review of the Criminal Code's MAID provisions and other MAID-related issues, including MAID and mental illness. The committee undertook this important work, and its interim report, which focused on MAID and mental illness, was tabled in June 2022. It urged the federal government to collaborate with regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and the provinces and territories to ensure that the recommendations of the expert panel were implemented in a timely manner.The committee's second report was tabled in February 2023. The majority view expressed was that eligibility for MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone should be permitted. However, the final report also raised a key concern that more time was needed for standards to be developed and training to be undertaken before the law should permit a mental illness to ground a request for MAID. The federal government recognized the significant progress that had been made by the provinces and territories, stakeholders and the medical community in preparing for the expansion. However, it ultimately concluded more time was needed.This is why we introduced Bill C-39, and Parliament enacted it. It extended the exclusion by one year, until March 17, 2024. This extension aimed to provide additional time for the dissemination and uptake of key resources by the medical and nursing communities. We thought it essential to prepare for the safe assessment and provision of MAID in all cases where a mental illness grounds a request for MAID. The committee expressed support for the extension in its second report.(1035)I want to take a moment to recognize the work that the federal government has done during this extension to support the fulfillment of some of the expert panel’s recommendations. For instance, we amended the regulations for the monitoring of MAID last year to ensure comprehensive data collection and reporting. Such changes allow for data collection related to race, indigenous identity and disability of persons requesting MAID. These changes came into force in January 2023, and the first set of data will be captured in Health Canada’s 2024 annual report on MAID.Moreover, Health Canada convened an independent MAID practice standards task group to develop a practice standard for MAID. In March 2023, the model MAID practice standard and supporting documents that provide guidance to support complex MAID assessments were released. Finally, Health Canada supported the Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers in the development of a Canadian MAID curriculum, which was launched in September 2023.In Canada, certain aspects of MAID fall under federal jurisdiction and others fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction. The federal government is responsible for the criminal law aspect, whereas the provinces and territories are responsible for the implementation of MAID within their health care delivery systems. Impressive progress has been made in preparing for the expansion by the March 2024 deadline. However, the provinces and territories have all expressed that they are not yet ready. For this reason, we are proposing to extend the temporary mental illness exclusion for another three years, until March 17, 2027.The extension would allow more time for the provinces and territories, and their partners, to prepare their health care systems by implementing regulatory guidance and developing additional resources for their medical and nurse practitioners. It would also provide more time for medical and nurse practitioners to become familiar with the available training and supports. Our ultimate goal is to help ensure that the necessary protections are in place to protect the interests of individuals who may seek MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone.We believe that this issue should not be rushed. Eligibility for MAID should not be expanded until the health care system is ready to safely provide MAID in these complex circumstances. I urge all members to support the bill so our partners can get this right.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Committee studies and activitiesFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsHealth care systemInformation collectionMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption8204711820471282047138204714820471582047168204717820471882047198204720820472182047228204723820472482047258204726820472782047288204729AnitaAnandHon.OakvilleToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I have sat through much of this debate, on the committee as well. The provinces and territories did not ask for a three-year pause; they asked for an indeterminate pause because they are not ready. Industry is not ready. The health care professionals cannot come to any conclusions.As a matter of fact, Dr. Gaind, a professor of psychiatry at U of T, summed it up best at the committee last night. He said, “once again, there is no evidence that shows we can predict irremediability in mental illness, and it is vastly different from other medical conditions and neurodegenerative diseases...but we have to remember what MAID is about. It is about us predicting who will never get better, and we can't do that. And if we can't do that with mental illness, we would be providing death under false pretenses.” He equated it to being much like flipping a coin to choose who could get better and who could not. MAID would simply be killing people who could possibly get better.What would my hon. colleague say to that?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2DiagnosisGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820473082047318204732YasirNaqviOttawa CentreYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi: (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I were both at the committee last night, which heard from quite a few experts on MAID. I think it was fairly clear that there was a difference of opinion as to the readiness of the system. There were some experts who believe that MAID for people with mental illness could be provided as early as March 17, 2024.However, the member is right. There is a letter from seven provinces and three territories that have asked for an extension to the period. The government feels that a three-year period is the right amount of time for the medical profession and the provinces and territories to be ready to be able to provide MAID to people with mental illness, with appropriate safeguards.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2DiagnosisGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82047338204734ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, the issue of what guidelines should be in place to allow someone to die is perhaps one of the most profound things we have to discuss. Parliament agreed to move forward with MAID, and we expected that we were going to get a review. Instead there was a Quebec provincial court decision, the Truchon case. The federal government did not appeal the decision; it just rewrote the law.Then the Senate, an absolutely unaccountable, dismal group as far as I am concerned, decided to just throw in an arbitrary date to allow people with mental illness to die, and the government accepted it. We are now scrambling, with a month left. The government is saying it is going to put some guardrails in place to punt it down the road.Why is the government not taking the issue seriously? The member for Abbotsford's bill would have dealt with this. The government has put us in this situation, and it is not credible.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820473582047368204737YasirNaqviOttawa CentreYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi: (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, I will take exception to the member's comment because a tremendous amount of work has been done to create the appropriate safeguards. Not only are there legislative safeguards in place in the Criminal Code, which I alluded to in my remarks, but there are also safeguards being developed within the medical profession.We need to make sure we listen to our health care providers, those who deliver health care at the provincial and territorial level, and extend the date for the change in eligibility criteria for three years so MAID could be administered with all the appropriate safeguards in place.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82047388204739CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1045)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we just witnessed a great NDP-Conservative coalition. The member is reiterating the Conservatives' argument to the effect that the ruling in Gladu and Truchon was not challenged before the Supreme Court. However, the reason why it was not challenged before the Supreme Court is that people were suffering and Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon deserved to have relief. This was based on the Carter decision. However, the NDP voted against Bill C-14, which did not go far enough. I do not know why the member is being so inconsistent today. I would like to know whether the member is aware that, basically, his party is trying hard not to say that it lacks courage, that it is backing down when it comes to mental illness and that it is throwing the ball back into the court of the Conservatives who, as they announced, are going to do away with all of this.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Carter v. CanadaGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820474082047418204742YasirNaqviOttawa CentreYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi: (1045)[English] Madam Speaker, the government is taking the most prudent approach in making sure people get the care they need. This is a very sensitive issue that requires that we work closely with medical professionals to ensure that all the appropriate safeguards, training and associated curriculum are in place. If there is doubt, as we see by the request that we create an extension, it is only prudent for the government to do so. That is why we are encouraging all members to support Bill C-62 and extend the pause on eligibility for MAID on the sole basis of mental illness by three years.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Carter v. CanadaGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204743LucThériaultMontcalmKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, as the provinces and territories are not ready to implement medical assistance in dying for people with mental disorders, personally I am also not ready. I could not vote for something like it right now. I am taken by the case of a woman, E.F., who was granted the right to have her life taken with medical assistance in 2016, after reports that she suffered from severe conversion disorder. Nobody could read the media accounts of this and not understand that there are some people for whom life is clearly not worth living anymore.Would that provision, in the Court of Appeal decision in Alberta, still provide a way forward for the people who are in a terrible condition right now and who need relief?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820474482047458204746YasirNaqviOttawa CentreYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi: (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, our number one job is to protect people's rights. Given that the various decisions of the courts have said that it is a person's right to determine their end of life, we need to make sure that right is protected.Of course we need to ensure that they get all of the care they need in order to be able to recover, but as the courts have said, if their suffering is irremediable, they should have that option available because it is a matter of their rights. That is why we are working so hard, along with our provincial and territorial partners, to ensure that all the right safeguards and all of the right training are in place before MAID is extended to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82047478204748KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsRobMooreHon.Fundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, we know we are in this situation because a radical justice minister and a radical government have pushed this agenda.I want to get the member's thoughts on this quote from 32 law professors. They state:We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAiD for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness is constitutionally required...as Minister Lametti has repeatedly stated.I asked the minister, when he appeared at the justice committee, who was right, these 32 legal experts or him. He said, of course, that he was right. I want to ask the member this. Does he believe that these 32 legal experts are right or that the former minister of justice was right?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82047498204750820475182047528204753YasirNaqviOttawa CentreYasirNaqviOttawa Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110572YasirNaqviYasir-NaqviOttawa CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NaqviYasir_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Yasir Naqvi: (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, this is a very sensitive issue. It is highly emotional and complex. I would urge all members that calling names and ascribing labels is not the responsible way forward. Canadians are looking to us to make responsible decisions. That is why it is incumbent upon us to work with everyone, including the legal community. The hon. member across the way knows that if we talk to 10 lawyers we will get 10 different legal opinions on any matter.Most importantly, we need to work with health care professionals and understand from them what is required with respect to all the appropriate safeguards.Last but not least are the provinces and territories, which are primarily responsible for delivering health care. We need to listen to them carefully, and they are asking for an extension. That is what Bill C-62 is doing.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820475482047558204756RobMooreHon.Fundy RoyalEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8204757YasirNaqviOttawa CentreCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, it should have never come to this. Had the government properly consulted with Canadians, this expansion of MAID would never have seen the light of day. Instead, what we now have is MAID in Canada, a triumph of ideology over common sense.The Liberal government's recent decision to further delay, but not cancel, the expansion of MAID to the mentally ill reflects an unserious approach to this all-important life-and-death issue. MAID was originally designed for those whose physical illness was incurable and caused intolerable pain, and where death was reasonably foreseeable. However, the Liberals soon eliminated the requirement that death be reasonably foreseeable and then went far beyond that by quickly agreeing to a demand from the unelected Senate to expand assisted suicide to include those suffering from mental illness.The government has signalled a willingness to go even further by including children in its deadly scheme. As we predicted back in 2016, when the Prime Minister introduced medically assisted death to Canadians, our country is now hurtling down a steep and slippery slope. Despite the accusations of fearmongering and exaggerating that have been levelled at us, history has proven that Conservative MPs were right. Over eight short years, our country has moved from banning assisted suicide to having the most permissive and dangerous regime in the world. The statistics are staggering. Last year, over 13,000 Canadian deaths were attributable to MAID, a 31% increase over the year before. That is without MAID being made available for mental illness.MAID is now the fourth leading cause of death in the country. When compared to other jurisdictions where MAID is available, like California, Canada's assisted suicide deaths far exceed those of other jurisdictions. That should really concern us, as it reflects a reckless implementation of MAID. Imagine how many more thousands of deaths will be added every single year, should the Liberal plan to include the mentally disordered come into force.Of increasing concern are the growing number of cases in which MAID has been improperly approved and administered outside of what the criminal law currently allows. Here are just a few of them: There is a Hamilton man who would rather die than struggle with poverty, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator Reporter; the Cape Breton woman who sought MAID over lengthy workers' compensation delays; the Ontario quadriplegic mother who applied for MAID over a lack of access to disability supports; the former paralympian who told MPs that the veterans affairs department offered her assisted death instead of help; and the Winnipeg woman who chose to die through MAID because of her futile struggle for home care.There is the case of Donna Duncan from my own city of Abbotsford, who was euthanized because mental health support was not available when she needed it the most. Indeed, she received MAID without her daughters, Christie and Alicia, knowing about it until after the fact. They had no chance to say goodbye to their mother.Then there is Kathrin Mentler, who lives with chronic depression and suicidality. Feeling particularly vulnerable, she went to Vancouver General Hospital looking for psychiatric help for feelings of hopelessness she could not shake. Instead, a clinician told her there would be a long wait to see a psychiatrist and that the health care system is broken. That was followed by a jarring question: “Have you considered MAID?”There is the case of Sophia, who suffered from severe sensitivity to smoke and chemicals, triggering rashes, difficulty breathing and blinding headaches. She died by MAID after a frantic effort by friends, supporters and even her doctors to get her safe and affordable housing in Toronto. She begged officials for assistance in finding a home away from the smoke and chemicals wafting through her apartment. “The government sees me as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass,” she said in a video filmed eight days before her death.(1055)Canadians are dying unnecessarily and under circumstances that scream out for reconsideration of how far Canadians are prepared to go in euthanizing their fellow citizens. It has become stunningly clear how little the government consulted on MAID expansion. Mental health professionals are only now becoming aware of the government's plans to euthanize persons suffering from mental disorders.Psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical counsellors and suicide prevention experts overwhelmingly oppose this expansion, and only recently has the government begun to consult with indigenous communities, our fellow Canadians who are at the greatest risk from an expansive application of MAID.The provinces and territories, as has already been mentioned, have sent a joint letter to the government, saying that they are not ready for MAID expansion. Indeed, they have called not just for a delay but for an indefinite suspension of the government's plans. Ordinary Canadians, of course, have repeatedly said they do not favour expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill.What is worse is that this expansion is taking place at a time when Canada faces compounding national crises in mental health, palliative care, opioid addiction, affordability and homelessness. The skyrocketing cost of living has only exacerbated these profound social challenges. The government's reckless approach to MAID also flies in the face of Parliament's stated commitment to suicide prevention, including the recently activated 988 suicide helpline, which is thanks to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.How can members claim to support suicide prevention efforts, when at the same time they are promoting state-facilitated suicide? Clearly, the government's contradictory approach has been one in which blind ideology has trumped common sense and reason. More troubling is that the message to our most vulnerable Canadians, the mentally disordered, the opioid addicted, the homeless and hungry, and the veterans, is that their government would rather euthanize them than provide them with the mental health and social supports they need to live productive, meaningful lives.The utilitarian implications of the government's approach are deeply disturbing and profoundly wrong on so many levels. By any other definition, expanding MAID to include the most vulnerable is nihilism hiding behind the fig leaf of compassion.In a briefing recently, Liberal government officials indicated that they are still hell-bent on expanding MAID to the mentally ill. It is just that their masters, namely the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues across the floor, do not want to face the voters' wrath for placing their corrosive ideology above the interests and welfare of the most vulnerable among us. That is why they, the Liberals, have kicked the ball down the road to avoid the political consequences.We can and should do better. What is really required and what Canadians are demanding of the Prime Minister and his justice minister is that they put a full stop to this madness now. There being no national consensus on MAID expansion, completely rescinding this policy is the only reasonable and responsible thing to do.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2ChildrenGovernment billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSuicidesTerminal illnessesThird reading and adoption82047608204761820476282047638204764820476582047668204767820476882047698204770820477182047728204773820477482047758204776CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, the member and I sat on the third edition of the special joint committee together. I know the member is a lawyer, and my question is really a legal one. I agree with the recommendation of the committee for an indefinite delay, but does he expect that this case will come up at the Supreme Court eventually? What does he think the reasoning of the court might be, given that the definition of irremediability in law is very different from irremediability in clinical medical practice, which requires a bit more certainty? There is a tension between the two, so I would be interested in his perspective on that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSupreme Court of CanadaThird reading and adoption8204777EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, let me first of all thank that member for bringing such a thoughtful approach to our work at the committee and now here in the House.I agree with him that we should have an indefinite pause on this expansion, but with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada, I think it would be wrong to presume what the court might read into any additional changes that might happen. We do know that the federal government refused to appeal lower court decisions, like the EF decision in Alberta and the Truchon case in Quebec, to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is where this type of final decision should rest. I expect fully that eventually a case will make its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme Court of Canada will opine whether the Carter decision should go beyond just the incurable, intolerable illnesses where death was reasonably foreseeable and should in fact include vulnerable populations like the mentally ill.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSupreme Court of CanadaThird reading and adoption820477882047798204780FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1100)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague complains that people are accusing him of fearmongering, but he is unable to use the right technical terms to debate this issue. The Council of Canadian Academies does not refer to children. Referring to children in general shows a lack of intellectual rigour in a debate like this. The right term is “mature minors”.For example, at the age of 15, Charles Gignac was diagnosed with a cancer that ate his bones. He was fit as a fiddle, an athlete with a very strong heart. He suffered for two years because he was not eligible for medical assistance in dying. He requested medical assistance in dying. He passed away at 17 years and 10 months, without MAID, in pain and anguish. What treatment did he receive? He was given palliative sedation because no one was able to relieve his suffering. After he received palliative sedation, his loved ones watched him spend 24 hours in an agitated, delirious state before he died. Is that what my colleague calls compassion?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2ChildrenGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82047818204782EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that individual would actually promote assisted death for children. Let us not forget this. The suggestion is not only that this would be assisted death for mature minors. There is the suggestion that parents would not have the final say over whether their children would be euthanized. This is appalling. Is this the state of our country, where we have parties in the House of Commons actually promoting the deaths of children when in fact they can be helped and treated? We can do better as a country; I know we can.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2ChildrenGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption8204783LucThériaultMontcalmCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I think my colleague shares my concern that we are now 30-some days away from an arbitrary deadline that was imposed. We passed a national palliative care motion that I brought in 2016, and nothing was done. In 2019, we brought forward the national suicide prevention strategy that was based on the work in Nunavut. Everybody signed off, and nothing was done.Now we are being told that we should be making it easier for people who are suffering with mental illness, people who are on the streets, people using opioids, people who are hopeless, and that we should be fast-tracking that rather than putting in place the protections needed to protect people.What are my hon. colleague's thoughts are on that?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820478482047858204786EdFastHon.AbbotsfordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work at the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, where we did excellent work in coming up with a recommendation, which unfortunately the government did not choose to follow in its entirety. We had called for an indefinite pause. Unfortunately, the government felt an arbitrary three years was sufficient.To answer his question, I have great concern the government's promises to deliver improved palliative care supports to the provinces and to deliver improved mental health supports to them have not been fulfilled. Now people are asking for death because they are not getting those supports. That truly is sad.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption82047878204788CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayMichaelBarrettLeeds—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, we come here to debate the most serious of issues, and we are faced with one of those issues today.I want to start by being very up front. I do not think that a pause is appropriate for the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. There must be an abolition of the expansion to those who are most vulnerable and to those who are suffering. We have heard that the Liberal government is pushing this off to avoid political consequences in the next election, and it is shameful. However, it does present an opportunity, because a Conservative government would not allow the expansion of doctor-assisted death to people for whom our country should be offering hope and help.The concrete solutions that have been put forward by Conservative members have been heard in the House, including by my hon. colleague from Cariboo—Prince George with the 988 suicide prevention hotline, which he shamed the government into taking action on. While it took that shame for the Liberals to act, it does offer some help to those who desperately need it. The hon. member for Abbotsford spoke just before I did. His Bill C-314 would have scrapped doctor-assisted death for those whose sole underlying medical condition was mental illness, but the government rejected that. With respect to the provinces and territories, which are constitutionally obligated to deliver on health care, the majority of their heads of government have had to call for the government to stop this reckless march forward.While I will vote in favour of a pause, I cannot abide anyone believing that I am okay with this continuing three years from now.This debate is following the Liberals' pulling the emergency brake on the reckless expansion of MAID just a year ago. Given the chance, there would be a wide expansion of MAID, and not just to those who are suffering from mental illness and addiction. This expansion of doctor-assisted suicide cannot be carried out safely or justly. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the irremediability of a mental disorder in individual cases, meaning we cannot say, with the certainty that is required in a matter that truly is life or death, whether a person suffering from mental illness will get better. In appearing before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, on which I sat as a vice-chair, Dr. Jitender Sareen, a physician in the department of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, testified, said: We strongly recommend an extended pause on expanding MAID to include mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition in Canada, because we're simply not ready. In our experience, people recover from long periods—“long” meaning decades—of suffering with depression, anxiety, schizophrenia and addictions with appropriate evidence-based treatments. We strongly believe that making MAID available for mental disorders will facilitate unnecessary deaths in Canada and negatively impact suicide prevention efforts. The clinical role is to instill hope, not to lead patients toward death.Dr. Sareen went on to say:Unlike physical conditions that drive MAID requests, we do not understand the biological basis of mental disorders and addictions, but we know that they can resolve over time. The real discrimination and lack of equity is not providing care for people with mental disorders and addictions.I could not agree more with the doctor.(1110)We have a moral obligation in our society to ensure that every person is treated with the inherent dignity and value with which they are created, everyone. They do not get that when we offer them death instead of help and hope, treatment and care.Psychiatrists and even the Prime Minister's so-called expert panel cannot know if someone is going to recover from mental illness, and this under a government where wait times for psychiatric treatment can be over half of a decade. If the government goes ahead with this, people who would have gotten better will not get the chance, because they will have been killed at the hand of the government.Further, it is difficult for a clinician to distinguish between a rational request for medical assistance in dying where mental illness is the sole underlying medical condition and one motivated by suicidal ideation. On the question of suicidality, Dr. Sareen said:...there is no clear operational definition differentiating between when someone is asking for MAID and when someone is asking for suicide when they're not dying. Internationally, this is the differentiation. If somebody is dying, then it can be considered MAID. When they're not dying, it is considered suicide.On the same question, Dr. Tarek Rajji stated, “There is no clear way to separate suicidal ideation or a suicide plan from requests for MAID.”With the line being blurred between suicidal ideation and so-called rational requests for medical assistance in dying, evidence from jurisdictions that have assisted suicide for mental disorders, both suicides and medically facilitated death go up. We cannot move forward with this dangerous game that the government is playing, the plan of moving full steam ahead no matter what the cost. The minister said that the Liberals had the moral imperative to move ahead with an assisted suicide regime. Hopelessness and misery, that is their imperative. A moral imperative? It is immoral.This is the same government that has degraded life in the country to the point where an entire generation of people is giving up hope. Two million Canadians are lined up at food banks a month and once former middle-class families are living in their cars. People are being offered MAID instead of a wheelchair, after serving our country and going to veterans affairs for help. People are being offered MAID at routine doctor appointments. People are seeking MAID because they cannot afford housing. People are seeking MAID because they cannot get the psychiatric care they need. This is blind ideology ahead of evidence. It is death on demand for any reason.Depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, personality disorders and addictions will all become justifications for death under the Liberal government if this plan is allowed to be carried forward. A new generation of addicts will have been created, by normalizing and legalizing opioids that are being peddled to our children. The MAID regime seems like it will become the government's plan for addictions. Rather than offering treatment and a chance to get better to people who are suffering, they are being offered death.There is hope yet, if we pass this bill, that we could stop the expansion of MAID to people who are suffering. We can make a commitment, as the representatives of Canadians, to deliver on the health, help, hope and treatment that Canadians deserve, that every human person deserves. Dignity, respect, hope and life, that is what we are going to have to vote to protect.I am proud to stand and vote in support of life.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2DiagnosisGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthQuality of lifeSpecial Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in DyingSuicidesThird reading and adoption82047898204790820479182047928204793820479482047958204796820479782047988204799820480082048018204802820480382048048204805820480682048078204808820480982048108204811EdFastHon.AbbotsfordChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, as an advanced democratic country, Canada sometimes brings in legislation on issues that have never been dealt with before. Sometimes Canada is one of the first countries in the world to deal with these types of issues.When we bring in legislation that fundamentally affects every single Canadian, sometimes we have to look at it again to see how we can serve Canadians, whether we are stepping on the toes of the fundamental rights of Canadians.Earlier the hon. member for Abbotsford said that there was no national consensus. I would like to ask the member whether he agrees with me that due to the different religious beliefs, different religious faiths and philosophies, we cannot have national unanimity on issues like this.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Freedom of conscience and religionGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820481282048138204814MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1115)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not believe that this is a question of religion. I think it is simply a question of humanity and how we care for the most vulnerable among us. This is an imperative that we have as parliamentarians. Ensuring that we care for the least of us, those who are most in need of our help, is the highest calling we can answer. To allow MAID for folks whose only medical condition is mental illness would be an abdication of that. Allowing state-sanctioned death, or doctor-assisted suicide in that case, is an abdication of our responsibilities to the most vulnerable, regardless of one's beliefs or creed. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Freedom of conscience and religionGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204815ChandraAryaNepeanSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1115)[Translation] Madam Speaker, Voltaire said that fanaticism pretends to be the child of religion.I think we have proof of that again today, unfortunately. Our colleague stated the Conservatives' position on freedom of choice, on medical assistance in dying and on providing relief to people who are suffering. The Conservatives want to abolish medical assistance in dying. That is what we just heard.The Liberals claim their position is different, but I cannot tell the difference. They are going to put the decision off for three years, but by then, the Conservatives will be in power and can decide to abolish it. Then there is the NDP, which is applauding that.Is the real coalition basically just the Ottawa coalition?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204816820481782048188204819MichaelBarrettLeeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau LakesMichaelBarrettLeeds—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, we have an epidemic in this country of people who are suffering from addiction. We have people who are suffering from mental illness. I am not going to be shamed by anyone who wants to call me a fanatic for saying that we need to protect the vulnerable. If there are members in this place, and I abhor the thought, who would rather have the government kill people than give them the treatment they deserve, have it abandon its responsibility, then I genuinely hope we do not elect anyone to this place who represents Canadians who believe that. I certainly do not. I believe in helping the most in need. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82048208204821Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will not stand for anyone saying that I am telling the government to kill people. I demand an immediate apology.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8204823CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is not a point of debate. Words have meaning. Saying that I am encouraging the government to kill people has no place in a debate. The member can say he disagrees with me, but he cannot say that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8204826CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, I would challenge the member. The government is not killing people, but it is failing to put in place protections for people. There is a difference, and our language does matter, but we need to have a strong support for everyone. To simply say that people are being killed does not help our conversation. I would ask my colleague to reflect on that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204829CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMichaelBarrettLeeds—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Barrett: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, through action or inaction, the result is the same. By failing to help the vulnerable, by failing to offer those supports, we are condemning those people. The government is condemning those people to death. To take a positive action and offer them suicide in place of help and treatment, well, we can take a look at a thesaurus and decide whether or not that is to be described as the government killing them, but it is not reaching out a hand in help, and that is exactly what government should do. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204830CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would first like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with my colleague and friend, the member for Montcalm, who is a leading expert on this subject.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8204833CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: (1120)[Translation]Madam Speaker, medical assistance in dying is a topic as crucial as it is sensitive. By choosing to delay debate for three years, the Liberal government is aligning itself with the Conservatives, with the blessing of the NDP, to ensure this debate will never happen again. That is highly irresponsible. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of a one-year delay, but three years pushes it to after the next election. In other words, we will not be discussing this issue for a very long time. Meanwhile, Quebec has passed a law that allows advance requests. Specifically, it covers people suffering from neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. However, Quebec’s law is blocked until the Criminal Code is amended by the House. The entire National Assembly of Quebec has asked Ottawa to amend the Criminal Code accordingly. Although the Quebec law allows advance requests, the Criminal Code does not. This leaves doctors open to prosecution. That is why we presented an amendment addressing this issue. Again, the Liberal government, the Conservatives and the New Democrats chose to oppose it. Again, Quebeckers are reminded that we cannot decide for ourselves, even when there is consensus, and that our neighbour will decide for us. Furthermore, the government did all this by imposing a super gag order, with the NDP's support. It wanted to muzzle the House and put off debate well into the future while rejecting Quebec’s unanimous request. So much for democracy here. Here we are reviewing a bill that seeks to delay choices involving mental disorders and that says nothing about neurodegenerative diseases and advance requests, unlike Quebec’s law. All this is happening three years after Bill C-7 was passed. Regardless of what other parties choose to do, we continue and will continue to ask that the Criminal Code be aligned with Quebec’s Act Respecting End-of-Life Care by allowing advance requests. Can I ask for a bit more compassion in the House? Is it so complicated to change the Criminal Code to give effect to the Quebec law with respect to advance requests for people suffering from serious and incurable neurocognitive disorders?In an attempt to convince my colleagues of the importance of Quebec's request and the urgency of the issue, I would like to read a very moving letter sent by one of my constituents. She talks about what her mom, Jacinthe Arnault, went through. Here is what the letter says:At age 56, my mother, Jacinthe Arnaud, a clinical nurse, was diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. Nothing in her family history could have predicted that this huge black cloud would darken the rest of her life. The second thing she told me in 2019 after being diagnosed was:“Promise me you won't let me die in a long-term care home. Promise me, Cath, that you'll let me go with dignity.” Back then, the MAID legislation did not allow for people with cognitive impairments to access this type of care.I scrambled to learn about the subject, to talk with MPs, to contribute to the improvement of the legislation at the National Assembly and to get informed about what was being done in other countries. What I found was that we were in a dead end—even if my mother repeated her request week after week, I could not see how I could grant her the end she was hoping for. In 2021, when the “imminent death” requirement was taken out of the legislation, there was a glimmer of hope. Fortunately—or unfortunately—my mother wasn't 100% aware of her condition and wasn't ready to let us go and choose to die, at the risk of losing her chance to die with dignity.The disease progressed very quickly, much faster than the legislative work to expand MAID. In early 2022, we had to watch over my mother almost constantly as her cognitive abilities, her memory and even her motor skills became more and more impaired. She still had enough clear-mindedness to ask her geriatrician for MAID. We started the procedure. It was very stressful not to know whether my mom would change her mind right until the very end, not because she didn't want MAID anymore, but because the disease would have made her unable to understand her condition and where she was headed.Do you know that the legislation imposes a 90-day waiting time before MAID can be granted to patients with cognitive impairments? As a nurse myself, and seeing my mother get worse and worse every day, I could not see how she would still have a clear mind after 90 days. After several discussions with the prescribing physician, we were able to move up the date.Why was my mother's credibility called into question? Why do patients with cognitive impairments have to wait before receiving MAID, but not patients with other incurable diseases? Requesting in advance to die with dignity is a very personal and legitimate choice, according to my mother and me. It is a decision that should, in a perfect world, be made quickly after diagnoses of this nature. Considering that neurodegenerative diseases evolve very differently from one patient to the next, wouldn't it be logical to allow these patients to request a dignified death in advance?(1125)Not knowing if she would be allowed to die put my mother under incredible stress. And let me tell you, as a mother of two young children, I too was under a tremendous amount of stress, not knowing if my mother would pass away or if I would have to institutionalize her within a few months, which would have been a very difficult choice to make, considering the wishes she had so forcefully expressed.During the last years of her career, my mother worked in the hemodialysis department at the Joliette hospital. She wanted to keep helping others. On May 4, 2022, she died in an operating room at the Joliette hospital, with her by her loved ones at her side. She saved three people. Both of her kidneys and her lungs live on somewhere in Canada. We're extremely proud of that.I'm so proud of her and of us.I wish with all my heart that ADVANCE requests for MAID were allowed. All these people who are sick now and who would like to die with dignity are depending on the legislation to be changed quickly.Best wishes,Catherine Joly I thank Ms. Joly for her letter from the bottom of my heart. I agree with her, because I also hope with all my heart that advance requests for MAID will become an option. As she says, it is a matter of dignity. As she points out, everything depends on how quickly the legislation can be changed. Quebec has changed its legislation. The one step left is to harmonize it with the Criminal Code.I sincerely hope that Ms. Joly's words have helped convince my colleagues about how important it is to make this change and make it quickly. I thank her.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Capacity of consent for careCivil and human rightsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82048368204837820483882048398204840820484182048428204843820484482048458204846820484782048488204849820485082048518204852820485382048548204855CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, Canada is one of the most advanced democracies in the world. That is why we bring in legislation, some of which is quite unique. In Canadian history, over all 155 years, this is the first time legislation like this has been brought forward.Whenever we bring forward legislation that fundamentally affects every single Canadian's life, is it not important that we relook at it, modify it if required, take a pause, check to make sure everything is okay and patiently advance it instead of rushing it through? I would like the hon. member's views on that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82048568204857GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to say two things. First, there is unanimous consensus in Quebec. All parties in the Quebec National Assembly voted to pass a law, but it has no force or effect because it is being blocked. Quebec is asking that its law be aligned with the Criminal Code so it can come into effect in Quebec alone. That is what we are asking. It is not complicated. The government tells us this is very important, but it chose to do nothing and kick it down the road, even though we need to act quickly. Second, the decision to delay all debate in the House for three years brings us to after the election. Projections indicate that the Liberals will not form a majority government. In all likelihood we will never discuss this again, we will never come back to this debate. I think that is irresponsible.We first dealt with Bill C-7 in 2021. That is already three years ago. What has the government done in three years? It came up with the current bill, which says they will ensure the debate will never be over. We think that is irresponsible. I beg the government to at least try to harmonize the Criminal Code with the unanimous will of Quebec. It is a matter of dignity. My society and my nation are ready. However, they are being blocked by their neighbour, who is choosing not to act. I am asking them to act.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820485882048598204860ChandraAryaNepeanZiadAboultaifEdmonton Manning//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89156ZiadAboultaifZiad-AboultaifEdmonton ManningConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AboultaifZiad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member read a letter from a constituent. Conservatives also receive letters that speak in a different way about the dignity they look for and how they want their lives to be treated based on MAID and the new law that will be put in place.If the hon. member's emphasis is on the humanitarian and compassionate side of this, would it not apply to every Canadian rather than just narrowing it to Quebec? I understand and respect that he represents a Quebec riding, but we need to look at something that applies to all Canadians. I think that is the purpose behind what we are debating today.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82048618204862GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, from my perspective and that of my party, the substance of Bill C-62 is to ensure that we never discuss this again. By choosing to extend the exclusion by three years, there could well be a Conservative government─possibly a majority government─in power. I would be amazed if that government chose to follow up and move in the same direction. Let me remind my hon. colleague that Canada is a federation that includes several nations. The Quebec nation has a unanimous position on advance requests but cannot implement it because the federal government refuses to amend the Criminal Code. We understand that the rest of Canada may have other debates. That is the idea of a federation, to bridge different cultures and perspectives. There is unanimity in Quebec. We are not asking for a unilateral approach or for the Quebec model to apply from coast to coast, but for Ottawa to stop blocking what Quebec has unanimously decided.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820486382048648204865ZiadAboultaifEdmonton ManningAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1130)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I simply want to remind my colleague that, yesterday, I voted in favour of the amendment for advance requests because there is a political and social consensus in Quebec society. I think that the message for the federal government is to find a compromise and a solution so as not to prevent Quebec from moving forward.However, we must also not block the bill, because there is no medical or scientific consensus on the issue of mental health as the sole underlying condition. I think that it is important to meet the March 17 deadline and to ensure that we can reflect together on this issue because there is no medical or scientific consensus.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2DiagnosisGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82048668204867GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie: (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I recognize that the member voted with the Bloc Québécois for advance requests, but I deplore the fact that he was the only one from his party to do so. This demonstrates the rift that exists between Quebec and the rest of Canada on this issue. It is deplorable. I deplore the fact that the member could not convince his entire caucus to vote with us.I recognize the importance of taking the time to talk about such important issues. However, we have been at this for three years, and the government has not done anything.Extending the deadline by three years is a hypocritical way of ensuring that we never talk about it again, because that takes us past the next election. It is irresponsible.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2DiagnosisGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820486882048698204870AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will start with an assertion whose veracity will become clear. With Bill C-62, the cowardly Liberal government brought forth a mouse.If we are talking about Bill C‑62 today, it is because Bill C‑7 created the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it passed. The committee's mandate was to review the medical assistance in dying legislation, in particular as regards the issue of advance requests. Because we knew that the problem was more difficult in cases of mental illness, the government set up an expert panel to help MPs do their job. The panel was to issue a report to the special joint committee. The expert panel was indeed set up. The problem is that, instead of putting everything in place following the adoption of Bill C‑7, the government decided to call an election in 2021. That delayed the process. Immediately after the useless election, we would have expected the special joint committee to sit but, no, we had to wait. They took their sweet time. The committee was finally convened, but it had a huge mandate. Its mandate was so huge that Bill C‑39 on mental illness had to be introduced, delaying the committee's recommendation. Since February 2023, the committee has been very clear on the issue of advance requests. In fact, that was its most widely held recommendation. During the entire debate on Bill C‑62 in the House, the government said that we needed to be cautious and proceed slowly. That is fine, but when caution involves making patients suffer, I cannot agree. I think we need to be diligent. The government took its sweet time. Here we are in 2024, and it introduced legislation seeking to postpone the issue of mental illness. Fine, but what is happening with the main recommendation the committee made in February 2023? The government knew very well that Quebec was laying the groundwork on the issue of advance requests. It knew very well that Quebec would bring in its own law. Instead of taking inspiration from that and seeing what measures could be included in the regulation accompanying Canada's MAID legislation, it did nothing. I have stood in the House many times to ask the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health why the government did nothing. Why does the bill not include a component on advance requests, which should have been prepared over the past year? After all, the government introduced legislation enacting the special joint committee's February 2023 recommendation on mental illness. On the issue of advance requests, however, it did nothing, despite the majority recommendation. Yesterday, I got my answer. The Minister of Health demonstrated in front of the whole committee that he was unfamiliar with the Quebec law, yet he rises in the House and says he has enormous respect for Quebec's process. The Liberals do not even know what they are talking about. The minister told me that the issue of advance requests is more difficult than the issue of mental illness because, for example, there might be family quarrels at the patient's bedside.(1140) I realized that the minister had not read section 29.6 of the Quebec law, which stipulates that, as soon as patient is diagnosed, they can appoint a third party. The third party will not determine when the person can access medical assistance in dying, but will advocate for their wishes, which will be included in the advance request, or the person's criteria. People in my riding have told me that, when they become incontinent and can no longer control their bowels, when they have reached the point where they no longer have any appetite and it becomes a chore for their caregivers to feed them, although they are well compensated for their troubles, when they are no longer able to recognize their friends and family members and when they can no longer maintain relationships, they would like to have access to medical assistance in dying. The third party in whom they have placed their trust will then ask the care team—because patients are indeed cared for by entire teams—to evaluate whether they are meeting the criteria, if they are there yet. If people make advance requests, it is because they want to avoid shortening their life. They want to live as long as possible. We could be good to them and take care of them until they cross their tolerance threshold. The minister does not even know what I am talking about right now. Do members think it is normal that people say they respect Quebec, that they have great admiration for Quebec's progress on this issue, but that they do not even know what is in Quebec's law? It is no surprise that they come out with a bill like Bill C‑62, that does not address this at all. Then they have the gall to say that Quebec has made good progress, but that not all Canadians are ready for that, so they have to wait and watch their patients suffer. Quebec is not the only province that supports advance requests. According to an Ipsos survey, 85% of Canadians from coast to coast support advance requests. The Conservatives claim that they want to do good, they want to take care of Canada's most vulnerable. I, too, want to take care of the most vulnerable, but who is more vulnerable than a patient who is about to cross their tolerance threshold, who is suffering and who is being told no by the government?Some claim that there could be abuses, as if the Criminal Code did not provide for punishment of abuses. They seem to believe the medical system to be inherently evil. I heard my Conservative colleague earlier. Listening to the Conservatives, one would think everyone working in the health system wants vulnerable people euthanized. I heard another Conservative member say there is an opioid crisis, there are people in the streets, and we are going to euthanize them. That is absolutely false. It is really far-fetched. That kind of rhetoric is meant to scare people; it amounts to spreading misinformation on a crucial topic. When we care, we do not infringe on individual autonomy. The role of the state is not to decide matters so personal as how someone wishes to cross their threshold of tolerance. It is not to tell patients what is right for them. It is to provide the conditions so they can make a free and informed choice.C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204871820487282048738204874820487582048768204877820487882048798204880820488182048828204883820488482048858204886GabrielSte-MarieJolietteMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, I have to say that I find the position of the Bloc to be somewhat curious insofar as it is inconsistent with the position taken by the National Assembly, which rejected the policy of the government to expand MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition.I understand that the position of the Bloc members to oppose Bill C-62 is on the basis they would like to see the policy implemented in one short year from now. Can the member explain why the Bloc is taking a position that is inconsistent with that of the National Assembly?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthNational Assembly of QuebecThird reading and adoption820488782048888204889LucThériaultMontcalmLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have said it repeatedly, the Bloc Québécois wants Bill C‑62 to include a section on advance requests for MAID. This is our main objection. We tried to introduce amendments in step with Quebec's request and that of the whole National Assembly. Where mental disorders are concerned, we start from the premise that psychiatry is unable to ease the suffering of every patient stricken by a severe mental disorder. Psychiatrists told us that 50% of their diagnoses are wrong. It is a wonderfully precise science. However, one thing is true. Although there is no exact diagnosis and a diagnosis can change, what is clear, straightforward, specific and a constant in a patient's journey over the decades is that they suffer. Psychiatrists cannot deny that their patients suffer, and that all they can offer them is a path to palliative care. In fact, Dr. Gagnon told us we had to develop palliative care for people afflicted with mental disorders because that is all we can offer them.Quebec made its decision in 2021. It did not have the opportunity to work off the expert report that the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying had in 2022.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthNational Assembly of QuebecThird reading and adoption8204890820489182048928204893MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, this morning is my first opportunity to take part in this debate.I have heard a few comments from people who think the Government of Canada is going to have a hand in murdering Canadians.[English]I know it has come up in a point of order. We are stuck, but it does not mean that anyone wants to murder any Canadians.I think we need to be concerned, with a choice and a debate this deeply personal and moral, and with such complicated questions. Given the constraints of Supreme Court decisions and the work of the Senate, how do we keep the focus here not on the partisanship of this place but on making and passing good laws?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8204894820489582048968204897LucThériaultMontcalmLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1145)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I challenge anyone to find petty partisanship or political calculation in any of my speeches. I always focus on the issue at hand. Since 2015, what I have come to realize is that, unfortunately, parliamentarians here in the House are not on the same page as Quebec parliamentarians. Time for reflection is sorely lacking here.We could have had some time for reflection—since 2021, actually—but the government dragged its feet. That meant that we had less time and less of an opportunity to do thorough work.The issue of mental disorders is now being postponed until 2027, which basically amounts to choosing not to deal with this issue. I would like us to work on this issue immediately after royal assent, but that is not going to happen.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820489882048998204900ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his responsible speech. Scaremongering is absolutely deplorable. That said, even though the Conservatives make a habit of scaremongering, I consider it our duty to address any reasonable apprehensions that the public may have.Obviously, MAID is a permanent and irreversible solution. Could my colleague briefly tell us how MAID precludes the possibility of rash decisions and how it will be implemented in a structured, responsible and reasonable way?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption82049018204902LucThériaultMontcalmLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault: (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first of all, we have to start from the premise that all health care workers are basically caring and compassionate people. The premise of MAID's opponents is based on their belief that certain fundamentally malevolent and evil people want to get rid of vulnerable members of our society.It seems rather surprising that the Conservatives, as economic libertarians, believe that the state should get mixed up in such a personal decision as an individual's death. The reason is that other determinants are at play. I have asked them repeatedly why they think that they are in a better position to make that decision than the person who is suffering. Today, I will say the thing they lack the courage to admit: it is because of religious beliefs.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption82049038204904Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Christine Normandin: (1150)[Translation]Madam Speaker, in response to the ruling you just made, I would invite the Chair to possibly consider the fact that using unparliamentary language about members in general is no less harmful than using it about one member in particular, in my opinion.I would like to hear the Chair on that because even if the comments were not directed at one specified member, they are no less harmful. I think that the ruling should be made regardless of who the comments are about, whether it is someone specific or members in general. It is the comment itself that is harmful.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption82049118204912CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, as always, it is a great honour to rise in this House, as I have done many times over the past 20 years. I mention the 20-year mark because I have always been a great political optimist, a great believer in Canada and a believer in our fundamental goodness when it comes to working things out.However, we are in a very dark time for democracy. We see the rise of disinformation and social conflicts in all aspects of life. On the international stage, we see the uncertainty coming out of Putin's aggression and the mass killing of innocent people in Palestine. I do not feel that the House of Commons is rising to what Canadians expect us to be. Too often, we are dealing with very profound issues through glib press releases or slogans and bumper sticker politics.Every now and then we are confronted with legislation that forces us to go deeper, and this is certainly such a moment. There is nothing more profound in the human community than birth and death. How we address the rights of people as they are dying, as well as the supports that need to be in place, not only defines who we are as a society but also goes right down to who we are as families, as neighbours, as spouses, as parents and as children.We are in a very unfortunate moment in terms of the failure to put the guardrails in place to protect people at this most profound moment. The issue of MAID is very personal, and it is of societal importance that we get this right. I have certainly struggled with this issue. I wanted to make sure that what we did was done for the benefit of all, in the best interest of the human community, considering the right not only of the individual but also of the people who love them to be part of something special.I am coming up on the anniversary of my sister Kathleen's passing. Nobody blew through our family more like a summer storm than Kathleen, and I have never seen anybody suffer greater pain. She was fearless right until the very end. Kathleen was always wanting one more gathering, song or story. She would never have accepted MAID, because her will to live was so powerful even as she knew she was not going to live.I am not saying that her death was any more profound than anyone else's. How she went was her choice, as well as our choice. My mother said the rosary; I sang Danny Boy. That is how we do things in our family. We had one of those great Celtic wakes afterward. There were people there who had never even met my sister, but they all told stories about her. That is the way we do things in the Celtic tradition.I have also had friends, who had cancers they could not beat, phone me to say goodbye. MAID allowed them the opportunity to choose, with their family and their community, a dignified way to go. I respect that. It is a very profound choice.When Parliament was confronted with the need, because of the Supreme Court ruling, to put a regime in place, we did so and then said that there would be a review. We needed a review because we were going to a place we had never been to as a society. The review would happen after we saw how MAID was working. Was it working as it was supposed to? Were there abuses? Were the rigours that Parliament said had to be put in place not paid attention to?Then we had the Quebec Superior Court decision, the Truchon decision. I felt at that time that it was the obligation of the federal government to appeal. I am not going to argue the merits of the Truchon decision, but the obligation of the federal government was to make sure that, if we were to apply this at the national level, we had really done all the due diligence. That was not done.The Liberals moved a change to MAID before the review that was supposed to happen. Suddenly, things were already changing from what we had agreed on. Then it went to our colleagues in the Senate. I will never say much that is positive about the Senate, but today I will certainly say how dismal and appalling the attitudes of the senators were.(1200)Stan Kutcher, whom I had to sit with on the special committee, showed disrespect and arrogance. Senators, who are not elected, who have no accountability, who do not have to go back to their communities when they are dealing with a suicide crisis like I and other people have to, said that they wanted an arbitrary date to extend MAID to people suffering from mental illness and depression. That was an extraordinarily outrageous and poorly thought out overreach, and it was the job of the Parliament of Canada to simply say, no. All the other provisions of MAID would have stayed in place, but that did not happen. What happened was the Liberals agreed, and then it dawned on them that we were going down a very dangerous road and things had not been thought out.There is my colleague from Abbotsford, whom I have sat with on many committees. We probably disagree on a lot in politics, but we share the same integrity of coming to the House to do the right thing, bringing what we can bring to bear. He brought forward legislation to deal with this provision, and it was voted down. Therefore, we are now some 30 days from a profound change in legislation that would change Canada forever, and we are scrambling on a question of life, death and body autonomy. This is not how we should be dealing with these issues.I used the words “body autonomy”, because it is one of the profound human rights, the right to control one's body and the right to make a decision, but it is not an absolute right. There are societal factors that go into that right. When people are deeply depressed, when they are suffering mental illness and feel alone, their body autonomy has been compromised as has their ability to make decisions.It is really important for us to always remember that nobody dies alone. They may die in grief. They may die in isolation. They may die in the blackest hole of their personal pain, but the impacts of that death affect family, neighbours and people beyond what the poor person who suffered that dark moment could ever understand. If people have ever sat down and worked with people whose loved ones were lost to suicide, they want to say, again and again, “If only they had known how much they were loved.”In the northern communities I work in, children as young as 10 years old are giving up and killing themselves. What kind of nation sits back and lets children give up hope at age 10?I would have thought that when we had those kinds of suicide crises at Cross Lake, Attawapiskat, Pikangikum, and Wapekeka, and we cannot even mention how many of those communities have suffered, that there would have been a national consensus to look at what we needed to put in place, but that did not happen.When I sat on that special committee and heard some of the medical experts say that they were really pleased that the Liberal government had put in place all the steps necessary to help this through, it made me think that we were putting resources in place to push ahead the ability of people, who are severely depressed, to make a decision to die without getting a second opinion from their loved ones, their families or their spouses, even. The government would do that, but it would not put in place the broader supports we need for mental illness.This is not a whataboutism issue; this is about the crisis we are facing, with 4,000 suicide deaths a year. The mental health crisis is extreme. In 2016, I brought forward the national palliative care strategy, because it is not applied fairly across the country. When we cannot die in dignity, it is a terrible thing.We have talked with doctors and nurses across the country about the palliative care approach. The federal government agreed and said it would put a strategy in place, that it would work with the provinces and territories, yet nothing was done. In 2019, I brought Motion No. 174 on a national suicide prevention plan, which was based on the incredible work that was done in Nunavut. We know that Quebec put a suicide prevention plan in place and cut the suicide rate by 50%.(1205)Once one starts to map it out, these factors are not difficult to find, the patterns of where those suicide clusters form, with respect to areas of age and economic crisis. That was part of what the suicide action plan would be. Parliament would provide the resources so we could to start to map out where these crises occurred and put the mental health services in place.We need to be doing that as a Parliament instead of scrambling at the eleventh hour to come up with a fix, a temporary fix, another temporary fix on a temporary fix, on a decision that was put forward by a non-elected, unaccountable Senate, which had no backing, no credibility and no support, other than the fact that a couple of arrogant senators, who have never been elected and have no accountability, decided that Parliament would go along with this, and the government put up with that.It was an absolute failure of public policy, to unelected senators like Pamela Wallin and Stan Kutcher dictate health policy for people in crisis. We would never allow that for anything else, yet here we are, 30 days from the deadline.We have had letters telling us not to do this. Seven out of 10 provinces say to not do this. We had the medical community saying that it had no way to even properly assess and not do this. We have had really profound, thoughtful witnesses come forward to talk about the complexities of the issues of mental illness. Who is one to say whether it is irredeemable? Who is one to say that this suffering is so bad that it warrants death, when there are options?We also have the issue of people in increasingly desperate situations, who feel alone. It tells us who we are as a society when we say that it is really too bad that one is homeless. It is really too bad that one is suffering the nightmare of addiction. It is really too bad that there are young people in a northern indigenous community and they have never, ever been able to get proper medical attention. However, if they want to die, we will set up a process.MAID was not meant for that. MAID was meant to deal with people who could make the choice, an informed adult choice as they suffered pain that would not go away, with their loved ones and their families.I remember when my good friend Liz from Vancouver Island called me. We were good friends. She used to drive me around Vancouver Island in this old Jaguar with wood panelling that she got for $4,000. I kept saying, “Liz, if this car breaks down on the mountains, I'm not going to have to get out to push it to the other side am I?” Liz played blues music for me in the car. She talked about the Catholic saints and about queer politics. She was her own person, and she smoked. As she was dying, she called me and said that this was the moment, that she was taking the moment because this was the last one she may have to make that decision. It was a very profound way to go. MAID is for that.MAID is not for people who feel they have no hope, without a back-up, without a robust, multidisciplinary team to walk the issues through with them. It is not something they can make a second choice.I think of Dr. Valorie Masuda, a palliative care physician, who said to the committee:If this special joint committee on MAID recommends proceeding with allowing access to MAID for chronic mental conditions, I would recommend that there be a robust, multidisciplinary review process involving physicians, psychiatrists, social workers and ethicists involved in a patient's MAID application, and that there be a transparent review of MAID cases shared between health authorities and provincial and federal oversight so that we ensure we are not treating social problems with euthanasia.Imagine if someone with mental illness and depression were able to get a multidisciplinary team of physicians, psychiatrists, social workers and ethicists, we would not have a mental health crisis. Those people are not there. Those teams are not there.The government made a commitment to transfer $4.5 billion for mental health to the provinces to deal with the crisis that is unfolding before us, but it has not done that.(1210)Therefore, again, we are in a situation where we are being asked to vote. The bill that the Liberals have brought forward is gutless, because it will punt this down the road for three years, and we will be back at it in three years. We had punted it down the road for a year over the fundamental failure of the former attorney general who simply let it pass. However, the Senate made a completely unreasonable, undemocratic and unwise pronouncement that overrode the work of the democratically-elected House, a House whose members, as dismal as we are sometimes, dumbed-down, sloganeering and fighting over the stupidest things, have to go back to our constituents and talk to them. We have had to go the funerals of people who have died from suicide because of depression. We bring that experience into the House. We can disagree on the extent of MAID, we can disagree on many things, but we have a democratic right and a duty to do the right thing here. The Senate has no democratic accountability to anyone. Therefore, the fact that we are having to pick up the pieces from its arrogance and the failure of the Liberal government to hold it to account is concerning. We need to reflect on that. I would urge the members in the other chamber to not play games with this.On March 17, the deadline changes, the law of Canada changes, and the amount of people who could die without proper support would change. It would change forever the legal framework of Canada. My message to those unelected senators is not to play games with the work we are doing. We are picking up the pieces. We are trying to fix the damage they did, and we need to do so this, because a bigger principle is at stake, the stake of human dignity in a country. We have to also extend this conversation to our ongoing failure as a nation on mental health; our ongoing failure to offer young people a better future; and our ongoing failure to recognize that if the weakest people in our society are allowed to kill themselves because there is no hope, then we have failed, and we are failing.I would like to think that we can come together across party lines to say that there has to be guardrails that protect the autonomy of the individual, and also places individuals who are in mental crisis and depression within the context of their family, their loved ones and their society. When one dies alone and in darkness, the effects are felt for years and years after. Going into some communities after a suicide crisis is like walking into shockwaves of grief that play out for years and years to come, and it takes so much work to come back from that for a community, for a family. Here we are as a society making that decision. Therefore, let us do this right and let us do this with respect for the people who expect us to do the right thing.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8204916820491782049188204919820492082049218204922820492382049248204925820492682049278204928820492982049308204931820493282049338204934820493582049368204937820493882049398204940820494182049428204943820494482049458204946820494782049488204949820495082049518204952820495382049548204955CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, as always, I appreciate the member's interventions, his insights and all that he brings to the table. I would agree with the member in that one of the sticking points for me in this process is the fact that the agenda, and this is undeniable, has been driven by the Senate. There is a big difference between government legislation and Senate legislation, and we are talking about a Senate amendment. The government has all kinds of resources. It has access to all kinds of experts to consult. It has access to legal experts, it does charter analysis and everything else. However, the Senate side does not have those same resources.Therefore, how could the Senate approach this with such a degree of certainty and, in some cases, one might say, a sense of infallibility when it does not really have the resources that the government has? The government, with all those resources, never intended to go ahead. I would like the member's comment on that. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption820495682049578204958CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, if people are not elected and cannot be fired, it does not just give them a sense of infallibility; it gives them a sense of absolute arrogance, because they can do whatever they want, for better or worse for Canadians.I was certainly appalled. I had the honour to sit in for my colleague for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for one of the meetings, and I was super careful asking questions, even for the people with whom I did not agree. I wanted to get this right. However, I felt this sense of lazy arrogance. Senator Kutcher so much as said that they had already agreed they would not hear all the witnesses, that they had already agreed they would just push ahead. The Senate blew this. It did not do the due diligence. Senators were not even interested in hearing the witnesses. We should never have been put in a situation to let that lot make a decision as profound as this.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption82049598204960FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, that was a passionate speech by the member. He spoke in particular about northern Canada, where maybe the resources are not the same as those Canadians enjoy in metro areas. He also brought up the Senate situation. I think we are seeing in the House of Commons these days that we are having issues with the Senate, in particular with Bill C-234, which we have brought back several times here, and the MAID legislation. This is a concern. As the member said, they are not elected. They are appointed. It has caused some strain on families, not only with the MAID legislation but also for the agriculture sectors with Bill C-234.I just wanted to point that out and have the member comment on the issues we are having with the Senate. It looks like we could have these issues for a number of years with the Senate, compared to the House of Commons.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption820496182049628204963CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, we certainly know that the Conservative record on the Senate is pretty dismal too. I mean, they put Mike Duffy, the Come-From-Away senator, in there. Why was that? Was it because he was a hack who raised money for Stephen Harper? Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau can be included in a rogue's gallery of people who are not accountable.The issue today is that we now have, as a Parliament, a democratic body, the obligation to fix something very profound. I would love to debate and talk about how we deal with that unelected, unaccountable lot where it seems that, if they flipped pancakes for the Liberal or Conservative parties, they get a job for life. There has to be a better way of running a democracy.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption82049648204965KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodChristineNormandinSaint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104947ChristineNormandinChristine-NormandinSaint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NormandinChristine_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ): (1215)[Translation]Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago, I attended the funeral of a friend's mother who had decided to avail herself of MAID. In her farewell speech to her mother, my friend said the following: Mom, when you told us about your decision, I did not agree because it was going to deprive me of a mother, but I had no choice but to respect your decision, because it was yours to make.I thought it was a testament to her generosity of spirit.In his speech, the member for Timmins—James Bay talked about respect. Since he is so knowledgeable on the subject, I would like to ask him a question that I did not have the opportunity to ask earlier. Although it is not necessarily the subject we are debating today, I would like to know why he decided to vote against the amendment to allow Quebec to offer advance requests. The purpose of this amendment was to allow the Government of Quebec to proceed with the safeguards we have in place, and this request did not require a specific provision for Quebec in the Criminal Code. The purpose was to ensure that all provinces could use the program if they wanted to. I would like to hear why the member for Timmins—James Bay—C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Civil and human rightsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820496682049678204968CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1215)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her thoughtful question.Parliament needs to put a process in place to examine all these issues. Personally, I think it is an important issue, and members of Parliament need to work together to make the necessary changes to this bill.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Civil and human rightsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82049708204971CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1215)[English] Uqaqtittiji, the member highlighted the ravages of what colonial systems continue to do to indigenous peoples, but I wanted to ask specifically about Bill C-62 and the amendment that has been inserted about the creation of a joint committee of both houses of Parliament designated for determining eligibility.What does the member think about that amendment, which would require discussions on ensuring the eligibility of a person whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness? Does he think that is an urgent task that needs to happen after Bill C-62 is passed?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82049728204973CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, we know that a joint committee was struck, and we heard a lot of testimony, in particular, that the process in place to make this work is not there. We need the legislation to say that the right of someone to die because there are no other options out there for them is not good enough. We need to close this loophole.We need a committee to be struck, I think, to examine how MAID is rolling out to make sure that it protects rights. Also, I think we need a conversation about proper mental health services, which are being denied to people across the country.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82049748204975LoriIdloutNunavutMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's work with his palliative care motion, which led to my bringing the palliative care bill to Parliament. He may be aware that the five-year review shows an increase in people who have accessed palliative care from 30% to 58%. There is still a long way to go.My question for the member has to do with the Truchon decision, which he talked about. I agree that it should have been appealed to the Supreme Court, but the government today can still ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on it. I think that is what the government should do. Does the member agree?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoptionTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada82049768204977CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, the problem was that the government accepted the decision and changed the law. Now we are dealing with it. My message to government is that, from here on in, we cannot be cavalier about this. We cannot just allow unelected bodies, or even a superior court, to make a decision on something so profound. Our duty as parliamentarians is to test the law, check the law and make sure that any changes from here on in are done within a broader framework of rights, dignity and the protection of the vulnerable.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoptionTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada82049788204979MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonLaurelCollinsVictoria//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105908LaurelCollinsLaurel-CollinsVictoriaNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsLaurel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his advocacy on this issue.I have heard from constituents who have given up hope, who are struggling with the housing crisis and the high cost of living and feel like that they have been legislated into poverty. They are worried about the expansion of MAID and what that means for them and the people they love who are in the same situation.I am wondering if the member can talk about the responsibility of successive Liberal and Conservative governments in putting people in this dire situation.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPovertyThird reading and adoption820498082049818204982CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I have spent my career believing in the great hope of Canada and the fundamental goodness of Canada, but as a nation, we are failing people. We are failing people in a time of growing climate uncertainty and international uncertainty. People are afraid. They need to know that what we do in the House brings their concerns forward and tries to put reasonable solutions in place because people cannot be left feeling hopeless and uncertain at this time.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPovertyThird reading and adoption8204983LaurelCollinsVictoriaChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fundy Royal.I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today in support of Bill C-62, the bill that proposes to extend the temporary exclusion of mental illness as an eligible condition for medical assistance in dying by three years, until March 17, 2027. I will speak today about the importance of a delay before lifting this exclusion to provide more time for the provinces, territories and their health care partners to prepare for this critical juncture in the evolution of medical assistance in dying, which we refer to as MAID in Canada.The legal framework for MAID is set out in the federal Criminal Code. However, it is the provinces and territories who have the responsibility for health care delivery, including MAID implementation. We have been working in close collaboration with the provinces and territories to support the safe implementation of MAID since before the original legislation permitting MAID was enacted in the Criminal Code in 2016. This is an important relationship built on the mutual goal of ensuring quality health care for the people of Canada. Both the expert panel on MAID and mental illness and the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying emphasized the importance of clear practice standards and consistent implementation of guidelines across the country, training for physicians and nurse practitioners, and case review and oversight to support best practices and trust in the appropriate application of the law.Provincial and territorial governments and their stakeholders, such as health care professional organizations, regulatory bodies and practitioners, have been actively planning for eligibility for MAID for persons whose sole medical condition is a mental illness. As has been recognized across the board, critical progress has been made in this regard. However, the provinces and territories face different challenges within their jurisdictions and are at varying stages of work in implementing these key elements and consequently their readiness for the lifting of the exclusion. For example, a model practice standard for MAID was developed by an independent task force group made up of clinical, regulatory and legal experts as a resource for physician and nursing regulatory authorities to adopt or adapt in their development or ongoing revision of MAID standards. In addition to the model standard, the task group also released a companion document entitled “Advice to the Profession”.Practice standards are developed and adopted by regulatory bodies responsible for ensuring that specific groups of health professionals operate within the highest standard of clinical practice and medical ethics. While some provincial and territorial regulatory bodies have successfully implemented MAID practice standards into their guidance documents for clinicians, others are still in the process of reviewing and updating their existing standards. To support the safe implementation of the MAID framework, health Canada supported the development of a nationally accredited bilingual MAID curriculum to support a standardized approach to care across the country. The Canadian Association of MAiD Assessors and Providers has created and is now delivering a training program that has been recognized and accredited by the appropriate professional bodies.The MAID curriculum includes a series of training modules to advise and support clinicians in assessing persons who request MAID, including those with mental illness and complex chronic conditions, or who are impacted by structural vulnerability, as well as help with the practical application of the MAID legislative framework. The curriculum will help achieve a safe and consistent approach to care across Canada and ensure access to high-quality MAID training for health practitioners. So far, more than 1,100 clinicians have registered for the training, which is impressive given the curriculum was just launched in August 2023. This is only a portion of the workforce. More time would allow additional physicians and nurse practitioners to register and participate in the training, and to internalize these learnings and put them into professional practice. (1225)Now let me turn to case review and oversight of MAID. In Canada there is a process of self-regulation within the medical and nursing professions. The provincial and territorial regulatory bodies, which I spoke of earlier, have a mandate to protect the public for all health care, and MAID is no exception. In addition to the presence of health professional regulatory bodies, several provinces have implemented formal oversight mechanisms specific to MAID. For example, in Ontario, the Chief Coroner reviews every MAID provision, as does Quebec’s end-of-life commission. Both of these bodies have strict policies regarding the timing and type of information to be reported by clinicians, and the Quebec commission issues annual reports. While the provinces with formal MAID oversight processes represent over 90% of all MAID provisions in Canada, other provinces do not have formal MAID quality assurance and oversight processes in place to complement existing complaint-based oversight processes undertaken by professional regulatory bodies. Work is being planned to explore case review and oversight models, and best practices, through a federal-provincial-territorial working group, with a view to supporting consistency across jurisdictions.All provinces and territories were united in their request to delay the lifting of the exclusion in order to have more time to prepare their clinicians and health care systems to manage requests where mental illness is the sole underlying condition, and to put the necessary supports in place. Provincial and territorial governments must ensure not only that practitioners are trained to provide MAID safely but also that the necessary supports are available to clinicians and their patients through the assessment process.Both the expert panel and the special joint committee on MAID emphasized the importance of interdisciplinary engagement and the knowledge of available resources and treatments. Experts and practitioner communities have also expressed the need for support mechanisms to be in place for providers undertaking assessments and persons who request MAID, irrespective of their eligibility.While some jurisdictions have robust coordination services to manage requests and provide ancillary services, other jurisdictions take a decentralized approach, which can result in less coordination across services and disciplines. The availability of necessary support services for both practitioners and patients is also variable, depending on the region. For example, we have heard about the challenges of accessing health care services generally in rural and remote areas of the country. Additional time would allow more work to be done to support patients and clinicians involved in MAID.The Liberal government is committed to supporting and protecting Canadians with a mental illness who may be vulnerable, while respecting personal autonomy and choice. The provinces and territories are ultimately responsible for the organization and delivery of MAID and supporting health services. Given their responsibility for how MAID is delivered, moving forward before provinces and territories are ready would not be the responsible course of action.We believe that the extension of three years proposed in Bill C-62 would provide the time necessary to work on these important elements for the safe and consistent application of MAID for persons suffering solely from a mental illness.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Education and trainingGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSetting of standardsSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption820498482049858204986820498782049888204989820499082049918204992820499382049948204995820499682049978204998CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1230)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I think that we all know that indigenous peoples have the fewest mental health resources. A huge part of that is because of Canada's colonial history.One of the efforts we have been making is trying to get more indigenous healers and indigenous care workers incorporated into the non-insured health benefit system so they can be paid similarly to professionally or academically certified educated mental health professionals. I wonder whether the member agrees that making sure these workers are being funded as well would be a way of alleviating some of the pressures, and one of the better ways to make sure indigenous peoples are getting the mental health services they need.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityIndigenous peoplesMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82049998205000ChandraAryaNepeanChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that rural and remote communities, including indigenous peoples, have difficulty accessing the quality health care that many of us in urban centres take for granted.I also agree with the member that we need to look beyond the formal structure that is currently available in identifying the people with knowledge who can provide health care services. We should see whether we can bring people with the knowledge and expertise in traditional medicine or the various other knowledge systems available around the world into the system, where their knowledge and experience would be available not only to indigenous peoples but to all Canadians.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityIndigenous peoplesMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82050018205002LoriIdloutNunavutMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I served on the special joint committee on MAID, and the overwhelming evidence from experts, including leading psychiatrists, is that there are fundamental political problems with MAID in cases where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. This includes the difficulty in predicting irremediability and in distinguishing a request that is rational from one motivated by suicidal ideation.What evidence can the member cite to indicate that these fundamental political problems will be resolved in three short years?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption82050038205004ChandraAryaNepeanChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, especially on issues on which highly qualified experts and professionals are giving their opinions, sometimes it may not be possible for everyone in the room to agree on the right answer. That is why the government has invested in consultation. The bill did not come up on its own. It is not just an outcome of the thought process of some bureaucrats sitting in a government building here; it also includes a lot of consultations with Canadians, health care professionals and other experts. Their inputs have also been taken into consideration when formulating the legislation.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205005MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, a survey released two weeks ago from the Ontario Psychiatric Association indicates that 78% of Ontario's psychiatrists oppose the expansion and do not believe that there are sufficient safeguards.Can the hon. member speak to the government's decision not to add additional safeguards, and would he support additional legislative safeguards pursuant to the Criminal Code if in fact we move ahead with this in three years?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption82050068205007ChandraAryaNepeanChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, the short answer would be what I always say, which is that whenever we bring in legislation that fundamentally affects all Canadians, especially the kind of legislation that has never been thought of during the last 155 years, we need to take a real look at it, modify it and change it if required. I am sure there will be a time in the future when we can have a real look at the whole MAID legislation to see whether we can tweak it to better serve Canadians.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption8205008MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonRobMooreHon.Fundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians would be forgiven for thinking they have seen this movie before, because they have. It was only last year that we debated Bill C-39, which provided an extension of the coming into force of this dangerous legislation. Now we are debating Bill C-62, which was introduced two weeks ago thanks to consistent pressure from Conservatives, advocates, experts, organizations and individuals from across the country who want to help individuals live with mental illness, not help them end their lives.How did we get here? We got here because we have a justice minister, a Prime Minister and a government that have ignored the science, the legal experts, the courts and the pleas of the most vulnerable. They have ignored Canadians. They have plowed ahead with legislation to expand medical assistance in dying to Canadians who deserve help, Canadians who are suffering from mental illness.I do not need to tell the House about some of the shocking headlines we have seen over the last year. Veterans suffering with PTSD are being told by employees of Veterans Affairs that they could consider MAID. Individuals without housing are considering MAID for economic reasons. Individuals, as we heard at our justice committee when we studied Bill C-7, who did not wish to have MAID were consistently pressured to considered it.On this side of the aisle, Conservatives have chosen the path of hope rather than harm, and we will continue to do so, but across the way, just this week, we heard a government minister say it is not a matter of if this expansion takes place; it is a matter of when.I mentioned ignoring the law. When we were at the justice committee studying Bill C-7, we consistently heard the government say that we have to do this because the courts told us we have to. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, there was a court decision, which the government did not appeal. That decision in no way directed the full expansion of accessibility to MAID to those suffering from mental illness. In fact, it was not in the original legislation.What happened with Bill C-7, which we studied at justice committee, in no way, shape or form involved expansion of MAID to those suffering from mental illness. However, when the bill got to the unelected Senate, it was amended to include this provision, which we had not even studied. The minister at the time assured us his bill was charter-compliant. The previous justice minister was at committee.I am holding today a letter signed by 32 leading experts on the law, professors from faculties of law around the country. The letter says, “We disagree as law professors that providing access to MAID for persons whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness,” which is what we are talking about today, “is constitutionally required, and that Carter...created or confirmed a constitutional right to suicide, as [the Minister of Justice] has repeatedly stated. Our Supreme Court has never confirmed that there is a broad constitutional right to obtain help with suicide via health-care provider ending-of-life.”Those are powerful words. If I had time, I would read the names of the 32 professors who signed the letter. People would recognize many of them. They would certainly recognize the different universities they represent.With the letter in hand, I said to the minister of justice, “Minister, you have come here saying that, constitutionally, you have to do this, but these 32 experts are saying you do not. Who is right, you or these experts?". The minister said, “I'm right.”(1240)That is the attitude we have seen consistently with the government as it has plowed ahead in spite of the evidence, in spite of the concerns and in spite of the pleas from disability groups, mental health experts and psychiatrists.I have a brief from the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, which makes a number of conclusions. I do not have time to read them all, but I want to touch on a couple of the conclusions:At this time, it is impossible to predict in any legitimate way that mental illness in individual cases is irremediable. A significant number of individuals receiving MAID for sole mental illness would have improved and recovered. This is a finding of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry. I have already spoken about this a bit, but even they can see this. They go on to say:The political process leading to the planned expansion of MAID for mental illness has not followed a robust and fulsome process, has not reflected the range of opinions and evidence-based concerns on the issue, and has been selectively guided by expansion activists.If that does not send a shiver down one's spine, I do not know what would. When we are talking about Canadians at their most vulnerable place, they should be able to count on us. How many of us participate in, for example, Bell Let's Talk Day every year? We say to people, if they are suffering with mental illness, to reach out, that we are here to help and that they should talk to someone they trust and access mental health support. Now, in spite of all this, we have psychiatrists saying the government is moving in the wrong direction.I turn to their recommendations: The Board of the Society of Canadian Psychiatry recommends that the planned 2024 MAID for mental illness expansion be paused—It's not for a year, not for three years and not for five years, but: —indefinitely, without qualification and presupposition that such implementation can safely be introduced at any arbitrary pre-determined date.What are we led to believe when a government will not listen to legal experts when it comes to the criminal law and will not listen to psychiatrists when it comes to mental illness? It begs the question of who it is listening to and why. This is the second time, and Conservatives have warned all along that there would be a dangerous, slippery slope. Canada has leapt ahead of all other nations. Some nations were ahead of the curve on this compared to Canada. Now they look at us and ask what happened that we would even be discussing providing assisted death to someone who comes to Veterans Affairs or to one of the number of hospitals across our country, looking for help, and instead is offered medical assistance in dying.I want to set the record straight that the Liberal government has not, in any way, been bound by the courts to expand MAID to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. This was a path it chose to take. We need to take this time to reflect on that path, to turn back and to give people hope. We all know individuals who have been touched by mental illness in the health care system. We know the wait times can be extraordinary for people to get help. We also know the government has contributed to those wait times. After eight years, people are suffering.I would urge members to support this bill and then to look at ways to provide support for those suffering with mental illness, not to offer them assistance in death.I move:MotionThat the question be now put.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthMotionsPsychiatry and psychiatristsPutting the questionThird reading and adoption82050098205010820501182050128205013820501482050158205016820501782050188205019820502082050218205022820502382050248205025820502682050278205028820502982050308205031820503282050338205034ChandraAryaNepeanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1245)[English]The motion is in order.Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.Admissibility of a motionC-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthMotionsPutting the questionThird reading and adoption82050358205036RobMooreHon.Fundy RoyalCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on something my colleague pointed out that people in Canada really need to understand.Because the federal government failed to challenge the Truchon decision, the legislation came back to the House. Parliament went through it, and it was to be approved in the Senate, yet unaccountable, unelected people in the Senate who did no due diligence decided arbitrarily that they would expand MAID to include people who were desperate, isolated and alone with mental illness. They threw it back to the House without any work being done, and the Liberals accepted it. Now we are scrambling, 30 days away from the deadline.I would ask my hon. colleague what it says about the fundamental failings of democracy that unelected, unaccountable people in the Senate, who cannot even be fired, could make such a profound change in legislation that would affect so many lives without any oversight, due to a failure of the government to say they are way over the line, this is not their purview and this is the work that Parliament does.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption820503782050388205039CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very concerned that you are rewriting rules in Parliament. Is the issue that I used the word “unelected”? Is that not parliamentary? Is “unaccountable” not parliamentary? It has been used in the House.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption8205041CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Ed Fast: (1250)[English]On the same point, Madam Speaker, I would ask that you get clarity on this and come back to the House. I do not believe the terms “unelected” and “unaccountable” are offensive. They are appropriate, because they reflect the fact that the Senate is not elected.If it is a matter of naming senators, that may be a different issue, but using terms that most of us would acknowledge accurately reflect what the Senate represents is fair, especially in this chamber, where we are supposed to be free to express our thoughts and feelings about the issues of the day.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption82050448205045CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I would ask you to review the debates today, which I think have been very respectful. You mentioned disorder. Did anyone speaking about unelected or unaccountable senators cause disorder where it was raised? You are putting yourself in a discussion where I think there has been very respectful conversation. Talking about the fundamental problem with the other House is germane to the issue at hand. It is why we are here today. It is why this debate has to happen. If we cannot talk about that, then we are not doing our job for Canadians.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption82050498205050CarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened to our critic for justice. He has done yeoman service on committee and in this place on this subject, and I know it is very dear to him—C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205053CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I asked a question. I think I should be allowed to have an answer, even if I mentioned unelected and unaccountable senators. I should not be denied an answer from my colleague.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPoints of orderQuestions and comments periodThird reading and adoption8205055CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Rob Moore: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite right. The government and the minister have been all too eager to lose. When they had a constitutional responsibility to defend their laws, they did not appeal decisions that would protect vulnerable Canadians, and when the then minister appeared at the justice committee on Bill C-7, which expanded medical assistance in dying, he assured us it was quite constitutional. Then, the next day, he was back, assuring us that without the expansion to those suffering from mental illness, it would be unconstitutional, so this was a minister who was all too eager to lead his government, and the government members did not stand up and push back.Now we are in the situation we are in. We have already extended the coming into force for a year, and now we are debating a bill to extend it by three years. That is a clear indication that the government got it wrong, and we are going to do what needs to be done to protect Canadians.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSenate and senatorsThird reading and adoption82050578205058CarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, the member in his speech today questioned the government's judgment on a lot of these issues. As a long-standing member of this place, I was hoping he would comment a bit further, because it seems to me that the Liberal government in particular somehow believes that if we create a law that changes the way institutions such as our health care system work, and there are not sufficient practical resources or understanding of those changes in law, it has very real repercussions.I fully supported the bill from my colleague from Abbotsford, because I believe this is an issue that we need some finality on.Could the member maybe comment on those two items?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820505982050608205061RobMooreHon.Fundy RoyalRobMooreHon.Fundy Royal//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/17210RobMooreHon.Rob-MooreFundy RoyalConservative CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MooreRob_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. Rob Moore: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is quite right. With Bill C-7, but for the passage of Bill C-62, the impact would be profound on our health care system, on individuals suffering with mental illness and on the message we send Canadians suffering with mental illness. I can say only that the government has moved forward in this dangerous direction while ignoring at every turn the advice of experts, including, as I quoted extensively, the Society of Canadian Psychiatry, medical experts and legal experts, about the merits of moving forward. It is our job to debate these things, to consider them and to hear from experts. Unfortunately, because the government dropped the ball, it is up to us to pass the legislation before us to protect Canadians suffering with mental illness.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205062DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad to be joining debate on Bill C-62. Off the top, I will mention that I will be voting for it. Like the shadow minister for justice on the Conservative side said, this is about protecting the vulnerable. Though the federal government has dropped the ball in this latest iteration of its legislation, these three years, I hope, will be taken to basically fix the mistakes that were made all the way back to Bill C-14. I want to talk a little about what brought us to this moment, and then refer to some constituents of mine who have emailed me over the last few months on the issue of assisted suicide.I will also mention that I am sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. I am sure he will add more to this debate.To go back to the beginning, not too far to the beginning because I could get into Genesis, the Carter decision is what kicked off multiple debates that I have now been a part of. I have now seen this debate go from Bill C-14 to Bill C-7 to Bill C-62, and the attempts by my hon. colleague from Abbotsford, who, I think, tried to do right by vulnerable Canadians all across Canada to make sure that we would not see an expansion of the MAID provisions to those who are still suffering with mental health conditions.The great thing about Hansard is that I was able to go all the way back and review what I had said on Bill C-14. I spent quite a bit of time complaining that the reasonably foreseeable clause would be knocked down by a court. It was knocked down by a court in the Truchon decision, because all our deaths are reasonably foreseeable; that is what living is all about. At the time, I had said that all of us who are born are born with one foot in our grave. One is assured one will die; one does not know just what it is, but it is reasonably foreseeable. I am just repeating it now. I know that it is morbid, but it is the truth. A lot of what we are dealing with here are issues of life and death and how one's death will happen. Therefore, at the time, this reasonably foreseeable clause would get knocked down, and it was knocked down in the Truchon decision.My issues, just generally, are that, in a perfect world, this would not be necessary because people would not suffer. However, because this world is not perfect, people do suffer. People suffer in deep and different ways. Members know that I had a disabled daughter who passed away a few years ago. Had she lived longer, and I know at least one little girl in Calgary who has lived much longer with the same conditions my daughter had, she would be one of those vulnerable Canadians who would be facing the possibility that her physician, her specialist, might push for and might offer MAID.I say “offer MAID”, but it seems so weird to say “offer MAID”, to offer something that I do not consider to be a medical service and to rush one's death sooner. Although we all die, as I said many Parliaments ago, the act of dying is not one that one does alone; it is done as a family, as a group of friends and with those loved ones around.It is not something that happens in solitude. There are others who will miss one when one is gone. I know that it is difficult in a moment of suffering and a moment of great pain, or chronic pain, to believe it, to know it. A lot of the emails, the correspondence and the meetings I have had were with people who are worried about the assisted suicide MAID provisions, which the government has ineffectually dealt with through successive pieces of legislation. I think it was a grave error not to appeal the Truchon decision. I really do. I think it was a mistake. I said it to constituents at the time. I have a Yiddish proverb, because I always do. They are great proverbs, and everybody should live by them and should know more of them. I just wish I could pronounce them in Yiddish: The truth never dies, but it is made to live as a beggar. This legislation is a beggar. This legislation should have been a permanent fix to the issues.I think that Conservatives have suggested, both in committee and outside of committee, what some of those fixes would be. Although I disagree with an acronym, I will use RFND, reasonably foreseeable natural death. It should be limited to those who are terminally ill, where their death is foreseeable within the next six months, where there is a prognosis from a medical professional saying that one will indeed pass away.For those most terrible conditions, I am thinking of a lot of cancers. My grandfather passed away from brain cancer in Canada, which brought my family to Canada. His death was very much reasonably foreseeable when it was terminal. There are others who have mental health conditions, which are caused by a physical condition. The mental health condition alone should not be the reason to seek assisted suicide.Different Conservatives have mentioned, and I very much agree with this, that patients should be the ones requesting it. These are all things the government could have legislated into law. These are things that experts have said, and I want to read some of what the experts said in different committees.(1300)Professor Trudo Lemmens and Mary Shariff persuasively rebutted a bunch of arguments that were made in Truchon. They noted again that reasonably foreseeable natural death applied to “all” persons, “not only to persons with disabilities”. “The judge in Truchon failed to appreciate how such a restriction reflects a constitutional duty to protect the equal value of the lives of all Canadians.”I have read the Carter decision twice now. As many in the House know, this is something I take pride in saying that I am not a lawyer. I am not burdened with a legal education. I know the member for Fundy Royal is disappointed and that the member for St. Albert—Edmonton will be disappointed too, so I come to this as a layperson. Even the Carter decision did not say he had a right to die. It goes back to this idea, like I have said, that all of our deaths are reasonably foreseeable. It will happen; it is unavoidable in life.These two experts said that the judge in Truchon made a mistake. This concept, this expertise, was then repeated in observations made by 72 disability rights organizations that penned a letter to the then justice minister. They said that reasonably foreseeable natural deaths are the ones where there is terminal illness that is coming up very quickly, and that this idea is an equalizing effect, guaranteeing a common thread among persons accessing MAID, assisted suicide, namely that they are dying within a very short time window. That is how I think this legislation should work. I am not saying there should be no MAID. The Carter decision stands as a Supreme Court decision in Canada, so there has to be a provision of it in a method. It should be rare and should be restricted to the very few people for whom it was originally intended. I feel that Bill C-14 to Bill C-7 to the situation we are in today do not address that. That is why we have this legislation that is a beggar. It is not in the original form that it should be. The truth lies in abiding by what Carter decided.Another one reads, “From a disability rights perspective, there is a grave concern that, if assisted dying is made available...regardless of whether they are close to death, a social assumption might follow (or be subtly reinforced) that it is better to be dead than to live with a disability.” That is a terrible message to send to persons with disabilities. I am thinking of my daughter, had she lived. That would have been a terrible message to send to her.All three of my living kids have a chronic kidney condition. My boys will likely need a kidney transplants. What a terrible thing to tell them, that they are a burden on the medical situation and that maybe they should seek faster death. Is that what specialists are going to tell them when they are adults? I will not be in the room, but they will be in the room. Will that be pushed onto them? For those who are on dialysis, it is hard on their bodies to go three to four days a week to get dialysis in a hospital setting. I am not speaking of peritoneal dialysis that can be done in the home.There have been lots of experts. The member for Fundy Royal explained a lot of what has been said on the issue. The government keeps erring in the wrong direction with more expansive legislation to allow more people to access something that was not the original intention of Carter. We should abide by Carter, as I mentioned before.I have had constituents write to me. I just want to make sure that I read some of their thoughts into the record. Leanna wrote, “Please Halt the expansion of MAID to include those facing mental illness.” Catherine wrote, “As a parent who has seen my own children experience mental health challenges while in their teen years and early twenties, I am writing to express my deep concern about people with mental illness alone becoming eligible for medical assistance in dying. The move towards this will put countless vulnerable people at risk.”Joe, in my riding, is a regular writer. I respond to most of his emails. I will send this to Joe just to make sure he knows I read his emails. His second and third points read, “By offering MAID for mental illness governments may put less money into treating mental illness.... Canadians may wish for MAID because of despair. They have not have been offered treatment for their mental illness.”Cameron talked about a friend of his who is a nurse working in a mental health unit in Calgary. Mental health for him is all about seeing the intrinsic value of every human being, as celebrating the person not for what they contribute but for the beauty of their existence. He feels that once we stop seeing the dignity of one person, we will doubt our own worth and validity.I know my time is running short, so I will not belabour this. I have heard comments from some members of the House who have tried to impugn a person's faith, religion or philosophical affiliations with whatever beliefs; although, all of us come to the House with our different beliefs. Some of them are sacred. Some of them are secular. It really does not matter where they come from, but all of us try to ascribe value to life, what that life is and what autonomy should be like. To those members, I note that I did abstain from one vote that was specifically on advance directives because I have a constituent, Jim, who communicated with me over email that he and his spouse saw the experience of his mother, who passed away from Alzheimer's, and how terrible it was. In situations like that, it is incumbent upon the government to find a way to meet the requirements of the original Carter decision so that Jim and his spouse, when that time comes, can have their wishes met.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Carter v. CanadaGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionTruchon v. Attorney General of Canada82050638205064820506582050668205067820506882050698205070820507182050728205073820507482050758205076820507782050788205079820508082050818205082820508382050848205085RobMooreHon.Fundy RoyalFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, in issues like this, there is always this tension between the right of the individual and the impacts that individual has on the “culture”, for lack of a better word, and on others in the society when exercising that right. This was brought up by one of the psychiatrists who appeared before the committee when he said that one of the concerns he has with MDSUMC is a possible contagion effect. I do not know if courts would actually consider this because it is so difficult to prove. Anyway, it is just something I think about a lot, and I wonder whether the member has any thoughts on that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205086TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is something that I also think about. The member mentioned courts, and sometimes, I feel that these court decisions should apply for six months to the judge who makes them before they apply to the rest of the public. I sometimes wonder, when they think these things through, that it goes back to too much legal information that clouds their judgment at times. This is where I worry that it is exactly that contagion effect. Does it then become permissible, broadly, that suicide and suicidal ideation are the go-to? Is that the type of society we want to, I do not think “encourage” is the right term, but do we want an acceptance of it? We have companies that promote things like Bell Let's Talk. What is the point of doing that when we have MAID provisions being expanded consistently through a series of legislation and court decisions?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205087FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisTracyGrayKelowna—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have heard from a lot of people in the disability community, advocacy groups, who advocate for persons with disabilities. They have come out very strongly against expanding MAID for people where the sole underlying condition is mental illness. I wonder if the member can speak to that, if he has heard that as well, and also to the concept that it should not be easier to get MAID than it is to access mental health and addiction treatment.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205088TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member raises a great point. There are a lot of vulnerable, disabled Canadians who have expressed themselves through not only their associations but also as individuals by communicating to their elected representatives that they do not want to see this expansion because they are worried. It comes from their experience when they go into a clinical setting or into a hospital setting, where the law says that because it does not have to be patient-initiated, medical professionals can give up on their patients. As someone who has been in a lot of hospitals with my children, both living and those who have passed, I can say that, sometimes, ER doctors and specialist nurses and physicians, who are at the end of their wits and are tired, take on a lot of patients. They have a lot going on and have complex patients with complex needs. It is easy to see how it could lead to a situation where they are maybe not giving the best advice and are looking for a path that requires less care in the long term. That is the worry that a person with a disability has. That is the worry every parent has when they have children with a disability. When they are adults, will they be able to advocate for themselves? How will the medical system stream them, and where will it stream them? As a parent, I worry about that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820508982050908205091TracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryDanAlbasCentral 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for sharing his experiences. I am a big fan of the Yiddish proverbs that he says, so maybe he has one he can share in addition to the one he shared already.Getting back to the subject at hand, I worry most that there was an amendment put to the legislation that would basically allow for an expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons with mental disorders. The government had a choice where it could just simply say no to that amendment and just leave things as they are until, at the very least, the provinces which run the health care systems, and the mental health professionals could say “we are ready”. Does the member believe that the government really made a mistake and that this does have a bit of “the dog ate my homework” kind of approach to it? The government is simply relegislating over and over and making the same mistake.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82050928205093TomKmiecCalgary ShepardTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I obviously agree with the member. The dog that ate the government's homework has been fattened up over the last nine years, because it had a lot of homework to eat that the government has not done or pretends not to have done. However, we had an opportunity to close the door completely with the bill from the member for Abbotsford, Bill C-314. I think it was a grave mistake of the House not to have voted in favour of it. There would have been no expansion of MAID to those with mental illnesses. The House and future Parliaments could have reviewed the situation and redecided on the matter in five, 10, 15 or 20 years. Then, there would be more data and more people looking at how the system had been used, what the demand was like, and whether there had been advances in the psychiatric and mental health services provided to Canadians. If we do not provide the service at the front end, so that a person could choose to get healing and have the ability to live a fulsome life the way they want to live it, then we cannot really be pushing MAID on the other side as the only path available to those who are vulnerable or suffering from mental illness. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82050948205095DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (1310)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-62 which seeks to delay the expansion of medically assisted death to individuals whose sole condition is a mental illness until March 2027.Yesterday, in anticipation of these remarks, I sent an email to about 10,000 constituents, and I heard back from 95 of them on the subject we are debating today, medical assistance in dying, or MAID. I heard from parents who have lost children, as well as those who have suffered from depression and were able to overcome their illness with treatment. The majority of respondents agreed with the position I am about to outline, but there were some who did not. Many of those who disagreed with my stance came from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon's very large and diverse Dutch community. Given its history in, and our connections to, the Netherlands, people in the Dutch community have a deep understanding of this issue. I appreciated hearing their thoughtful comments.Among those who disagreed, the most common concerns raised were about access and advance requests for those suffering from dementia. Concerns were also raised about the challenges many Canadians face in accessing mental health supports and treatment, which can leave some feeling hopeless. In fact, it nearly brought me to tears, hearing from constituents who asked, “How dare you try to take away the right for me to access MAID when I am suffering from mental illness?” They did not see a pathway out for the circumstances in their life. That is a horrible position to be in.One thing, however, was unanimous: Our health care system is failing to meet the needs of Canadians suffering from mental health challenges. This must be addressed. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts and concerns in a compassionate and respectful way. Almost a year ago, I stood before my colleagues in this House and expressed my concerns about the Liberal government's decision to extend medically assisted death to individuals suffering solely from mental illness. I highlighted the stark contradiction between our efforts to promote mental health awareness and services and those to offer death as an option to those struggling with mental health challenges.Mental health affects every family in our country, and it pains me to see the government contemplating the provision of death as an option to individuals who are at their lowest point. I shared the heartbreaking story of a member of my community of Abbotsford, who received medically assisted death without her daughters being informed, despite her documented mental health condition. Regrettably, such stories are becoming too common under our existing MAID regime.Retired corporal Christine Gauthier, who represented Canada at the Paralympic Games, testified before the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying that she had tried for five years to get a wheelchair ramp installed in her home through Veterans Affairs Canada. Instead, she was offered MAID by a VAC caseworker. A week before her testimony, the Minister of Veterans Affairs confirmed that at least four other veterans had been offered MAID as well.Now, after eight years of the Liberal government and with the cost of living soaring, some Canadians are seeking MAID in fear of homelessness. Most recently, a member of my community from the Family Support Institute of BC raised deep concerns about the expansion of MAID. They stated that, even with the current restrictions, our most vulnerable populations are gaining access to MAID without adequate precautions, social services, expertise, professional supports and wraparound social networks to consistently represent their interests and voices.Despite our repeated calls to protect the most vulnerable, I believe the Liberal government has failed to act responsibly on this point.Around this time last year, instead of cancelling the expansion of MAID for mental illness, the Liberals introduced last-minute legislation to impose a temporary one-year pause. Now, a year later, I am here again to see that the government wants to add another pause of three years to the mental illness expansion, delaying it until March 2027.This past fall, the Liberals had an opportunity to get rid of this expansion altogether. In February, my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford tabled Bill C-314, which would have cancelled the expansion of MAID to those with mental illness as the sole condition. When the bill came up for a second reading vote in October, most Liberals, along with the Bloc Québécois, defeated it.The government is seemingly only choosing to delay the expansion again after the significant backlash it has received from mental health experts, doctors and advocates across Canada. It seems that the government wants to recklessly push aside this issue instead of listening to what Canadians and, indeed, our mental health professionals want.(1315)For many years we have heard about the fast expansion of assisted suicide in Europe. Now, Canada has infamously become a global leader with its progressive euthanasia policy. The Netherlands was the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia, and it took the country over 14 years to reach 4% of the total population's death from assisted suicide. Other countries with similar policies, such as Switzerland and Belgium, have not even reached the 4% mark. Canada's MAID regime has only been around for six years and has outpaced these countries with euthanasia, accounting for 4% of total deaths in 2022. Health Canada reported that 13,241 Canadians received assisted suicide just in the past year. That is more than a 30% increase from 2021 deaths. Belgium allows euthanasia to children of any age. Most recently, the Netherlands expanded its euthanasia policies to include terminally ill children. The Liberals have met with the largest pro-MAID lobbying group, Dying with Dignity, many times. This group is advocating for assisted suicide to be expanded to mature minors. If the government continues to take us down this slippery slope, will it lead us to a path that expands euthanasia to all children? Youth in this country are already falling through the cracks, with suicide being the second leading cause of death for youth and young adults. How can youth struggling with mental illness even think of having a better future if they become eligible for MAID and it is normalized? The Liberals, in my opinion, are inadvertently creating a culture of death. Delaying the expansion of MAID for mental illness is not enough. The government must immediately and permanently halt the expansion of MAID to those with mental illness. The reports from the committee echo what Conservatives have been advocating for years, which is that expanding assisted suicide to those suffering from mental illness will lead to the premature death of individuals who could have recovered with proper support and treatment. The government is taking an ideological stance, and it is not listening to the experts working in the field. Last year, the country's largest psychiatric teaching hospital, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, said that it is not ready for this expansion and emphasized the need for more mental health resources.The chief of the psychiatry department at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Dr. Sonu Gaind, has said that it is irresponsible for us to provide “death to someone who isn't dying before we ensure that they've had access and opportunity for standard and best care to try to help alleviate their suffering.” We cannot overlook the inherent dignity and value of human life, especially when individuals are at their most vulnerable. It is our duty as lawmakers to prioritize the well-being and protection of everyone in Canada, particularly those facing mental health challenges. As the member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, I believe in upholding the principles of compassion and support for those struggling with mental illness. Yes, I also acknowledge that we need to do a lot more; efforts to date have not been sufficient, whether in terms of the government response or the societal response. Delaying the expansion of MAID for mental illness is not the solution; it merely postpones the inevitable reckoning of the profound ethical and moral implications of such legislation and the broader implications we are faced with here today. Those struggling with their mental health deserve support and treatment, not death. We know that recovery is possible when treatments are more readily available.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2ChildrenGovernment billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPersons with disabilitiesPovertyThird reading and adoption820509682050978205098820509982051008205101820510282051038205104820510582051068205107820510882051098205110820511182051128205113820511482051158205116TomKmiecCalgary ShepardChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, in his speech, the hon. member mentioned the 31% increase in the number of Canadians using the assistance of this MAID legislation.I know this number of a 31% jump, when seen in isolation, is big. However, does the member agree that, because the legislation is fairly new, all the people who had been waiting and suffering for such a long time started utilizing these MAID legislation provisions? Does he agree that, going forward, when these MAID provisions are normalized, the rate of growth he quoted will not be so huge in the future?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82051178205118BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nepean for a very fair question and for some of the points he made.Are we simply catching up in Canada as it relates to the availability of MAID? Perhaps in some cases, but under the current legislation, there has to be a foreseeable death. I believe that the way information is exchanged, access to MAID, and the access to information that people have, has led to a rapid increase, yes. However, I will also note that there was an individual in my community of Abbotsford who accessed MAID because she did not feel she had a place to live. That story was well documented in Canada. She did not believe that she had the support she needed to live a life that was respectable. I believe that with the normalization of MAID, for people who do not feel they have a lot of hope in life, it has become a more readily available option. My message today is that all people should have hope.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820511982051208205121ChandraAryaNepeanCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104715CarolineDesbiensCaroline-DesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesbiensCaroline_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ): (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am a little thrown off by my colleague's comments.I have a friend who had a second kidney transplant, and complications ensued. She was told to go home, that her days were numbered. She was told that they could not give her any more anti-rejection drugs for her kidney and that her kidney would waste away, and so would she. At that point, in a panic, she asked if she could at least have access to MAID. She was told that she could access it in due course and was told to call to schedule an assessment.As if by some miracle, she got an unbelievable break: The transplanted kidney continued to thrive without the anti-rejection drugs, which she had stopped taking. She is still with us today, and she is listening. She did not need MAID. She always said that she was able to be at peace because she knew that she would always have that option, no matter what happened.I cannot understand why members are referring to all kinds of nonsense today, using big words like “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia”, when we are not the experts. We are here simply to lay the groundwork so that experts can have their say in due course. That is what happened to my friend.I would like to know where our colleague is going with his speeches on euthanizing children. That is horrifying, and I do not understand his point. Can he explain it to me?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecovery and healingThird reading and adoption82051228205123820512482051258205126BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1325)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer the question in French.In this specific case, the person was eligible for MAID.[English]More broadly, with respect to that question, I do not believe that the legislation before us today relates specifically to that issue. That was related to kidneys, and there was a foreseeable death, but, thankfully, that individual did not have to face that situation. The legislation we are debating here today relates solely to mental health and a government decision to expand MAID to those suffering from mental health illnesses for three years. The experts who appeared at the joint committee between the House and the other House outlined that we are not ready for that expansion. So, the Conservative Party is in fact listening to the experts and taking the position that we have today.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecovery and healingThird reading and adoption8205127820512882051298205130CarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/116022ShuvaloyMajumdarShuvaloy-MajumdarCalgary HeritageConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MajumdarShuvaloy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Shuvaloy Majumdar: (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, yesterday was Valentine's Day. I misspoke in the House, and I retract my comment.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8205132Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110446LisaHepfnerLisa-HepfnerHamilton MountainLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HepfnerLisa_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lisa Hepfner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.): (1325)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this House today in support of Bill C-62, particularly after listening to some of the debate this morning and hearing some of the language used in this House today. For example, the member for Abbotsford, throughout his speech today continually used the words “the mentally disorded” I believe in reference to people who are suffering from mental illness. A little later in the day, we then heard from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who continually referred to people as “addicts” throughout his speech.In this House, we are leaders. Our words are important and we should not be furthering the stigmatization of people who suffer mental illness. I would caution my colleagues across the way to be careful in their language and to please not further marginalize people who are already suffering.I will turn back to Bill C-62. As the Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice have emphasized, the government believes an extension of three years is necessary to provide individual clinicians as well as provinces and territories the time they need to prepare for this change.I also believe a three-year extension of the period of ineligibility to receive MAID on the basis of a mental illness alone is necessary. Although significant progress has been made, more time is needed to ensure the safe assessment and provision of MAID in these circumstances. I have heard from psychiatrists in my riding of Hamilton Mountain who have said these very things. They need more time to get the system ready.My remarks today will focus on the progress that has been made in preparing the health care system, and also what more needs to be done. In 2021, as required by former Bill C-7, an expert panel examined the issue of permitting MAID where the sole underlying condition is a mental illness. It concluded that the existing legal framework of eligibility criteria and safeguards is sufficient, providing that MAID assessors apply the existing framework appropriately with guidance, through the development of MAID practice standards and specialized training.Our government understood the importance of the panel's findings. To that end, we have been working in collaboration with the provinces and territories and other health care partners to implement consistent standards across the country and support a highly trained workforce to undertake these complex assessments.For example, we supported the development of a model practice standard for MAID by individuals with clinical, regulatory and legal expertise. A model practice standard for MAID was released in March 2023 and has been adopted, or is in the process of being adopted, by most regulators across the country as a basis for assessment for clinical decision-making. The standard also provides guidance for MAID clinicians as they navigate more complex MAID requests. We also supported the development of the first national, fully accredited bilingual MAID curriculum, which was launched in August 2023. The curriculum consists of seven training modules addressing various topics related to the assessment and provision of MAID, including how to do a MAID assessment, how to assess capacity and vulnerability, how to manage complex chronic situations and how to assess requests involving a mental illness. Over 1,100 clinicians have registered for the curriculum since August of last year. This progress is the result of leadership and collaboration among health system partners, including federal, provincial and territorial governments, health professional organizations, regulatory bodies, clinicians and organizations like the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers. This collaboration and progress will continue to make improvements in approaches to safety and quality in assessments and provisions of MAID.In terms of the future, I want to briefly speak to the Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying, which outline the reporting requirements relating to MAID requests. These regulations came into force in November 2018, but were recently revised to facilitate enhanced data collection and reporting on MAID activity. Most notably, the regulations now allow for the collection of data based on race, indigenous identity and the self-reported presence of a disability, where a person consents to provide this information. (1330)The revised regulations came into force on January 1, 2023, and information on MAID activity in 2023 will be released in Health Canada’s annual MAID report this year, in 2024. This information will provide valuable insight into who is requesting and receiving MAID, including those under track 2, whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable.Despite all this work, we have heard that the provinces and territories are at various stages of readiness for the lifting of the exclusion of eligibility and that they need more time to prepare their health care systems.I know that the suffering caused by a mental illness can be just as severe as that caused by a physical illness, but I strongly believe that this extension is necessary to ensure that MAID can be safely assessed and provided on the basis of a mental illness alone. This extension does not question the capacity of people with mental illness to make health care decisions. It is about giving the health care system more time to adopt or implement some of these key resources to ensure that MAID practitioners are properly equipped to assess these complex requests, and that the provinces and territories have the necessary mechanisms in place to support them.For example, both the expert panel that I referred to earlier and the special joint committee on MAID have emphasized the importance of case review and oversight of MAID, both to educate practitioners and to support accountability and public trust in the law. While the majority of cases of MAID, 90%, take place in provinces with formal oversight processes, other provinces do not have formal MAID case review and oversight processes in place beyond those already undertaken by professional regulatory bodies.Work is being planned to explore best practices through a federal-provincial-territorial working group, with a view to encouraging more consistent and robust mechanisms across the country.The expert panel and the special joint committee also identified engagement with indigenous partners as a priority. The Government of Canada has launched a two-year engagement process on MAID to hear the perspectives of first nations, Inuit and Métis, including urban indigenous people, indigenous people living off-reserve with or without status, indigenous people living with disabilities, and two-spirit, LGBTQQIA+ and gender-diverse indigenous people.The proposed extension under Bill C-62 would provide the necessary time to have these discussions with indigenous partners. It is an essential process to appropriately inform implementation as well as guidance and training material for clinicians to support enhanced integration of cultural safety in MAID practices.Health Canada will provide its first official update to Parliament on this work in March 2024, just next month. In conclusion, the Government of Canada remains committed to ensuring that laws reflect the needs of people in Canada, protect those who may be vulnerable, and support autonomy and freedom of choice. While we have made significant progress in the study of MAID and mental illness, and in the development and dissemination of key resources, we are not yet ready. We need to act prudently and not rush this change without the necessary resources in place.This decision is not an easy one, but I want to assure the House that we will continue to work collaboratively with our partners to improve the mental health of Canadians.I thank all members for the opportunity to speak today as we debate this important bill.Best practicesC-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Education and trainingGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSetting of standardsSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption820513582051368205137820513882051398205140820514182051428205143820514482051458205146820514782051488205149820515082051518205152820515382051548205155820515682051578205158Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaAdamChambersSimcoe North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110649AdamChambersAdam-ChambersSimcoe NorthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChambersAdam_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, not every person who jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge actually dies, and in fact a study tracked down 29 individuals who survived. Some 98% of jumpers, by the way, do not survive the jump. A study of 29 individuals who survived their jump off the Golden Gate Bridge revealed that every single one of them regretted their decision to jump the moment they jumped.I was just wondering if my colleague could reflect on the fact that suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption82051598205160LisaHepfnerHamilton MountainLisaHepfnerHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110446LisaHepfnerLisa-HepfnerHamilton MountainLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HepfnerLisa_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lisa Hepfner: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first of all, say that we cannot equate suicide with medical assistance in dying. They are two completely different issues. Second, I would say that yes, we absolutely need to take the time to make sure we get this right. That is why this legislation is so important. We need these three years to get our medical system up to the level where we can make sure that everyone who is granted the MAID provision truly is someone who has gone through the medical system, has taken all of the medical treatments that are available and has still reached this conclusion.We need more time, and that is why we need this legislation.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption82051618205162AdamChambersSimcoe NorthAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of working with the member at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and I thank her for the question.We have many values in common, but, in this case, she is talking about consultation with various communities. She mentioned continuing the consultation process, but what does she make of Quebec's clear request for legislation and action now?Does she realize that this delay and her party's lack of political will will cause women like Sandra Demontigny to continue suffering?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820516382051648205165LisaHepfnerHamilton MountainLisaHepfnerHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110446LisaHepfnerLisa-HepfnerHamilton MountainLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HepfnerLisa_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lisa Hepfner: (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I, too, enjoy working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women.To be clear, conversations with the Province of Quebec are very important. We need to pass Bill C‑62 now to ensure that we have a program in place. This is not the end. We will keep talking with the Government of Quebec. We will keep learning from the Government of Quebec.I very much appreciate my colleague's comments.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820516682051678205168AndréanneLaroucheSheffordCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are about 32 days away from a legal deadline that was arbitrarily thrown at us by the unelected, unaccountable Senate, forcing us to allow people who are depressed, people who are isolated and alone, to die through medical assistance in dying. Now my colleagues are saying to give them a couple of years and they will make it all work.What I found profoundly disturbing was that my colleague said they would support this. They figure that if they have another year or two, if they can meet just a few more people and just tick all the boxes at consultation, then people who are depressed and alone should be allowed to die. I find that an appalling position of the government. The government put us in this position through its cavalier approach to MAID, and its refusal to look at the issues and hear that this is really not a road we want to go down, that this is a line in the sand with respect to the human community.If the member thinks that in three years she will have consulted enough people, but, at the end of the day, she will support people dying because they have no support, then the government has very poor vision and it needs to explain that to the Canadian people.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820516982051708205171LisaHepfnerHamilton MountainLisaHepfnerHamilton Mountain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110446LisaHepfnerLisa-HepfnerHamilton MountainLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HepfnerLisa_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lisa Hepfner: (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not think consultation is simply checking boxes. It is extremely important, particularly when we are talking about our vulnerable and about our medical system.As I mentioned, I have personally consulted with psychiatrists in Hamilton. These people study and work at some of the best institutions in Canada. They are the experts. They have told me that, while the idea behind MAID for mental illness is a sound one, we are just not ready yet. We need to have all the proper safeguards in place before we move forward with this legislation. I think that is fair and I think it is reasonable.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82051728205173CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): (1340)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am rising for the second time this week to speak to this issue. As I said at the beginning of my speech at second reading, I was so interested in this issue that I offered to sit on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying when it dealt with the question of mental illness. I felt it was my duty to take part in a debate that is so important for our society. This is a crucial and extremely complex social debate. As a legislator, I wanted to learn more about this hot-button public policy issue that is so important to my constituents. Many of them have written to me about this. I attended much of the debate on the issue this week, and I was very impressed by the tone. It is true that emotions can sometimes get the better of us, but that is to be expected when we are debating such a crucial matter, a matter of life and death. I must say that I was impressed that the debate was conducted in a respectful manner. That is impressive, and we should adopt that same tone when we discuss the many other issues addressed here in the House. I heard arguments that I do not want to call fallacious, because that is a pejorative term and I do not want to criticize anyone, but let us just say that I heard a few contradictions during certain speeches. First, someone claimed that we could have simply amended Bill C-62 to include advance requests. I do not think we are ready to make a hasty amendment to open the door to something as complex—if not more—as medical assistance in dying, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness. It took much effort, much debate, much discussion and several committee meetings for us to be able to talk about medical assistance in dying for patients with a mental illness. Moreover, the idea that we can move an amendment in committee is wrong, because such an amendment would certainly be ruled out of order, since the scope of the bill is not that broad. The bill deals with a specific question, namely, medical assistance in dying for persons with a mental illness. People claim we are taking too much time to debate this issue, that it has already been three years and that we should end the debate. We are not talking about policies like affordability or the need to build housing as quickly as possible. We are talking about something very serious. We really are going beyond the more practical issues, and I think it will take the time it takes because there is no consensus among the experts. If there is no consensus, we cannot force the issue, suddenly demand consensus and insist we move forward because time is running out. The issue of how long it will take to reach a good conclusion is unfortunately not a problem for me. As I was saying, this is not simply a technical medical issue, it is a moral and ethical issue for society, certainly.(1345) The matter of caution was also raised. Some claim that the government is too cautious, too timid, on this issue, that it is not acting as quickly as people would like, that it has not addressed the issue fast enough or lacks political will. It does in fact lack political will because there are too many uncertainties. In this case, it is not a bad thing to lack political will in order to forge ahead as soon as possible. However, on this idea of being too cautious, I would say that this is true even for the Bloc Québécois, because it has accepted the framework we have established. For the moment, we are not implementing this framework. Nevertheless, under the framework, not everyone who requests medical assistance in dying on the grounds of a mental illness will receive it. We are talking about a mere 5% acceptance rate. Even if we went ahead, we would do so with a lot of caution, given the 95% of people who would request medical assistance in dying on those grounds.We should then not talk as if caution were not an issue. Caution is an issue, even if we agree to move forward. I would like to ask my colleagues who keep disparaging the government for its caution whether it would be too cautious to require that, in these cases, a psychiatrist be involved in assessing the person's request. Right now, it is not necessary for a psychiatrist to be involved in the assessment. In the Netherlands, where medical assistance in dying is legal, a psychiatrist must give an opinion on the request. There is caution built into the process, but it is not unreasonable. I would say that my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois agree that some caution is required. There is also talk about freedom. Some say that this is a matter of freedom, as if they were talking about absolute freedom. It is not a matter of absolute freedom, because 95% of those requesting medical assistance in dying would not have access to it on the grounds of a mental illness. We need to make things clear and add nuance to this debate to avoid giving the impression we are talking about absolute concepts. Then they bring up the issue of the Quebec nation. I listened carefully to my friend, the hon. member from Joliette, with whom I enjoyed working on election reform. He is a seasoned parliamentarian who makes excellent speeches in the House. He said that there were many nations in Canada. Indeed, there is the Quebec nation, but there are also indigenous nations. There are indigenous nations within the Quebec nation as well. What I understand is that indigenous nations are not too keen to move this issue forward at this time. They say that they have not been consulted enough. They have concerns about the systemic racism that exists in health care systems across the country. Among other things, they are afraid that not enough thought will be put into processing the requests. We should not focus too much on the idea of community when it comes to medical assistance in dying. When people get to that point, when they are on their death bed, I do not think they dwell too much on the community. Each person is a soul facing infinity alone. That is why we should not talk too much about nations when we are discussing medical assistance in dying. It is not a matter of being part of a community. I agree that it is a matter of individual rights. That is where it gets complicated, because we do not want people to suffer.(1350)However, we do not want people to do things that have not been assessed with the utmost caution, because it is a matter of life and death.I will stop here and await my colleagues' questions.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820517482051758205176820517782051788205179820518082051818205182820518382051848205185820518682051878205188LisaHepfnerHamilton MountainLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1350)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, first of all, we are not talking about advance directives. That has already been settled. We are talking about advance requests.Second of all, in my speech this morning—because this is a reply to the speech I made this morning—I never said that not enough work had been done. The Bloc Québécois's position is that one year is enough and that we will see after one year, immediately after royal assent, whether we can start to work on the mental illness issue.The member should have sat on the committee from the get-go. He has been an MP from Quebec since 2015. It is a bit strange for him to be so uninformed on the issue of MAID.Since June 2023, the government could have included advance requests in the bill, taking into consideration any recommendation of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. We never said that not enough work had been done. We said that the government was dragging its feet when it comes to committee work. The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying was always convened at the last minute.Does the member think that three meetings on an issue such as this were enough?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82051898205190820519182051928205193FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia: (1355)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, indeed, I should have used the correct term, “advance requests”, instead of “advance directives”.It seems to me that, during question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was just asking for an amendment to allow advance requests all of a sudden. Regardless of the government's timeline, I do not think the House is really ready to vote on this. Some members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying may be.However, as I told him earlier, this is not something as straightforward as the Standing Committee on Finance studying a budget. In that case, the members of a given party recommend that all their fellow party members vote in favour of it because they have studied it and the party trusts them. Everyone wants to make the right decision, so this requires a much more thorough debate.As the member himself said, Quebec did not put medical assistance in dying due to mental disorders in its legislation. The member said it was because Quebec had not studied it at the time. If Quebec is so sure, it can amend its legislation to include it.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsLiving willsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205194820519582051968205197LucThériaultMontcalmGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am struck with how, during this debate, we have heard so much technical and bureaucratic language from the government. It masks what is fundamentally an ethical and moral issue, that is, the just way to treat the most vulnerable within our society. This discourse about maybe we are not ready or maybe we will be ready masks the more important underlying question of whether we should ever have the state involved in facilitating the suicide of those with mental health challenges. On this side of the House, we say a firm no, not now, not ever.I want to ask the member if he is concerned about the dramatic growth in the rates of those opting for MAID in Canada, opting for it perhaps under pressure or in other circumstances. We have seen, since this practice started in Canada, dramatic increases every single year. Is the member concerned about that, or is he totally fine with this idea of exponential growth in the rates?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82051988205199FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about it. I do not know what it means and there is much disagreement as to what it means.I would ask a question of the member, which I know he will not have to answer under the rules. Is he okay with track one MAID? A lot of the psychiatrists who went before the committee who were not in favour of MAID for mental disorders were in favour of track one and track two. I would like to know if the member accepts MAID under any circumstance or not at all.It is an important ethical and moral decision, I agree, but no one in the House wants people to suffer needlessly, and I think we are all grappling with this on moral and technical grounds. It may not be possible, I cannot say, but we want to separate out suicidal ideation. We want to be able to separate out psychosocial factors as motivating factors for requesting MAID in cases of mental illness, and we are not there yet. We want to study treatment fatigue to see, if somebody says they are done and cannot take it anymore, whether we can guide them to another treatment. We have looked at treatment fatigue when it comes to HIV and type 1 diabetes patients, but we have not looked at treatment fatigue when we talk about psychiatric illnesses.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205200820520182052028205203GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—Nepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71738AnitaVandenbeldAnita-VandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandenbeldAnita_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Anita Vandenbeld (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development, Lib.): (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know that medical assistance in dying is a deeply personal issue that is very difficult.I wonder if my hon. colleague could talk about the fact that we need to base this on principles of personal autonomy, dignity and choice.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82052048205205FrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisFrancisScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-Louis//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25453FrancisScarpaleggiaFrancis-ScarpaleggiaLac-Saint-LouisLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScarpaleggiaFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Francis Scarpaleggia: (1355)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question.We all believe in personal autonomy and choice. However, as I said in my speech two days ago, sometimes I think that is becoming a bit of an ideology, where we do not recognize that, yes, we are individuals with free will and free choice, but we are born into families and communities. We are influenced not only by the opportunities that families and communities afford us, but also by the constraints they impose upon us. In some cases, society imposes more hardship on some than others. We do not seem to be able to separate out whether somebody is asking for medical assistance in dying because of the hardships that society has imposed on them, or whether it is really a clear-eyed decision. I am not a psychiatrist. I am not a doctor. I do not approach this with—C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820520682052078205208AnitaVandenbeldOttawa West—NepeanChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//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): (1515)[English]Mr. Speaker, I note that I will be splitting my time with my friend and colleague from Langley—Aldergrove.It is the responsibility of parliamentarians, in certain circumstances, to make decisions that have to do with life or death, and that is where we find ourselves today. In the context of most of parliamentary history, not only here in Canada but in other parliaments around the world, it has to do with times of war and conflict, but today it is unique as we discuss the context of determining the status of what has come to be referred to as medical assistance in dying. It is an incredibly delicate issue that has brought forward a huge range of emotions and opinions from across the country and from across the political spectrum. Certainly, it is something that requires thoughtfulness when being addressed.However, I do want very specifically to address something that has been very concerning to me in this discussion, and I will get to the substance of Bill C-62 in a moment. It has been brought forward and demanded by other political parties in this place that members' faiths and the values on which we build our moral system should not be included in this discussion, that somehow as parliamentarians we should separate those things from the discussion. I would assert to members today, on behalf of many of my constituents who have reached out to me on this matter, many of whom agree with me and some of whom do not, that the basis of our moral system, whether that be mine as a Christian or other people's of Muslim, Jewish or other faiths or no faith at all, or whether it be the experience that one lives, plays a role in our ability as parliamentarians and as a society to make decisions.As such, my message to this House and all Canadians watching is that we should never try to remove our faiths and our value systems from the conversation. Rather, they should be a part of it, thoughtfully, of course, and that certainly is the case when we are discussing something as important as medical assistance in dying.Let us take a step back. What does Bill C-62 mean? It is a delay on the coming into force of an aspect of the medical assistance in dying regime. All parties, at different points in time, although that is certainly not the status of this debate today, have said there is tremendous concern about the widespread expansion of a system that could put Canada's most vulnerable at risk, and certainly that is something that should force all of us to take pause.It has been asserted very clearly by me and many of my colleagues that this has simply gone too far when the regime that we are talking about is truly putting Canada's most vulnerable at risk, but the specifics of the bill today would bring a needed pause. My assertion, as when I voted in favour of the bill from my colleague from Abbotsford, would be that we should remove the provisions of medical assistance in dying that could very well lead to what we hear examples of. This is not simply an allegation. We hear very clear examples of that, and I will get into some local examples in a moment, but we have to ensure that we protect the most vulnerable.That is why I will be supporting putting a pause on this expansion of MAID, but I believe we need to go much further than that, and I will get into a few of my reasons in a moment.It was brought to my attention, and as a Christian taking seriously God's word, the Bible, I would reference a Bible verse in my debate here today. It is 1 Peter 4:10. It says, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s...grace”. The reason I bring that forward today is that I think it provides important context for something that is truly foundational in how we look at the world, and that is the idea of the value and dignity of life and one's life.(1520) I heard recently from a constituent, a woman, who shared a heartbreaking story about her son. He was in a mental health hospital after being found inches away from taking his own life. He reached out at the last moment, asked his parents for help and expressed that while the different things he was facing were incredibly complex, he did not want to die. As a result, the family was able to advocate for him, to work diligently to help support this young man and to ensure that he could get the help he required.We were told in the beginning that there was no such thing as a “slippery slope”, but we have seen it, over the last eight years, since the Liberals first brought it forward, when Jody Wilson-Raybould was the then minister of justice and attorney general. There were warnings at committee and warnings in the various court decisions that led us to this point that we had to be very aware of the slippery slope. We are seeing that here today.What I find very tragic, as in a story that I referenced from a constituent, and I will not get into the specifics to ensure that their identity is protected, is that we hear this tragic story where intervention was at least possible. This constituent reached out and said that had there been mechanisms in place that would have even suggested that it was possible, they feared what the outcome would have been and that they would have lost their son. We also hear numerous examples of how addiction is stealing life away from individuals. Instead of ensuring that there is hope and opportunity, they are not given the dignity of getting better. The potential of getting better is so very important in this discussion.I compliment my colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George on the 988 number. It was a tragic irony that it took longer for the government to set up the 988 Suicide Crisis Helpline than it did for the government to bring forward what was the first one-year extension in the expansion of the medical assistance in dying regime.Before us, we have a delay. When it comes to the heart of the matter, we need to stand up for the life and the dignity of all Canadians. I understand how we need to be thoughtful in how we engage in this subject, because it is deeply personal, and everybody can point to different stories. However, we have to protect life, to offer life, to not lose hope and to ensure that death does not become a part of health care.We have heard tragic examples of veterans being offered medical assistance in dying instead of mental health supports and of Canadians who are hungry, having to battle through difficult economic times, and having to pursue some of these things. I referenced the committee a number of times. To those who might be watching and listening, some of the stories are of those who shared, very honestly, how their lives would have been put at risk had there been mechanisms in place that did not have safeguards and that did not prioritize the need for life and offer that hope.I started my speech by talking about how, as parliamentarians, we are sometimes tasked with making decisions that are literally life and death, and this is one of them. My submission to this place, and to all members, is that we need to ensure we always prioritize life.If we fail in that duty, I shudder to think what the long-term implications of that would be for our society. That would be absolutely devastating for lives that could be lost through a regime that does not prioritize dignity and ensure, whether it is for mental health, for disability or for others who are facing vulnerabilities in moments or longer stages of their life, that Canadians are given every opportunity to choose life and that the government does not facilitate death.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Christianity and ChristiansGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSplitting speaking timeSuicidesThird reading and adoption82055108205511820551282055138205514820551582055168205517820551882055198205520820552182055228205523820552482055258205526StevenMacKinnonHon.GatineauLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1525)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague's tone was measured. I think there is space to reflect. People can start from a premise, any premise he wants.However, when I listen to him, it is as though he is saying that all mental disorders are reversible and remediable, whereas all the experts, whether they are for or against MAID, are of the opinion that irremediability is a sticking point. However, they do not dispute that there are people who will suffer for decades. I have the same priorities as my colleague, namely doing good, showing compassion and honouring the importance of life and quality of life. The question I have for my colleague is what is his solution?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820552782055288205529DamienKurekBattle 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: (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly, there is a wide range of what could be considered mental illness, or psychological disorders or neurological disorders that, in some cases, are terminal.We need to be so very careful. I am concerned about the direction the government has pursued and I am concerned about some of the other conversations that have taken place in relation to this, because we are not prioritizing the ability and the hope in so many circumstances. There is the opportunity to get better and to provide a dignified quality of life that would allow people to truly live their best life no matter what the circumstance. We need to prioritize life, as opposed to a circumstance where those who could get better are not given that opportunity.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82055308205531LucThériaultMontcalmRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there is a class, racial and geographic aspect to being able to access mental health services. We have a problem for people in rural and remote communities. We have a problem in indigenous communities. We also have a problem for those who cannot pay for their services.As a way of also attacking this problem, would the member support making mental health services fully a part of the Canada health care plan?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82055328205533DamienKurekBattle 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: (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, as a rural member of Parliament, I have long fought for, and will continue to fight for, ensuring that rural Canada has access to the mental health services that it needs, whether that is east central Alberta, which I am proud to represent, or rural and remote communities across Canada or in our north.From my early days in the nomination to become the Conservative candidate prior to the 2019 election, I have long said that mental health is, in fact, health. That is why I was so proud to stand in support of, and continued to call for, the 988 suicide help line. That is why, in the last election, I was proud to support a platform that had significant mental health investments.The idea that mental health is health is that basis of ensuring that every Canadian has dignity and every opportunity to succeed, and the chance to get better. We cannot forget that there is always hope.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820553482055358205536RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the shout-out. I will remind the House that it was not just me who did this; it was a team effort. We all chipped in to bring 988 to Canada.Throughout our committee work on MAID, we found that countries that offered psychiatric medical assistance in dying had an almost a 2:1, where women applied for MAID more than men. More women are seeking MAID than men. That is troubling. I wonder if my colleague thinks this as well.Should we not be looking at a national strategy for suicide prevention, rather than going down this road of offering medical assistance in death, medical assistance in suicide? We should be doing everything possible to help those rather than help them end their lives.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption820553782055388205539DamienKurekBattle 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: (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. I appreciate the question. Certainly, it speaks to how, in so many circumstances, whether it be women, people of colour or those who are in a lower socio-economic bracket, they are often the ones who end up being, in some cases, encouraged to pursue things like medical assistance in dying. There needs to be dignity given to the value of their lives just as much as any other Canadian. I find it so troubling that we seem to not be acknowledging those facts and that we are putting the most vulnerable in our country at risk of the most final decision that could possibly be imagined, and that is death. We need to always prioritize life and treatment above that of death.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205540ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1530)[English]Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about Bill C-62, a bill necessitated by the Liberal government's total mismanagement of the medical assistance in dying, or MAID, regime. The first example of the mismanagement is the government's failure to appeal a lower court decision that mandated Parliament to expand MAID beyond what it was initially intended to be. This lower trial court ordered that Parliament delete the reasonable foreseeability of natural death requirement for applicants of MAID. The Supreme Court of Canada should have been asked to weigh in on this very important topic, particularly since the law that was being challenged had, just a few years ago, been written by this Parliament in response to a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Carter decision, which started this whole conversation.The second example of Liberal incompetence was that they accepted the reckless addition by the Senate of mental illness as a sole underlying condition for MAID qualification. It is clear from expert testimony that there is no consensus in the medical or the psychiatric fields of what “irremediable” means when it comes to mental illness. However, it was certainly clear a year ago when a similar bill, Bill C-39, was before the House for debate to extend the deadline for one year. Here we are at the end of that one-year period seeking another extension, and it is even truer today that there is no consensus, which is why we are here today debating what is now going to be a three-year extension.Bill C-62would extend, by three years, the deadline for expanding MAID to include people whose only underlying health condition is a mental illness. Now, just like we supported the one-year extension a year ago, we will support this three-year extension, because it is better than the alternative, which would be a disaster for Canada. I would note that this three-year extension brings us beyond the next election, which must happen within a year and a half. We are feeling pretty confident on this side of the House, as are many Canadians across the country, that the next government will be a Conservative government led by our current leader, the member for Carleton, and he is on record as saying that this three-year extension will become a forever extension. In the meantime, until that happy day arrives, Canadians are going to have to continue living with the uncertainty around the Liberal government's mismanagement of the file.The uncertainty and confusion around our current MAID regime is exemplified in this example, which is a story coming out of St. Catharines about 15 months ago. A reporter interviewed a middle-aged man who was in the process of applying for MAID. The reporter quoted this man as saying “I don't want to die but I don't want to be homeless more than I don't want to die.” Here is the backstory. This man had already qualified for MAID by the first assessor, and he was waiting for a second one. Why was he applying for MAID? It was not because he wanted to die, but because in addition to his chronic back pain, which I acknowledge was probably intolerable for him, he had just gotten news that he was soon to homeless because the boarding house in which he was living was up for redevelopment due to plans in the neighbourhood. He was pretty certain that in his current health condition, he would not survive long on the streets. Therefore, even though it was not his first choice, he thought it would be better to die in a dignified manner, dignified by a government seal of approval with medical assistance in dying, or MAID. However, when he was asked by the reporter that if his housing was stable would he still consider MAID, his answer was “absolutely not”, which was when he said, “I don't want to die but I don't want to be homeless more than I don't want to die.”I believe this story is a commentary on the state of our nation today with the MAID regime under this current government, and there are two problems. First of all, why was this man not given the medical treatment he needed and why, in a wealthy nation like Canada, did he not have stable housing? After eight years of this government, it is clear that many people are being left behind, and we have failed this man. (1535)What is more relevant to the discussion today is the question of where this man got the idea that the government might step up to relieve him of his pain and discomfort by helping him to commit suicide. Proponents of expanding MAID to include more people in more circumstances will object to me using this as an example of what is wrong with our MAID regime. They will point out that this man was misinformed about MAID availability and that it was never intended to alleviate problems associated with poverty. I agree, but I would note, parenthetically, that the first assessor had approved him for MAID. Did the first assessor ask him the same question that the reporter asked him? If he or she had, I am assuming that this man would have given the same answer: “I don’t want to die but I don’t want to be homeless more than I don’t want to die”.No wonder people are confused. At the centre of this confusion is an incompetent Prime Minister and an equally incompetent attorney general, now former attorney general, who failed to appeal a lower court decision, failed to stop a reckless amendment coming from the Senate and gave confusing signals about the state of the law in Canada.A year ago, a group of 32 constitutional law professors from law schools across the country wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and the then attorney general pointing out that, despite what they had been saying, the Supreme Court of Canada has never said that MAID should be expanded to include mental illness. In the Carter decision, the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada had this to say: “euthanasia for minors or persons with psychiatric disorders or minor medical conditions” were cases that “would not fall within the parameters suggested in these reasons”. That is pretty clear. It is a shame that our now former attorney general, the top lawyer of the land, muddied the waters on this very difficult topic. A year ago, Mr. Lametti appeared before the justice committee when we were debating the first one-year extension. He asked who was right, the 32 law professors or him. He arrogantly said, “I'm right, quite frankly.” Mr. Lametti was wrong then and he is wrong today. This clouding of what the courts have said has led to confusion for Canadians.The story about the man from St. Catharines has a happy ending. Some community leaders reading the story about him in the news were heartbroken by his story and started a GoFundMe campaign that raised more than enough money to stabilize his living conditions. This is what he said just a couple of months later: “I still continue to get many offers of help, but as my situation is now stabilized, I have asked that the fundraising pages stop accepting new donations.” In another later interview, he told the reporter, “I'm a different person. The first time we spoke, you know, I'd wake up every morning and I had nothing but darkness, misery, stress and hopelessness. Now I've got all the opposites of those things.” That was a happy ending. I like happy endings. Another suggestion for a happy ending would be to not delay this just for three years but to delay it forever. We need to stop the expansion of MAID altogether and, instead, build on the hope that this ordinary, common-sense person expressed so clearly.Conservatives want to turn hurt into hope. We are going to hold the government accountable to deliver on its promise to fund Canada mental health transfers. Let us give hope for a better tomorrow and the support needed to live through today.C-39, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying)C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Carter v. CanadaGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPovertyThird reading and adoption8205541820554282055438205544820554582055468205547820554882055498205550820555182055528205553820555482055558205556DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1540)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have two comments.First, my colleague says that we could have contested Justice Baudoin's ruling. However, Justice Beaudoin was referring to the Carter decision, which demonstrated in a way that people with a degenerative disease, like Ms. Gladu and Mr. Truchon, should have ended their lives. The right to life is certainly not about allowing people to commit suicide before reaching the tolerance threshold. That is the issue.How can the Conservatives denounce suicide on one hand and say that we must be careful when it comes to suicide and all that, which I agree with, and on the other hand not understand that the only alternative for these people is to end their life? The Baudoin decision was relevant in that regard, because Bill C‑7 allowed these people to not end their life.Second, as for the example that the member gave, I would like to say to him that the conclusion he came to himself is found in the expert panel on MAID and mental illness' sixth recommendation. I will read an excerpt:...the Panel recommends that ‘community services’ in Track 2 Safeguard 241.2(3.1)(g) should be interpreted as including housing and income supports as means available to relieve suffering and should be offered to MAiD requesters...If his party ever comes to power, will his government increase health transfers? We did not hear a peep from that side when the stingy Liberal government did not put anything on the table that could help us take care of the people he is talking about today.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canada Health TransferGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820555782055588205559820556082055618205562TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tako Van Popta: (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of good questions in that. I would point out that the Carter decision was about medical assistance for people who were dying. The condition had to be irremediable. The suffering had to be intolerable, and natural death had to be reasonably foreseeable. That was the law that Canadians thought was going to be our law going forward. It was not long before that was overturned by a lower court decision, which should have been appealed.As for the transfer of funding, I would just underline that the federal government promised health transfers to aid those suffering from mental health, and it has not delivered on that. We are holding the government to account for that.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canada Health TransferGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82055638205564LucThériaultMontcalmLindsayMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1540)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest, and a lot of the member's speech was about housing. It is false to describe the housing crisis we are in now as starting only a year ago, eight years ago or the length of the government. I would argue that it has been caused by consecutive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, ignoring the investments that needed to be made into housing over the last 30 years. I would like to hear the member's explanation for that.We are now at this arbitrary 30-day deadline, and there are other things that governments were apparently totally in support of but did not do. I think of my colleague from Timmins—James Bay bringing forward a national palliative care motion. Everybody supported it, but nothing was done. In 2019 in this place, we brought forward the national suicide prevention strategy. Everybody believed in it, but nothing has been done.Now that we have these 30 days, we are again in a crisis. What does the member have to say about the other protections we need to bring forward that have been presented in this place?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption820556582055668205567TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Tako Van Popta: (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, first of all, about housing, I would point out that, under a Conservative government, housing was difficult, but it was not the crisis that it is today. That is the point that we have been making, and that the leader of the Conservative Party has been making, time and time again. The crisis has been brought on by the mismanagement of the Liberal government.I would also say, about housing for the most vulnerable, that provincial governments around the country have cut back on psychiatric hospitals and put people into the community, which sounds like a great idea, except that the community supports are not there. That is what is fundamentally missing here. The man whom I gave as an example fits right into that. His concern was the lack of stable housing. If he had had housing, he would not have asked for MAID. That is the point I am trying to make.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismThird reading and adoption82055688205569LindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River. Here we are down to the last minute. Liberals will be supporting this bill, not because we think it is a great bill, but because it postpones this decision for three years. It puts it down the road to another Parliament. I am not quite as confident as the previous speaker, my honourable friend, that there will be a government of his persuasion at that time, but, nevertheless, it is a decision that will have to be dealt with by another Parliament, which is quite regrettable under the circumstances.The ostensible reason we are supporting the bill is because the medical system is not ready. The hospitals are not ready, and the health care systems are not ready. My view is that they will never be ready, that no one can be ready for this kind of thing. I take the view that doctors have misplaced faith in the ability of politicians and legislators to achieve a state of readiness and legislative harmony. I also take the view that legislators and politicians have an elevated view of doctors' ability to manage the requests in this kind of system. The reason for that is, basically, 25 years of walking a path with one of my sons.I am blessed to have five children and five grandchildren, which are the reward for the five children in the first place. They are delightful to both Carolyn and me. One of the boys has schizophrenia. We started on that journey when he was about 14 or 15. He was, shall we say, acting out. It took us three years to get a diagnosis, which was pretty tough on the family. It was not optimal to go home from this place and there would be a police car parked in the driveway. We had quite a number of incidents. It took us about three or four years to get a proper diagnosis.I want to emphasize that we live in the greater Toronto area, one of the most, if not the most, prosperous areas in the country. We have access to the best doctors and are a well-resourced family, but we were flummoxed as to what to do. Nathan had a psychotic break. He is a bright lad and was in university, but, consistent with the literature, he had a psychotic break in his first year. Then we went into this deep, dark hole of the mental health system in the best-resourced area in all of the country.Nathan spent time at CAMH and quickly figured out how to scam the system and how get out onto Spadina Avenue to get what he thought he needed. He also figured out how to play the emergency system. All anyone has to say is that they are thinking about suicide. “Suicidal ideation” is the phrase. That gets people into the system. When they think they need access to medications and cannot get them, particularly street medications or drugs, that is a good way to get in. They can get meals and people caring for them, a clean bed, all that sort of stuff, and the family starts to walk this journey. It is not a pretty journey because the nurses are harassed, overworked and exhausted, and the doctors are not too far behind. There are medications that kind of calm people down, but, frankly, do not actually deal with the problem. It takes people a while for their bodies to adjust to the medications. Nathan had some resistance to finally being in that agreed upon regime. Then there was a period of time when he was fine, or as fine as he could be, given he had voices in his head all the time.(1550)We went from CAMH to Whitby Psych. Again, great people and a great facility, with overworked people who are trying their best but, frankly, have limited tools. We went from there to Scarborough Health Network, the third-largest medical facility in Ontario. Again really good people, but the system and the state of medication has limited ability to deal with a person like Nathan, who kind of goes in and goes out. Nathan has been irremediable four or five times in the past 25 years, and at any one time, he frankly would have figured out how to shop the doctor. That is what we fear based on our experience.I perfectly understand when medical systems say they are not ready, they have to write their protocols. Protocols are subject to interpretation, and the interpretations by physicians can be pretty extensive in their variations. Nathan, being a bright lad, he would figure that out pretty quickly. Then some doctors are more enthusiastic about this procedure than are others, and he would have that figured out pretty quickly. If he was determined, and he is irremediable and this is a condition that causes a lot of suffering, he would have figured it out. That would have left us pretty bereft as a family, with a lot of guilt. At this point, I have to say there are two saints in our family: Nathan's mother, my wife; and his stepmother. But for them, I do not think he would be here today. I want to go back to the point that we are a well-resourced family. We live in one of the most affluent areas of Canada. We have access to the best and we have two saints in the family, one of whom is a physician, and that is probably why he is still with us.My concern is that, whether it is this bill, whether it is three years from now or whenever it is, the protocols may be be written and the protocols may or may not be subject to interpretation that would allow some people who have irremediable conditions to leave.I am sorry we are here. This is one of the more critical decisions of legislators. It is one of the more critical decisions of the health care system writ large. The problem is that the consequences are irreversible. Within our family experience, there are several points along the way where that kind of irreversible decision could have been made, it is entirely plausible, and we would be in an entirely different situation than we are today as a family.I am thankful for the House's time and attention. I regret to be in the situation where we are dealing with this legislation, which I think is just a postponement, but I will support the legislation because that is what is on the table.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption82055708205571820557282055738205574820557582055768205577820557882055798205580820558182055828205583TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have spoken and shared, probably a little too much at times, in this House, regarding my own family's struggles and my own struggle with suicide, and why I fight so passionately on this issue and others. I want to say a heartfelt “thank you” to my colleague across the way. I have only known him for eight and a half years, but for me that is perhaps the most profound speech or intervention that he has made. I do want to offer this. From the testimony we have heard from the medical community, we know that seven provinces and three territories have asked the Liberal government, not for a three-year pause but, for an indefinite pause.How does our colleague feel about that? Is that something we should look at?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820558482055858205586JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. John McKay: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing. Really, only families who have gone through this actually understand the reality of the situation.One of the frustrations we run into is that Nathan is an adult. The family is cut out. Family cannot tell the physician, if the physician does not want to listen, about what they are observing. They are only getting one side of the story, which is another problem.If it was up to me, we would not be dealing with this three-year postponement. It would be otherwise. My view is that we can never write a protocol that covers all contingencies. We can never assure ourselves that a physician could not be persuaded to do whatever needs to be done. It is a decision that people will never recover from.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820558782055888205589ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): (1555)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his very touching testimony.Quebec currently approves MAID for certain conditions, notably those for which death is foreseeable. There are certain circumstances in which, we know, it is acceptable.In this case, we are talking about mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. I understand that, because of his family situation, this is a very sensitive topic for my colleague.When it comes to mental disorders, there is no consensus among experts, and we have obviously agreed to push back the deadline for including the issue of mental disorders.However, when it comes to neurodegenerative diseases, which are diseases of the central nervous system, which are incurable and some of which, like Alzheimer's, lead to certain death, is it not possible that these illnesses are similar to situations in which MAID is already acceptable? Quebec is working on this and, I should point out, there is a consensus within Quebec society.Have we not correctly distinguished the question of mental disorders, which are not subject to consensus, from that of neurodegenerative diseases, which are currently being studied by Parliament?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthNeurological disordersThird reading and adoption820559082055918205592820559382055948205595JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. John McKay: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not live in a world of expertise. I live in a world of family experience.The distinction between a mental illness and neurodegenerative disease is one that my colleague, who will be speaking next, would probably be able to answer much better than me.I do think that members need to be cognizant of the transference from physical infirmities, pathologies and access to medical assistance in dying, to a diagnosed mental illness, pure and simple. There is a red line there. That is what we are dealing with today: what is on the other side of that red line. I take his question as a good question. My colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River could maybe answer it much better than I.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthNeurological disordersThird reading and adoption8205596820559782055988205599Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the member for sharing his personal family story with us. It takes a lot of courage to do that, and I really do appreciate it.In part of his speech he also noted that his family is well resourced, with heroes in his family as well as with financial resources. It is fantastic, to be able to support a family member in this way. With that said, in my community of Vancouver East we have many family members who do not have those kinds of resources, so what I fear is that people might look at MAID as an option, and of course it is not an option. When we need to do is ensure that the proper resources are in place to support people through difficult times.To that end, my question is this: For the government to consider all of these issues, how important is it to ensure that all families have access to resources to properly support them through difficult times?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820560082056018205602JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodJohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—Guildwood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/957JohnMcKayHon.John-McKayScarborough—GuildwoodLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McKayJohn_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionHon. John McKay: (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make the point that we are a well-resourced family living in an affluent community with access to the best, and I am perfectly cognizant that thousands, and literally millions, of Canadians are not. In that case, they would not be able to explore all of the other options that well-resourced families can. I take the member's point entirely, and arguably, again, that is a good reason this should not be accessible for people with mental illness under the present circumstances.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205603JennyKwanVancouver EastMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): (1600)[English]Mr. Speaker, let me start by apologizing to the four or five people who might have listened to my last speech and who are here listening again today, because this is going to sound a little repetitive.I certainly support the legislation, and I know there are a lot of people out there who are really worried about allowing MAID for mental illness. There are people who are worried about their friends. There are people who are worried about their parents. I am most sympathetic to people who are worried about their children. I have six children, and I know that they are going to, at some point in their life, go through difficult times. I would certainly be a little worried for them if we were to allow MAID for mental illness to be implemented with the current safeguards.I know that there are also many psychiatrists who are worried about and/or oppose the legislation. In fact, the latest statistic I heard was from a survey that showed that about 75% of psychiatrists were against it. They are worried that their patients who would otherwise get better would instead resort to MAID.Let me take a step back and look at the arguments coming from the other side. People are going to say, “Why not? Is it not a matter of personal autonomy? Is it not my body and my choice?”. This is not about the state's dictating to the individual what they can do with their own body. It does not criminalize trying to commit suicide or committing suicide. This is about what role, if any, the state should have in assisting people to commit suicide.I am going to come back to the issue of whether MAID for mental illness is the same as assisting suicide.The question of whether the state ought to take a role in assisting people in ending their lives is, I think, a little like the question of whether the state should try to prevent people from killing themselves. This is a topic I know something about, having worked a lot of years as an emergency room physician. In that role, my job, if somebody came before me and was suicidal, was to keep them in the hospital, even against their will, to prevent their suicide from happening.Occasionally people would ask why I should I have that power, saying, “ Is it not my body, and my decision to make?” I think that there are two legitimate reasons for the state to try to prevent people from killing themselves. One is to protect someone from themself. When one is in the depths of depression, they cannot realize that things will get better; that is partly why someone is so depressed and wants to kill themself. The reality for most people is that they do in fact get better.The other legitimate reason for the state's intervention is to protect the family. The person who commits suicide is dead. The rest of the family lives on and lives with the pain, but it is not only that; they are constantly haunted by whether the death was because of something they did or did not do.Some people are going to say that, no, MAID for mental illness is not the same as assisted suicide, that we are talking about a small group of people who have intense, prolonged suffering and have tried every form of treatment but nothing has worked, and that it is cruel and unconstitutional to not allow those people access to MAID. I disagree. The Canadian law is far more permissive than, for example, the Dutch law. There is absolutely no requirement that all forms of treatment have been tried and been unsuccessful. Our law does not even require patients to have tried any treatment at all; it requires only that the patient have no other treatment that is acceptable to them. There are going to be people who refuse all forms of treatment altogether.I know that there are people who support MAID for mental illness who will say that the safeguards are going to come from the medical profession, that they are going to require someone to have tried all forms of treatment beforehand. Unfortunately, I do not have the same sort of faith in the medical profession's doing that. Why do I not? If we look at what has happened with the MAID regime for people with physical illnesses, we see that there are a lot of MAID practitioners who are very zealous about its being all about one's personal autonomy and saying it is not for them to question someone's suffering, and who are quick to approve people.Let me give some examples from the media. The Fifth Estate aired a program that said that a 23-year-old diabetic going blind in one eye was granted MAID. Another person, a 54-year-old man, had back problems, but his main problem seemed to be that he was worried about losing his housing and ending up on the street. He too was granted MAID.CTV published a couple of relevant articles. A 51-year-old woman was actually granted and got MAID for multiple chemical sensitivities. Again, from CTV, a 31-year-old woman who seemed to use a wheelchair from time to time and had multiple environmental allergies, applied and was approved for MAID; again, however, her main problem seemed to be that she could not find suitable housing.(1605)There are those who have such faith in my fellow doctors to come up with the system and all the safeguards, but I do not share the same sort of faith. I, as someone with a lot of children, realize it is inevitable that at times in their life they are going to go through a hard time, the breakup of a relationship or financial hard times. I am really worried that they would walk through the door of a zealous practitioner who will tell them it is all about personal autonomy and is their decision to make, because who is the doctor to question their suffering. There is not any requirement in the current legislation that the MAID practitioner talk to the family or the previous treating practitioner to find out whether in fact the depression was motivated by, for example, the breakup of a relationship.I also want to talk about what I think is a really fundamental and perhaps fatal flaw in the current regime with allowing MAID for mental illness, which is the problem, the impossibility, of determining irremediability: Who is not actually going to get better? I have spoken previously about the inability of suicidal individuals to appreciate the fact that they are going to get better. Some people would ask whether there are people who are not going to get better, who are irremediable. That is in fact the requirement of the legislation. The problem is that doctors do not have a crystal ball. They are not really good at being able to determine who really is irremediable.In fact, a recently published study looking at the ability of clinicians to determine irremediability for treatment-resistant depression concluded:Our findings support the claim that, as per available evidence, clinicians cannot accurately predict long-term chances of recovery in a particular patient with [treatment-resistant depression]. This means that the objective standard of irremediability cannot be met....Furthermore, there are no current evidence-based or established standards of care for determining irremediability of mental illness for the purpose of [MAID] assessments.For me, as a long-time medical doctor, it is absolutely mind-boggling that there are medical practitioners and psychiatrists who are not particularly bothered by the fact that they really cannot say whether the illness is irremediable, and would grant MAID. If we allow MAID for one such person who would actually get better, to me it would seem tantamount to the same sort of tragedy as the state's hanging someone who later turned out to be innocent. We in this place cannot let that happen.Last, let me address the assertion of proponents of MAID who say that it is inevitable that the Supreme Court would find not allowing MAID for mental illness unconstitutional because it is allowed for physical illness. I think that, yes, there would be a finding that such a provision would violate section 15 or section 7, but as always, the question comes down to the section 1 analysis and whether the state's actions constitute a reasonable limitation as prescribed by law that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” I do not think the answer to that is clear. It is not just me; there was a letter written by 32 law professors who came to the same conclusion: it was not clear whether it would be found unconstitutional.I am not going to say that we should never allow MAID for mental illness; in fact, I know personally of a case where this might have been the ethical thing to do, but I think we are a long way now from being in a situation where we should start to allow it. I would prefer the pause be indefinite, but so be it. We have what we have. Let us look at it in two years and see what has changed. I doubt very much will have changed.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismRecovery and healingSuicidesThird reading and adoption82056048205605820560682056078205608820560982056108205611820561282056138205614820561582056168205617820561882056198205620820562182056228205623JohnMcKayHon.Scarborough—GuildwoodElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, as we debate here and keep hearing the words, which we are now getting used to, “medical assistance in dying”, in the context of Bill C-62, I wonder whether we can create something different, like “societal assistance in living”.We desperately need things like a guaranteed livable income. We need better access to social supports, mental health provisions, addictions counselling and a panoply of things that would make us feel more confident that no one would opt for medical assistance in dying. If Canada, if we as neighbours and friends to the family of all Canadians, said that we are there for them and that they can count on something, a guarantee, social assistance in living, would the hon. member think that is a good idea?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsGuaranteed annual incomeMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056248205625MarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski: (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support that. What a humane society does when someone who is suffering comes before it is that it tries to help them. Maybe that means better psychiatric care, but maybe it means addressing their socio-economic problems. Certainly I do not think that a humane society's first response to that person ought to be to offer them death. That is an absolute failure and a solution of an inhumane society. We ought to be helping people who are suffering, not ending their lives.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsGuaranteed annual incomeMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205626ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1610)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we have heard that a lot in this debate. We all want to be on the side of the angels. We all want to improve socio-economic conditions. The expert report does take structural vulnerabilities into account, and no assessor is authorized to grant a request for medical assistance in dying if there is any possibility that the request came about because of a structural vulnerability.I paid close attention to my colleague's speech. Judging from the examples he gave, I gather he was in favour of Bill C‑14 for cases involving reasonably foreseeable death, but that he is against Bill C‑7 for people suffering from an incurable degenerative disease who are forced to cut their life short by suicide because their suffering has become intolerable. If Bill C‑7 is implemented, those people will be able to live until they reach the threshold of what they feel is tolerable.Did I understand correctly that my colleague is against Bill C‑7 as it relates to degenerative diseases? I am curious, and I would like him to answer this question. He talked about it in his speech.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthTerminal illnessesThird reading and adoption820562782056288205629MarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not against MAID for physical illnesses. That is a totally different situation. The problem with MAID for mental illness is the inability to determine who is not going to get better. The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of doctors who have a very cavalier attitude toward taking someone's life, and that there are people who could or would get better with a little time and with better treatment who would otherwise have their lives foreshortened by one of these zealous practitioners. Certainly it is very different from, for example, the Carter situation, or someone who has ALS and is terminally ill with a neurodegenerative disease. That is a totally different story, and in those cases I certainly approve of MAID if that is what the person wants.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthTerminal illnessesThird reading and adoption82056308205631LucThériaultMontcalmGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the comment that my colleague just made, that essentially there are instances of zealous practitioners who may be going very far in terms of determining that someone is eligible when they should not be. Part of the problem with the euthanasia regime we have is that it allows doctor shopping. It allows somebody to find two doctors who may not be representative at all and may not be the attending physician, and asking them, “Would you sign this, please?” They may get approved even if they should not meet the criteria.Conservatives proposed in the last election platform that we should require MAID assessors to complete MAID assessor training to ensure full awareness of and compliance with the laws and best practices around MAID. Would the member be supportive of the proposal that we put forward to have specific MAID assessor training to try to have more consistency and less arbitrariness and fewer instances of people shopping around?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Education and trainingGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056328205633MarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would approve of that. However, as a medical practitioner, I would not volunteer to become a MAID practitioner. If this position is going to be created, the only people who are going to take on the job are people who believe in MAID, believe that it is all about personal autonomy and believe that it is not for others to question a person's suffering. Whatever they are going to be taught, a lot of them are going to be the kind of people who do have a cavalier attitude toward taking life. Those of us who disagree with it are not going to accept the position to begin with.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Education and trainingGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205634GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.Bill C-62, no. 2, suggests that we pause the expansion of medical assistance in dying, known as MAID, to people suffering from mental illness. The Liberals have shown time and again that they consistently pass legislation without the careful consideration needed for such significant changes to our society. This discussion is not just legislative; it is about how we value human life and the impact of the government's choices on all Canadians. In thinking about extending MAID to include mental illness, there is a need for a deep understanding of the complexities and uncertainties in diagnosing and predicting mental health outcomes.Evidence to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying showed a worrying truth: Clinicians often struggle to predict whether mental health conditions are irremediable, and they have a 50% chance of being wrong. This alarming fact points to a big problem with the proposed expansion; this is the chance of making permanent choices based on uncertain medical opinions. Mental health involves biological, psychological and social elements. Recovery is not always straightforward, and what seems irremediable at one point may improve with treatment.Basing MAID on the idea that a mental illness cannot be cured shows a misunderstanding of the changing nature of mental health recovery. As the member for St. Albert—Edmonton put it, it is like flipping a coin on matters of life and death, a practice that is ethically troubling and goes against the idea of patient-focused care. Moreover, we cannot discuss MAID and mental illness without considering the wider issues of access to quality mental health care in Canada. When people such as Canadian Paralympian and veteran Christine Gauthier are offered MAID from the government when simply requesting help with a wheelchair lift, it shows a worrying trend of suggesting MAID as a fix for systemic failures to providing proper care and support for those with disabilities and chronic conditions. This is not just one case. It reflects a larger problem, wherein essential services and supports are lacking; this drives people to consider MAID not because they want to but because they feel neglected by the Liberal government.The risks of broadening MAID to include mental illness alone are complex, going beyond clinical doubts to wider social and ethical issues. It makes us question our dedication to mental health care, the value we place on lives touched by mental illness, and the kind of society we want to have. Do we face challenges with empathy, support and a commitment to better care, or do we settle for solutions that ignore the struggles Canadians face?The Liberal government's approach to expanding MAID shows a wider trend of hasty law-making that leads to policies being introduced, then pulled back or changed after facing reality and public criticism. From errors in firearms legislation to heated debates on the carbon tax, the government often acts first and thinks later. This not only damages our law-making process but also lowers public trust in our ability to govern wisely and carefully.The rush to include mental illness in MAID, without proper evidence or full discussions with mental health experts, ethicists and affected groups, shows a lack of regard for the careful and expert-led discussions that such a major policy change requires. The need to pause and rethink this expansion, via the bill, is an admission that the government's actions have been rash and poorly thought out.This legislative step back, marked by two delays in implementation, is not just a minor issue; it is a clear sign of the dangers of choosing political speed over solid, evidence-based policy-making. It raises serious doubts about the government's commitment to responsible governance, which includes the need to fully explore, understand and foresee the effects of laws before they are passed. In this critical discussion on MAID, we must also consider the perspective of those directly affected by such policies. The voices of individuals and families living with mental illness must be central to our legislative process.(1620)Their experiences and insights can provide invaluable guidance as we navigate the complexities of this issue. By engaging with these communities, we can ensure that our laws reflect the realities of those they impact most and uphold the principles of empathy and inclusion. Furthermore, the debate on MAID expansion underscores the need for comprehensive mental health services.The government must prioritize the enhancement of mental health care infrastructure, ensuring that all Canadians have access to the support and treatment they require. By strengthening our mental health care system, we can address the root causes of despair and hopelessness that lead individuals to consider MAID, thereby affirming our commitment to life and well-being.This moment also calls for a re-evaluation of our societal values and the role of government in safeguarding the dignity of every citizen. As policymakers, we have a duty to foster a culture that values every life, provides hope through support and resources, and respects the autonomy of individuals while carefully considering the ethical implications of life-ending interventions. This approach would not only address the immediate concerns surrounding MAID but would also contribute to a more compassionate and just society.As we think about what this pause means, we must consider the lessons learned and push for a more thoughtful, consultative and evidence-based approach to making laws. The stakes are too high, and the chance for unintended harm too great, to accept anything less. In MAID's case, where ethics, law and personal choice intersect delicately, our responsibility to be extremely careful and considerate cannot be overstated.The proposal for a pause on MAID's expansion clearly shows that the Liberal government's policy-making has been quick and poorly thought out. While this pause is needed, it points to a bigger issue of governance, where major legislative changes are made without enough foresight, discussion or understanding of the deep ethical implications. This pause reminds us of the dangers of enacting laws that deeply affect Canadians' lives and well-being, especially the most vulnerable. It shows the current Liberal government's failure to engage in a careful, evidence-based legislative process, preferring instead policies that match ideological aims rather than the complex realities of issues such as MAID and mental health.This should be more than a brief stop; it should be a crucial time to rethink how policies, especially those about life and death, are made and applied. It questions the government's commitment to maintaining the highest standards of care, empathy and respect for all Canadians' dignity. We must demand greater legislative care and ethical responsibility from the government.The discussion on MAID and mental illness needs a comprehensive approach that puts individuals' well-being and rights ahead of quick political gains.It is time for a move towards more responsible governance, where policies are made with great care, are based on wide consultation, and reflect our collective values and ethical standards. Sadly, the current Liberal government seems to lack concern for any of these values.The way forward should be marked by a dedication to thorough research, wide involvement and a deep respect for life's sanctity. Only by such a comprehensive approach can we ensure our legislative actions truly serve all Canadians, embodying the justice, empathy and respect that define our nation.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPublic consultationRecovery and healingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption820563582056368205637820563882056398205640820564182056428205643820564482056458205646820564782056488205649820565082056518205652MarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1625)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we are debating an extremely important issue and it does not seem as though we have quorum.I would like to request a count, please.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPoints of orderQuorumThird reading and adoption82056548205655Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that this has been one of my big things. Even when I was a mayor, I talked about the mental health of Canadians.We can solve a lot of societal problems if we have a better handle on mental health. In order to do that, we have to fund appropriately and properly. One of the big challenges, when we start looking at mental health, is that it is probably going to take at least a 20-year period before we start seeing some real benefits to society. Unfortunately, governments are only elected every four years; therefore, they are not willing to put in the real money that is needed. They often use a band-aid approach.We need to start looking at a long-range plan to enhance and assist our mental health in Canada.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820566082056618205662Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaLucThériaultMontcalm//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88552LucThériaultLuc-ThériaultMontcalmBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ThériaultLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): (1625)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we often hear the argument that investments must be made in mental health to prevent mental illness and severe mental disorders.I did not hear his leader say that he was going to put more on the table in terms of health transfers. Will the Conservatives propose a substantial increase in health transfers?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canada Health TransferGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056638205664GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a big misconception in this House about the opposition. We are not going to come forward and start laying out our plan for the next election, as to everything we are going to do.Believe it or not, the Liberals would steal everything we are proposing. That is why, I have to admit, we are not going to lay everything out.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Canada Health TransferGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056658205666LucThériaultMontcalmMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, if I understand this correctly, from what I just heard, the most important thing for this member is political opportunity and gain, not to advance the best interests of Canadians.I have news for that member. He was not elected to come here and spend—C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056678205668GeraldSorokaYellowheadGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is, of course, breaking a number of rules all at once, as he does. He is far afield of the topic, number one. Number two—C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPoints of orderRelevancyThird reading and adoption8205669MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, he was not elected to come here and then develop plans for four years to run on four years later. He was elected by his constituents to come here and try to put forward policies to make their lives better.The idea, when members are in opposition, is not to just stay there and do absolutely nothing, hoping that they get a turn to be on this side of the House. What they need to do is actually start trying to influence policy and make it better.Can the member not understand that?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820567282056738205674Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, that very delusional member does not understand what the role of the government is. It is to make sure that the government provides what Canadians need and want.Unfortunately, Canadians are finding that the Liberal government is failing on so many fronts. That is why the member is being desperate tonight and is trying to say that it is our problem, not theirs. Members can trust me: When we form government, we will fix a lot of the issues that the Liberal government has put upon Canadians. During our election, we will allow everything to come out in our platform. I look forward to releasing that when there is an election in the future.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056758205676MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I for one cannot wait for the next election. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.On the important subject here, with respect to the postponement of this legislation, postponing medical assistance in dying for mental health-related issues for three years, does the member believe that it should be stopped permanently?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056778205678GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a very big concern when we are dealing with mental health. How do we determine that someone who has a mental health condition is in a stable mental health state and make sure they understand everything they are doing? This is not like someone going to buy a vehicle who is not sure they really like the colour or whatever else. This is something that is irremediable.Definitely, we need to reexamine this and make sure we have a logical approach to mental health.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82056798205680JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, today's debate concerns extending the pause for assisted death for people with mental illness and disabilities as the sole underlying condition. The Liberals' original bill last year included this expansion. However, public and professional backlash toward their measures caused them to hold back for one year. That deadline is fast approaching. The one-year extension expires in March, at which time MAID will be accessible to very vulnerable people unless there is a change in legislation.This expansion is terrible legislation for Canadians, but it is on par for the Liberal-NDP government. As someone who has taught Canadian history, I am sorry to say that I cannot think of a worse government in Canadian history. Why does the Liberal government pursue such harmful policies across the board? The Liberal environmental plan is a war against our natural resource sector, which is the foundation of Canadians' wealth and prosperity and provides the finances for health care, infrastructure and services that are important to Canadians. The Liberal catch-and-release policies have unleashed crime and chaos in our cities. Their soft-on-drugs approach has resulted in 40,000 overdose deaths. Record numbers of people died last year in B.C., some of whom I knew. However, today we are debating Canada’s MAID regime under the Liberals and NDP. The number of people who died from MAID in 2022 amounts to 4.1% of all deaths in Canada. Canada is second only to the Netherlands, which implemented MAID in 2002. Euthanasia became legal in Canada in 2016.Compare the number of Canadians who died by MAID in 2022, the last statistic I am aware of, which is 13,241 people, with the number in California, which has a population similar to Canada's of 40 million, and which implemented MAID in 2016 also. They had 853 deaths. That is quite a discrepancy. Is that because suddenly, or maybe not so suddenly, the government has been promoting it? I think of Canadian Forces veteran, Christine Gauthier, a five-time world champion at the paralympics, who testified that when she requested help from the Department of Veterans Affairs, she was offered MAID. They wrote a letter to her, saying that if she was so desperate for help, they could offer her MAID. I think that is disgraceful and incomprehensible. Six other veterans that we are aware of were also offered medically assisted death. Those are the ones we know of.It is easier in Canada to get MAID than it is to get palliative care. That is disgraceful. It is easier to get MAID in Canada, and the wait time is less, than to get psychiatric help. That is disgraceful. It is easier to get MAID than to get supports. Andrew Robbins from Hamilton told The Globe and Mail that he was seeking medically assisted death to escape the cycle of poverty and health problems. Under the NDP-Liberal government everything is getting more expensive. People are struggling to pay their rent, pay for gas and pay for groceries. He stated, “I know one thing. I would be better off dead than on the streets. My wife would be better off too.” That is a shame.The bill before us delays the implementation of MAID being extended to people with mental illness and those with disabilities who are not facing imminent death.(1635)Over 200 organizations representing persons with disabilities across Canada actively opposed and urged the government to appeal this decision. Not a single national disabilities rights organization expressed support for the repeal of RFND, or reasonably foreseeable natural death. They say that MAID for people with disabilities stigmatizes and dehumanizes persons with disabilities and the international human rights obligations. United Nations representatives also agree.This legislation is so contrary to what our country has stood for. I think of B.C. native Rick Hansen, a paraplegic who did the Man in Motion World Tour in a wheelchair. His message is, “You can do it. You can be productive in spite of your disabilities. You can enjoy a full life despite these challenges.”Terry Fox, also from British Columbia, lost his leg to cancer. He decided to run across Canada for cancer research. He had to stop in Thunder Bay, because the cancer had returned, but still the Terry Fox Run continues and has raised hundreds of millions of dollars. He is a national hero. He is an inspiration not to give up.Then there is Nicholas James Vujicic. He is not a Canadian, but he was born with a rare disease and without arms and legs. He has only a six-inch foot coming out of his torso. He founded an organization called Life Without Limbs. He has spoken to millions of people and is very inspirational, saying that no matter our circumstances, we have something to give and to live for in helping others.This is the message we should be promoting, especially to people who have become disabled.I am disturbed that the Liberals merely want to postpone this legislation, which would open wide the door for people still struggling with mental illnesses to access medically assisted death. The chairs of psychiatry for all of Canada's 17 medical schools called on the Liberals to hold off. They say it is extremely difficult to predict whether a person will get better or will recover, as my colleague mentioned, and that physicians get it wrong 50% of the time. As my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton said, it is like flipping a coin with people's lives.Suicidal thoughts are often a symptom of mental disorders, and it is hard to distinguish between the two. People can get better with supports, and a great many do.In the early 1980s, I went through a clinical depression. It was a very dark and painful time, and suicidal thoughts bombarded me. I had medical care, and I had friends with me, and I totally recovered. Now it is only a distant memory, and all the pain, all the despair and all the darkness have faded, so there is hope.Most people with opioid addictions also struggle with mental illness. Is this the direction the government is prepared to take us in? It seems sinister. Liberals and the NDP provide addicts free hard drugs. There is a high likelihood that this will kill them sooner or later, as we are seeing from statistics, but if they do not like their life as an addict, in three years, if we have a Liberal government, state-sanctioned suicide could be available to them. Conservatives believe in supporting the most vulnerable. We believe in treatment and recovery and not safe injection sites. We believe in palliative care at the end of life and supports for our most vulnerable. The member for Cariboo—Prince George initiated the 811 suicide prevention line.Finally, Conservatives believe that this bill, which would expand MAID to people with disabilities, needs to be struck down, because it could be brought back in three years. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthPersons with disabilitiesRecovery and healingThird reading and adoption82056818205682820568382056848205685820568682056878205688820568982056908205691820569282056938205694820569582056968205697820569882056998205700GeraldSorokaYellowheadToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to correct my hon. colleague. I note, in his zest for this intervention, he misread the number. It is not 811; it is 988.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMembers' remarksMental healthPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8205701MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1640)[English]Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that “made in Canada” was a phrase we were proud of.We have teenagers who, sometimes for the very first time in their lives, are encountering adversity. It is a psychological crisis to them. They react in such a way that they are actually trying to commit suicide. It is often said that an attempt at suicide is a cry for help. They end up in the hospital for a time.We have seen, with veterans, how some of them who seem to be near the end of life have been encouraged to use MAID.Is there anything in this legislation that would explicitly prevent medical workers from suggesting MAID to people who attempt suicide but thankfully are not deceased as a consequence of it?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Caregivers and health care professionalsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205703820570482057058205706Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is quite unfortunate, but even under the old regime, there were many people who were not facing imminent death but still received MAID. I believe the Liberal member for Thunder Bay actually talked about some of the zealous doctors who prescribe it. I am aware that this has happened, so to the member's question, there is nothing that I am aware of that would prevent this.The member talked about youth. I have family members who have gone through drug issues and mental health issues and have come out the other side and now are supporting people in a similar situation.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Caregivers and health care professionalsGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption82057078205708CherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeRandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—Sooke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71995RandallGarrisonRandall-GarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GarrisonRandall_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have had the same question through the whole debate today, and that is, as I have said before, that we all know that access to mental health supports varies by one's residence, by one's income and by one's ethnicity. People have trouble accessing mental health services.Would the hon. member support making mental health services fully part of the Canada Health Act, so that we can equalize access to mental health services in the country?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82057098205710MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, we do not have the supports we need for people with mental health challenges.The member mentioned ethnicities. I am indigenous. I am Métis. I know that a lot of indigenous, first nations and Métis groups are very concerned, because the number of suicide attempts among adults is at least double the rate in the rest of Canada's population. Among youth, it is six times higher.It is a very vulnerable population, and this is a concern, especially for indigenous Canadians.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption820571182057128205713RandallGarrisonEsquimalt—Saanich—SookeMartyMorantzCharleswood—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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, this amendment was brought in by the Senate, the other place, in the first place. It was not in the original legislation. It came back here; the Liberals decided it was a good idea, and it got put through the House without any time limit. It was supposed to be law, and then they extended it for a year. They are now trying to extend it for three years. They are relying on the same people who brought in this idea of MAID for mental illness to postpone it for three years.Does the member think that this is going to be an easy ride through the Senate, or are the senators who brought this in in the first place going to give it a hard ride?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82057148205715MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is a real concern, especially because we have a deadline in March to get it passed here and then through the Senate.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205716MartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, given the March deadline and the potential for trouble in getting this expeditiously through the Senate, is the member glad that we are wrapping up debate in the House of Commons so quickly, so that we have time to try to get it done before the deadline?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205717MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think it is an extremely important discussion. I know it is moving forward. It does need to go to the other chamber.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205718DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.): (1645)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.[Translation]I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of Bill C‑62. The bill proposes to extend the temporary exclusion of mental illness as a an eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying for three years, until March 17, 2027.Today, I will speak to the importance of allowing some time before lifting this exclusion so that the provinces, territories and their health care partners can use it to better prepare for this critical stage in the evolution of medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as we call it in Canada.The current legal framework for MAID is set out in the federal Criminal Code. However, the provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care, which includes implementing MAID. Even before the original legislation authorizing MAID was added to the Criminal Code in 2016, we were working closely with the provinces and territories to support MAID's safe implementation. These important relationships are all built around the mutual goal of ensuring quality health care for Canadians.The expert panel on MAID and mental illness and the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying both emphasized the importance of clear standards of practice and consistent implementation of guidelines across the country, training doctors and nurse practitioners, case review, vigilance in supporting best practices and confidence in the appropriate application of the law.The provincial and territorial governments and their stakeholders, such as health professional organizations, regulatory bodies and practitioners, are actively planning to make people whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness eligible for MAID.As it has been recognized in all areas, significant progress has been made in that regard. However, the provinces and territories are dealing with different challenges within their jurisdictions. They are also at different stages when it comes to implementing these key elements and, consequently, in how prepared they are for the lifting of the exclusion.For example, an independent task force of clinical, regulatory and legal experts has developed a model practice standard that physician and nursing regulatory bodies can adopt or adapt as part of the development or ongoing review of MAID standards. In addition to the model standard, the task force has also published a companion document entitled “Advice to the Profession”.Practice standards are developed and adopted by bodies responsible for ensuring that specific groups of health care professionals operate within the highest standards of clinical practice and medical ethics. While some provincial and territorial regulatory bodies have successfully included MAID practice standards in their guidance documents for clinicians, others are still in the process of reviewing and updating their existing standards.To facilitate the safe implementation of the MAID framework, Health Canada helped develop a nationally accredited bilingual maid curriculum to support a standardized pan-Canadian approach to care. The Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, known as CAMAP, has created a training program that has been recognized and accredited by the appropriate professional bodies.The MAID curriculum uses a series of training modules to advise and support clinicians in assessing persons who request MAID, including those with mental illness or complex chronic conditions or who are impacted by any vulnerability.(1650)To assist in the practical application of the legislative framework for medical assistance in dying, the curriculum will help achieve a safe and consistent approach to care across Canada. This will ensure that health care professionals have access to high-quality training on medical assistance in dying.To date, more than 1,100 clinicians have registered for the program, which is impressive given that the program was only launched in August 2023. However, that is only a portion of the workforce. More time will make it possible for more doctors and nurse practitioners to sign up for and participate in the training so they can absorb the theory and put it into practice as professionals.Let us talk a bit about the medical assistance in dying review and case study. In Canada, the medical and nursing professions have a self-regulating process. The above-mentioned provincial and territorial regulatory bodies are tasked with protecting the public with respect to all health care, and medical assistance in dying is no exception.In addition to the existing health care practitioners' regulatory governing bodies, several provinces have established formal oversight mechanisms specific to MAID. In Ontario, for example, the chief coroner reviews every case of medical assistance in dying, as does Quebec's commission on end-of-life care. Both organizations have strict policies on when and what information must be provided by clinicians, and the Quebec commission publishes annual reports.While provinces with formal MAID oversight processes account for over 90% of all MAID cases in Canada, other provinces do not have a formal MAID quality assurance and oversight process to complement the existing complaint-based oversight processes put in place by professional regulatory bodies. Work is planned to explore case review models to ensure oversight and best practices through a federal-provincial-territorial working group to support consistency across jurisdictions.All the provinces and territories were united in their call to extend the exclusion in order to have more time to prepare their clinicians and their health care systems that also manage the requests having to do with mental illness, which also deserves having the necessary support measures implemented. The provincial and territorial governments need to ensure not only that the practitioners are trained in providing medical assistance in dying safely, but also that the necessary supports are accessible to clinicians and their patients throughout the entire assessment process.The Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying and the expert panel both underscored the importance of interdisciplinary engagement and knowledge of the available resources and treatments. Specialists and practitioners also expressed the need to bring in support mechanisms for providers conducting the assessments and the people who request medical assistance in dying, regardless of their eligibility.Although some administrations have strong coordination services to manage requests and provide auxiliary services, others are taking a decentralized approach, which can result in less coordination between services and disciplines. The availability of the support services necessary for practitioners and patients also varies by region. For example, we heard about difficulties accessing health care services in general in rural and remote areas of the country. The additional delay will make it possible to better support the patients and clinicians involved in medical assistance in dying.This government is committed to supporting and protecting Canadians with mental illness who may be vulnerable, while respecting their autonomy and personal choices.(1655)We think that the three-year extension proposed in Bill C‑62 will give the time needed to work on these important aspects so that this can be implemented in a safe and secure way.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Education and trainingGovernment billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthOversight mechanismSetting of standardsSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption820572082057218205722820572382057248205725820572682057278205728820572982057308205731820573282057338205734820573582057368205737820573882057398205740Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government about its so-called “MAID policy”. Its members have said repeatedly, especially as it relates to mental health challenges, that their MAID policy would aim to exclude those who are suicidal, but I want to understand something from the government: Is not any person who requests MAID suicidal, simply by definition, since they are requesting MAID?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205741AnnieKoutrakisVimyAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis: (1655)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think it is irresponsible and untrue, honestly, to claim that MAID has anything to do with suicide. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance for all Canadians to have access to critical mental health resources and suicide prevention services. I am a member of the special MAID committee, and not one witness I heard when I was there said that this is suicidal.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205742GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, we can see during the debate that each party has its own position. When I talk with members, I see the difference of opinion. There are many in the Liberal ranks who agree that we need stringent requirements and an implementation team charged with making sure that the requirements are met.If Quebec is ready, what does my colleague think of an accommodation that would allow Quebec to ease people's suffering immediately, as requested in the motion, and not in three years or more?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption82057438205744AnnieKoutrakisVimyAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis: (1700)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. The Criminal Code applies across Canada. We cannot start adapting the law for every region of the country. We have to understand that it would be irresponsible to amend the Criminal Code to allow Quebec to change its own legislation. That is my opinion.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption8205745Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan just suggested that somebody like my father-in-law, who was laying in a hospital bed with a brain tumour bulging out of his head, knowing full well that it was only a matter of days before he died, and who wanted to die with some form of dignity while his family was around him—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Can the Conservative member for Barrie—Innisfil please not heckle me just this one time, possibly?I am wondering if the member would agree that perhaps it is extremely inconsiderate to think that somebody who realizes what the future holds for them, and who wants to die with some dignity, and that perhaps they can be saved from a bit of the pain, is thinking about more than just committing suicide?C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption8205746820574782057488205749AnnieKoutrakisVimyAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis: (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, in this country, that we speak from a place of empathy, sympathy, understanding and mutual respect. We cannot paint all situations with the same brush. Obviously, we have a Charter of Rights, and through the Charter of Rights, every person has equal rights.Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I believe that someone who has long-standing suffering with a mental health issue or a degenerative brain malady that we know of should have access to medical assistance in dying, because I think it is far better for that person to be surrounded by their loving family than to continue the suffering.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthThird reading and adoption82057508205751MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1700)[English]Mr. Speaker, to our hon. colleague for Kingston and the Islands, our colleague for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan only said that when speaking of MAID for those with mental illness, how do we differentiate between suicidal ideation and MAID? Indeed, it is what we are hearing from the experts who said, “There is no evidence that shows we can predict irremediability in mental illness and it is vastly different, vastly different from other medical conditions and neurodegenerative diseases.... We have to remember what MAID is about. MAID is about predicting who will never get better, and we can't do that, and if we can't do that with mental illness, we would providing death under false pretenses.” This is completely different from what our hon. colleague talked about with this father-in-law, who was struggling with a brain tumour, choosing MAID and those who are struggling with mental illness, which has been associated with flipping a coin on who can get better and who cannot get better.I ask my hon. colleague this: Is she okay with flipping a coin when it comes to offering MAID to somebody who is wishing to die by suicide.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecovery and healingSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205752820575382057548205755AnnieKoutrakisVimyAnnieKoutrakisVimy//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in flipping a coin. However, the mere fact that in this country we are still having this conversation, this debate and not having consensus, then I think a three-year pause is the way to go about it. It would let the provinces and territories, together with all the professionals, get together and make sure that when this does become whatever the next step would be, we will be better for it as a country.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecovery and healingSuicidesThird reading and adoption8205756ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCriminal CodeInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands operates in a way that he accuses other members of heckling him as part of his schtick, but I did not heckle him. He was telling a heartfelt story about his father-in-law who had a brain tumour, and I ask that he retract that accusation. C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthNoise/conversations/heckling, interrupting Member speakingPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8205758Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//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): (1705)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a question of paramount importance and profound concern to many of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex: Will Canada cross the Rubicon and expand access to assisted suicide for otherwise healthy individuals whose mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition, or do we have enough common sense and moral clarity to stop this radical and dangerous expansion of MAID to mental health cases? The issue at hand stands at the juncture of ethics, medicine and our societal values. This is not merely a policy decision. It is a profound moral question that strikes at the heart of who we are and how we value life and respond to suffering.The core concern here is the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of determining with certainty that mental disorders are irreversibly incurable. Unlike many physical ailments, the trajectory of mental illness is often unpredictable and can respond to treatment over time. The NDP-Liberal government's push toward expansion, despite substantial opposition from medical professionals and the public, raises serious questions. It reflects a troubling trend of policy-making that seems to prioritize ideological considerations over careful, evidence-based deliberation. How can we, in good conscience, move forward with a policy that many experts in psychiatry and mental health view with significant trepidation?The opposition from the medical community, particularly from mental health professionals, is not just significant but deeply insightful. The expert panel on MAID and mental illness, the very panel established by the government to study this issue, acknowledged the complexities involved. It noted the difficulty in predicting the long-term prognosis of mental disorders, underscoring the near impossibility of determining with certainty whether a mental disorder is truly incurable. Leading psychiatrists across Canada have expressed reservations. The Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, which includes the heads of the psychiatry departments of all 17 medical schools in the country, called for a delay in implementing MAID for patients with mental disorders as the only underlying medical condition. Its concerns centre on the challenges in assessing incurability and differentiating genuine MAID requests from suicidal ideation rooted in treatable mental health conditions. Surveys conducted within the psychiatric community reflect this opposition. For instance, a significant majority of Manitoba psychiatrists have indicated that Canada is not ready for the implementation of assisted suicide for patients with mental disorder as the sole underlying medical condition. A similar sentiment was echoed in a survey conducted by the Ontario Medical Association, where a two-to-one majority of respondents opposed the availability of MAID for such cases. These results are in line with public opinion, which has consistently shown discomfort with this expansion. In fact, I have heard from hundreds of residents of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who are opposed to this expansion, and polls such as those conducted by Angus Reid reveal substantial public reservations about MAID for mental illness. If we ignore experts' warnings and the public sentiment and proceed with this expansion, we risk making irreversible decisions in cases where there might be potential for recovery and improvement with the appropriate treatment. The ethical implications of such a scenario are profound and disturbing. In our examination of this issue, we must not overlook the societal context in which decisions about MAID are being made. The CEO of Food Banks Mississauga recently issued a stark warning that the inability to afford basic necessities is pushing people towards considering MAID. This is a harrowing indication that, for some, the choice to pursue assisted dying may be influenced more by socio-economic despair rather than by unimaginable physical or mental health conditions. This revelation is deeply troubling. It compels us to question whether we are addressing the root causes of such despair or merely offering a tragic and irreversible solution to what are fundamentally social and economic problems. This is particularly concerning in light of the ongoing mental health crisis that was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's divisive response.Additionally, we must also reflect on the alarming reports concerning our veterans. There have been stories of veterans being offered MAID. This raises profound concerns about the support and care that we provide to those who have served our country. These individuals, who have sacrificed so much, deserve better than an expedited path to assisted death. These stories underscore the need for robust mental health support and the dangers of expanding MAID without adequately addressing these needs first.(1710)When the Liberal government has such a cavalier attitude toward assisted suicide, with a one-way slope toward access expansions and safeguard removals, is it any surprise that, according to the latest available numbers, the annual growth rate of MAID between 2021 and 2022 was 31.2%? Between 2016 and the end of 2022, 44,958 people died by MAID. That is more than the number of Canadians who died in military service during World War II.My point is that Canada's current MAID access may already be the most discretionary in the world. That is before the proposed mental health expansion. We are the only country whose legal system does not see assisted suicide as a last resort. What can we expect to happen to the growth rate if the House enables the “treatment” of mental illness with assisted suicide? We would be past the slippery slope concern if that were to happen. Crossing the Rubicon here would put us closer to free fall. Why are we debating the radical expansion of assisted suicide? Just four months ago, the hon. member for Abbotsford's bill, Bill C-314, was in the House. Conservatives urged the House not to give up on Canadians living with mental illness. Nevertheless, the government voted against the bill, sticking to its original plan, as per Bill C-7, to expand access to MAID to Canadians who are healthy except for their mental disorder. If it were not for the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying's tabling, on January 29, 2024, its findings and recommendations, the unprecedented MAID expansion would have been implemented within two months. Thankfully the committee, after extensive consultations and a review of expert testimony, concluded that Canada is not ready for the expansion of MAID to include cases where a mental disorder is the sole underlying medical condition. The report highlights the unresolved issues in accurately assessing the irremediability of mental disorders and the challenges in distinguishing between genuine requests for MAID and those stemming from treatable mental health conditions. The report confirms what common-sense Conservatives have been saying for months: Expanding assisted suicide to those suffering from mental illness would result in the deaths of those who could have gotten better.That is why, just like last year when the government introduced eleventh-hour legislation to put a temporary one-year pause on expanding assisted suicide to those suffering with mental illness, we are once again here at the eleventh hour. There is no question that there is an urgent need to pass Bill C-62 to delay until 2027 the implementation of MAID in cases where a mental disorder is the sole underlying cause and condition.As highlighted by the report of the special joint committee and the voices of experts and Canadians alike, a mere delay may not suffice. What is required is a comprehensive re-evaluation of our approach to MAID, particularly in the context of mental health. The issues at stake are not just medical or legal but are deeply rooted in our societal values and the respect we need to afford the dignity of human life, especially in its most vulnerable forms.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Government billsHealth services accessibilityMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecovery and healingSuicidesThird reading and adoption82057618205762820576382057648205765820576682057678205768820576982057708205771820577282057738205774Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1755)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 645Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthMotionsPutting the questionRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8205781Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1810)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 646Government billsMedical assistance in dyingMental healthRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8205786LailaGoodridgeFort McMurray—Cold LakeLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodRoman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.MotionI move: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill S-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, Canada, be deemed 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. Adoption at more than one stageConsideration in a Committee of the WholeCorporate continuanceLeave to propose a motionMotionsPrivate Members' BillsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageRoman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Ottawa-CornwallS-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, CanadaSecond readingSenate billsThird reading and adoption8201875JustinTrudeauRight Hon.PapineauGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgOral Question PeriodRoman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa-Cornwall ActInterventionThe Speaker: (1520)[English]All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.It is agreed.The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.Some hon. members: Agreed.(Bill read the second time, considered in committee of the whole, reported, concurred in, read the third time and passed)Adoption at more than one stageConsideration in a Committee of the WholeCorporate continuanceDecisions of the HouseLeave to propose a motionMotionsPrivate Members' BillsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageRoman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Ottawa-CornwallS-1001, An Act to amalgamate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Ottawa and The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall, in Ontario, CanadaSecond readingSenate billsThird reading and adoption82018788201879FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1600)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed) Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 642Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsRecorded divisionsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption8201897CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 34—Proceedings on Bill C-62InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) (1200)[English]moved:That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House:(a) the Standing Committee on Health be instructed to consider the subject matter of Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, upon the adoption of this order, provided that, as part of this study,(i) a minister be ordered to appear before the committee for one hour and that additional witnesses be ordered to appear for two consecutive hours, no later than Wednesday, February 14, 2024,(ii) the committee have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings; and(b) Bill C-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2, be disposed as follows:(i) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order, provided that,(A) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments,(B) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred to the next sitting day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions, after which the House shall adjourn until the next sitting day,(C) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,(D) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown,(ii) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed 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 the bill shall be ordered for consideration at the third reading stage on Thursday, February 15, 2024, provided that,(A) 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, 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, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred,(B) during consideration of the bill, the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,(C) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown. AdjournmentAdoption at more than one stageC-62, An Act to amend An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), No. 2Committee studies and activitiesCommittee witnessesConsideration in a Committee of the WholeGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 34Medical assistance in dyingMembers of unrecognized partiesMental healthMotionsPutting the questionRecognition to speakRecorded divisionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingStanding Committee on HealthThird reading and adoption8195046GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)(1330)[English]Motion for concurrence moved that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be concurred in. (Motion agreed to) C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8186946MikeMorriceKitchener CentreColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie(1330)[English] moved that Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims) be read the third time and passed. Bill C-320. Third reading He said: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleagues from all parties for speaking in support of this bill at first and second readings, voting unanimously in support of Bill C-320 at second reading and voting unanimously in support at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, without amendments.I would also like to thank more than 5,000 of my Oshawa constituents for having made the time to support this important homegrown local effort. The response to this bill in my constituency and across Durham Region is impressive and has surprised me. Even more impressive is the support for the bill from across Canada. We have received positive comments and support from places far away from Oshawa, places including Abbotsford, Wainwright, Prince Albert, Saskatoon, Churchill, Thunder Bay, Cornwall, Essex County, Chicoutimi, Montreal, Shediac, Summerside, Antigonish and Labrador.It is clear that there is a huge appetite across the land for change and reform of our justice system. This bill is a small but significant step in achieving our shared goal. I am also grateful to my Senate colleague, the hon. Pierre Boisvenu, a survivor himself, for his continued support and counsel and, most of all to my constituent and survivor, Lisa Freeman. Lisa's very personal and decades-long story is the inspiration for this bill. Lisa Freeman is the author of the 2016 book She Won't Be Silenced, “The story of my father's murder and my struggle to find justice within the Parole Board of Canada”. After years of fighting to have her family's voice heard as decisions were made about parole and the passage of information concerning the killer's movements inside Canada's correctional system, Lisa petitioned the federal government to amend the charter of rights for victims of crime and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. For more than two decades, she has urged Correctional Service Canada and the Parole Board of Canada to provide victims of violent crime with a more timely disclosure on the movement of incarcerated individuals within the federal prison system. She has also urged the Parole Board to provide victims' families with open access to the parole process, which has shut out Ms. Freeman and her family's participation on several occasions in recent years.As I have stated before, this bill is intended to help families who are plunged into unfathomable situations, demoralized and retraumatized by the actions of the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. All too often we hear senior officials at this institutions say they are supportive of victims of crime, a view that often does not hold up in practice. As parliamentarians, this bill allows the opportunity to help them in that support.As an example of how victims are retraumatized due to the lack of information, allow me to remind you a bit about Lisa Freeman's story. Ms. Freeman's late father, Roland Slingerland, an Oshawa resident and veteran of the Royal Canadian Navy, was bludgeoned to death by an axe murderer in 1991 at the downtown Oshawa rooming house in which he worked as a custodian. He left behind his wife and three daughters. Upon conviction in 1992, Mr. Slingerland's killer was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 25 years. However, to the shock of Lisa and her family, the killer was granted escorted absences from prison and became eligible for day parole in February 2012, many years ahead of the end of his court-ordered sentence. Worse still, it was only after the killer moved to another correctional facility outside Ontario, just 10 kilometres from her sister's home, that Freeman and her family were notified. “In the prison, security in no way matches the severity of the crimes committed by these wicked individuals”, Lisa told the media at the time. “When my father's axe murderer was sentenced in 1992, he received a life sentence.” Contrast that with the 1992's Toronto Sun headline that read, “Hatchet killer jailed for life”. We now know that that headline and the killer's sentence were a cruel joke on Lisa and her family.(1335)Would members believe that her father's killer would enjoy the luxuries he has today at a halfway house? He is able to get a job; he is able to own a car; he has a roof over his head and has meals catered by an in-house chef. Most Canadians do not live as well as Roland Slingerland's axe murderer. While it is supposed to be the job of the correctional services parole board to ensure that dangerous offenders are kept locked up, it is clear that families are not receiving full disclosure from our federal agencies, but our systems are failing victims.The aim of Bill C-320 is twofold. First, it would amend current federal laws to better meet the needs of victims of crime by providing timely and accurate information to victims upon the sentencing of an officer or an offender while also avoiding the false comfort of misleading parole eligibility dates. Second, it would ensure that victims of crime are provided with improved transparency and passage of information from Correctional Service Canada concerning the movements of an individual within the prison system and would also ensure that the Parole Board of Canada cannot arbitrarily deny victims' participation at parole hearings.For too long, this country's justice system has put the rights of violent offenders ahead of their victims and survivors. That is altogether backward. Bill C-320 would aim to turn the tide. It would give victims and survivors greater transparency of information concerning an incarcerated individual's movement within our federal correction system and during the parole process. We must level the playing field for victims of violent crime.Lisa believes, and I agree, that a lack of transparency regarding how parole dates and eligibility are determined cause the victims of crime to experience confusion, frustration, trauma and resentment, sadly, for the justice system. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that victims of crime are treated with the utmost respect and dignity. This legislation would make a simple amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act that would provide just a little more respect and dignity for these families and survivors.Bill C-320 would require that information regarding the review and eligibility for all forms of parole be communicated in writing to the offender's victims, including an explanation of how the dates were determined for parole with an explanation of this process to be as transparent as possible.None of us can argue against the logic of this bill, and I have been thankful all along the way that I have received unanimous support from members of each party of the House. We need to give less government support to criminals and much more to victims and survivors.A murderer's rights should never trump a victim's rights, yet they seem to every single time. A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years is meant to imply severity and punishment. This is simply not true and is misleading to families, and it is also misleading to the public. Offenders serving a life sentence without parole for 25 years can be released on other forms of parole well before for personal development, temporary absences and community service work.What we are trying to correct with Bill C-320 is simply victims' access to this information, as well as an explanation in advance. A recent update from Lisa exemplifies this. She said, “I was notified in July that: My father's killer's day parole was extended for 6 months and when it goes up again for renewal in January of 2024 and even if he doesn't request full parole, he can be automatically granted it at the same time.” There is “No hearing I can attend, and no opportunity for me to object...just an in-office, paper decision. Also, at the same time I was notified that the 'conditions on parole' that I have in place—no transfers to the province of Ontario, and parts of BC—can be lifted at any time his Case Management Team feels that he 'would benefit from attending courses in these areas'. What an outrage that the only comfort for me and my family from [an] axe murderer can be lifted at whim of his team.” I can now inform the House that after Lisa was left to advocate for her own rights, which I may remind members heaps more trauma upon the victims, Lisa was finally granted the opportunity to attend and to provide a victim impact statement. On January 31, Lisa travelled thousands of miles from Oshawa to British Columbia at her own expense to make her statement at the killer's parole hearing.Thankfully, her father's killer was once again denied full parole. However, what about everybody else?(1340)Lisa is a shining example of a victim who has had the strength and fortitude to advocate for herself and her family, but at what cost? It is not her job to protect her rights as as victim; it is ours. Setting aside the mental trauma Lisa and her family have suffered, what about the personal costs she has had to bear, as well as the mental cost? This was just one example of the many times she has had to fight this fight for herself over the last 23 years.Here we have it. A killer can be released into a community where his victims live at the whim of his case management team. There is no need to explain to the victims how the decision was made and when the release will take place until after the fact. I note all members agree that this is unconscionable, and it should not have to be a fight that victims have to fight year after year just to keep the most callous of murderers where they belong. Families members who have suffered because of an offender's actions do not deserve to be revictimized by the parole system.Under the guise of rehabilitation, victims of crime often must stand back and watch while violent offenders exercise their rights, which, as most victims of crime find, are nothing more than a mockery of justice and basic common sense. The rights of victims should be made equal to or, rather, better than the rights of offenders.We are not going to fix all these serious matters with just one bill, but I think we can all agree our systems need to be recalibrated. I also think we can all agree that we must pass this bill and take an important step in easing the burden on victims of crime and survivors.I say victims deserve better. At the very least, they deserve accurate, timely explanations and information. Lisa and I are grateful to the committee and all members of this House. Let us get this bill to the Senate and get it passed into law. Let us do one good thing for victims of crime and survivors.I would like to read a statement from Lisa into the record. She says, “My name is Lisa Freeman, and I am the inspiration for Bill C-320. I was 21 years old when my father, Roland Slingerland, was axed to death in Oshawa, Ontario. His murder brought the usual feelings that no one would expect: deep grief, trauma and an overwhelming feeling of loss.“As the years move along, the weight of the crime is so heavy to carry, but you do your very best to recover from the very worst thing that ever happened to you. If you're strong enough, you will participate in the process, something that is truly only for the brave because everything you thought you knew or what you thought would happen doesn't. No one is locked away forever. No keys are thrown away, and there's truly no life sentence for anyone other than the victims. I often say that, if you are standing after the initial crime, navigating the parole system will bring you to your knees. “Transparency is a word we often use, and Bill C-320 is based on that principle. Victims of crime should be given crucial information about the offender who harmed them or their loved ones in a timely manner. By backing this bill, the weight of what victims of crime carry will be lessened considerably. I urge everyone here today to take my words into consideration and ask for your support in moving this bill to the next stage.”C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseHomicideInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime818694781869488186949818695081869518186952818695381869548186955818695681869578186958818695981869608186961818696281869638186964818696581869668186967818696881869698186970818697181869728186973ColinCarrieOshawaToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. colleague and thank him for his perseverance in putting forth Bill C-320. This is, after all, if my math is correct, the third iteration of it. He has worked for over a decade on this type of legislation. Much the same as soon-retiring Senator Boisvenu, the member has been a tireless advocate for victims' rights, and I want to congratulate him and thank him for that.I wonder if the member has any further comments he would like to add.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime81869748186975ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1345)[English] Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to humbly thank my colleague and also all members of the House. Members of all parties have come to talk to me about the bill and about the compassion of the House for victims; it is something we all realize. I feel such sincere respect for victims of crime, such as Lisa, who bravely, over a decade ago, walked into the office of a member of Parliament and wanted to do something not just for herself and her family but also for victims in the future.Anybody who reads the bill will see that it is 10 words that would be added in the English version. It is a small change, but it would make a big difference. As we move these changes forward, we have to remember that this is for the victim. My colleagues mentioned the hon. Senator Pierre Boisvenu. His life's work, as a survivor himself, was to make an attitude change here in government so we actually put victims first. I applaud the colleagues who have supported me, and I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart. I know Lisa does as well.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8186976818697781869788186979ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88925JenniferO'ConnellJennifer-O-ConnellPickering—UxbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OConnellJennifer_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing this matter forward. At committee we also heard that some victims and family members are not always ready, or do not always want, to hear about those who have impacted their family. Therefore I appreciate that the member has worked across the aisle on this to ensure that those who want the information are given it, but there is also a recognition that it is up to the victim and the victim's family to decide what information they receive. Could the member comment on that?C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8186980ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pickering—Uxbridge brings out a very important point. Every victim and every victim's family is different, and what they want to hear during the grieving process is different. One of the things that is really important about the bill is that it would allow choice; it would allow victims and their families to choose whether or not they want to receive that different information. Over a time period, because they would be getting transparent, clear information as they heal, if that is at all possible, and they want to get more information about the process and what is going on, they would be able to.We have listened to victims, including Lisa as a victims' advocate. I applaud her courage for bringing this forward; it is not an easy thing to do. She is so darned determined. It has been over two decades that she has worked at this. We have the opportunity to give her success and to give victims of crimes and their families success. Hopefully colleagues today will understand that and take it into account as we move forward with the debate and move it to the Senate.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime81869818186982JenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, the member for Oshawa, for championing the bill. In his tenure as a member of Parliament, he has consistently been a champion for the rights of victims. The bill is common sense.One of the recurring themes I have heard from the families of victims is that they feel that they do not have support and they do not have information, long after the trial and conviction of the perpetrator who took the life of their loved one. Could the member comment on that?C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime81869838186984ColinCarrieOshawaColinCarrieOshawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25486ColinCarrieColin-CarrieOshawaConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CarrieColin_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Colin Carrie: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We do need to do more. This is a small change, but it would make a big difference. I thank the member for his kind words and support.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8186985MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonJohnAldagCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the discussion on Bill C-320. As we reach report stage of this bill, I would like to express gratitude to the hon. member for Oshawa for bringing this important bill to the House.Bill C-320 is an important piece of legislation aimed at increasing victims' understanding of corrections and conditional release. According to existing federal law, victims who share their contact details with the Correctional Service of Canada or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the legal definition of victim are entitled to specific information about those responsible for harming them. This information includes key dates indicating when offenders may be eligible for review and release.Should Bill C-320 be accepted, it would amend the law to ensure that victims not only know when offenders could be released but also, importantly, understand how officials determined those eligibility dates.The government supports this legislation, and I encourage hon. members to lend it their full support. The purpose of this bill aligns with the government's commitment to upholding victims' rights to information while taking into consideration offenders' privacy rights.Victims of crime and their families seek clarity, transparency and opportunities to have their voices heard within the justice system. Bill C-320 aims to provide the clarity and transparency they seek, offering victims of offenders more information about crucial eligibility and review dates in advance.This legislation lets victims know that we hear them. It clearly aligns with our commitments to support victims' rights, including their need for information. This bill builds upon the progress made in recognizing and upholding the rights of crime victims in our country.Over the years, governments of various affiliations and members from both sides of the chamber have taken actions to advance victims' rights. This evolution began back in 1988. At that point, the House endorsed a statement of basic principles of justice for victims of crime. Subsequently, federal laws provided victims with a voice at sentencing hearings, emphasizing their rights based on an increasing understanding of their needs.The enactment of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act in 1992 first entitled victims to receive information about the offender who harmed them. In 2003, the government updated and re-endorsed the statement of basic principles, and in 2015, the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights became law, solidifying victims' rights in various ways.Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime are legally entitled to receive information on inmates' progress towards meeting the objectives set out in their correctional plan, to name a representative to receive information on their behalf, to access a photo of the person who harmed them prior to release and to receive reasons if the Parole Board of Canada does not impose any release conditions requested by victims. Moreover, victims can actively participate in Parole Board hearings, virtually or in person, presenting victim statements and requesting special conditions for an offender's release.Recent legislative measures, such as Bill C-83, further strengthened victims' rights by making audio recordings of parole hearings available to all registered victims of crime. As well, the National Office for Victims, in collaboration with federal partners, continues to produce informative materials on sentence calculation rules that are available online.The progress made is a testament to ongoing conversations among victims of crime, elected representatives and government officials. These conversations, embodied not only in Bill C-320 but also in recent legislative initiatives, such as Bill S-12, affirm our commitment to victims' rights. Bill S-12, which received royal assent on October 26 of this past year, seeks to connect victims of offenders with ongoing information and to enhance publication ban laws. In addition, the Correctional Service of Canada and Parole Board of Canada work tirelessly to raise awareness of victims' rights.In the government's view, Bill C-320 aligns with these sensible, non-partisan and multi-generational advancements. Victims of crime and their families want clarity and transparency. They want a voice, and they want that voice to be heard. This is why I look forward to passing Bill C-320 in the House today, and I encourage other members here to join me.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime818698681869878186988818698981869908186991818699281869938186994818699581869968186997ColinCarrieOshawaMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1355)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is moving to hear and observe how far we have come. The Bloc Québécois is eager to proceed with third reading.I would like to add some more information and take the discussion a step further based on the situation before us. Members will recall that there was a surge in femicides in Quebec and in a number of locations in the west during the critical period of COVID‑19. This already alarming situation evolved into a true scourge. Every week, and almost every day, we woke up to media reports of a new femicide. The situation was alarming. Between 2009 and 2019, violence perpetrated against women, simply for being women, increased by almost 7.5%.I am a woman. I am the mother of two young women and, on top of that, I am a member of Parliament. I have a responsibility, but at the same time I am still a person, and this news deeply upsets me. A mixture of disbelief, at times rage, and powerlessness often comes over me. I do not understand how this can still be happening in 2024. Women have the right to live in safety. It is not a luxury. It is not a privilege. It is a fundamental right. It seems to me that violence against women is condemned at every turn and has never been more socially unacceptable.That said, women are unfortunately still the victims of men who are suffering or violent, who think that the life of their spouse, ex-spouse or the mother of their child is worth less than their own. There is still far too much misogynistic violence. Too many women still live in fear. From now on, fear must change sides. That is what the bill will do: turn the tables on fear.Women living with a physically or psychologically abusive man must no longer be submissive. They must be supported. We need to work together to successfully turn the tables on shame and fear.As legislators, it is up to us to bring about change. Obviously, we have come a long way, as my colleagues mentioned a few moments ago.We in the Bloc Québécois are all allies. We will always be there to ensure that women's fundamental rights are all respected. We will not just use our defence of women's rights as a calling card. We truly believe in them. We in the Bloc Québécois will not pick and choose the issues on which we will defend women's rights. We will always defend women, their rights, their freedom and their safety. This is not just posturing for the Bloc Québécois. It is part of our DNA. We are a feminist party. Quebec is once again setting an example for many jurisdictions around the world. In 2021, following tireless work by citizens' groups, women and MNAs from the Quebec National Assembly, including Véronique Hivon, who is someone you know well, Mr. Speaker, and someone I hold in the highest regard, Quebec created specialized courts for victims of sexual violence and domestic violence. I will take 30 seconds to quote what the Government of Quebec said about it: The creation of this court specialized in sexual violence and domestic violence within a new division of the criminal and penal division of the Court of Québec is intended to ensure that victims receive better support and guidance before, during and after the legal proceedings. While respecting the principles of criminal law, each step of the judicial process will be reviewed to improve the experience for victims by being more responsive to their needs.(1400)To turn the tables on shame, it is essential that we establish legal structures that treat women who are victims with respect and, most importantly, that make them feel that they are being heard.Quebec became the first jurisdiction in Canada and the seventh in the world to implement electronic devices to give a sense of autonomy and safety back to women who are victims of domestic and sexual violence. It is a major step for the safety of women, but it is also a paradigm shift. Now, it is the abusers who will have to live in fear—fear of their tracking device and fear of getting too close to their victims and violating their release conditions. Women will be able to slowly but surely return to living a healthy life, knowing that they will not come face to face with their abuser.Bill C-320 has the exact same objective, which is to put information mechanisms in place to make sure that the victim can get an explanation on how correctional decisions were made regarding their abuser. That is worth mentioning. This mechanism will allow victims to access additional information on their abuser's status. It will only make the justice system stronger, which will improve confidence in the system.I would like to conclude with a quote from Simone de Beauvoir, who said, “What's scandalous about scandal is that we get used to it”. We must never get used to violence against women or femicide. Our actions must reflect our humanity.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseFemicideInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionVictims of crimeViolence against womenWomen8186998818699981870008187001818700281870038187004818700581870068187007818700881870098187010JohnAldagCloverdale—Langley CityPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1400)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Oshawa for bringing this bill forward.He spoke very eloquently about the Freeman family. I certainly hope that the debate today, the fact that this bill is moving forward and that there seems to be consensus within the chamber provides some small measure of peace to that family. New Democrats are supporting Bill C-320. We believe that providing information to victims to help them understand the parole process is a vital part of transparency and justice for victims and victims' families. That is why we are supportive of this legislation.We also believe that we need to be doing a lot more for victims. Of course, we are aware of the fact that often victims are left aside following some of the most horrendous crimes. It is the victims that are not provided with the appropriate transparency from our justice system and with the appropriate supports. This is something that needs to be reinforced, that victims need to be provided all the supports that they should be getting from the system.This bill is one example of how having that transparency around parole is vitally important. I will come back in just a moment to the vital function of parole, of that transition to avoid reoffending. Where societies have been most successful in lowering the reoffending rate is where there is a properly supervised and monitored transition in place, including parole systems. These are absolutely fundamental. I will come back to that in a moment.With the Paul Bernardo case, we saw another example of victims not receiving information that was critical. We had a transfer within the system, but the reality is that that information flow, that transparency, that providing of information to victims, was not present. The public safety committee held a number of hearings with the victims and victims' families. In a trauma-informed way, I think all members of the committee really tried to ensure that this was removed from the standard type of political comments that sometimes occur at committee. All members of the committee received that trauma-informed information so that, when the victims' families and representatives of the victims came forward, I think all parties were able to provide an appropriate level of questioning and really got the information that was so important about what happens when there are transfers within the correctional system. With parole, which is targeted by this bill, it is absolutely essential that that transparency be there as well. I said earlier that I would talk a bit about the importance of parole. When we see, within correctional services around the world, where there is a properly monitored, properly supervised parole system, the level of reoffending goes remarkably down. Norway is often pointed to. The Norwegian correctional services, at one point, did not have that type of transition or parole. Offenders served their full sentences. The reality was the reoffending rate was very high. Norway tried a new approach, where there was parole put into place, a properly supervised, properly monitored system. As a result of that, the reoffending rate for offenders who were leaving the correctional services went down remarkably.When we look at correctional services around the world, the reoffending rates are much lower. Where there are properly supervised, properly monitored parole systems, offenders do not reoffend. There is a consistent field of study that shows the difference.(1405)Certainly, in a number of American states, where they have continued to ensure that offenders serve their full sentence without that transition, the reoffending rate is much higher. We can take lessons from that. Canada has a parole system that is often not properly supervised and monitored because of a lack of resources; this is unacceptable. We have the essential need of ensuring that offenders have every tool to not reoffend, and that victims' families are fully advised and apprised of situations.Bills like Bill C-320 are an important component of that, but resources are absolutely essential. That is where we are coming from. In this corner of the House, we believe that there need to be more supports for victims. The transparency is essential, but we are also looking for transparency within transfers and correctional services, and ensuring that victims are provided with the supports that are so essential.When victims' families are apprised of this information, often they are not provided with psychological and mental health supports. This is something that needs to change if we are really going to ensure that we have a correctional service that serves justice and provides for the lowest possible reoffending rate, but also does justice for victims and victims' families. We need to ensure that those supports are in place.I would like to talk about other resources that we believe need to be brought in. Crime prevention programs were ended under the former government 10 years ago, like the B.C. crime prevention centre and others. They were closed across the country as crime prevention funding was cut back; it was simply wrong-headed. The reality is crime prevention funding is an essential tool to ensure that there are no further victims. We know that one dollar invested in crime prevention saves about six dollars in policing costs, court costs and prison costs. It is a no-brainer.In this corner of the House, we believe in substantially funding crime prevention right across the country to ensure that there are fewer victims and that we are bringing the crime rate down. We believe this is an absolutely essential tool. Yes, providing supports to victims is a critical step, but actually ensuring that there are fewer victims is a much smarter approach. We believe in being smart on crime and smart on the causes of crime. This is how we can reduce the crime rate.I note, sadly, when talking about resources, that last December, the official opposition proposed significant cuts with votes 23, 24 and 25. It was a sum of over $300 million in cuts to correctional services and the court administration services. It seems to me that it is wrong-headed to cut $300 million, when what we actually need to do is ensure that there is further funding to support victims, further funding to support the transparency that is a necessary aspect of correctional services, and further funding to actually ensure, for example, that the important recommendations of Bill C-320 are actually kept. The funding is a critical part of ensuring that we are responding, in a complete way, to ensure that the needs of victims are kept in place.(1410)[Translation]Once again, I would like to thank the member for Oshawa for introducing Bill C‑320. The NDP will support this bill. We feel it is an important step in ensuring that victims and victims' families have access to absolutely critical and important information. We look forward to its passage through the House and the other place in the days ahead.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseCrime preventionInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8187011818701281870138187014818701581870168187017818701881870198187020818702181870228187023818702481870258187026Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1410)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and speak to my friend from Oshawa’s bill, Bill C-320. Nowhere could 10 words and an explanation of how the date has been determined make such a difference, such a profound impact on so many Canadians.I have stood in the House so many times over the last eight years to talk about victims' rights. We talked about the Paul Bernardo case. We talked about the Tori Stafford case, in which Terri-Lynne McClintic, the murderer of eight-year-old Tori Stafford, was moved to a healing lodge.We talked about Catherine Campbell, the Halifax police officer who was heinously murdered by a murderer who then claimed he had developed PTSD from the actual murder. He was put to the front of the line, ahead of victims of violence, ahead of veterans and ahead of first responders, to receive treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder. It is absolutely shameful.There is the case that I have stood in the House to talk about so many times: the case of Canada's youngest serial killer, Cody Legebokoff, who was found in 2010, just 20 years of age, in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. He had murdered Natasha Montgomery, Jill Stuchenko and Cynthia Maas. He had murdered a friend of mine's daughter, Loren Leslie, who was 15 years old at the time.I have stood in the House time and time again and asked, “Who speaks for the victims?”.Cody Legebokoff was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder in December 2014. That should have been the end of it. We found out, not through Corrections Canada's releasing information to the families but through the press, that Cody had been moved from a maximum-security prison to a medium-security prison just five years later, transferred mere kilometres down the road from Loren's sister.Who speaks for families? When I questioned Corrections Canada and the public safety minister at the time on how this could happen, the answer I got was that it is not an exact science.In Canada, “life” does not mean “life” for those who commit heinous crimes. It means “life” for the families' victims. They have a life sentence, and oftentimes they cannot get the information they require and deserve on why these transfers are happening. Bill C-320 would simply promote transparency and victims' rights, equally important principles for democracy and criminal justice. It would simply give victims of violent crime and their families rights.(1415)Finally, we are seeing some movement. This bill came to fruition thanks to the advocacy of Lisa Freeman, a constituent of our colleague from Oshawa. Her father was murdered in 1991. We heard the story. She was caught off guard when her father's killer was eligible for early parole 20 years into a 25-year life sentence. Often, the victims of violent crime and their families, the survivors, find these things out through the media. They are not told in advance. We heard earlier that they are the ones who have to keep pressing for more information. They have to be on it all the time.Common decency would say that, if a loved one is murdered, whether a child, father, uncle, brother or mother, we owe the victims of violence just a modicum of decency. Thus, we should inform them when these killers are being moved, transferred to a different level of security or released into the community.Our Bloc friend said that the aggressors need to fear. We see this now and again in the statistics on repeat and prolific offenders, on how crime has gone up, on how there are more victims of violence and on how that is impacting not only female Canadians at an alarming rate but also our families.I applaud my colleague from Oshawa for his tenacity and undying pursuit of justice for victims and their families. By all accounts, from what we have heard here in the House today, Bill C-320 should pass here. It should go to the Senate, where we hope it will be unamended and swiftly receive royal assent; then, once and for all, we can all stand in this House and say that we fought for the rights of victims.In preparing for this speech today, I looked over messages to me from Mr. Doug Leslie, a friend of mine, whose daughter Loren was murdered by Legebokoff. His messages are always the same: “Who speaks for me? Who speaks for the victims? Who stands up for them?” Today, we can say that we do, by passing Bill C-320, an act with, really, 10 little words that mean so much. I opened my speech today by saying that nowhere in any of the legislation that we have done to date are there 10 little words that can provide such profound help to so many Canadians as those in Bill C-320. I will mention them again: “and an explanation of how that date has been determined”.I applaud my colleague from Oshawa and those in this House who have offered a reasonable debate. I am thankful for this time.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseHomicideInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crimeViolent crime8187027818702881870298187030818703181870328187033818703481870358187036818703781870388187039818704081870418187042PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1420)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss Bill C-320, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.Victims who share their contact information with the Correctional Service of Canada and/or the Parole Board of Canada and who meet the definition of “victim” outlined in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, are entitled to receive certain information about the person who harmed them.This information includes review and release eligibility dates, which are provided to victims in an initial contact letter. Bill C-320 would require that victims be provided with an explanation of how those dates are determined. Across the country, victims of serious crimes may deserve to know how sentences are administered, including eligibility for temporary absences and parole. Together, the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada have over 8,000 registered victims. We have heard from them, and they and their families want clarity and transparency. I look forward to supporting Bill C-320 to provide that increased clarity and transparency that victims of crime are asking for. Additionally, I want to thank the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for its expeditious study. The committee has returned to this place an unamended bill, which received unanimous support. I look forward to that unanimity continuing in our debate today.Ensuring that the rights of victims are upheld is important. Our government has passed new legislation to continue to support victims' rights in the form of Bill S-12. That legislation ensures that victims receive ongoing information about the offender after sentencing and would improve the law on publication bans by giving a greater voice and clarity to victims in regard to imposing and lifting a publication ban. Bill C-320 shares similar aims to Bill S-12.As members know, the CCRA governs both the Correctional Service of Canada and the Parole Board of Canada. It is the foundation on which people serving federal sentences are supervised and conditional release decisions are made. It also recognizes that victims of crime have an important role to play in the criminal justice system. It provides victims with an opportunity to access certain information and participate in the federal corrections and conditional release process. With the CCRA and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights as a foundation, a variety of government departments, including the Parole Board of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada, work together to provide information services to victims. The Canadian Victims Bill of Rights expanded the information available to victims as it relates to hearings by allowing victims who were unable to attend a hearing to request to listen to an audio recording of the parole hearing. At any time, victims may also submit information that details the physical, emotional or financial impact the offence has had on them to the Parole Board for consideration in its decision-making. They may also raise any safety concerns they may have related to the offender's risk of reoffending. As part of the victim statement, victims can also request that the board consider imposing special conditions on an offender's release. All this information assists board members in assessing risk and determining if additional conditions may be necessary to impose if release to the community is granted. They may also raise any safety concerns they may have in relation to the offender's risk of reoffending. As part of the victim statement, victims can also request that the board consider imposing special conditions on the offender's release. (1425)All this information assists board members in assessing risk and in determining if imposing additional conditions may be necessary if release to the community is in fact granted. The protection of society is the paramount consideration in all parole board decisions. I will also note that Public Safety Canada plays a role in improving victims' experiences with the federal corrections and conditional release systems. The National Office for Victims engages with victims, their advocates and service providers. It hosts annual round tables, develops information products about victims' rights and services and applies a victim's lens on corrections and conditional release policy development. Victims can also receive information in the format of their choosing, including through the Victims Portal. They can submit information electronically, including victim statements.These services respect a victim's right to information, and this information serves to engage and to empower victims to make informed decisions in relation to their rights to participation and protection.C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseInformation disseminationOffendersPrivate Members' BillsS-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders ActThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime818704381870448187045818704681870478187048818704981870508187051818705281870538187054ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' Business Corrections and Conditional Release ActInterventionThe Speaker: (1425)[English]The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.It being 2:30, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).Have a great weekend, everyone.(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims)Conditional releaseDropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order PaperInformation disseminationPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVictims of crime8187055818705681870578187058ChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)(1715)[English] moved that Bill S-202, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate), be read the third time and passed. Bill S-202. Third reading He said: Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to rise again in the House and speak to Bill S-202, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to establish a parliamentary visual artist laureate.As mentioned in my speech during second reading, I want to thank former senator Patricia Bovey for all her hard work in getting this bill through the Senate and to the House this last time. I am also incredibly grateful to former senator Wilfred Moore for his initial push of work on this legislation in 2016. I also want to thank Senator Andrew Cardozo for stepping forward and offering assistance should the need arise to return this bill back to the other place to consider amendments that are now before the House. These three senators are each strong champions of the arts, and each deeply understands the need for this legislation. I am truly honoured to be working with these three senators on this bill to ensure that the Canadian arts are featured prominently through the parliamentary visual artist laureate. This position would arise from the successful passage of the bill, as amended at the Canadian heritage committee.I will note that the heritage committee made two amendments to the bill at committee stage. While I believe both amendments were covered in the original form of the legislation, they further clarify two aspects. Following consultation with the above three senators, who in turn have consulted with the larger arts community, we have accepted the validity of these two amendments and ask the House to formally adopt them as part of the legislation that is once again before us. In a previous session, when this bill was known as Bill S-205, the members of this House delivered many excellent speeches when they debated the legislation. It is clear that, in the three times this bill has been before the Senate and the House, it has had overwhelming support from parliamentarians in both chambers. There have been a lot of positive discussions on Bill S-202 to date, with my colleagues from all parties providing supportive statements during this Parliament’s second reading of the bill, as well as during the committee stage.Bill S-202 is about supporting Canadian art and artists. The arts community was hard hit economically during the COVID-19 pandemic but is slowly recovering from that time. The arts provided a respite to Canadians during that challenging time in our country’s recent past. During my time away from this place between 2019 and 2021, I worked for the Township of Langley as the cultural services manager, where I had the opportunity to work very closely with the arts community. I have always understood the importance of the arts, but it was during the pandemic that I truly came to understand how essential artists are to the well-being of society.For over 150 years, Canadian artists have influenced Canadian culture and its beautiful microcultures. Acclaimed and beloved artists such as Emily Carr, Kenojuak Ashevak, George Campbell Tinning, Claude Vermette, Jack Chambers, and Maud Lewis illustrated their experiences, desires and perceptions with exhilarating grit and comforting beauty. They all worked to elevate cross-cultural understanding, curiosity, unity and proud expressions of Canadian culture. To make a position within Parliament specifically for artists to create in, just as many Canadians before them have done outside of these parliamentary walls, honours the creativity and perseverance of Canadians. Along with these well-known artists, I believe we can all name more than one inspiring artist in our own home community, demonstrating how art is embedded in all our communities across Canada.George Elliott Clarke, our parliamentary poet laureate from 2016-17, wrote the following poem in support of this legislation for Senator Bovey. I apologize to the interpreters, who will have to do this on the fly.The poem is as follows: The blank page—the blank canvas is— Undeniably delicious— Like fog, which obscures, then reveals— What Hope imminently congeals— A fantastic architecture— Imagination born secure: What Vision—the I of the eye— Had dreamt, is What answering Why. . .. Rainbows erupt from paint or ink— And film sculptures light—in a blink; A needle, weaving, is lyric, And whatever is shaped is epic. Art's each I articulate, Whose vision ordains a laureate. As a reminder to my colleagues, Bill S-202 seeks to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to create the position of parliamentary visual artist laureate. The parliamentary visual artist laureate would be an officer of the Library of Parliament, akin to the position of the parliamentary poet laureate. The selection process for this role would consist of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons acting in tandem to select artists to reflect Canada’s linguistic and cultural diversity.The mandate for the parliamentary visual artist laureate is to promote the arts in Canada through Parliament, including by fostering knowledge, enjoyment, awareness and development of the arts. In carrying out this mandate, the laureate may “produce or cause to be produced artistic creations, at the request of either Speaker, especially for use in Parliament on occasions of state”. A two-year period is in place for this position, as is in place for the poet laureate, with the intention of rotating different ideas and perspectives, ensuring that multiple voices and approaches are heard and seen.(1720)As mentioned in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, the important consideration here is that this position would become a part of the institution of Parliament and would be here for the long term. Having that longevity, that permanence, would allow for the arts to reflect various aspects of current and future Canadian culture, including the experiences of everyone from around the world that has come to call Canada home.Canadian artists from across the country, whether lifelong Canadians, immigrants, indigenous peoples or others, will benefit from having a parliamentary visual artist laureate in Ottawa. The appreciation of the arts unites us, and in a multicultural country such as Canada, we should promote our many different forms of art at every opportunity.Senator Bovey had a long and wondrous career as a visual arts curator, a director of several major Canadian art galleries, a professor and an author before joining the Canadian Senate in November 2016. She carried that passion for the arts with her during her tenure as a senator, and she continues her advocacy today, reminding us that the arts are a critical part of living and realizing Canada's diversity.In her maiden speech in the Senate in 2016, Senator Bovey said, “The arts play an uncontestable and considerable role in all aspects of society”. As chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, I would like to build on Senator Bovey's statement. The role that the arts can play in society includes building relationships and knowledge with indigenous nations. Indigenous artists are arguably the best-known Canadian artists outside Canada. As we look toward reconciliation and renewing relationships with indigenous peoples, I want to remind everyone of what Senator Bovey said in 2016. She indicated, “The power of the arts is infinite.... The arts are letting the world know who Canadians are, where we are and what we value”.For my colleagues who may not have noticed it, I mentioned future Canadian culture. The next generations of youth are Canada's future, and art is a critical component in engaging with, teaching and learning from our youth. As a witness in heritage committee, former senator Bovey stated: The visual arts also have the power to teach and inspire. I believe the visual artist laureate will be a bridge to our youth regarding the role of democracy, the workings of Parliament and your commitments, and will assist in addressing the gap in knowledge about civics. It would be a connector across this country and across generations, and open doors to bring us together at a time when that has never been needed more. Art, as a mirror of society, is not a lie, an exaggeration or a fleeting, impermanent digital commentary. It is permanent, good and an important part of our heritage and ongoing history, portraying honestly what we are and what we are thinking.I want to take a moment to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for their careful consideration of Bill S-202 and for putting forth two previously referenced amendments that enshrine our commitment to diversity and equality of opportunity for all artists.Similar to the position of the Poet Laureate, the selected visual artist laureate would alternate every two years between someone who works primarily in English and someone who works primarily in French. With the first amendment accepted, the committee is ensuring a reflection of Canada's linguistic reality in the position of the parliamentary visual artist laureate. I thank my French-speaking colleagues for their clarification of current practices of the House by making sure French Canadians are equally represented as the parliamentary visual artist laureate through this amendment.I also want to thank the heritage committee for amending Bill S-202 to ensure digital creations are included in the definition of “arts”. While the original legislation included reference to future art forms and would have included digital creations, this amendment solidifies digital creations as a legitimate art form. As more and more artists express an interest in digital media, we must ensure that digital creations are included to reflect the diversity of Canada through this evolving art form. As Senator Moore said in his final speech in the Senate in 2016, when the legislation was known as Bill C-234, the position of parliamentary visual artist laureate would augment the Poet Laureate's office and expand the types of artistic expression that depict Canada both at home and abroad. The federal government has actively promoted the arts since the Massey Commission in 1949, which recommended that federal funding be made available for a wide range of cultural activities.The Massey Commission stated that “it is in the national interest to give encouragement to institutions which express national feeling, promote common understanding and add to the variety and richness of Canadian life”. I want to note that the Massey Commission recommended the founding of the National Library, the National Gallery and the Canada Council for the Arts; we readily founded these institutions to support the artistic expression of Canada.(1725) I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Moore that the expansion of artistic creativity deserves recognition in Parliament. As the former senator noted, our chambers of Parliament are defined not just by those of us sitting in its hallowed halls, but also by the artwork hanging on the walls that remind us daily of the sacrifice of those who built this nation. Canada has so many talented artists, and it is time we celebrate these visual artists and their contributions to our culture and the expression of who we are.As we discuss Bill S-202 during its third reading, for its third time in the House, I urge my colleagues from all parties to support this bill and to vote in favour of its passage. Let us show our support for the arts across this beautiful and diverse country.Culture and creativityIndigenous peoplesLinguistic communitiesMulticulturalismParliamentary Poet LaureateParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePoetry and poetsPrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Selection processSenate billsThird reading and adoptionVisual artsYoung people8184594818459581845968184597818459881845998184600818460181846028184603818460481846058184606818460781846088184609818461081846118184612818461381846148184615818461681846178184618818461981846208184621818462281846238184624818462581846268184627AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1725)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his wonderful speech.This bill may not look like much, but appointing a visual artist is quite important. We already have a poet in the House. Obviously, as an actor, as an artist who has worked in television, theatre and film, I am going to applaud having more arts in this Parliament. In fact, I will have a chance to talk about that shortly.However, there is one little detail I want to talk about. We should make sure that Bill S‑202 includes alternating appointments. If an English-speaking visual artist is appointed, a francophone must follow. At this time, Bill S‑202 does not include such a provision.I would like to know if my colleague agrees with that.Linguistic communitiesParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption8184628818462981846308184631JohnAldagCloverdale—Langley CityJohnAldagCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my colleague for his passion for the arts and, obviously, for his commitment, over a lifetime, to arts in Canada.The amendment that was brought forward by the Bloc in Bill S-202, to reflect the ongoing practices of Parliament in alternating between English and French, will do exactly that, should this amendment and this legislation as proposed be carried.I think it is an important amendment to actually codify the practice that we have here in Parliament to make sure the cultural and the linguistic diversity is reflected in how the visual arts laureates are selected on an alternating two-year basis. I think that with the Bloc's input on this and with the support of other francophone members within this chamber, we will make sure that this linguistic and cultural diversity is reflected.Linguistic communitiesParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption818463281846338184634DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1730)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I enjoy the hon. member's chairmanship at the indigenous and northern affairs committee very much. I know that he answered this question a little. I also want to thank the member for including indigenous artists like Kenojuak Ashevak in his statement and for noting the importance of ensuring that indigenous peoples are laureates as well.I wonder, in addition to what was just asked, in terms of alternating laureates, if we are making sure that indigenous artists are at the forefront of those selections and those rotations.Indigenous peoplesParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption81846358184636JohnAldagCloverdale—Langley CityJohnAldagCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I thoroughly enjoy working with the hon. member on the indigenous and northern affairs committee as well. The insights that she brings are invaluable.I believe we did have quite a lengthy discussion about how we bring in indigenous artists to make sure they are reflected in the selection process. As much as we are building and working to retain the various indigenous languages in Canada, right now, we are a country of two official languages. Therefore, in this bill, it is a reflection of English and French, alternating, while respecting that people living in Canada will likely have a working ability in either of those languages, as well as in an indigenous language, for those who are indigenous persons.My sense is that it would not preclude indigenous artists from being reflected or selected within this process, but it would also make sure there are opportunities for Inuit, first nations and Métis artists to be selected as part of this—Indigenous peoplesParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption818463781846388184639LoriIdloutNunavutAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I am honoured to take the floor this evening remotely. I want to signal to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City my support for the private member's bill, Bill S-202.I appreciate it, because I remember the work that former senator Patricia Bovey did on this bill, and it seems such a shame that it slid off the Order Paper. I think the circumstances were unfortunate at that time. I will not go into the details, but I want to thank the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing it forward and for finding ways to bring forward our visual artists from various cultures and backgrounds, both francophone and, of course, the emphasis on our extraordinary indigenous artists.Meegwetch.Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption818464181846428184643AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJohnAldagCloverdale—Langley City//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her recognition of the importance of this legislation and her support of it during multiple interventions here in the chamber of the House of Commons.We look forward to seeing this being created so that we can move on with it. I would love to see some of our west coast indigenous artists and other west coast artists eventually be selected as a part of this process.Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption81846448184645ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1730)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, Bill S‑202 has to do with the appointment of the parliamentary visual artist.As I said earlier, I am a stage and film actor, as well as a fan of literature. I therefore agree that art should have a bigger place in our lives, even in Parliament. I could not agree with that more. Today, I decided to treat myself because someone has expressed much better than I could the importance of literature and art in our lives. I am talking about David Goudreault, a slam performer and poet from Quebec. He has written a lot and has even won some awards. He was awarded the World Cup of Slam Poetry in Paris in 2011. Since then, he has been writing novels and continues to slam and do shows. We also see him on television, where he works as a commentator. His words are striking, touching, penetrating and impactful. He has a much better way with words than I do, and he wrote about how we should leave more room for art, poetry and literature in our lives.That is why, today, I decided to treat myself and read one of David Goudreault's poems. I hope he will forgive me—Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePoetry and poetsPrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption8184646818464781846488184649JohnAldagCloverdale—Langley CityAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Denis Trudel: (1735)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about something very serious, that is, poetry. I would like my colleagues to listen. It is not that often that we talk about poetry in the House. I am not sure we ever have. It is important that members listen.I apologize in advance, because David Goudreault is also an extraordinary performer. When he reads his own poetry, when he speaks his own words, it is utterly amazing and fascinating. I encourage my colleagues to go see one of his shows. Still, I will read this piece, because it is worth it.I call for poetryA deep breath held in, underworld apneaFor all the teachers that won't skip a chapterHands sunk and guts poured into the subject matterA light that can express itself freelyIn free verse, spoken work, sonnets or haikus“O Captain! My Captain!”Loot the coffers and bring us poemsEnough to fill every schoolStarting in first grade: Jean Narrache for today's dictationFootball players forced to read Marie UguayHeads of the class can tackle VanierBetween math class and phys-edLet's give them credits for each moment of quietWhere speech can grow, all crooked and aliveI call for poetryIn back alleys and on farm roadsLet's have every streetworker pacing the voidWhisper Roland Giguère in misery's earLet's have poets in residenceIn every residence for senior citizensLet's pair every illiterate with a poetAnd pay them to reconquer the wordsThey can paint huge signs in front of psych wards, “Amazing specials inside!”In front of l'Assemblée nationale, “Don't feed the wild ideals”On library stone walls, “Welcome to the Art Therapy Community Centre”I call for poetryLet's have every SAQ cashier recite “La romance du vin”With every purchase of over 20 bucksLet's replace the Hockey Night theme with a poem by PozierLet's ask Anonymous to do their thingSo only works by Josée Yvon can be bought on AmazonLet's canonize Yves BoisvertLet's give Hélène Dorion a Nobel PrizeLet's have lines by Francoeur on rolling paperBeausoleil on boarding passesDesbiens on Trans Canada bus tickets Daoust on tinted glasses that cover the eyesAnd the yous and the theysI call for poetryFrom Miron's country, yet to be chosen and inventedTo the occupied lands of the last First NationsThere's more than Ani Couni, you knowWhy not teach Joséphine BaconJean Sioui and Rita MestokoshoLet their voices be heard, YawindaFrom Mohawk lands to Ivujivik, NakurmikI call for poetryIn Chloé Sainte‑Marie's mouth-shaped heartGo ahead and give her a doctorate honoris causaSo she can pawn it for a tiny fraction of her selflessness' worthAnd by the way, Montreal City, where the fuck is your Leonard Cohen Street?Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePoetry and poetsPrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption81846528184653AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. Denis Trudel: (1740)[Translation]Duly noted, Madam Speaker.What about your Hélène Monette Boulevard?My GPS is no use; recognition for poets, it would seemIs harder to find than organic and fair trade cocaineI call for poetryFrom Speak White to Speak WhatFrom Michèle Lalonde to Marco MiconeBy those who blaze the trailsAnd those who draw tears from the pageBy Rodney Saint-Éloi and all our diasporasBy Herménégilde Chiasson, Georgette LeblancAnd all of Acadia straight in the eyeLet the path of poetry stretch outFrom St-Venant-de-Paquette to WendakeLet an artist from Trois-Rivières climb Duplessis's statueTo sculpt Godin's face up thereI call for poetryIn songs, on pages, in rap barsBy Gilbert Langevin, Nicole Brossard, Sol or Manu MilitariIn its noblest forms or proudly bastardizedBy our inspired successorsApathy will never recoverBy its peaks and rootsIts iridescent brothers and incandescent sistersIts promises that we will hold highWith arms open wideI call for poetryI call for poetryHoping that you will answerI have a minute and a half left, but I do not know what I could possibly add to David Goudreault's words, what he just said, what I just read. What a magnificent poem.Not many members in the House are artists, which is too bad. We have a lot of doctors and a lot of lawyers. We have engineers. That is fine, but it seems to me that art would help us in our debates. It would help our debates if there were more room for art, music and visual arts. There is also cinema, of course.I could also talk about the precariousness of artists' situations. That is another debate. It is important, but we do not talk about it very much. In Quebec, 80% of artists earn less than $20,000 a year. That is the poverty line. These are the people we see on our phones, watch on television and hear on the radio. They live in precarious situations, and yet they are the spice of life in this country. They are what makes life worth living. In fact, for people who spend most of their lives on their devices, we see images, we see photos and we see videos. There are people who create them. There are people who come up with all that. There are ordinary people, and then there are artists. These people need to be paid properly, like everyone else. They have to be able to earn a living, because we need them. We need them more than ever in these difficult times.ArtistsParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePoetry and poetsPrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption81846578184658818465981846608184661AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1740)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, today I am reminded why I love Quebec culture. I thank the hon. member.(1745)[English]It is an honour to stand today on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam to talk about the arts. Port Moody is, by design, the city of the arts due to its vibrant arts and culture scene. Not only does it have a strong community of artists, including painters, sculptors and potters, but many of these individuals also have public art installations across Canada. I will speak of one today: Sara Graham, who shared her vision with the world by installing On the Other Side of Tomorrow at the entrance of the Gordie Howe International Bridge in Windsor. Congratulations to Sara.Port Moody is home to various arts institutions, such as galleries, theatres and studios, which provide spaces for artists to showcase their work and for the public to engage with the arts. It boasts numerous public art installations throughout the city, including sculptures, murals and interactive pieces. These artworks contribute to the cultural identity of the city and enhance public spaces. Overall, Port Moody's commitment to fostering creativity, supporting local artists and celebrating cultural diversity has earned it the moniker “City of the Arts”. The Port Moody Arts Centre, which recently celebrated its 25th year, is a hub for artistic activities in the community. It offers a wide range of art classes, workshops, exhibitions and events for people of all ages and skill levels. The centre also houses galleries where local artists can display their work. In Coquitlam, Place des Arts is a non-profit arts education centre offering classes and programs in visual arts, music, dance and theatre for people of all ages in the historic part of Maillardville, the largest French quartier in British Columbia. It also hosts exhibitions, concerts and performances by both local and visiting artists.These organizations play vital roles in fostering creativity, supporting artists and enriching the cultural life of the Port Moody and Coquitlam communities. It is exciting to think that with the passing of this bill, and I thank the member for Cloverdale—Langley City, and the introduction of a new visual arts laureate position in Canada, artists from communities across this country would get more visibility.Having visual arts laureates is important as a form of recognition for an artist's excellence and contributions to the field. It acknowledges their talent, creativity and impact on the cultural landscape and communities. Visual arts laureates often serve as ambassadors for the arts, promoting artistic expression, creativity, cultural enrichment and more. Their public visibility can help raise awareness of the importance of the arts and encourage support for artistic endeavours. This is needed now more than ever, as postpandemic times and the unrest in the world are leaving people feeling more isolated and lonely.Visual arts laureates not only inspire emerging artists but also can excite community. Their success stories can motivate others to pursue careers in the arts and can engage a community to learn more about its own and other cultures.One of the outlined requirements of the new visual arts laureate role is to have it represent the cultural identity and diversity in Canada. The laureate role has an opportunity to reflect different perspectives, traditions and experiences through the arts. The appointment can help ensure that a variety of voices and artistic practices are celebrated and supported, most often without words or language, making it truly inclusive.Visual arts laureates have the potential to bring community together by engaging communities through public events, workshops and educational programs, fostering connections between artists and their audiences. Their involvement plays an important role in celebrating, promoting and having vitality in community.Canada is home to a diverse range of artists, and I wanted to take this opportunity to highlight some indigenous visual artists, each with their own unique style and techniques. These artists create powerful and thought-provoking artworks that contribute to the rich tapestry of Canadian history. I will point out that my NDP colleague from Nunavut said that indigenous artists should be part of the diverse rotation of the new laureate.I speak of Rebecca Belmore, who is an Anishinabe artist from Ontario, whose work addresses issues of indigenous identity, politics and social justice. She also received the Governor General's Award in Visual and Media Arts in 2013. Also, Christi Belcourt is a Métis visual artist based in Ontario, whose intricate and vibrant paintings celebrate indigenous culture, environmentalism and community. There are so many incredible visual artists in Canada and I look forward to this bill creating an additional platform for Canadians to see and learn from.The richness of visual arts is a gift to society, and we must nurture it. At the same time, we must protect it. The creativity and ideas of artists must be protected. I think specifically about how artificial intelligence tools have brought numerous benefits to artists around the world and yet, at the same time, have put their craft and the ownership of their own ideas and work at risk.AI tools can create art using people's thoughts and ideas, and this can lead to infringements on copyrights of artistic styles and works. The availability of Al-powered tools, like image editing or video production, may lead to a devaluation of traditional artistic skills and craftsmanship. As Al automates certain aspects of the creative process or replicates them entirely, we risk losing artists' autonomy and society loses some of those skills and techniques that have been passed down by generations. This also raises ethical concerns about the use of Al in arts. Authorship, cultural appropriation and fair compensation are potentially at risk. For example, if an artist uses Al to generate artwork based on images or data created by others, questions may arise regarding the ownership of the resulting work and the ethical implications of using it. Another concern with Al entering in to the visual arts space is algorithms that can implant inherent biases. Discriminatory outcomes in Al could affect creative projects. On the topic of fair compensation, artists already struggle to make a living from their art. The automation of certain artistic tasks through Al tools may lead to further job displacement for artists working in industries where Al technologies are adopted on a large scale. For example, Al-generated visual arts could potentially replace human-created content in commercial applications, reducing opportunities for professional artists to earn an income. In closing, New Democrats want to be sure that the Speakers of both chambers exercise a fair and equitable process to select a parliamentary visual artist laureate because these are the important issues that they will be dealing with, as well as educating and sharing their beautiful art with the world. With so much talent in our country, we know this is going to be a very busy job, and the NDP supports it.Artificial intelligenceArtistsEqual opportunitiesIndigenous peoplesMulticulturalismParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Selection processSenate billsThird reading and adoption81846628184663818466481846658184666818466781846688184669818467081846718184672818467381846748184675818467681846778184678DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89258JohnAldagJohn-AldagCloverdale—Langley CityLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AldagJohn_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionMr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who spoke in favour of Bill S-202 today.As we discuss what is hopefully the final version of Bill S-202, I am filled with a profound sense of pride in our nation's rich cultural heritage. Canadians have much to offer and, in honour of this, we ought to continue forward with the establishment of a parliamentary visual arts laureate. Again, I would like to thank those who worked on and pushed for this legislation over many years. I thank Senator Patricia Bovey for her tremendous efforts in ensuring a genuine appreciation of the arts makes it to the House once more. I would like to thank Senator Wilfred Moore and Senator Andrew Cardozo, who have shown perseverance and commitment to this bill. Lastly, I would like to extend a heartfelt thanks to all who contributed to getting Bill S-202 to this stage.The creation of the parliamentary visual arts laureate to go alongside the parliamentary poet laureate strengthens our recognition of the arts, while fostering a sense of pride for our country that Canadians express in the creation of their artwork. Even the very building we are in today is visited by people across Canada and from around the world for its beauty, artistic appeal and the history captured within its walls. There is no place better suited to support the continuing legacy of Canadian art through a resident artist than here.Canada's stories, and our cultural and linguistic diversity are demonstrated in their most raw form when we, as parliamentarians, intentionally recognize our fellow citizens' abilities to strengthen our Canadian culture. When I worked as the Township of Langley's cultural services manager from 2019 to 2021, my discussions with artists heightened my understanding of how crucial art is to our resilience. Our communities flourish when we respect and encourage the creation of art within them. Art celebrates with us, mourns with us, encourages us and inspires us. Art captures moments of our history for reflection and lifts our spirits when we need to take the next step forward.By supporting artists through the creation of a parliamentary visual artist laureate, we are taking the next step forward to ensure that Canada remains a beacon of artistic excellence for generations to come.Parliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption818468181846828184683818468481846858184686GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessParliament of Canada ActInterventionThe Speaker: (1755)[English]Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 14, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredParliamentary Visual Artist LaureatePrivate Members' BillsS-202, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Visual Artist Laureate)Senate billsThird reading and adoption8184690MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1525)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 627Government billsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8178555GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1535)[Translation]Amendment negativedI declare the amendment lost.[English]I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 24 minutes.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 626Extension of debateGovernment billsGovernment ordersReasoned amendmentsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176421GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerPeterFonsecaMississauga East—Cooksville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to notify you that will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member of Parliament for Regina—Wascana.The Conservative Party is the party of free trade in Canada. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney and former president Ronald Reagan signed the first free trade agreement in 1988. There was a lot of resistance at the time from a lot of nay-sayers who were saying things like we were going to lose our sovereignty as a nation.People were saying that our agricultural sector would not be able to compete with the warmer States with longer growing seasons. Others said that our manufacturing sector would not be able to compete fairly against the bigger, more powerful, highly industrialized U.S. economy. I remember this one very well: Our wine industry was not going to be able to compete with wine regions in California. I can assure members that Okanagan Valley wines have only become better and better over the intervening years, because competition makes us better. We say to bring it on.Conveniently, in that free trade election in 1988, for all the nay-sayers, the protectionists and the Chicken Littles, who were saying this time the sky really was falling if we were going to remove protective barriers, there was the Liberal Party where they could park their votes. Its leader at the time, John Turner, said that a free trade agreement with the U.S. would Americanize us. Does that sound familiar? We hear the same today. The Liberal Party is always fearmongering about what the Conservatives might do, cozying up too much with the United States. The more things change, the more they stay the same.Happily, the Conservatives won the election in 1988, and the free trade agreement, the FTA, came into effect on January 1, 1989. By all measures, it was a roaring success for both countries. Canada and the U.S. were both wealthier and had more powerful economies on the account of free trade. It turns out that Adam Smith and other classical economists were right and that the wealth of nations is built on the ability of free people to trade freely with each other and of free countries to be able to trade freely with other countries.The FTA was just the beginning. Soon the Liberals, the great imitators, also became free traders, and they brought Mexico into the fold under the North American FTA, or NAFTA as we call it. However, it took another Conservative government, under the leadership of former prime minister Stephen Harper, to bring about an ambitious free trade agenda, which encompassed many countries around the world: in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region and, of course, Ukraine, which is what we are talking about today. In 2015, late in former prime minister Harper’s administration, we entered into a free trade agreement with Ukraine.Canada’s relationship with Ukraine is very important, not only because of the 1.3 million Canadian citizens who claim a Ukrainian heritage, but also because of the half a billion dollars of trade annually between the two countries. That is a relatively small amount of money compared to our trade with some other countries, but it is growing, and that is important.It is also important to recognize that coal has been part of that $500 million. Of course, Ukraine, like many countries in the world, is trying to get off coal and to substitute it with cleaner-burning energy. Canada is conveniently situated for that as well because we have a lot of natural gas available. It burns much cleaner, and we want to make it available for countries like Ukraine to get off coal and for countries in the Asia-Pacific region as well.Unfortunately, the Liberal government, under the current Prime Minister, thinks Canadian natural gas should stay in the ground. Many countries are looking for a reliable supplier of natural gas, and they have come to Canada asking us to come to the table. This includes Germany, which is looking for a way to cut its dependence on Russian natural gas. Yes, that is the Russia that, two years ago, invaded Ukraine in an illegal war and is indiscriminately bombing cities and killing its citizens. It is using sale proceeds, the cash it receives from selling liquid natural gas, to fuel that war. Indirectly, we are now helping President Putin build up his war chest. (1615)Canada could be of real value here. What better way to help our Ukrainian friends than to do our part to cut off Putin's money supply.Astonishingly, the Prime Minister told our friends in Europe, “Sorry, there is no business case for LNG.” That is unbelievable. The Americans certainly saw a business case, and where Canada dropped the ball, they picked it up and ran with it. They are now building LNG export facilities and getting ready, and they are already starting to fill the demand for clean, ethical natural gas for countries that want to get off coal and get as far away from Putin as possible.The Prime Minister did see a business case relating to the natural gas industry, and that was to actually do business with Mr. Putin. Canada's PM wants to keep Canadian natural gas in the ground, but he delivered a powerful turbine to Putin so that he could increase Russian natural gas production for sale to the world and, with that cash, could build up his war machine against Ukraine. That is just not what friends do.Canadians are getting tired of the Liberal Party hypocrisy and are looking forward to the day when a common-sense Conservative government would stand up to dictators like Putin and would turn dollars for dictators into paycheques for our people. That is what the Conservative Party stands for.Today, we are talking about Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. The existing free trade agreement is now 25 years old and needs to be revisited and updated. We agree with that. However, in the meantime, the old agreement, the one negotiated by former prime minister Harper, is still in place and still functions.Conservative members on the international trade committee have been working very diligently to improve this bill that is before the House today so that we could be in a position to vote on it unanimously and to pass it through. Here are some things the Conservative members on the committee wanted to improve. They wanted to include a commitment from Canada to provide weapons and munitions to help Ukraine in its defence against Putin's illegal invasion. That is what friends do in a time of war.We want to include a plan to sell Canadian LNG to Europe so that it would no longer provide Putin with the cash he needs to fund that illegal war. That is a common-sense solution and a step forward.Importantly, we also want to delete the provision in this revised agreement promoting carbon tax, because Conservatives want to axe the tax. I am sure everybody in the House has heard that many times already. We call it the inflationary tax on everything that Canadians do not need and that is ineffective, and that is exactly what we would do if we form government after the next election.Sadly, all those common-sense recommendations were voted down by the other parties. Today, we now have before us a weaker, inferior product. We were hoping, until the vote earlier today, that it would go back to the committee for improvement.I just want to touch very quickly on the history of the Conservative Party's support for Ukraine. It is important for people to understand this. Common-sense Conservatives, under our leader, have a long and proud history. We stood with Ukraine when President Zelenskyy asked the Prime Minister not to sign an export permit for that gas turbine that I talked about a minute ago. We stood with Ukraine when it asked for a reliable source of weapons and munitions, and we are still waiting for the Liberal government to deliver on that.We stood with Ukraine when we asked the Prime Minister to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Putin and his oligarchs. Our history goes back many years. The Conservative government, in 1991, became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence from the Soviet Union. We stood with Ukraine when the Harper government undertook Operation Unifier to provide critical military training to Ukraine, which was very much appreciated. Of course the agreement that we are talking about today, which I already mentioned, was negotiated by a Conservative government.We are very proud of our long-standing relationship with Ukraine. We will always stand with them because that is what friends do.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementFree tradeGovernment billsNatural gasSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817651781765188176519817652081765218176522817652381765248176525817652681765278176528817652981765308176531817653281765338176534817653581765368176537MaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, it was interesting hearing the member opposite speak. He, like other members of the Conservative Party when they have been speaking to this bill, spoke about nostalgia. They invoke what Diefenbaker did and what Mulroney did in 1991 or whatever the case may be. What do the people on the front lines of Ukraine need right now? They need help today. Most of the people on the front lines were not born when Mulroney was prime minister. What they need is help today.It concerns me that these Conservative MPs consistently vote against the free trade agreement, against military support for Ukraine and against Operation Unifier to train Ukrainian soldiers. These are things President Zelenskyy has asked for. These are things the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has asked for.My question for the member opposite is this: Why will he not stand with the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, with President Zelenskyy and with the Ukrainian people in their existential fight for their survival and our security?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176538817653981765408176541TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tako Van Popta: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, the people the hon. member opposite is talking about were certainly alive when Canada shipped a gas turbine to Russia that, unbelievably, allowed Russia to increase its production of natural gas, which is sold to western Europe to raise more money to feed the war machine that is killing Ukrainian people today. Do they know that?He talks about nostalgia. Of course many Canadians are nostalgic for the great days of Conservative governments, and they are looking forward to the day when another Conservative government will be formed in this House. We would fix a lot of the errors the Liberal government made, including ensuring the munitions President Zelenskyy is asking for will actually be delivered.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81765428176543YvanBakerEtobicoke CentreElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a common misconception that liquefied natural gas is somehow good for the climate. The recent decision by the U.S. White House to pause LNG investments to protect the climate is an illustration of the point that, especially where LNG comes from fracked sources, the release of methane means LNG is not only not better than coal but also, on the entirety of its production life cycle, LNG has just as much carbon as burning coal. It is just that it is emitted at a different point in its life cycle.I ask my hon. colleague from Langley—Aldergrove if he would not agree that it would be better to just call it fossil gas instead of pretending it is somehow a natural product that is distinguished from other fossil fuels.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsNatural gasThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81765448176545TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tako Van Popta: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, on the west coast, we know a lot about natural gas, and we now have the technology to convert it into liquid form, put it onto ships and ship it safely across the country. This is exactly what western Europe is requiring to get it natural gas coming from Russia. It just makes sense that friends should be helping friends out, particularly in a time of war. This is a missed opportunity by the Liberal government.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsNatural gasThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176546ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsTaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley Valley//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105854TaylorBachrachTaylor-BachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BachrachTaylor_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, I enjoyed travelling with my Conservative colleague when the transport committee toured the ports of Canada, and I listened intently to his views on this subject.I had a chance recently to meet in Edmonton with the consul general of Ukraine. We discussed this matter and what he called for was unanimity and the full-throated support of the House. He was a bit astounded that there are members who intend to vote against this free trade agreement. I wonder if my colleague has had a chance to consult specifically with representatives from Ukraine about the content of this free trade agreement and what they have told him.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817654781765488176549TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveTakoVan PoptaLangley—Aldergrove//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105811TakoVan PoptaTako-VanPoptaLangley—AldergroveConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanPoptaTako_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tako Van Popta: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, what a lot of Ukrainians are concerned about is something I read in The Globe and Mail today, which is that apparently the Prime Minister's Office had specifically invited the known Nazi who was here when President Zelenskyy was in the House. The invitation read, in part, “Dear Yaroslav Hunka, The Right Honourable...Prime Minister of Canada, is pleased to invite you to a special event...September 22”. This seems to have come directly from the Prime Minister's Office and Canadians, particularly those of Ukrainian descent, have the right to be concerned about that.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPublic consultationThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176550TaylorBachrachSkeena—Bulkley ValleyMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC): (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I have to admit that, when I first glanced at the title of this bill when it was tabled in the House of Commons last fall, I was glad to see it for a few reasons. The first reason was that Conservatives support Ukraine. Ever since Russia's illegal invasion of that country two years ago, it has become imperative that all countries support Ukraine to preserve the rules-based international order. Otherwise, the international community risks backsliding into a pre-World War II era in which large, powerful countries are able to invade and annex their smaller neighbours with no repercussions. This is a concern I have heard many times in my riding of Regina—Wascana, not just from the many Ukrainian refugees who have moved to Saskatchewan, but also from ordinary citizens with no particular connection to Ukraine. Therefore, anything that we can do to support Ukraine is a good thing.The second reason I had high hopes for this bill is that Conservatives support free trade. Long gone are the days of economic nationalism when governments insisted on an unlevel playing field to protect domestic companies at the expense of consumers. Instead, Canadians and the international community have come to recognize the benefits of free trade. It allows Canadian companies to pursue new opportunities and to find new customers for their products and services, and it allows Canadian consumers to enjoy a variety of products and services from all around the world at the lowest possible prices. In fact, Conservatives' support for free trade goes back many years to the times of former prime ministers Stephen Harper and Brian Mulroney. Finally, I thought that, if nothing else, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement would give us something different to talk about. For example, we have had many, many debates in the chamber about the Liberals' carbon tax. I know I have received many emails and phone calls from my constituents about the carbon tax and how it is making life more expensive every time they fill up their tanks with gas, go to the grocery store to do their shopping and pay their home heating bills. I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about the carbon tax because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the carbon tax. Therefore, I have to say that I was surprised and disappointed to find that the Liberals' carbon tax has made its way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13 of the agreement, which is the environment chapter, under article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage”.Free trade agreements are supposed to be about trade and encouraging the free flow of goods and services between two countries. The free trade agreement should not be about imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine. The same Liberal carbon tax that has been making life more difficult for Canadians would soon be making life more difficult for Ukrainians, assuming this bill were to pass.Not only is a carbon tax the last thing Canadians want, but it is also the last thing Ukrainians need, given that they are in the middle of a war. It would make infinitely more sense to help Ukrainians win the war first and remove every Russian soldier from Ukrainian soil before beginning any talk about a carbon tax and how to implement a carbon tax in the middle of a war zone.I was also hoping that this bill would give us a break from talking about the Liberals' unrealistic net-zero emissions targets. Over the last eight years, the Liberals have come up with a long list of very expensive net-zero emissions targets, including phasing out fossil fuels, restricting fertilizers for farmers and ending the sale of gas-powered cars, which are all initiatives that would make life less affordable for Canadians. Therefore, I thought that this bill would give us a break from talking about these net-zero emissions targets because, obviously, free trade should have nothing to do with net-zero emissions targets. I have to say again that I was disappointed that the Liberals' net-zero emissions targets have made their way into our free trade agreement with Ukraine. (1630)Under chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” Transitioning to net-zero emissions has proven difficult enough for Canadians to do, and we do not have a war going on in this country. We do not have the Russians bombing us every day as the Ukrainians do. It is ridiculous to expect Ukrainians to meet this goal given what they are going through right now.It has also been well documented that the Russians have been targeting the Ukrainian power grid to maximize human suffering. If the Ukrainian power grid is going to be in shambles for the foreseeable future, one can reasonably expect that they will have to rely on various backup diesel generators and gas-powered vehicles for some time to come. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric cars. It is not realistic to expect them to switch to electric tanks or electric armoured personnel carriers. It is not realistic to expect Ukrainian rockets to stop burning rocket fuel, Ukrainian jets to stop burning jet fuel or Ukrainian helicopters to stop burning fuel any time soon.I was also hoping that the debate over this free trade agreement would give us a break from the debate over the phase-out of coal because a free trade agreement should have nothing to do with the phase-out of coal. However, once again, the Liberals' plan to phase out coal has made its way into the free trade agreement with Ukraine. In chapter 13, article 10, Ukraine would be required to “promote the rapid transition from unabated coal power”.It should be plain to see that imposing the phase out of coal will be a major burden to the Ukrainian people, who quite frankly, have more pressing concerns. Approximately 25% of Ukraine's electricity comes from coal, although that number is very volatile, given that they are in the middle of a war and that the Russians have been consistently targeting Ukrainians' power grid. It is very conceivable that Ukraine may have to rely on coal for quite some time to come.When President Zelenskyy addressed Parliament last fall, he could not have been more clear that fighting and winning the war was his number one priority. There are questions that have to be asked. How would this free trade agreement help Ukraine to win the war? How would imposing a carbon tax on Ukraine help them stop more Russian soldiers from occupying Ukrainian soil? How would imposing net-zero targets on Ukraine destroy more Russian tanks? How would shutting down Ukrainian coal plants sink more Russian ships in the Black Sea? Of course, the sad answer is that these measures would not be helpful to the Ukrainian war effort. Therefore, they should not be in this free trade agreement, and they should not be supported.Another topic that President Zelenskyy addressed in his speech in this chamber last September was Russia's weaponization of its energy exports. One of the best things Canada could do to help Ukraine win the war would be to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to western Europe so they can stop buying from Russia. Every dollar that western Europe spends on Russian oil and gas only enables Vladimir Putin to buy more bombs, planes and tanks to use against the Ukrainians. This Liberal government should be embarrassed for not doing more to increase Canadian oil and gas exports to Europe.I think that I can best summarize the differences between the parties in their support Ukraine in this way: Conservatives support Ukraine unconditionally, while the Liberals support Ukraine with strings attached.There is no reason for this free trade agreement to be pushed forward now. The current free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, which was signed in 2017, can stay in place until after the Ukrainians have won the war and are ready to sit down with us. In the meantime, Canada should continue to be generous in welcoming Ukrainian refugees to our country, and we should continue to be generous in our economic and military aid to Ukraine.(1635)As for Bill C-57, I believe that we should not be in favour of the bill. The Liberals should withdraw the bill, and we should let the current free trade agreement stay in place until the war is won. After the war is over—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEnergy transitionFree tradeGovernment billsGreenhouse gasesOil and gasRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81765518176552817655381765548176555817655681765578176558817655981765608176561817656281765638176564817656581765668176567TakoVan PoptaLangley—AldergroveAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member sits with me on the environment committee. During the committee discussions we have talked about carbon pricing mechanisms around the world. Something we have not talked about explicitly is that Ukraine has had a carbon price mechanism with a net effective carbon rate since 2018 and that the EU is working on carbon border adjustment mechanisms that Ukraine is aligning itself with so that countries that do not have carbon pricing mechanisms will effectively be charged a tariff as they export to countries with carbon pricing.Could the hon. member comment on how, if we did not have carbon pricing in Canada, we would actually end up hurting our trade with countries that do have carbon pricing, such as Ukraine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81765708176571AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with that hon. colleague on the environment committee as well. The last time I checked, Ukraine's carbon tax was about one dollar per tonne. Canada's carbon tax is $65 per tonne, and is scheduled to increase to a $130 per tonne by the end of the decade, so I think it is plain to see that expecting the Ukrainians to increase their carbon tax by 130-fold would have a very negative effect on their ability to win the war.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176572LloydLongfieldGuelphRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ): (1635)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am always amazed to hear that we support Ukraine, that they support Ukraine, that everyone supports Ukraine, yet we always find ourselves debating the carbon tax.The Conservative Party's relationship with the carbon tax worries me.Is my colleague's relationship with the carbon tax one of obsession, hyper-fixation, anxiety or insanity?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817657381765748176575MichaelKramRegina—WascanaMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I think we have to start by asking what the carbon tax is doing in the text of this free trade agreement. The hon. member says that we are the ones who are obsessed with the carbon tax, but we are not the ones who put it in there. What is the carbon tax doing in the text of this free trade agreement, if it has no benefit whatsoever to helping Ukrainians win the war? I wish I knew.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176576RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I would agree with some of the other questioners about this false narrative that the mention of carbon pricing in this free trade agreement has anything to do with forcing Ukraine to put a price on carbon, because Ukraine already has a price on carbon. It has had one longer than Canada. The member talks about what President Zelenskyy said. President Zelenskyy, in this place, said to please pass this free trade agreement quickly. It was signed when he was here. I met with the Ukrainian consul general in Edmonton, and he said to please tell my colleagues that they want unanimous support for this from all their supporters around the world, and especially Canadians, and he could not believe what the Conservatives were doing here.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176577MichaelKramRegina—WascanaMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Michael Kram: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I remember when I was here last September for President Zelenskyy's speech. He talked about the need to help Ukraine to win the war and to push the Russians back across the border. He talked about the need to stop Vladimir Putin from weaponizing his oil and gas exports and his energy exports. He talked about the need to prosecute Russian war criminals, and he had a shout-out for the Holodomor memorial in Edmonton. He did not come here to say to please impose a carbon tax on them. He did not come here to say to please phase out their coal and impose net-zero emissions targets on us. I would encourage the hon. member to go back to the video from last September and re-watch President Zelenskyy's speech.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176578RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.): (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of my constituents in Milton on Bill C-57. I have a thriving Ukrainian diaspora in Milton. It is also a privilege to be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.I will start with a bit of a history on this topic here in the House of Commons. On November 21, the House of Commons passed second reading on this bill, which is intended to upgrade the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement to reflect changes that have come about since the deal was first implemented back in 2017.Of course, the most notable of those changes has been the illegal and unjust invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The bill is now going to committee. The vote passed 205-109, with the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and the independents all voting in favour with the Liberals. However, all 109 Conservatives who were present for the vote opposed it back in November. Their official reason was that the bill would impose carbon taxes on Ukraine, but nothing could be farther from the truth.One does not have to take my word for it. Those are the words of New Pathway, that is, Marco Levytsky, an editorial writer. The title of that article is “Conservative Opposition to Free Trade Agreement Makes No Sense”. I could not agree more.As they go on to say in the article, “The text of the new trade deal does not commit either Canada or Ukraine to a carbon tax...As Marianna Kulava a spokesperson for the Embassy of Ukraine said in a statement e-mailed to the Globe and Mail, the 'modernized [Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement] does not include any specific instruments on decreasing carbon footprint, including specific taxation instruments.'” It is all just non-facts and fact-free rhetoric from the Conservatives on this. This article goes on to say:“[The leader of the Conservative Party] appears to be so hungry to win back the...People’s Party of Canada vote, to placate elements within his own base, and to demonstrate his unwavering opposition to carbon taxes, that he would compromise on his support for a democracy whose very existence is under threat”.I could not agree more. It is absolutely shameful. Additionally, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was disappointed that the official opposition unanimously voted against legislation that would update the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. That justification was absolutely nothing more than a red herring. It is shameful to see the Conservatives, time after time, stand in the House to try to justify the unjustifiable position.Again, one does not need to take my word for it. The Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association said, “Our Association is very concerned about the partisan politics displayed by the Conservative Party of Canada when voting on the Second Reading on Bill C-57, which intends to upgrade the current Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.”Ukrainian Canadians and Ukrainians abroad have all been urging Conservatives to reconsider their lack of support for this bill. Canadians want to be able to say that support for Ukraine is unanimous in our country, both in the House of Commons and beyond. It would be great to say that but, sadly, the Conservatives are standing in the way of being able to say that support for Ukraine in Canada is unanimous.Alberta Conservatives recently hosted an infamous far right Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson at a United Conservative Party fundraiser right before Tucker jetted off to Moscow.Since the beginning of this debate, Conservatives have continually tried to tell Ukraine exactly what it needs to win this war, despite the fact that Ukrainian Canadians, the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association and many other spokespeople have been saying exactly what we all know, which is that the support for Ukraine should be unanimous.Conservatives keep “Consplaining” to Ukraine exactly what it needs and what it does not need. It is a new term, and I think it is probably going to stick because all of this fact-free Conservative rhetoric coming from the other side is really emblematic of the Conservative Party just thinking it knows better for Ukraine than Ukraine knows for itself.It would be great to say that our support for Ukraine is unanimous in the House and all across Canada. It is frankly despicable of the Conservatives to continue to spread disinformation, “Consplain” to Ukraine and, frankly, join the ranks of Tucker Carlson in questioning the motives and the necessity of the west to support Ukraine.This bill will go off to the other place, and we know that the only partisan senators in that place are Conservative. I am really hoping that the Conservatives will allow for the Conservative senators to vote with their conscience, vote for Ukraine, vote for democracy and support Bill C-57.(1645)I hope there are still some rational Conservatives on the other side who will reconsider their shameful vote, and vote in favour of Bill C-57.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPolitical behaviourSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81765798176580817658181765828176583817658481765858176586817658781765888176589817659081765918176592817659381765948176595MichaelKramRegina—WascanaAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, there seems to be quite a bit of selective hearing going on on the Liberal benches.The Liberals talk about listening to Ukraine, but Ukraine specifically asked us not to send the turbine to fund the Russian war machine. The Liberals did not listen to that. The Ukrainians asked for LNG, and the Liberals did not include that in the agreement. The Ukrainians have asked us to send munitions, and the Liberals voted against our Conservative motion. Over a year ago, the Liberals promised an air defence system that still has not been delivered.Could the member tell us why the hearing over there is so selective, and when the Liberals are actually going to give Ukraine things that would help them win this war?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar817659781765988176599AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, what Ukraine has asked us for is free trade and an updated free trade agreement between our two nations.The President of Ukraine stood in this place and asked for our unanimous support. Apparently that was too much for the Conservatives. That was just asking too much of the Conservative Party. The President literally came to this place, stood here and said that he hoped Ukraine could count on Canada's unanimous support.This is an honest opportunity for Conservatives to demonstrate that support, to stand in support of a bill that President Zelenskyy, himself, and Ukrainian Canadians, themselves, asked for. They are in the inboxes, and Conservative members know that Ukrainian Canadians have been asking them to reconsider this shameful position on free trade with Ukraine for months now.It is up to them. Yay or nay.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8176600817660181766028176603MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague across the way for a very good speech that called out the quite inexplicable opposition that the Conservatives have to this bill.The Conservatives talk about hearing only what we want to hear, but they are not hearing the President of Ukraine. I met with the Consul General for Ukraine. He asked why we could not pass this quickly and unanimously. He said that they need our support to show the world that Ukraine has unanimous support among its allies. It is the only the Conservatives that are blocking the support.Could the member comment on why Conservatives are taking this stand, although I am not sure how he could explain this?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817660481766058176606Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1645)[English]Madam Speaker, it is absolutely incredible. It is impossible to rationalize why the Conservatives have made this calculation.I have gone on to their social media on occasion to see what the comments are like. It is really clear to me what those comments have led those Conservatives to believe is the right thing to do in this case. There are a lot of pro-Russia comments under the tweets and the Facebook posts of the Conservatives. None of those have been hidden by the Conservatives and none of those accounts have been blocked, despite the fact that many of them are definitely Russian trolls and people who are spreading more disinformation and misinformation.We will not fall for it. We will not placate those far right trolls on the Internet, like some of these Conservatives are so eager and willing to do. We will vote with Ukraine. We will stand with Ukraine. We will support Ukraine until they win this war.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817660781766088176609RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1645)[Translation]Madam Speaker, to echo my colleagues' most recent comments, I think it is a shame to see the Conservatives sending such a negative message not only to Canada and Quebec, but also to the world by saying that we are not unanimous in our support of Ukraine.This is a very simple agreement. In fact, it updates a temporary agreement that was already in place. It implements some important things, including procedures to combat corruption, which is a significant improvement. We know that there is corruption in that corner of the world too. Post-war reconstruction will be massive. It is important that this be implemented.I would like my colleague to tell us about it.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817661081766118176612Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden: (1650)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is simple. Support for Ukraine is simple and easy. It is not very complicated or difficult to understand. Simply put, Ukraine is an ally and a friend of Canada. Supporting Ukraine is straightforward. For some reason, the Conservatives have a hard time understanding that. Why?Right now, support for this bill should be unanimous.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766138176614YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is so excited to hear my speech. I will try not to let him down.Here we are again talking about a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think this is something that we never expected to be a contentious issue when we came back in the fall of 2023, at least for just about every member of each party, except for the Conservatives. However, here we are.The Conservatives have drummed up this narrative. It took them a while to do it. If we go back and look at their record on speaking to this, they did not start talking about a carbon tax or pricing pollution until well into the debate. It was as though, at some point, they realized what their angle was going to be on it and then that became their trumpeting point. I am here to tell them that nobody believes them. Nobody believes their false narrative; nobody, that is, outside of the base that they represent, the same people who went to see Tucker Carlson in Alberta. Nobody, outside of that hard-core base of all right-wing support that the Conservatives are trying to court, believes for a second that this is a real, genuine reason that they are against this. I find it quite interesting how Conservative after Conservative, as we heard from the member for Regina—Wascana moments ago, get up to say the carbon tax that Ukraine has is only this percentage of this, and it was barely nothing compared to what Canada is trying to do or what we are trying to impose. There is nothing in this agreement that says anything about it. As a matter of fact, the agreement goes beyond saying nothing about it. Rather, it actually says that neither country can impose their environmental policies on the other. What Conservatives have picked up on is a little reference to the fact that pricing pollution is something that will happen more in the future and that both countries are aware of this and will respond to it accordingly. That is it. It is in the preamble. The clause has no teeth. There is nothing. As a matter of fact, as I said, the agreement goes beyond that to actually say that neither country can impose its environmental policies or regulations. The Conservatives get up and talk about the Ukrainian people in Canada and their position on this as though they know better than President Zelenskyy and just about anybody else on this matter.Let me read something to my Conservative colleagues, who are heckling me. This is from the League of Ukrainian Canadians, who wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition on December 21, 2023. It reads:Not long ago, the [Conservative Party] was a global leader in support for Ukraine, as Operation Unifier was launched under...Harper...in 2015 in response to the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas. Canadian Armed Forces trained over 40,000 Ukrainian soldiers, modernizing their military doctrine to NATO standards. In return, those Ukrainian soldiers did Canada proud by heroically repelling the Russian invasion forces from Kyiv in February 2022, when the world was predicting the capital would fall within days....And yet, just weeks after voting against the renewal of the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, the CPC voted to cut funding to Operation Unifier. Clearly, the 1.36 million members of the Ukrainian Canadian community see it for what it is: A vote against Ukraine's victory....Many...constituents have spent nearly two years volunteering, advocating, working late nights packing medical supplies into containers, spending their rent money on drones and body armor to keep their friends alive. And some made the ultimate sacrifice by traveling to Ukraine to defend it against Russian aggression. They laid down their lives in the name of freedom for Ukraine and the West, including Canada. They understood that Ukraine must win the war against Russia, otherwise Europe, Canada and the United States will be next in defending themselves against Russian aggression, with soldiers from NATO countries, including Canada, shedding their blood.If Russia is not defeated, it will be as much a threat to Canada in the future as it is to Ukraine today. We are not insisting you make Ukrainian independence your cause. We are just asking you to think through the war in Ukraine and the need to support Ukraine from the point of view of your own interests, as well as Canada's national interests.Most Canadians understand that supporting Ukraine is in Canada's security interest, except apparently the Conservative Party of Canada.(1655)That was a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition on December 21, 2023. Conservatives will come in here and say that Ukraine needs what they say it needs. The only person I know who says that what Ukraine needs is what he says it needs is Vladimir Putin; Conservatives are acting just as he acts with respect to dictating.An hon. member: Oh, oh!Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is getting a good laugh out of this, but it was just two days ago that Tucker Carlson was in Alberta with his premier. Where is Tucker Carlson now? Reportedly, he is in Russia about to interview Vladimir Putin. One would think the member would at least understand that perhaps now is not the best time to be trumpeting these lines, yet he does.I am going to end with this: I have spoken to this many times. It is time for us to finally vote on this. I know Conservatives calculated how they would try to address this in the fall. It was very deliberate: How could they ensure that they would maintain the support of that alt-right movement against Ukraine?Earlier today, I heard a Conservative talk about pining for the good old days of the Republicans and Conservatives, who came together to create these great free trade agreements. Comparing the Conservatives of today to the Brian Mulroney Conservatives is exactly like comparing Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump to Ronald Reagan. It cannot be done. They are two completely different parties. Their logo might be the same colour as the one Brian Mulroney had, and they might have the same talking points, but they are certainly nothing like the Conservatives who brought in free trade, despite pining for those days, as though only they could ever protect free trade. It is quite the opposite. Conservatives are going down the exact same route as are the alt-right Republicans I previously mentioned. That is where they are going. That is the base they are trying to protect. I will remind them that nobody believes this narrative they have created around a price on pollution and not supporting Ukraine, even after the President of Ukraine himself stood five feet from where I am standing and asked us to support it. Nobody believes their false narrative on this, because they are wrong.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOperation UNIFIERThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766158176616817661781766188176619817662081766218176622817662381766248176625817662681766278176628817662981766308176631817663281766338176634Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonMichaelKramRegina—Wascana//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89080MichaelKramMichael-KramRegina—WascanaConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KramMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, I remember when President Zelenskyy was addressing Parliament last September. I paid very close attention to his speech. When I checked Twitter that evening, it seemed that the member for Kingston and the Islands was not paying attention to the speech; rather, he was recording a video of the leader of the official opposition and making fun of him for the way he was clapping. Could the member for Kingston and the Islands explain to Parliament how his actions have helped promote public support for Ukraine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766358176636MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I can confirm that I definitely shared that video. However, I did not record it.I will say this: I find it very interesting that the member wants to talk about what the Leader of the Opposition was doing at the time when the President of Ukraine was here.Do members know that the Leader of the Opposition never once mentioned on his Twitter, Facebook or Instagram feed, or anywhere, that the President of Ukraine was here? He did not make a single reference. As a matter of fact, it was almost like an act of defiance. The member for Calgary Nose Hill had to go back a year to retweet and repost what the Leader of the Opposition had said when the President of Ukraine appeared before us virtually.This is the narrative I am talking about, of trying to deceive and suggest something else is going on. I am sure that, within their caucus meetings, they have had to battle the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on it. He is in the front row now, but he was not before Christmas. I am sure that was the trade-off to get him to be quiet.The reality of the situation is that Conservatives have been against Ukraine because they do not support Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766378176638817663981766408176641MichaelKramRegina—WascanaYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1700)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's disdain for the Conservatives' position. It is deplorable. However, as long as we are discussing the free trade agreement, we should discuss its contents.I would like to hear him comment on a section of this agreement that still allows private companies to sue governments on the ground that they are preventing these companies from fully capitalizing on their investments. The Bloc Québécois considers this problematic, and we believe that a committee should be struck to work on it.Would the member agree that we should study this issue in detail to prevent private companies from being able to sue governments under free trade agreements?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817664281766438176644MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, I would say that, with the amount of time that the Conservatives have spent holding up this piece of legislation, we have had the opportunity to study it thoroughly.The member is right about one thing: It is going to provide private companies the opportunity to work on and to build infrastructure in Ukraine. That is why the Ukrainians and the President of Ukraine are so interested in this deal. He knows he is going to win this war, and he wants to have the necessary tools in place when that happens to start rebuilding the country. This is going to involve investment from outside countries in terms of rebuilding infrastructure. That is where we have the opportunity. This is the trade-off for Canada that will position us well to be part of that rebuilding process of Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766458176646YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1700)[English]Uqaqtittiji, if Parliament were to swallow the amendment like a pill, what would the member say the side effects would be?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176647MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, we voted on the amendment earlier today. The amendment the Conservatives tried to put forward was defeated, and now we are back to talking about the bill without the amendment. I am sorry if that is not what the member was referring to. However, we need to pass this legislation, and the only thing that is really troubling when it comes to it is the fact that it is not unanimous. It should and could easily have been unanimous. This narrative about a carbon tax in here and how that is somehow impacting it is a complete red herring, nothing more, nothing less.It is very unfortunate that the House will not pass this bill unanimously. However, I think that Canadians will remember and that the Conservatives will be held accountable for their vote on it.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817664881766498176650LoriIdloutNunavutGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1700)[English]Madam Speaker, sometimes when I rise in the House I say I have a tough act to follow. However, that is not the case today. I am speaking to Bill C-57, which would implement the agreement that the government negotiated with Ukraine. As has been the case throughout this debate, I will make some general reflections on Conservative support for Ukraine, but it is important to underline that these are two distinct issues. There is the question of whether and how we should support Ukraine, and Conservatives are firmly in favour of supporting Ukraine, and then there is the question of the particular provisions of Bill C-57.Bill C-57 is not a kind of in-a-vacuum endorsement of a relationship with a particular country. Bill C-57 would implement a specific trade deal with specific provisions. Members opposite have said virtually nothing during this entire debate about the provisions in this legislation, about what this deal would actually commit Canada and Ukraine to. I will read the section that is a matter of contention directly from the agreement. It states, “Consistent with Article 13.24, the Parties shall cooperate bilaterally and in international forums to address matters of mutual interest, as appropriate, to”, and then a list follows. I will jump to item (h), which says, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. That is right in the text of the agreement, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”.In speech after speech, members of the government ask where the carbon price is. It is right in the deal that they signed, so let us not pretend that it is not in there, because any Canadian can go online, find the agreement and find this provision, “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”.I have a sense that Liberals do not actually take their word or commitments very seriously. We have seen that over the last eight years. The way they approach this deal is to say that it is only words. They ask why Conservatives care so much. Conservatives take our word seriously. We take documents we sign on to seriously, and we aspire to be people of integrity, so when we see something in a trade agreement that we profoundly disagree with, that is going to impact how we vote on that agreement. When we are committed to a national campaign to axe the tax, when one of our key priorities is axing the tax, when we have assured Canadians that we will axe the tax, it would be a bit of a problem if we just shrugged off a line in an international agreement that would oblige us to “promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. It seems fairly basic that we would note what is in the agreement, evaluate the agreement on the basis of what is in it and then make a decision accordingly while, on the separate point of support for Ukraine, being very clear that the Conservative Party strongly supports Ukraine.It is true that the Government of Ukraine takes a different view of this agreement than Conservatives do, but there are innumerable issues on which the government has previously taken a different view from the Government of Ukraine, including in the midst of the war, in which it has ignored the express priorities of the Government of Ukraine. In fact, as I will get to, there is one instance in which the Government of Ukraine was so upset about a decision of the Prime Minister's that the Canadian ambassador was summoned. That is an unprecedented step. I think it is the first time in the history of Canada-Ukraine relations that the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned as a result of displeasure about the way the Government of Ukraine believed the Liberal government was undermining a global united front in support of Ukraine. The Liberals want us to forget about that by saying this is the most important issue.It is fairly obvious, listening to what the Ukrainian government says, that although we do have a disagreement over certain provisions of this trade agreement, the most important thing to the Government of Ukraine is not the free trade deal but the provisions that we need to undertake to support Ukraine in its victory. Conservatives have been clear and consistent in our support for Ukraine. Let me underline the things we have done and advocated for in the process. (1705)Of course, the invasion of Ukraine by the Putin regime did not start in February 2022. It began back in 2014, when Conservatives were in power, and then prime minister Stephen Harper led the G7 in isolating Russia and applying critical sanctions. Canadian leadership, under then prime minister Stephen Harper, was recognized and was critical to driving a consensus that, as then prime minister Harper said, “Whether it takes five months or 50 years,” we would defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is a commitment Conservatives carry forward.As soon as Liberals took office, they started backing away from that commitment. I recall in this place challenging then foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion, who made the decision to cancel the sharing of satellite imagery associated with RADARSAT. Members will remember that Ukraine was still then at war with Russia, and Canada, under then prime minister Stephen Harper, was sharing satellite images with Ukraine that were useful as part of the war effort. In an effort to appease the Putin regime, Liberal minister Stéphane Dion cancelled the sharing of those satellite images.Where was the member for Kingston and the Islands when that happened? He was more silent then than he is now. Frankly, I would prefer a more silent member, compared to what we get now, but the point is that all of these members who are now eagerly wrapping themselves in blue and yellow had nothing to say when Liberal foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion cancelled RADARSAT image sharing.We consistently advocated for tough sanctions against the Putin regime. We were standing up in this House for stronger measures prior to the further invasion of two Februaries ago. We were saying that pre-emptively, if the government was ready to apply tougher sanctions, it could be a force of deterrence against the Putin regime. We were calling for the sharing of lethal weapons with our Ukrainian allies prior to the invasion, so they could get ready.One does not have to take my word for it. One can find the quotations of members opposite speaking against that. The member for Edmonton Strathcona, the NDP foreign affairs critic, explicitly opposed the sharing of lethal weapons prior to the further invasion of February 2022. We were calling for tougher sanctions earlier, and Liberals and New Democrats were opposing those measures. That is the reality; it is on the record.There were other initiatives. We put forward a motion in this House after the further invasion started, to allow visa-free travel for Ukrainians fleeing the war. Actually, at that time it was the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP who came together and adopted that motion calling for visa-free travel, but the government refused to implement that proposal. We were calling for more generous immigration measures.Of course, one key area where we have led on this side of the House is energy calls. We have long recognized that Canada has a special vocation in the democratic world. Many of our democratic allies and partners, in both Europe and the Asia-Pacific, are geographically small and densely populated nations that need to import energy resources. Canada is relatively unique in the democratic world as a geographically vast, more sparsely populated nation with an abundance of natural resources. We need to develop and export those resources, not merely as a matter of our own economic interest but as a matter of providing the democratic world with the energy security it requires. We have made this case consistently. We have said that Canada has a role and a responsibility, again, not only to create jobs and opportunity for Canadian workers but, in this new cold war reality, to provide our allies and partners with the energy security they need, so they can stand with us for the long haul, defending freedom and justice. When our European partners and our Asia-Pacific partners are reliant on energy from dictatorships, from hostile regimes that do not share our values, it has the effect of weakening our collective resolve and it pours money into the coffers of hostile anti-democratic regimes.It is a security imperative for Canada to develop our energy resources, but the Liberal government has said there is not a business case for that. Of course there is a business case, but there is not, in its mind, an ideological case. It is far more concerned about according with its ideology than it is with the realities of the business case.What the government has done since the further invasion of Ukraine by Russia, rather than support the rapid increase and development of Canada's energy resources to fuel the efforts of our European allies to find energy security, and rather than develop Canadian resources, is to grant a sanctions waiver to allow the export of turbines from Canada to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Europe.(1710)Is that not incredible? This government, when it could have been creating jobs and opportunities for Canadian workers and securing energy security, chose to grant a waiver to allow turbines from Canada to facilitate the export of Russian gas to Europe. It was doing more to export Russian gas to Europe and increase that dependency rather than export Canadian gas. This was the instance in which the Ukrainian government and President Zelenskyy spoke out against what this government was doing. He spoke out clearly and decisively. He summoned the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine. This was particularly important for Ukraine, not only because of the facts of the case, but also because of how Canada, in granting exceptions to sanctions, was seen as creating a dangerous precedent. As we heard at the foreign affairs committee, when we say we are imposing sanctions and then we turn those sanctions into Swiss cheese by granting convenient exceptions, and when every country says, “Well, we're going to impose sanctions but we're going to have this and that exception,” very quickly we do not have a sanctions regime worth the name.This government, then, was undermining that sanctions unity and undermining the opportunity to fuel European energy security, and Conservatives fought back. Conservatives called for special hearings at the foreign affairs committee. We gathered in the summer, we summoned witnesses, we pressed the government hard and we pursued this matter in the face of Liberal filibusters through the fall until we were finally able to force it to reverse course. Conservatives are very proud of that accomplishment and of holding this government's feet to the fire. In every instance, where the government has been weak on supporting Ukraine, whether it has been cancelling rare sat-tech image sharing, whether it has been failing to apply the appropriate sanctions, whether it has been its rejection of our proposals on visa-free travel or whether it has been our championing of energy security, we have always been pushing the government to do far more to support our friends and allies in Ukraine, and this has continued to the present day. When Bill C-57 came before committee, notwithstanding our concerns about the bill, we did try to improve it. Conservatives put forward many amendments that would add specific provisions to Bill C-57 to deal with getting weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine has been very clear about this, that what Ukraine needs to win this war is weapons. Many have said, and rightly so, that we must be with Ukraine for as long as possible. I agree that we must be with Ukraine for as long as possible, and we must also help Ukraine win victory as quickly as possible, because when the Liberals say they will be there for as long as possible but then take as long as possible to actually deliver the support that is required, well, that is not doing much good, is it? Let us be there for as long as possible and let us deliver the vital, necessary aid as quickly as possible. Let us do both, as long as possible and as quickly as possible, so that Ukraine can secure a clear victory faster.What we have seen throughout the course of this war is that delays in delivering essential weaponry have allowed the Russian army to further entrench its defensive positions. If only the western world had stepped up to quickly deliver vitally important weapons and defence systems right out of the gate, then Ukraine would be in a much better position. Of course, Ukrainians have fought heroically, but we must have their backs, not only with words but with deeds, not only with photo ops and announcements but by actually delivering Ukraine the weapons that it requires. I put forward amendments to the bill at committee that would have done a number of things. The amendments that I put forward on behalf of the Conservative caucus would have established a legal requirement for the federal government to create a long-term plan to increase defence production, with a particular emphasis on defence supplies required by the armed forces of Ukraine and the Canadian Armed Forces. The amendments would have established a legal requirement for the Minister of National Defence to periodically review Canada's inventory of military equipment and offer to donate to Ukraine any military equipment that is surplus or is no longer useful to Canada. The amendments would have added Ukraine to the list of open-policy countries eligible for expedited review of arms exports, significantly reducing the time required for review before arms can be shipped to Ukraine.(1715)Finally, through those amendments, we sought to require EDC and BDC to support investments aimed at developing Ukraine's domestic munitions manufacturing industries.If Conservatives were in government, we would have negotiated a better free trade deal that would have included provisions like this to actually get Ukraine the weapons it needs, instead of putting the emphasis on “carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage risks”. Whether it is on the issue of blocking Canadian energy development or putting divisive carbon tax measures into the agreement, we see how Liberal radical ideology seeps into everything they do and gets in the way of doing the right thing to support Ukraine.Conservatives would have zeroed in on the essential needs of Ukraine. If we were in government, we would have negotiated and proposed a better deal that would have been good for Canada, good for Ukraine and that would have focused on delivering weapons. Sadly, all the amendments I put forward at committee were opposed and blocked by the NDP-Liberal coalition. They opposed our efforts to get those weapons to Ukraine through the amendments that we proposed. What a shame.We have persisted. This past Friday, in fact, the Conservative leader announced a proposal calling on the government to transfer rockets to Ukraine. These are rockets that the government has slated for disposal. We think a better way to dispose of them is to give them to Ukraine so they could drop them on the Russians. In fact, our analyses show that giving these weapons to Ukraine would be less costly than disposing of them here. What has stopped the government from doing this? It is hard to explain.We can see a myriad of announcements made by the government regarding Ukraine and no action. It is A for announcements and F for follow-through. The Liberals talk about solidarity, but they fail to deliver. This is consistent with the government's approach across the board. It wants to use this issue to create division in the House, but it has failed to actually deliver on the weapons. I would like to briefly say a couple of additional things about support for Ukraine. It is so important that all of us come together to support Ukraine. When I have conversations with people about this, some of them ask questions. They ask if it is a complicated situation. It is not a complicated situation. It is an entirely uncomplicated situation. It is the most uncomplicated situation one could imagine.The Government of Russia chose to invade another sovereign state in order to try to steal its territory. It did so after signing an agreement, the Budapest memorandum, that committed it to recognizing Ukraine's territorial integrity. It signed a binding international agreement recognizing Ukraine's territorial integrity. It broke that agreement by invading in order to steal territory.This is clearly the kind of precedent we cannot allow. If we allow it, it will create a more dangerous world. Ukraine can win and will win with the support of the west, the consistent, persistent, steadfast support of the west. We must be there to back Ukrainians up, and that does not just mean making announcements. It means delivering the weapons, because to win a war, one needs weapons, not announcements.I challenge the Liberal government to put actions behind its words. This is not just about territory. The choice between living in Ukraine and living in Russia is not just a matter of what state they are in; it is a choice about the kind of political system they have. Ukraine is a free society, where people can choose who they associate with, what they say, what they believe and how they worship. In Russia, every person is completely beholden to and dependent on the state. In Russian-occupied Ukraine, we are seeing the mass stealing of children. It is a brutal story of the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children, forced into propaganda programs and, in many case, used as soldiers against Ukraine.The choice is not only about territory or what state people are in, but also about the kind of system they live in. That is why Ukrainians are prepared to fight and to die for their freedom for as long as it takes. Let us be with them as long as it takes, but let us help them win as quickly as possible with weapons.(1720)C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingEconomic sanctionsFossil fuelsGovernment billsMilitary equipment and facilitiesMilitary weaponsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81766518176652817665381766548176655817665681766578176658817665981766608176661817666281766638176664817666581766668176667817666881766698176670817667181766728176673817667481766758176676817667781766788176679817668081766818176682817668381766848176685817668681766878176688MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1720)[English]Madam Speaker, if we are to believe what the member just said, if we are to believe that this free trade agreement is only about the price on pollution and if we are to believe that, other than that, Conservatives completely and fully support Ukraine, can the member explain why, when his party separated 138 items on a budget, he and his Conservative colleagues voted against supporting Ukraine for Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance? They voted against the military.What people are going to hear from them is that those were confidence votes, and they always vote against the government on a confidence vote. I have news for them: They could have voted for just those two items and still could have had 136 other opportunities to vote on confidence.Why could they not have brought themselves to vote for just those two issues with respect to supporting Ukraine if there was not more to it than what he is proposing?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOperation ReassuranceOperation UNIFIERThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817668981766908176691GarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, let us be clear: What the member opposite is doing is quite malicious. What he is trying to do is to exploit situations where people may not understand details of our parliamentary procedure to create a false impression about where Conservatives stand on the issue.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOperation ReassuranceOperation UNIFIERThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176692MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, he is saying that I am trying to be malicious, and members are not supposed to infer that any member is not acting in an honourable way. If the member is saying that I am being malicious just because I am pointing out what he did, then he should just answer the question.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementFalse or misleading statementsGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176693GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanAlexandraMendèsBrossard—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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I would have expected a thicker skin from that member, especially given what he says about other members.Here is the point: He is, through this line of argumentation, trying to exploit what may be a gap in some people's understanding of the mechanics of the parliamentary process. The way the process works is that when we are voting non-confidence in the government, we are voting non-confidence in the government. Through that vote, we are expressing the fact that we do not have confidence in the government.Of course, if we go through the budget, we would find there are specific measures we would maintain, and there are specific measures we would change or alter in some way, naturally. We have been clear, and we will continue to be clear that we do not have confidence in the NDP-Liberal coalition. We do not have confidence in it because of the damage it is doing in this country and, in part, because of its failure to actually deliver the support Ukraine requires.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817669581766968176697AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104922LucDesiletsLuc-DesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesiletsLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): (1725)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are being disruptive, and not necessarily in a good way. They are relentlessly harping on the carbon tax, almost to the point of obsession, and that makes me worry for the future. If that party takes power in Canada, how is Canada going to be able to sign even the simplest little international treaty? What will international relations with the rest of the world be like? I am worried about that, because we have before us an incredibly simple bill. I wanted to comment on that.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81766988176699GarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is asking how a Conservative government would possibly carry out international relations if it does not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. It is very simple: We will not sign agreements that include a carbon tax. We will negotiate to ensure that agreements we sign do not include a carbon tax.In this particular case, I think it would be very simple. I have no proof of this, but I suspect that this provision on carbon pricing and carbon leakage is only in this agreement because the Government of Canada wanted it to be in there for political reasons. If we had a Conservative government and a Conservative trade minister saying that we actually did not want a carbon tax in the agreement, I suspect the government of Ukraine would say it was no problem and let us focus on getting weapons into the hands of soldiers who need them to defend their country.I think that standing up for our principles at home and abroad will be entirely uncomplicated for international relations.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817670081767018176702LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1725)[English]Madam Speaker, I keep coming back to something in these debates, and it is just so disheartening. I do not understand it. This is not a debate about the carbon tax. This is a debate about the fact that the leader of Ukraine has asked us to sign this agreement to see that Ukrainians get the help they need.I am hearing from Ukrainians who are being forced to flee their country. They are coming to Canada. The commitment I made to them is that I would do all that I could, in my position, to fight for the rights of Ukrainians at this time.Can the member share why this is turning into a political issue for the Conservatives, when Ukrainians and the leader of Ukraine are asking for this to be put through?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPolitical behaviourThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817670381767048176705GarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, that is an interesting question. If the member is serious about supporting Ukraine and all of its needs, I wish it were her and not her NDP colleague who had been on the committee at the time we considered my amendments. When I put forward my amendments, which would have facilitated more weapons going to Ukraine, the NDP joined with the Liberals in order to block those amendments from going forward. It was her colleague from Edmonton Strathcona who spoke out against giving lethal weapons to Ukraine. The NDP record, in terms of giving weapons to Ukrainian soldiers, is decidedly terrible. I would like us to come together in the House.I would add as well that the NDP has a long history of opposing trade deals. In the past, the NDP has always opposed trade deals. I would never say that because it opposed a trade deal with another country, it does not like, does not support or does not want to have good relations with the country. I respect the fact that New Democrats have come to different conclusions than I have about trade in general, which is why they generally vote against trade deals. However, I think they would understand that anytime we consider a trade deal, we have to consider the particulars of what is in the trade deal. We cannot just say that we like the country with which it is negotiated, so we will pass it. We have to look at the details.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPolitical behaviourThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767068176707Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithMikeLakeHon.Edmonton—Wetaskiwin//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35857MikeLakeHon.Mike-LakeEdmonton—WetaskiwinConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LakeMike_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Mike Lake (Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, CPC): (1730)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party position has consistently been to vehemently oppose a carbon tax, so it is not surprising that we would oppose a carbon tax in a trade deal. What is surprising is the consistent and deliberate pro-Russian energy policy of the Liberal Party. Because we cannot build a pipeline in this country, we imported $400 million of Russian natural gas into Canada in 2021 because of a pro-Russian Liberal energy policy.I wonder if the member can comment on the impact that unwillingness to sell Canadian oil and gas to the international market has on Russian sales of oil and gas around the world.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOil and gasRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767088176709GarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, of course, that Canada produces commodities that Russia also produces, so we are in a unique position to displace those commodities. We are in a relatively unique position to reduce the world's dependence on Russian oil and gas. It is not just Russia. We could give many examples of dictator oil around the world. We could talk about the Burmese regime and how the government's failure to apply sanctions on the Burmese junta, consistent with what our American ally has done, is allowing investments in the Burmese energy sector, which are fuelling that country's campaign of aggression against its own population.In many of these cases, we see how the Liberal government is willing to turn a blind eye to the advancement of dictator oil instead of supporting Canadian energy development. It makes no sense. Canadian energy development is good for Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, but, more importantly, it is good for the advancement of peace, justice and freedom around the world. If we could do something that is good for Canadian workers and good for the advancement of peace, freedom and justice around the world, it is a no-brainer, yet the Liberals, because of their extreme green ideology, are opposing Canadian oil and gas development and are trying to insert carbon tax poison pills into trade deals. It makes no sense. We need a government that puts the Canadian national interest and the cause of freedom ahead of extreme green ideology.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOil and gasRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176710817671181767128176713MikeLakeHon.Edmonton—WetaskiwinAdamvan KoeverdenMilton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105242Adamvan KoeverdenAdam-vanKoeverdenMiltonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/vanKoeverdenAdam_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.): (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is more shameless “Consplaining” from the Conservative member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It is incredible to watch Conservatives twist themselves into knots to try to justify their shameful vote against Ukraine. My questions for the member are simple: Who does their vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement satisfy or make happy? Who asked the Conservative members to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement? It was not one of their constituents. It was not the Ukrainian Canadian Congress or anybody else. Who asked them to vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767148176715GarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1730)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Parm Gill on becoming a Conservative. I know he will ask very good questions in the House.This is a matter of looking at the details of the agreement, which the member clearly is not even familiar with. I read out details that he claimed did not exist. I think it is the responsibility of legislators to know what is in legislation they are voting on. I doubt that the member has even read the agreement. If he read it, he would know that the section I read obliges Canada to promote carbon pricing and measures to mitigate carbon leakage.Conservatives are opposed to that and are supportive of Ukraine. When it comes to supporting Ukraine, the Liberal government should be focusing on delivering weapons, not just making announcements, but actually following up and giving Ukraine the weapons it needs in order to secure victory.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817671681767178176718Adamvan KoeverdenMiltonRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1735)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise here today to speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I have already spoken at length about the bill, but I would like to speak once again, more briefly, about some of the highlights so far.First, I would like to mention once again that the Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over a million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. When Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Shortly after that recognition in 1995, Canada signed an early foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, with Ukraine, so we have always supported attempts to strengthen our trade with Ukraine.The NDP supports this free trade agreement, and our primary concerns centre on the fact that negotiations began before Parliament had an opportunity to have input on our negotiation priorities and how quickly the bill came before us after the agreement was signed. Following accepted practices would not have delayed this agreement or the bill, but could have made it better for both parties. I am happy to say that the minister seems to have changed her behaviour by following proper protocols and practices of the House when announcing imminent negotiations for a new free trade agreement with Ecuador, so I hope that practice will continue in the future.Returning to the Ukraine free trade agreement, we have heard repeatedly from Ukraine how important this new agreement would be to the country and how important it would be to rebuild Ukraine once Russia is defeated and this war is over. President Zelenskyy signed this agreement when he was here in Ottawa last September. Ambassador Yuliya Kovaliv, who came before the international trade committee, of which I am a member, emphasized repeatedly how beneficial this agreement would be to Ukraine and to Canada.The Ukrainian Canadian Congress, which brings together all national, provincial and local Ukrainian Canadian organizations, has pleaded for parliamentarians to support Ukraine by passing the bill quickly and unanimously. Instead, we have seen the Conservatives oppose the bill at every turn using all sorts of tactics to delay its passage. I sit on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and when we were debating the bill the Conservatives tried to introduce amendments that were clearly out of the scope of the bill and, indeed, out of the scope of any free trade agreement. They emphasized what we should be doing to give aid to Ukraine. This is a free trade agreement between two countries; it is not about giving aid to countries. Acceptance of those amendments not only would have delayed the bill, but would have required renegotiation of the free trade agreement, adding months to the process for no benefit when Ukraine is pleading for quick action.We just voted on another Conservative amendment to the bill that would have removed a small mention of carbon pricing in the environment chapter, a mention that put no requirement on either party to bring in carbon pricing or raise carbon pricing. It simply mentioned the fact that both countries agreed that carbon pricing was a good thing, and Ukraine has had carbon pricing longer than Canada. Again, if the amendment had succeeded, it would have sent negotiators back to the bargaining table, all for no reason.When the Conservatives forced all of us to vote in every line item in supplementary estimates in December, a vote-a-thon of over 30 hours that cost over $2 billion to Canadian taxpayers, they voted against all other support for Ukraine, including Operation Unifier, where the Canadian Armed Forces are helping Ukrainian armed forces.The Conservative opposition to support for Ukraine, including the delaying tactics on the bill before us, has not gone unnoticed by Ukraine. Two weeks ago I happened to meet with the consul general for Ukraine in Edmonton, who covers western Canada, and he specifically brought up his deep concerns with the actions of the Conservatives on this file. This is a representative of the Ukrainian government. He pointed out that Ukrainians are fighting and dying, not just for their own freedom, but for democracies all across Europe and around the world, and he pleaded with me to pass on the message that Ukraine needs the full support of all its allies.(1740)Canada, because of its huge Ukrainian diaspora, is one of the most important of those allies. The consul general was mystified and dismayed by the lack of support from the Conservatives on this bill. Therefore, I asked to speak today to pass on his plea, from his government and his entire country to every member here, to pass this bill unanimously and to pass it quickly without delay. I am going to stop early in this speech because I am the last speaker and I hope that this debate will collapse so that we can get to the vote on this bill and pass it right away and help Ukraine by doing what Ukraine has asked us to do.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineUkrainian Canadians817671981767208176721817672281767238176724817672581767268176727GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the chance to rise and ask the hon. member across the way about this agreement. I know we are generally in agreement in this House, with the exception of the Conservatives, on supporting Ukraine and supporting it through trade deals. What has not been talked about a lot in the House is the benefit to Canada of a deal like this. Canada is importing animal fats and vegetable oils from Ukraine and iron and steel where they have expertise in heavy casting, which is used for our agricultural, rail and electrical equipment. Could the member comment on the benefit to the Canadian economy of having a free trade deal with Ukraine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsImportsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176728RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1740)[English]Mr. Speaker, free trade agreements, or fair trade agreements as we like to promote them in the NDP, are beneficial to both parties. They have to be, or nobody would sign them. The reason Ukraine would like us to sign this bill, as the ambassador put it when she was before the international trade committee, is that it would benefit Ukrainian businesses. It benefits Canadian business owners who are working to help rebuild Ukraine after this war is over. It benefits all of us, and that is the reason we negotiate free trade agreements with countries. This is a revamping of an earlier free trade agreement that was done in 2017. I remember speaking to it then. Therefore, these free trade agreements are solely designed to be beneficial for both countries. We can disagree on minor details within those bills and the NDP has concerns about some of the investor-state dispute mechanisms in this bill, but we want to support Ukraine. We are voting very much in favour of it.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsImportsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767298176730LloydLongfieldGuelphLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1740)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can share with us what the international fallout might be if we were not to vote unanimously in favour of this agreement.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176731RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that Ukraine is looking to the world for support in its struggle against Russia. It is looking to the world for fighting the war now and rebuilding later. What is noticed around the world is when countries have divisions within their parliaments and legislatures with respect to support for Ukraine. We are seeing that in the United States. This is very concerning to Ukrainians and they are very concerned about seeing the same pattern here in Canada. They really want to see unanimous support to show the rest of the world that we are behind Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176732LoriIdloutNunavutJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): (1745)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, right now we are voting on a bill to implement an agreement. To my knowledge, members of Parliament are never included in the process of negotiating agreements. We are presented with a fait accompli.Since we cannot amend agreements, what does my colleague think of the attempts that we are seeing in the House to amend agreements and policies, instead of voting on a bill? C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767338176734RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that I would rather we have a culture in this place where Parliament is asked about free trade agreements and negotiations before they happen, which is what I mentioned in my speech about the minister telling us here in Parliament when her team is going into negotiations with another country, in this case Ecuador, so that we can look at that situation and say what our priorities should be for Canadians and Canadian workers. That way we can have an influence over the negotiations and give advice to the negotiators before things happen. As the member said, we are just simply presented with a fait accompli, and we have to vote yea or nay on that. I think we should have more say before negotiations start and we should have a proper amount of time to examine the bill before this debate happens, and that, I am hoping, will happen in the future.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176735JulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, the reality is, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan argued before, that there is no other trade deal that Canada has that has implemented a carbon tax in it. I would argue, and it is a very reasonable argument that can be made, that what Ukraine does not need is a carbon tax; what it does need are weapons. When Bill C-57 went to committee, the member Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan proposed amendments to the bill that would expedite the sending of weapons to Ukraine, and yet the NDP voted against that amendment to the bill. My question is: Why?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767368176737RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1745)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question.I would first say that there is nothing in this free trade agreement that forces a carbon tax or carbon pricing on Ukraine. Ukraine already has that. However, there is a statement in the agreement that says that nothing in this agreement will force either of the two countries to change their environmental policies or laws. That is just a false argument from the start.Second, we had an amendment about Canada providing more military support and armaments to Ukraine. I voted against that for two reasons. One, it was totally out of the scope of the bill and so we could not really listen to that; we could not hear it. Two, this is a free trade agreement. It is about setting the rules between two countries on how they trade with each other. It is not about sending aid to Ukraine. Ukraine needs armaments. I remember the very first day of the war that President Zelenskyy said, “I need ammunition, not a ride”. However, this is a totally separate question. If we had voted in favour of that amendment, it would have sent the whole agreement back to the negotiating table, and it would have set it back weeks or months, who knows how long. Of course, I voted against that. Ukraine wanted this bill passed as it was, it wanted it passed unanimously, and I am proud to say that is what I am doing.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767388176739817674081767418176742JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy hearing Conservatives say, “Mr. Speaker, what Ukraine does not need”. However, what Ukrainians do not need is the member for Barrie—Innisfil telling them what they need. Ukraine does not need that. What Ukrainians need is for the member for Barrie—Innisfil to actually start listening to them when they tell him what they need. A lot of this discussion has been on the carbon tax specifically. I could not help but notice that yesterday even the darling of the alt-right, Elon Musk, tweeted out, “The only action needed to solve climate change is a carbon tax.” Even Elon Musk is jumping on board and saying the same thing.When it comes to the carbon tax, how out of touch are these Conservatives?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817674381767448176745RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1750)[English]Mr. Speaker, I saw that tweet from Elon Musk, and I would disagree with him in saying that it is not the only thing we need, but it is the first thing we need. It is the easiest, cheapest way to bring down our emissions and help solve the climate crisis. We will need to do everything else, but that is the first thing we need to do. We have had it in British Columbia for over a decade and it has worked, despite what Conservatives say, and despite Conservatives telling my constituents that we should get rid of the federal carbon tax to help my constituents; we do not pay a federal carbon tax in British Columbia. However, it is an essential part of any country's fight and any jurisdiction's fight against climate change. I am boggled by the fact that the Conservatives do not get that. I am happy that Elon Musk gets it, because I do not agree with everything Elon Musk says. It is certainly the easiest and cheapest way to fight climate change, and we need to do it and everything else. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817674681767478176748MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ): (1750)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I fear I may disappoint my colleagues, because I will not be talking about the carbon tax. It is often said that the desire to appear clever stops us from actually becoming clever. That is what I will try to show today. I want to comment on Bill C‑57, which seeks to review the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, but I will talk about it in a different way. For centuries, people around the globe have heard Hamlet asking one of the big questions: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” That is the way he put it, but I will rephrase the question: “To be, or to appear to be, that is the question”. In other words, is it better to be or to appear to be? When it comes to free trade, Canada seems to have made up its mind. It has chosen to appear to be. When I think of “appearing to be”, the word that comes to mind is “minimum”, meaning the very least, the bare minimum. The agreement does not say that this is the minimum that we want. It says it is the minimum that we are going to agree on.Last weekend, an article in La Presse caught my attention. The headline read: “Is Canada doing the minimum for Ukraine?” The article quoted authors Justin Massie and Nicolas‑François Perron, who argued that Canada's primary objective is to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. That is a quality it shares with golden retrievers. I am just throwing that in for those in the know.The authors also proved that Canada was doing the bare minimum, favouring actions that look good over those that actually work. In their chapter of a book that is soon to be published—in French, I should mention—by the Presses de l'Université Laval, they scrutinize the help Canada has offered to Kyiv. The authors argue that, far from being a leader in the pro-NATO camp, Ottawa is content to echo the positions of its allies and offer “very modest” military support to Ukraine. They write that “Canada's desired objective has more to do with being perceived as a reliable ally than any other consideration, including Ukrainian victory against Russian aggression”. We need to be clear on that. We are debating the free trade agreement, but it seems like much ado about nothing. The authors also say that Canada's policy is to project a certain image—surprise, surprise—and that waving the maple leaf flag is its main objective. That reminds us that Canada's foreign policy is a bit half-baked. In terms of total aid provided to Ukraine as a share of GDP, Canada is basically a big Portugal. Well ahead of Canada are Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovakia, the Netherlands, Finland, Czechia, Croatia, Slovenia and Portugal. So much for impressing others. Canada has provided significant financial aid in the form of loans. However, if we consider overall aid, including financial, humanitarian and military aid, as a share of GDP, Canada ranks 31st out of 39 countries. Quite honestly, we are currently debating the smallest of details right now. As I was saying, Canada is basically a big Portugal, but we need to be careful. According to those experts, Ottawa is doing just enough in Ukraine to be perceived as a “reliable ally”. They say that this level of action will result in very few political consequences. Basically, that is all that is expected from Canada in its current state. This is not a government priority. One of the experts believes that the government is “more interested in provincial jurisdictions than its own”. That is a subject that the Bloc Québécois cares about. That expert also said that Canada does not have a very good track record.There is nothing new so far. Since 2015, Canada's foreign affairs policy seems to have been vague and opportunistic at best. All the same, there are a few things in the bill worth noting. Of the 30 chapters, 11 are new and were not in the 2017 agreement. I should point out that it was the Bloc Québécois that managed to get the only amendments to the bill adopted, thanks to my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. The agreement is supposed to help people try to curb corruption. They know a thing or two about that. It is no secret that, before Russia invaded, Ukraine ranked pretty poorly on that score.(1755)In any case, the agreement aims to create voluntary codes of conduct and self-regulation so that people can set guidelines for themselves. Frankly, this is a pipe dream. It is not going to happen. The agreement says that it is inviting the countries to work together towards respecting each other's laws. Once again, this is the bare minimum, and no one is reinventing the wheel. Basically, this is the goal in the areas of labour, the environment, gender equality, human rights and corruption. Right now, labour, the environment and human rights are not the main concerns in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that is where we are at, and it comes off as a bit of a lecture.Despite its statement of principle, there is no plan for Canada to meet its commitments, which is problematic, or at the very least unimpressive. It is important to understand that Ukraine is a marginal trading partner for Canada. We are talking about 0.2% of $760 billion. In other words, we are talking a lot about very little in terms of trade. In reality, the revised agreement will have little impact on Canada and Quebec.As I said at the start, everything I have just laid out over the past few minutes shows that we are still in the land of appearances. To appear is to be on show. Speaking of being on show, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made an appearance in Ukraine last weekend to talk about issues that matter to her. To be on show is the bare minimum of taking action. Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill. The risk is low. We are going to try to avoid pointless debates on the carbon tax, which our colleagues are so obsessed with, and focus on offering our assistance to the extent that the bill allows. However, I want to make it clear that, while we may be a reliable ally, reliability is the bare minimum required to be an ally. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsHumanitarian assistance and workersThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817674981767508176751817675281767538176754817675581767568176757817675881767598176760RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayBrendaShanahanChâteauguay—Lacolle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88442BrendaShanahanBrenda-ShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ShanahanBrenda_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMrs. Brenda Shanahan (Châteauguay—Lacolle, Lib.): (1755)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Even though I do not agree with everything he said, his speech was very eloquent. It is a pleasure to hear arguments and a speech that is well thought out.In his speech, he demonstrated how one can be critical of a bill and still support it. I would like him to elaborate on that.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767618176762RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. René Villemure: (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the fact that the debate was hijacked, basically kidnapped by people in the Conservative Party who wanted to turn it into a debate on the carbon tax is deplorable. It is truly unacceptable.We are talking about helping a country at war through a free trade agreement that we are revising. However, we have done everything but that. Frankly, they found problems where none exist, and I completely agree with the member that it is time to take action. Even if the action is minimal, we have to do it. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81767638176764BrendaShanahanChâteauguay—LacolleSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières said, the only amendment made to the bill was our own. It aims to make the agreement a little less about appearances and a little more about obligation.It is all well and good to include several chapters on responsible business conduct, but if there is no real follow-up mechanism, we are left with fine principles. That is why I am quite pleased that the amendment we brought forward in committee was the only one accepted.I was against all of the Conservative amendments because I think it is extremely dangerous to include arms sales in a trade agreement. It is nonsense, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I always voted when it was time to accept their admissibility, because I do not think it makes any sense for us to always be presented with a done deal when it comes to trade agreements.My colleague was apparently an ethicist in a former life. I have read his biography. Does he think it is ethical to have such a lack of transparency or such a lack of control in a so-called house of democracy when it comes to something as important as a huge agreement between countries?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176765817676681767678176768RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. René Villemure: (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague's questions are always straight to the point and quite brilliant.What enables trust in a given environment? I would say that it is the ability to understand. If people want to understand, they need to be informed.Certainly, being presented with a bill, law, or treaty that is essentially a done deal does not allow us to engage with each other and make it our own. We can assess it, but we do not really own it. I believe that our aim here, in the house of democracy, must be to build trust. To do this, we need to be better at sharing information.The risk is quite simple: If we do not build trust, we breed mistrust. If we do not address mistrust, we end up with non-confidence.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176769817677081767718176772Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1800)[English]Division on motion deferredPursuant to Standing Order 45, a recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, February 6 at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8176778MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1000)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in support of this historic legislation to implement the modernization of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.This is an incredibly important agreement for both Canada and Ukraine, and I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what this legislation would accomplish.The Canada-Ukraine bilateral relationship is long-standing, unique and unshakable, and has always been marked by Canada's steadfast support of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Recently, in the face of protracted Russian aggression abroad and rising isolationism here in Canada, Canada's assistance has become even more important. Canadian aid for Ukraine in its time of need has included military, diplomatic, economic and humanitarian support. Trade, an important component of Canada's economic support, should not be overlooked. The modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is an important element in our support to our Ukrainian allies. Not only would it help strengthen the bilateral economic ties between our two great countries; it would provide to the world yet another sign of Canada's unflappable support for our Ukrainian allies. This agreement constitutes a measure of support that would not only offer benefits in the near term; it would extend well beyond Russia's illegal and unjustified war of aggression by strengthening the foundation on which Canadian and Ukrainian businesses could work together during Ukraine's recovery and economic reconstruction and, indeed, underpin the long-term economic relationship between our two countries.We know that Ukraine's economy can benefit from Canadian expertise and investment in key sectors such as infrastructure, resources, energy and finance. This agreement would make it easier for Canadian companies to supply goods and services to Ukraine during reconstruction, as well as to invest and operate in the Ukrainian market with greater confidence while also supporting Ukrainian companies and exporting their goods and services to Canada. As members are aware, the Prime Minister and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy announced their intention to modernize the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine in 2019. This was in response to a clause contained in the original 2017 agreement committing Canada and Ukraine to review the agreement within two years of its entry into force with a view to expanding it. While comprehensive from a trade and goods perspective, the 2017 agreement did not include chapters on trade in services or investment. These areas were specifically identified by the review clause as potential additions, without restricting the parties from exploring other areas. As such, this was an opportunity to make this agreement a fully comprehensive one on par with Canada's most comprehensive free trade agreements.It is toward that goal that our government announced the launch of the agreement modernization negotiations in January 2022. Unfortunately, only weeks after, Russia began its full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. As part of our support to Ukraine, Canadian trade officials relayed to their Ukrainian counterparts that they stood ready to proceed with the agreement modernization discussions in accordance with Ukraine's capacity and willingness to do so.In May 2022, Ukrainian officials conveyed in no uncertain terms that they were ready to initiate and indeed expedite the trade agreement modernization negotiations and that they were eager and determined to move forward to conclude as quickly as possible. Thus, our trade officials got to work immediately with the goal of reaching an ambitious and high standard agreement on a rapid time frame.Throughout the process, and despite difficult circumstances, Ukrainian officials demonstrated eagerness to reach an ambitious outcome within very short timelines with the aim of facilitating increased trade between our two countries, not just to meet the immediate needs of reconstruction but long into the future. This eagerness is reflective of how comprehensive the modernized agreement is with respect to not only trade in goods but also to the new chapters and provisions for investments, services, labour, environment, inclusive trade and others. In this current context, the new areas covered in the modernized agreement would make it much more than just a trade agreement.(1005) As Ukraine's First Deputy Prime Minister Svyrydenko has explained, this agreement is a way to demonstrate that Ukraine's economy is:...built on the same principles of respect for workers and the environment as in Canada. This is the first agreement that confirms that Ukraine shares the trade agenda of Canada, the US, the EU, Japan and our other partners. Its text is based on the standards of the Canada-US-Mexico Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement... In this way, Ukraine is joining... countries that share the [same] principles of economic policy. In fact, this is a modern trade and legally binding economic pact with partners who support our security.This is why this modernized agreement is so important for Ukraine and why, despite truly incredible and daunting circumstances, Ukraine dedicated scarce resources toward that goal and pushed forward this modernization with Canada. Beyond the short-term benefits related to the reconstruction efforts that will be needed, it did so because it recognizes and acknowledges the long-term importance of building and safeguarding an open and inclusive rules-based global trading system, a system that contributes to creating strong and resilient economies and enables long-term growth.Increasing Canada's trade and attracting investment is a priority for this government as is Canada's continued support for Ukraine, both during and long after the war. For this reason, I urge all members to support Bill C-57 and allow this government to move ahead to implement the modernized Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement on a timely basis.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInternational development and aidRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8173978817397981739808173981817398281739838173984817398581739868173987817398881739898173990AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMichelleRempel 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.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1005)[English]Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague opposite, in the context of this agreement, will commit right now to talking to the Prime Minister and to his caucus to strongly commit Canada to repurposing seized Russian assets back to Ukraine. Will he commit to ensuring that Canada leads a G7 effort to send back seized assets to Ukraine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussian CanadiansSeizure of assetsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8173991FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I will entertain a conversation with the Prime Minister if she entertains a conversation with the leader of the official opposition to ensure its support of Bill C-57 and its support for Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussian CanadiansSeizure of assetsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8173992MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill.The 2017 agreement, which was essentially negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservative government, was mostly about extending a hand of friendship to Ukraine in the wake of the 2014 Russian invasion. As members know, the negotiations ended in the summer of 2015, just before the election, but the agreement was signed by the current government during the Ukrainian Prime Minister's visit to Ottawa in 2016, and it took effect in 2017. It was negotiated by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, but now it seems as though the Conservatives are no longer on board.Why is that and what impact will that have?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817399381739948173995FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. I do not know what happened to Brian Mulroney's party, which believed in free trade agreements. For some reason, the leader of the official opposition decided to no longer support an agenda that promotes free trade, even though the President of Ukraine clearly indicated that he wants Canada to support this free trade agreement. I do not understand what is happening to the Conservative Party in 2024.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8173996GabrielSte-MarieJolietteGregMcLeanCalgary Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105623GregMcLeanGreg-McLeanCalgary CentreConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McLeanGreg_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, let me ask my colleague a question on words versus actions on this. I see a lot of paper and a lot of words, but as far as the actions and supporting Ukraine go, the government has been a day late and a dollar short almost every time.Will the member commit to actually supporting Ukraine, as he, his party and his government have not done in the past, including returning the turbine when President Zelenskyy said not to return the turbine and cutting off the oil trade that Russia was importing into Canada far later than this party recommended they should, because that is funding the war for Russia on Ukraine?Will the member commit to actually performing better as far as the real metrics go, as opposed to the paper metrics?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOil and gasRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar817399781739988173999FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, we can all strive to do better, and I would encourage that member to do better as well and to support Bill C-57.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsOil and gasRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8174000GregMcLeanCalgary CentreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I am finding it odd that we have Conservative members who are actually standing up asking about the government's position with regard to Ukraine when, in fact, what we have witnessed is that the Conservative Party has completely abandoned Ukraine on this very important issue of Canada-Ukraine trade. For the first time ever, Conservatives are going to be voting against a trade agreement.I am wondering if my colleague would not agree with me that there is a possibility of an oozing of hypocrisy and disappointment all in one in regard to the way the Conservative Party today is treating a very important trade agreement.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740018174002FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Francis Drouin: (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member. We know that the leader of the official opposition is getting advice on high grocery prices from a lobbyist called Jenni Byrne, but I am wondering if they are now getting advice on foreign policy from Tucker Carlson, who has been a strong advocate in support of Russia. I just do not understand where the Conservative Party of Canada is going with the lack of support for Ukraine. It is about high time they stand up and support Ukraine and pass this bill as soon as possible.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740038174004KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1010)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.First of all, I want to start by saying unequivocally that the Conservatives support Ukraine. I want to say it again, because there has been a lot of misinformation from the other side. Conservatives stand with and unequivocally support Ukraine as we always have.In 1991, it was a Conservative government that was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, and it was under the Stephen Harper government that the initial Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was negotiated. Therefore, we already have a free trade agreement. I think the discussion today needs to be about what should be in the agreement and what should not be in the agreement.I also want to share with the House my personal support for Ukraine. When the war first happened and people had to flee, the Liberal government failed to send planes to rescue them. It created a bureaucratic, two-month process to obtain papers to get here. I hired extra staff in my office and worked with local organizations and with people on the ground in Ukraine to bring 200 families to Sarnia—Lambton, to find sponsor homes for them, to get jobs and English training services for them, so, unequivocally, I support Ukraine.However, let us look at the Liberal record. Initially, when President Zelenskyy asked to please not provide a turbine to Russia so that it could fuel and fund its war machine, the Liberal government sent the turbine. It allowed Canada to supply detonators for mines that are being used to blow up Ukrainians. How in any way is that support? Ukrainians have asked Canada for our LNG to replace the Russian fuel they were using, and Canada refused. That is something that ought to be in this agreement, but it is not. Also, although the Liberal government promised the surface-to-air missiles over a year ago, they still have not been delivered. Clearly, there is a problem in terms of the Liberals listening to what Ukraine is asking for because none of that is in here. Instead, the Liberals decided to put carbon tax language into this agreement. The Conservatives have negotiated over 50 trade deals, and all the trade deals that have ever been negotiated with Canada have never contained any of that language. Why was it necessary, since Ukraine already has a carbon pricing mechanism on industrial emissions? It is minor, but certainly for Ukrainians who are trying to recover and to win a war, the last thing they are going to need is to be put under the same regime that Canadians are suffering under, which has driven up the cost of food, home heating and all of those things. Ukrainians definitely do not need that. I want to highlight a couple of other things that are ongoing. Of course, we have always supported Operation UNIFIER to provide aid, but there is more that Canada can do. Ukraine is asking for munitions from Canada, but the Liberals voted against the Conservative motion to send them. They are still delaying sending the kinds of munitions that would actually help Ukraine to win this war. When we talk about the Liberals' record, it is clear that they want to seem to be updating a trade agreement that already exists without actually putting into it the things that the partners would need. I think the crux of the matter here is that they also refuse to fix the bill. When the bill went to committee, the member for Dufferin—Caledon brought numerous amendments that would have helped this proposed act. First of all, we agreed that if the Liberals removed the references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage, then the Conservatives would willingly support this agreement, but the government has refused even though, like I said, Ukraine already has made its decisions about what it is going to about carbon tax. It is a sovereign nation and has every right to do that. We should not be putting that into a trade agreement. (1015)The member also brought in an amendment that would provide energy trade and nuclear technology like small, modular reactors. This is really important. There is an energy crisis and an energy opportunity going on in Europe right now and every time they come and ask for our help, Canadians, who want to help, are surprised to see the Liberals refuse. Germany wanted to give us $58 billion for our LNG. They said there was no business case for that, so Australia took that deal. The Netherlands wanted to do a deal with us, and we said there was no business case, so Qatar took that deal. Japan also wanted to deal with us. The list goes on and on of opportunities where we had the wherewithal to really help, and we refused.All those amendments that were brought here have been turned down. I do not know why they would not accept one that talks about nuclear technology. That is very green technology. It should fit in with what the Liberal government is proposing to do.The other amendment they voted against is really troubling. It was an amendment to increase defence supplies to donate to Ukraine. Ukraine is running out of munitions, and we have a lot of munitions that are not currently being used across the country that could be repurposed and sent. However, the Liberals voted against that amendment, as did the NDP. It is the NDP and the Liberals standing together to not support Ukraine. I really do not understand how they can stand up every day and not know their own record on not giving Ukraine what it needs.Another troubling thing they voted against was an amendment to have the Business Development Bank of Canada support projects in Ukraine to develop its own munitions manufacturing capacity. I think that would have been a concrete way that Canada could have helped. We are already sending billions to everyone in the world. Who needs it more than Ukraine that is currently at war with Russia, which is a threat to the whole western world? I have no idea why the Liberals will not give the Ukrainians what they are asking for. That is really the discussion that we are having for.We already have a free trade agreement. We are going to do trade with Ukraine. Conservatives are dedicated in supporting Ukraine, but we are not going to force a carbon tax regime to make things worse than they already are. We will let Ukraine deal with whatever it wants to put in place with its sovereignty. Meanwhile, we want to give Ukraine what it is asking for. It is asking Canada to help with LNG. It is asking Canada to help with munitions. It is asking Canada to help with financial aid to support projects to rebuild its nation. Those are the kinds of things that should be in a free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine if we want to modernize the one that is already there, but they are not.We continue to see, in my riding, the difficulties that Ukrainians are having when trying to rescue other people who are coming here. As the ravages of war are advancing, there are still people who want to come, and the Liberals have not made that process any easier. I think if they really want to help Ukrainians, they should recognize that there is a huge need.There is need in other areas where we could be of help. We have a lot of armoured ambulances, for example. We are not using them. We have replaced them, but the other ones are still there. They need an oil change maybe and a new set of tires. Those are the kinds of things we could be sending to Ukraine. They are hauling people around in broken-down cars because they have no ambulances left. Those are the kinds of things I think we should be thinking about. I will wrap this up where I started. Conservatives unconditionally support Ukraine. We stand with Ukraine. That was clear from 1991 when we recognized its independence. It was clear when President Zelenskyy was here asking for our help. My colleague Candice Bergen stood in this place and unequivocally said that we support Ukraine. Our current leader has said that we unequivocally support Ukraine. That is the record. That is the correction of the misinformation and disinformation from the members opposite. We need to help Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCanadian investments abroadCarbon taxEnergy and fuelGovernment billsInternational development and aidMilitary weaponsNatural gasNuclear technologyRussiaSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8174005817400681740078174008817400981740108174011817401281740138174014817401581740168174017817401881740198174020817402181740228174023FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1020)[English]Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke is wrong. President Zelenskyy came to Canada last September to sign a trade agreement. That was why, during a time of war, he came to Canada. It was to sign a trade agreement. He asked parliamentarians here, all of us, to support the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, as did the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, as did 1.3 million people of Ukrainian-Canadian heritage and others. They want all members of all political parties to get behind it and to vote in favour of this legislation.Why have members of the Conservative Party chosen to abandon Ukraine when Ukraine has asked for the support of this legislation?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740248174025MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, the member opposite is wrong. Conservatives absolutely support Ukraine. We have absolutely said that if the language about carbon pricing is removed from this agreement, we would sign on and would like to add a few more things that Ukraine is asking for, like LNG, like munitions, like some of the ambulances that we have and extra equipment. Things that were seized that belonged to Russia would be an advantage to Ukraine. There are a lot of things we would like to do, but we certainly do not want to inflict a carbon tax on it that is already doubling costs in Canada and causing unaffordability.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740268174027KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104741MartinChampouxMartin-ChampouxDrummondBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampouxMartin_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ): (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton for her speech. I want to start by saying that, in her speech, my colleague mentioned that the Conservatives support Ukraine unconditionally and that they are not against Ukraine, contrary to what people are saying. That is not entirely true. At least, that is our perception.Everyone knows that the Conservatives are all about perception. The perception is that they are voting against this bill simply because it mentions carbon pricing, which goes against their current ideology. That is very unfortunate, because they are voting against the good things that this agreement will do.That said, my question is about something else. There is a fight against corruption in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have made a firm commitment to fight corruption. Canada has made the same commitment in this agreement, notably in article 15.14. However, there were no mechanisms to encourage co-operation or monitor progress.My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot presented the only amendment to Bill C-57 that was adopted in committee. This amendment ensures that we will be able to fight corruption together, as this is going to be a major issue during post-war reconstruction.Despite the Conservative's opposition to Bill C-57, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about fighting against corruption and the tools we need to do that.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCorruptionGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740288174029817403081740318174032MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Liberal government can fix anything at all when it comes to corruption, because they are experts in the matter.We have signed many agreements with other countries and none of them mention the carbon tax. Why does the Canada-Ukraine agreement now talk about that? I do not know. We would support the agreement if any mention of carbon pricing were removed and replaced with something else.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCorruptionGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740338174034MartinChampouxDrummondRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, there is a fairly sizable Ukraine community in my riding, and I want to give a special shout-out to Stefan and Slav, who have worked very closely with me, for doing incredible work in all ways to send money back to Ukraine to help people who are settling here from Ukraine, and in many other functions.The concern is that they understand Ukraine is a sovereign nation, and one thing that has been very clear in what they are asking of Canadians is to step forward and to provide support. This trade agreement is a fundamental caveat of that ask. I am wondering if the member hears from those in her Ukraine community how concerned they are that the Conservatives are simply not supporting this when they do not see any attachment to a carbon tax. It just does not make sense to a sovereign nation.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817403581740368174037MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu: (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, I meet regularly with the many Ukrainians who have come here. I want to thank the Save Ukraine Sarnia and Lambton County group and people like Dr. Cassandra Taylor who have provided supports and have welcomed our family of Ukrainians. They certainly know that I and the Conservative Party unequivocally supports them. I would remind everyone that we already have a trade agreement and that Ukraine—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174038RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71902MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Michelle-RempelGarnerCalgary Nose HillConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RempelMichelle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC): (1025)[English]Madam Speaker, let me begin by quoting a former colleague of mine, who said, “Ukraine is defending itself against unjustified aggression — the Kremlin’s naked attempt to destroy a country’s statehood, infrastructure & identity. “Full collective support for Ukraine’s victory is the right legal, moral...military & strategic course of action.”I strongly support this position. Putin's war of aggression is not just against Ukraine. His war machine attempts to undermine the western consensus for democracy, the rule of law and the pursuit of a quality of opportunity.I will move now to Canada's role in this fight and the substance of this bill. This bill proposes updates to Canada's existing free trade agreement with Ukraine. I support free trade with Ukraine. I do not support every measure in this bill. I take particular issue with the Liberals' inclusion of a carbon tax within the text. That is because, in the Canadian context, the Liberal carbon tax has dramatically increased the cost of living for every single one of the people I represent, all while failing to bring Canada anywhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is not solving the urgent question of climate change. It is a clearly flawed policy that creates economic harm, and those who adhere to ideology without questions put up roadblocks that have stifled the policy innovation needed to reduce emissions. I can simultaneously hold the position that I support free trade with Ukraine and the victory of Ukraine over Putin while I oppose a carbon tax. There are tens of millions of other Canadians who feel the exact same way. For the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc or anyone else to suggest that to develop ways for Canada to support Ukraine I need to capitulate on my position on a carbon tax misses the point of democracy, which is what we are ostensibly trying to fight for.In a dire crisis situation such as the one Ukraine finds itself in, fighting against the war of aggression being waged by Putin, it is the Liberal government that should have been working collaboratively to find a unified path forward. If its members are unwilling to budge on the inclusion of a carbon tax in this agreement, then the onus was on them to build consensus with the Canadian public and acknowledge we can have internal differences on a carbon tax while supporting Ukraine. It is a dangerous, deadly game for the Prime Minister of Canada and anyone in this place to repeatedly suggest that, if a Canadian opposes a carbon tax, they must support Putin. This is a disgusting, morally bankrupt and fundamentally anti-democratic politically motivated aspersion that serves only to divide our country at a time when it desperately needs leadership that unifies it. It does not help Ukraine. It does not help Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. The Prime Minister eschewed this approach when he failed to table this agreement in Parliament 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations. In February of 2020, ahead of the renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement, the minister at the time made the following commitment “to require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations towards a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” That did not happen in this case. There was no collaborative effort. Again, I want to re-emphasize that I will oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not help my constituents. It is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is not meeting emissions targets. It is a flawed and failed policy. I will stand here and support Ukraine while saying that anybody who is suggesting we should be making politics over this is actually helping Putin. This line of attack disgusts me because I know the people who are saying these things know better. If they want to earn the votes of Canadians, they should be looking at the issues that are pushing their polls so far south, as opposed to desperately trying to cling to some sort of false narrative that only divides our country. It only helps our country's enemies. It is disgusting, and it seriously needs to stop.Earlier today the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell would not commit to asking his government to repurpose seized Russian assets. I am not going to stand here and call him a Putin supporter, so no one on the other bench should suggest that, because I firmly, strongly and backed by evidence reject a carbon tax, I somehow support that. This is exactly what the Russian war machine wants. That is the exact narrative it wants, and it needs to stop.(1030)At the same time, what this agreement should be doing is looking at ways to materially help our allies. Just moments ago, the leader of the Conservative Party issued a press release saying that the Prime Minister must send CRV rockets to Ukraine. He is talking about ways that Canada should be sending surplus weapons to help our allies in their fight against Putin. That is a material way we should be helping, not by casting aspersions or trying to divide our country over this issue.There is another thing that I want to implore every member of the House, as strongly as I can. I am going to read a small paragraph from a colleague in Ukraine, from a note she sent to me. She writes, “The value of frozen Russian assets is estimated to be at least $320 billion. With no reasonable prospect for Russia paying compensation to Ukraine anytime soon and Ukraine's need for both short- and long-term financial assistance, confiscations of Russian assets become the only just and viable option, especially in view of the fact that up to $1 trillion will be needed for Ukraine to fully recover. Our partners' tax-payers”, and this is from a Ukrainian MP, should not shoulder the burden of Ukraine's recovery alone, especially as they froze and can use assets of aggressors responsible for the devastation.”These are senior government officials in Ukraine today. In the past, some of those senior government officials have suggested that Canada's military is impotent. If they are going to take that posture, then, at the very least, Canada should be using the laws that are already in place, which have already been supported by all members in the House, to repurpose seized Russian assets and lead a G7 charge to force western allies to do exactly what Ukraine is crying out for in this case.Putin's is a war of aggression, and there needs to be compensation for Ukraine. They are the aggressor. At the very least, if Canada is true, and if Canada is going to try to make any sort of case that we are some sort of broker in the world, that we have any sort of relevancy, this is low-hanging fruit. We should be the first country to do this. We have the legal mechanisms. There is nothing in this agreement about that, absolutely nothing.The government has had this tool at its disposal for two years now, and it has not moved on this. Am I going to accuse the government of not supporting Ukraine because of that? I could. Instead, I would rather it would move on it.This is an issue that transcends petty partisan politics and the desperate attempt of a Prime Minister, who is 16 points behind in the polls, trying to cling on to a disgusting life raft for his political gain. We have to work together.Our global democracy is at stake, folks. Right now, our allies are fighting a war. We have lost the plot here. Honestly, if somebody stands up and dares to question the fact that I will stand up for my constituents against a policy that does nothing to help them, that does nothing to help climate change.I have watched this debate. I have watched pundits and former colleagues say, “Maybe the Conservatives should just capitulate on this.” Absolutely not. It is the role of the government to build consensus during a time of crisis, and it has failed to do that.I beg the government to do something that resembles work, and to work with our partners to stop the funding of the Russian war machine by transporting more of Canada's natural gas overseas.That should have been in this agreement, but it is not. At the very least, today, there is $300 billion. That is more than the entire sum total of all of the aid that has been sent to Ukraine. Canada could be leading the charge on this. Instead, we have Liberal members of Parliament standing here and saying these things. They have lost the plot. Canadians know this. Canadians are not buying this. Let us do better.I implore and I beg the government to rethink its posture, both on the carbon tax and its political position on the issue, and on dragging its feet on common-sense measures that Conservatives have been calling for for some time, measures for which there is already consensus in the House of Commons and across the country.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxCost of livingExportsGovernment billsInternational development and aidMilitary weaponsNatural gasRussiaSeizure of assetsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar817404181740428174043817404481740458174046817404781740488174049817405081740518174052817405381740548174055817405681740578174058817405981740608174061AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, in every trade agreement, there are all sorts of compromises that are made. Sometimes one agrees with something. Sometimes one disagrees with something. One takes a look at the overall agreement in itself. Let there be no doubt, when the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, there was a consensus.There are individuals, such as Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who had the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. I am sure that former prime minister, reflecting on what the Conservative Party is today, is saying it is nothing but hogwash.There is absolutely no reason for this whatsoever, outside of the MAGA Conservative outlook coming from the United States into Canada, which is actually driving the Conservative Party's position. This red herring the member was talking about is wrong. It is about the MAGA right. Why will the Conservative Party not support this trade agreement?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174062817406381740648174065MichelleRempel 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.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, standing up and using a loud, shouty voice does not negate from the fact that the Liberals did not engage in a collaborative approach on this agreement. They did not table it in advance for the House of Commons. They did not try to seek consensus, and I oppose a carbon tax.The Liberal carbon tax has brought Canada nowhere close to meeting its emissions targets. It is increasing the price of everything for everybody in our country at a time when most Canadians cannot afford it. They are choosing between food and rent.Yes, I oppose a carbon tax. Yes, I disagree with people, even those formerly of my own political stripe, who suggest that we should not. That is why I am here. That is why I am representing my constituents. I can do that and support strong action by Canada against Russian aggression against Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817406681740678174068KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1040)[Translation]Madam Speaker, from the very beginning, we have been listening to the Conservatives explain their position on Bill C-57. I am quite surprised. I am actually having a hard time following them, because it was the Conservatives who introduced the first version of the former free trade agreement with Ukraine.The new version essentially updates the old one, so there is nothing revolutionary about it. Russia and Ukraine are currently at war. One might therefore expect some degree of solidarity amongst all parliamentarians in saying that it is time to support Ukraine, which is fighting the Russian invasion. Given the current reality, Ukraine needs trade with foreign countries more than ever.I am trying to understand. The Conservatives keep using the notorious carbon tax as an excuse to oppose this. Is this not a bit deceitful and could it not be seen as bad faith? If they were in government, they certainly would not be making the kind of irresponsible comments they are making right now.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817406981740708174071MichelleRempel 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.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I oppose the Liberal carbon tax. It does not solve climate change, and it increases the cost of everything. If the government wanted to have a consensus-based approach on this agreement, it would have removed it. It is unnecessary and does not need to be in there. It is in there to be a political wedge, and I will stand up for my constituents.To my colleague opposite, he needs to go talk to his constituents. They do not support a carbon tax either. They do not want to see an increased cost of living because of it. A carbon tax is not worth the cost. We should be supporting Ukraine with measures such as the one the Conservative leader announced today by sending surplus weapons.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81740728174073XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the discussion is focused on a carbon tax right now. When we are talking about this important issue, I am reflecting on the conversations that I am having with people who are arriving in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith fleeing the war in Ukraine.A single mom and her child were talking with me about the impacts of having to leave behind their families and all that they know in Ukraine. I made a commitment to this now constituent to do all that I can to support Ukrainians at this time. What I am trying to understand is that the leader of Ukraine asked us to sign this agreement. I am not going to pretend to know better than Ukrainians themselves or the leader of Ukraine how to best move forward.Why would we not support this agreement when the leader is asking us to do so?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817407481740758174076MichelleRempel 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.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Michelle Rempel Garner: (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement with Ukraine already exists. The NDP could be pressuring its coalition partners to release frozen assets to Ukraine. It is not doing that right now. That would immediately impact the people that she just talked about, but she should also be trying to lower the cost of living in Canada and fight for climate change by axing the carbon tax.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174077Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak this morning about an issue that is very important to Canada, to Ukraine and to the constituents in my riding of Etobicoke—Lakeshore. Of course, I am speaking about the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. We are not here debating carbon pricing.It is my honour to stand today in support of the legislation that would implement the modernized free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. As was mentioned already, the modernization exercise for the CUFTA has not only allowed for the addition of new chapters but has also provided an opportunity to update previously existing chapters of the agreement and to reflect the most recent practices in the field of international trade agreements.Important updates I would like to highlight right from the start are those made to the chapters on labour and the environment. The modernized provisions would commit Canada and Ukraine to the highest standards on labour rights and environmental protection. These updates would help make the CUFTA a fully comprehensive modern trade agreement that levels the playing field while ensuring sufficient flexibility for parties to pursue crucial public policy objectives in these areas. Please allow me to give an overview of the nine modernized chapters of the agreement.On the matter of rules of origin and origin procedures, Canada and Ukraine agreed to activate and operationalize the principle of cumulation of origin, which would allow the materials originating in other countries that Canada and Ukraine both have free trade agreements with to count toward the originating status of goods exported under the agreement's tariff preferences. The result is that the materials originating from, for example, the European Union; the European Free Trade Association members, which include Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Iceland; Israel and the United Kingdom can be taken into consideration when determining whether the final product qualifies as originating under the agreement and thus benefits from preferential treatment. Concretely, it would give producers greater flexibility in sourcing materials from countries with which Canada and Ukraine both have free trade agreements.The new digital trade chapter of the modernized agreement is a significant update from the previous e-commerce chapter commitments to improve regulatory certainty for businesses seeking to engage in the digital economy in both markets, as well as those specifically looking to engage in cross-border digital trade between Canada and Ukraine. The chapter now contains ambitious commitments to facilitate the use of digital trade as a means of trade between Canada and Ukraine. It includes commitments relating to cross-border data flows, data localization, source code disclosure, open government data and personal data protection. On this last item, it is worth noting that, for the first time in any of Canada's trade agreements, a provision has been included prohibiting government authorities from using personal information collected from private organizations to discriminate against a person on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or political opinion.The modernized agreement now includes a stand-alone competition policy chapter with updated and new obligations to promote a competitive marketplace. The chapter furthers Canada and Ukraine's objectives toward a fair, transparent, predictable and competitive business environment. This is notably done through enhanced obligations for competition authorities on procedural fairness and transparency, as well as new obligations for the identification and protection of confidential information. These new obligations provide assurance that fundamental principles, including the rights of defendants, are guaranteed during competition law investigations and enforcement proceedings. The monopolies and state enterprises chapter has also been upgraded to include important definitions for state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, as well as updated commitments on transparency and technical co-operation. In the modernized chapter on government procurement, Canada and Ukraine have clarified that they would be allowed to take into account environmental, socio-economic or labour-related considerations in their procurement processes. This means it is now clear that the agreement would not prevent parties from adopting domestic policies and programs to support initiatives such as green and social procurement. The updated chapter also includes a new article to ensure integrity in procurement processes by committing parties to have legal or administrative measures in place to address corruption in government procurement. Finally, the updated chapter also facilitates greater participation by Canadian and Ukrainian SMEs in government procurement.(1045)The upgraded labour chapter in the agreement is robust, comprehensive and fully subject to the dispute settlement mechanism of the agreement. It aims to improve labour standards and working conditions in the two countries by building on international labour principles and rights. Two particularly notable articles were added: an important prohibition on goods made in whole or in part with forced labour, and a stand-alone article on violence against workers. This chapter confirms that Canada and Ukraine are fully committed to the highest labour rights standards and agree to co-operate further in the field.The modernized environment chapter of CUFTA is the most comprehensive and ambitious ever achieved in a Canadian free trade agreement. For the first time, the chapter includes provisions recognizing the importance of mutually supportive trade and climate change policies, including market-based approaches and trade-related climate measures to achieve green growth objectives. The modernized chapter also introduces new articles to address key global environmental issues, such as plastic pollution and waste, and promotes trade of environmental goods and services and the circular economy. The chapter is reflective of Canada and Ukraine's leadership on trade and environment issues, and of our joint commitment to strengthen our co-operation in the area long into the future.Last, the new transparency, anti-corruption and responsible business conduct chapter significantly builds upon and improves the 2017 version. It provides a framework for promoting transparency and integrity among public officials and the private sector, while advancing enforceability of anti-corruption laws. Therefore, the new chapter furthers Canada and Ukraine's objective of open and transparent international rules-based trading system that also promotes measures to prevent and respond to corruption. The chapter also includes a new section to encourage responsible business conduct for internationally recognized standards, guidelines and principles.I thank the House for the opportunity to describe the significant improvements that were made to the existing chapters of the 2017 agreement through this modernization exercise. I believe I have made it clear that these upgrades would be instrumental in making the agreement a modern, fully comprehensive and responsive free trade agreement.AccountabilityBusiness managementC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementClimate change and global warmingCompetitionCountry of originData sharingDigital economyElectronic commerceEnvironmental protectionGovernment billsGovernment contractsLabour lawMonopoliesPrivacy of personal recordsState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817407881740798174080817408181740828174083817408481740858174086817408781740888174089MichelleRempel GarnerHon.Calgary Nose HillAlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen Sound//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105070AlexRuffAlex-RuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RuffAlex_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Alex Ruff (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, first, I just have a quick comment. There was a transfer of leadership in the Canadian Armed Forces training mission, Joint Task Force-Ukraine, just a few days ago. I want to thank all the Canadian Armed Forces members who are part of that mission in training Ukrainians, in particular the leadership of Lieutenant-Colonel James Boddy, who is the outgoing commander, and the new commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Ben Rogerson. I had the pleasure to serve with both of those gentlemen in Afghanistan. On March 22, 2022, I asked about transferring surplus Canadian Armed Forces equipment to Ukraine, in particular, Bison ambulances. Ukrainian forces are fighting right now, on the ground, and rescuing victims and injured soldiers in pickup trucks. Could the member, with his experience as the parliamentary secretary, provide an update on what the government is doing to get that surplus CAF equipment to the Ukrainian armed forces?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInternational development and aidMilitary weaponsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81740908174091JamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Maloney: (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with the member on a number of very important issues, and I have a lot of respect for his approach to politics. I also want to add my thanks to members of the Canadian military because we all know the good, hard work and effort they put in on our behalf.With respect to the member's question, I would be happy to speak with him off-line, on another occasion, to provide him with all of the information I can obtain. His question was in a positive tone, which is indicative of his approach to politics, in my experience. I say that because we are here to support our ally and friend, Ukraine. With one exception that I am aware of, which has been raised by the official opposition, Conservatives support the agreement. I would hope that the member, with the approach that he has taken to other issues, would be willing to reconsider his position and to encourage colleagues in his caucus to reconsider theirs and to vote with us so we could unanimously support the agreement and get it passed.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInternational development and aidMilitary weaponsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81740928174093AlexRuffBruce—Grey—Owen SoundChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1050)[English]Madam Speaker, the agreement has to be signed now so Canada will be ready to help Ukraine once the illegal Russian war on Ukraine ends. Ukraine's infrastructure and all sectors of economy have been destroyed. Ukraine needs Canada's help in that respect. About $400 billion needs to be invested. Canadian businesses have the expertise to help Ukraine in all these matters.I would like to ask the hon. member what Conservatives feel about the need for this agreement now.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInternational development and aidRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81740948174095JamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Maloney: (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, as everybody did, I spent time in my constituency over Christmas and in January. I am very fortunate to have a large Ukrainian constituency. It is a community I have known and worked with since I was a child. Over the holidays, I attended many functions. I spoke with community leader and business leaders. I spoke with people approaching me and trying to find ways to work with government and politicians from all parties on how to get the agreement passed, and also, when we pass the agreement, on how we can work collectively toward rebuilding Ukraine.One thing that was consistent in every single conversation I had with everybody in the Ukrainian community was that they asked why this is happening. They asked why there is not unanimous support for the agreement, and how we get past this. I said that I share their concern and am working toward achieving that goal. People who know me know that I am not a particularly partisan guy. I believe that there are certain issues that are of such importance that partisan politics should have no part in them, and this one of them.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInternational development and aidRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81740968174097ChandraAryaNepeanGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1055)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I am less proud of the fact that yesterday, in committee, he voted against the bilingualism of the new group.I have a question for him about the only amendment to Bill C‑57 that was adopted in committee. It included a clause presented by my colleague and friend, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. This clause requires the minister to constantly monitor the behaviour of Canadian businesses in Ukraine and to table an annual report of his activities to Parliament. We know that article 15.14 of the agreement is about implementing best practices, particularly in fighting corruption.What does my hon. colleague think of that?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsSocial responsibilityThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine817409881740998174100JamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Maloney: (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, I am happy to sit down with the member afterward, work through this and talk about the concerns he has raised to see whether we can find a compromise and a solution.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsSocial responsibilityThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174101GabrielSte-MarieJolietteMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, we have signed more than 50 trade agreements that have never contained any clause at all about carbon pricing. Ukraine already has a carbon price. I do not know why we would put equal carbon pricing, protection against carbon leakage and all of this kind of stuff into the contract. That is exactly what it does not need. Therefore, why will the Liberals not just take it out? We can then unanimously support the trade agreement.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174102JamesMaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreJamesMaloneyEtobicoke—Lakeshore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88748JamesMaloneyJames-MaloneyEtobicoke—LakeshoreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaloneyJames_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Maloney: (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, the short answer is that the Ukrainians want it in there. I do not know what else there is to say in answer to that question. I have spoken with members of the Ukrainian parliament. I have spoken with members of the Ukrainian community. I was in the room when President Zelenskyy signed the agreement. Ukrainians want it in the agreement; it is as simple as that. An agreement is something that is negotiated between two parties in reaching a consensus, and that is what was done here. They want it there, and that is why.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174103MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1100)[English]Division on amendment deferredPursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8174109KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1650)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDecisions of the HouseDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceDivision No. 621Private Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8170193Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1589HedyFryHon.Hedy-FryVancouver CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FryHedy_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionHon. Hedy Fry(2000)[English] moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.Third readingShe said: Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Everyone has heard about it. In simple language, the bill states that throughout Canada, each and every year, March 11 would be known as “pandemic observance day”.There are about three reasons to do this. The first is to remember that, to date, 57,000 people in Canada have actually died from COVID-19, to remember and honour those people, and to also remember that 57,000 is more than all the Canadians who died in the Second World War. This is a huge number of people who died from a pandemic. We also need to remember their suffering and try to find how we can support all the people who are the family members and other bereaved people from throughout this crisis.The second part of what we need to do is continue recovering from COVID-19. I use the word “continue” because since the so-called pandemic was lifted, 7,000 more Canadians have died. Up to today, that is the number. Therefore, we know that COVID has not disappeared; COVID actually continues to be a variant. It continues to adapt and change, as we know all viruses have a tendency to do. Each time, we do not know what the variant will be.The important thing for us to do is remember that we are continuing to recover and that we must continue, therefore, to apply solid and strong public health commitments to what we do. In other words, we must continue to recognize that while this virus continues, we must wear masks when we are in an unventilated place, continue to wash our hands and continue to do all of the things we did during the pandemic, because we do not want to have the pandemic recur in large numbers.We need to therefore remember the day and learn of the evolution of the pandemic. We have tests and vaccines. Get the tests, vaccines and booster shots. People must make sure they are protected. They do not want to be counted and increase the number from 57,000 to 58,000. Please reflect on that and remember that viruses are totally unpredictable.We have independent, trusted science that we must remember, think about and follow, and we must make sure that Canadians are informed. If we are not worried and we think we are invulnerable, will never get COVID and can walk around ignoring it, we must remember that we have a duty to the people around us who could get sick and who could in fact be impacted by it. Let us not forget that this is a duty to others as well in a pandemic.With respect to recovering from COVID, we must also remember that COVID-19 was a pandemic, the first true pandemic we have had since the influenza after the war. Therefore, what we need to remember about this is that there will no longer be epidemics; we are going to have pandemics. Because of globalization, people who have never travelled before are travelling all around the world and bringing back viruses, diseases and illnesses. We are talking about people from every corner of the globe. The transmission of any illness or disease is quicker and easier in this world of globalization. We need to remember this if a pandemic begins and we feel we have not taken steps to prevent it from happening. Many countries had six times the number of deaths that Canada had because they did not have the resources. Many countries suffered a great deal. Is that what we want for other countries in the world? This duty of care is ours to remember.Our third duty is to be prepared for any other pandemic, be prepared for the recurrence of COVID-19, make sure we learn something from the COVID-19 pandemic and apply what we learned. Let us not repeat it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Let us not have a repetition of another COVID-19 in this country or anywhere. We remember the people who lived in homes and institutions, the elderly people who died who did not have to and who died alone because they did not have family with them to look after them because of the isolation that was needed.(2005)I am asking members to remember, for those reasons; to learn our lessons; to look at how we apply those lessons to preventing future pandemics; and to make sure we always mark this day.This is a Senate bill. It was brought in by a senator who was previously a family physician, Dr. Mégie. As a physician, like I am, she understood the need to apply science to things like pandemics. Science is clear and evidence-based. Science will learn from the things we made mistakes on and from the things we learned how to do to deal with future occurrences. Let us be mindful of science. Let us not apply ideology to pandemics. Viruses do not particularly care whether one lives in Ontario or in Newfoundland. COVID-19 did not did not care; it did not understand or respect provincial boundaries. Let us remember that when we talk about how we deal with scientific evidence in order to protect ourselves and others.Again, as parliamentarians, our own duty is to remember to be aware of science and our duty of care to all the people we represent in the House, all of Canada. We have a duty to care for them in the same way we care for them when they do not have good drinking water or when they are suffering from poverty and say that food prices are too high. Those are the ways we care. Let us continue to care.When I hear of people who continue to debunk science and say that it is nonsense and that politicians make decisions, I say that politicians should make informed decisions based on good knowledge and good information. Therefore, they need to look at that information and what it tells them they should do, and look at whether they may get results from what they are doing because they are following good, evidence-based decision-making.There is not too much else I can say about the bill, but I would ask members this: Why do we have Remembrance Day on November 11 every year? It is because we want to remember the wars. We want to remember the number of people who died. We want to remember the damage. We want to make sure it does not happen again. We want to commit ourselves to peace. We want to commit ourselves to preventing war.Similarly, we want to commit ourselves to preventing pandemics that kill people. We need to be aware that the deaths of 57,000 Canadians could have been prevented if we had known and understood the pandemic when it first started. We now know what the pandemic did. We now know how to stop it. We now know the steps we need to take to remedy it. Let us remember this every year so we do not repeat the same mistakes we made and so we learn our lessons and use evidence-based, scientific methods to help protect the Canadian population.It is a simple bill, and I hope all members will support it.COVID-19Deaths and funeralsEmergency preparednessPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsSenior citizensThird reading and adoption81705858170586817058781705888170589817059081705918170592817059381705948170595817059681705978170598817059981706008170601AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): (2010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank and commend my colleague for introducing this bill and initiating this discussion. In her speech, she mentioned the probable causes of a pandemic. She said that there were going to be other pandemics because people travel a lot between countries and they could bring back viruses.I have another theory on that subject, which involves the loss of biodiversity and the fact that people are living in closer and closer proximity— BiodiversityCOVID-19PandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption81706028170603HedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé: (2010)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will start over.In her speech, my colleague mentioned the possibility of other pandemics linked to the spread of viruses resulting from frequent travel to different countries. However, science tells us that many links could be made to the loss of biodiversity, because of human proximity to animal species that normally have no contact with humans.What does my colleague think about the possibility that more epidemics could result from the loss of biodiversity?BiodiversityCOVID-19PandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption817060681706078170608AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1589HedyFryHon.Hedy-FryVancouver CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FryHedy_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionHon. Hedy Fry: (2010)[English]Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important point, and I think we know that zoonoses are on the rise. Once again, it is that people are in contact with the animal world more than we used to be in contact with them. We are visiting game farms. We have the ability to meet wild animals in the wild.What we learned and must remember in this pandemic remembrance day is that zoonoses are very important. The transmission of viruses, bacteria and other diseases from animals to human beings is actually very possible.I am glad the member asked that question because that is a reason for pandemic observance day. It is to remember that we have learned some things, and that is one of them.BiodiversityCOVID-19PandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption817060981706108170611MoniquePauzéRepentignyDonDaviesVancouver Kingsway//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59325DonDaviesDon-DaviesVancouver KingswayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaviesDon_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): (2010)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this bill. If we are remembering the pandemic, one particularly critical fact to remember is that Canada had the terrible distinction of having more deaths per capita than any other country on earth in long-term care homes. Part of the confidence-and-supply agreement between the New Democrats and the Liberals is for the government to introduce a long-term care act.Does my hon. colleague agree with the New Democrats that it is time we have mandatory standards in long-term care homes in this country? Those would be to have minimum standard hours of care for people in those homes, to have set care aid-to-patient ratios and, more importantly, to make sure that the conditions of work and the conditions of care are much better and that we treat the workers in those homes much better so we can reduce infection rates.Does she agree with the NDP that it is time to put those mandatory standards in law in this country?COVID-19Long-term carePandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsService standardsThird reading and adoption817061281706138170614HedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1589HedyFryHon.Hedy-FryVancouver CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FryHedy_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionHon. Hedy Fry: (2010)[English]Madam Speaker, once again, I think that is a good question, and I want to thank the member for bringing it up.We need to remember one very important thing. While it is very important to look at standards of care, with the huge death toll we saw in long-term care homes, in fact, it is not a federal jurisdiction to do those things. Long-term care is provincial jurisdiction. We are, at the moment, negotiating with provinces to look at how we could get that done so we do not trample on provincial jurisdiction.At the same time, we can work on standards and research through the Canadian Standards Association to see what it could look like, as soon as provinces decide to set those standards and set the kinds of decision-making available to the provinces to be able to deal with long-term care.COVID-19Long-term carePandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsService standardsThird reading and adoption817061581706168170617DonDaviesVancouver KingswayChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (2010)[English]Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill because this is also a wake-up call for policy-makers every single year. The next time a pandemic hits, we cannot say it was unexpected. It is a wake-up call for us once a year to check whether we have taken enough measures to secure Canadians by identifying the critical items that are affected when the supply chains are disrupted and to find out what things we have done for senior citizens.On the second point, the pandemic remembrance day is also important for the next generation of Canadians. The current students in the elementary schools and the future students at elementary schools should be made aware of what their elder siblings, their parents and their grandparents went through so that they are aware that they, too, one day, may be affected by this.I would like the hon. member's comments on that.COVID-19PandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption817061881706198170620HedyFryHon.Vancouver CentreHedyFryHon.Vancouver Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1589HedyFryHon.Hedy-FryVancouver CentreLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FryHedy_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionHon. Hedy Fry: (2015)[English]Madam Speaker, I am getting very good questions here.I want to point out that we are talking about the COVID pandemic, but let us remember that measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and small pox had all gone and died. They were not occurring anymore. They are coming back now because of vaccine deniers, people who are not vaccinating themselves. We are going to see polio once again, with children sitting in iron lungs because they have polio.We must remember that we cannot deal with any disease unless we are bound by scientific knowledge. Right now, many people are walking away from the scientific knowledge that we got from learning about vaccines and—COVID-19PandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption817062181706228170623ChandraAryaNepeanAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98749RosemarieFalkRosemarie-FalkBattlefords—LloydminsterConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkRosemarie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMrs. Rosemarie Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster, CPC): (2015)[English]Madam Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on our lives, was unprecedented.In Canada and around much of the world, life as we knew it changed overnight because the pandemic was not just about the coronavirus. In many ways, it was also about how governments and health care systems responded to it. It was about the impact on our society, our relationships and our day-to-day activities.The fallout of COVID-19 was not confined to a short period of time or just to some people. In fact, the reality is that the pandemic is barely in our rearview mirror. Its impact will be felt for years to come. We still have not fully assessed its impact on our society.There are still lessons to be learned from the pandemic. Last week’s landmark and historic ruling that the Liberal government’s use of the Emergencies Act was unjustified is further proof that we have not fully moved beyond the pandemic and its fallout. The Prime Minister has yet to answer for his reckless abandonment of basic freedoms.These are not historical events. These are current events. In that way, the proposal to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day would seem to be premature, but beyond that, it is not the response that Canadians are looking for. I have not talked to a single Canadian who has asked for this.I have had the opportunity to talk to my constituents from Battlefords—Lloydminster about the impact of COVID-19 and the dysfunctions and the inefficiencies that it exposed. I have also had the opportunity to talk to health care workers, long-term care workers, seniors advocates, small business owners and countless others from across the country. What I can say with confidence, from those conversations, is that there is no outcry for a pandemic observance day. There are certainly, without a doubt, actions and responses that Canadians would like to see the federal government and other levels of government take in response to the pandemic, but this is not it.The senator who introduced this bill in the other place has said that she proposed this bill with three objectives: to remember, to recover and to prepare. I have not heard any evidence that a national day of remembrance would help those who have experienced loss and grief as a result of the coronavirus.While there may be commonalities among those who are grieving, each person’s journey is unique. How each person copes with their grief will look different. For many, the proposed day may also remind them about the difficult circumstances around their loss. In their final days and moments, many were isolated and many were alone. Many died alone. Because of the policies and practices put in place, loved ones were separated at the most difficult of times.Humans are relational beings. The importance of being present in the lives of one another was, in some ways, abandoned by these practices. That is a major tragedy.It went well beyond those who just had COVID-19. The senator, in proposing this day of remembrance, has indicated that this would be honouring our health care workers and our essential workers. I may agree with the sentiment that, through the difficulties and challenges of the pandemic, arose countless examples of goodness and selflessness. There were individuals who went above and beyond to support their communities, individuals who, despite the risk to themselves, showed up to work every single day.These Canadians are admirable, and they certainly deserve to know that they are appreciated. I believe the practice of honouring others is very important. It is my strong belief that a culture of honour promotes respect and unity. Honour encourages and uplifts. It is why there are already designations such as National Nursing Week and National Physicians’ Day. (2020)If we truly want to honour the sacrifices and work our health care workers and essential workers did during the pandemic, we would not respond with a national day of observance. We would respond by addressing the cracks and shortfalls that were exposed during the pandemic. We would work with different levels of government to ensure that they have the supports they need. We would not thank them for taking risks, then turn around and expect them to continue to take those same risks day in and day out. That is dishonouring.In the same vein, the senator's intent to recover and prepare is not accomplished through a day of observance. As a society, we can only recover from the pandemic and prepare for any future health crisis by taking meaningful action. We need not simply put a bow on the pandemic and sweep the lessons to be learned under the rug. To recover and prepare we must do the hard work of learning lessons and then taking action. It is in that way that we will better honour those who were lost in the pandemic, those who experienced loss and every single Canadian who made countless sacrifices.The pandemic fallout showed us that we lack manufacturing capabilities, as well as the devastating impacts of reliance and dependency on global supply chains. It highlighted a strain that exists in our health care sector and underscored massive labour shortages in health care. In fact, we are now seeing labour shortages in every sector across the country. It revealed the outdated infrastructure in our long-term care homes. It took a massive toll on the mental health and well-being of all Canadians. It forced so many small businesses to close their doors permanently. It also left countless others in a difficult state that will not be recovered overnight. It revealed the Prime Minister's willingness to divide Canadians and trample charter rights just to cling to power.The pandemic exposed a lot of distrust in our institutions and a lot of the Liberal government's mismanagement. These are just some of the issues that arose out of the pandemic. We all know that the COVID–19 pandemic's impact was far-reaching. Its impact will be felt for years to come. It is quite likely that, in the years ahead, we will come to better understand its widespread impact. The conversation we should be having as elected officials should be around those findings and those lessons being learned. If we want to remember, recover and prepare in a way that is meaningful and genuine, it is not going to be done through a pandemic observance day. That is not the response that Canadians want from the federal government or any other level of government.Canadians want meaningful action that will ensure our infrastructure and systems are better prepared for a future crisis. Canadians want the Liberal government to be held accountable for its actions. They want to know that future governments will uphold their basic rights and freedoms. They want to see taxpayer dollars spent efficiently on supports and programs that will be there for them when they need it. The COVID–19 pandemic requires a response from the federal government, but the response needed is not a day of observance.Caregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19Government accountabilityGovernment performanceHealth care systemPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsPublic trustS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption81706268170627817062881706298170630817063181706328170633817063481706358170636817063781706388170639817064081706418170642AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMoniquePauzéRepentigny//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88595MoniquePauzéMonique-PauzéRepentignyBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PauzéMonique_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMs. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ): (2025)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing Bill S‑209, which designates March 11 as pandemic observance day. It has not been amended, and therefore the Bloc Québécois's position remains unchanged: We support the bill.The Bloc Québécois stands with everyone in Quebec and Canada who was directly or indirectly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bloc Québécois would like to offer its condolences and sympathy to the families affected by the crisis, and to thank health care workers and all workers who could not work from home. They are many of them, and they are often forgotten. My speech will highlight their work and recall the many people who lost their lives to this pandemic.Above all, I will approach the subject from an environmental perspective, which I am sure will surprise no one. I will talk about how pandemics are made. What I am going to say is not about the origins of COVID‑19, not at all, but about the fact that a significant number of emerging diseases of the past 40 years are zoonotic. Everyone has heard of SARS, Ebola, the avian flu, rabies. There are a dozen on the government site.Serge Morand, a French environmentalist and biologist explains it well when he talks about the “dilution effect caused by man, who by encroaching on wild natural habitats and thereby creating more interactions, is accelerating the spread of new viruses by disrupting the animal ecosystem”. The issue is deforestation, industrial livestock production and globalization.According to the Institut de recherche pour le développement, or IRD, website in France, at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Marie‑Monique Robin, an investigative journalist, producer and writer, co-produced with the IRD the documentary called La fabrique des pandémies, “The Pandemic Factory”. The documentary's key moments appear on the IRD's website.For this project, Ms. Robin travelled to eight countries to understand the factors driving the emergence of infectious diseases. For the scientists who were questioned, the answer is clear: Environmental upheaval is the major cause of epidemics and pandemics. Some 20 researchers were filmed while doing their research and during their interactions with local communities. In the field in Asia, Africa and the Americas, scientists and indigenous peoples seek to understand how and how closely health and biodiversity are linked. The documentary explains that the species most likely to transmit new pathogens to us are the same ones that thrive when diversity decreases. The more biodiversity we lose, the more epidemics we have.Science has shown that epidemics are becoming more and more frequent. We should expect more of them. The documentary warns us that if we continue to destroy our planet, we will experience an epidemic of pandemics, because biodiversity plays a protective role for humans. We need to rethink the way we live, so that damage to the environment is kept to a minimum. The problem is us, not the animals.Now let us talk about the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Let us talk about the most vulnerable members of our society. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, clearly expressed his thoughts when he said, “My thoughts go out to the most vulnerable, those whom the pandemic has made even more vulnerable, and to the people living in isolation, poverty and anxiety who are suffering even more and have become more fragile because of this disease.”The Bloc Québécois leader's words bring to mind another film I want to talk about. It is not a documentary, but it is a fairly realistic portrayal of the isolation seniors may have experienced. Tu ne sauras jamais is a dramatic film directed by Robin Aubert and Julie Roy. The camera work is effective. The slow pace captivates us and shows us exactly what these seniors went through: isolation, cold meals, distress, staff shortages. Martin Naud, age 88, plays an isolated senior in his room in a long-term care home during the COVID‑19 pandemic. He is an old man who does everything in his power to see the woman he loves one last time. Martin Naud is not an actor. He is not on IMDb. He lives in Repentigny and he is a member of the Bloc Québécois. He went to an audition and turned out to be the best person to really connect with audiences and convince them, even though he is not a professional. Take it from me: he did a great job. (2030)There was so much suffering, particularly among seniors. Seniors who stayed in their homes or apartments experienced boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sickness and fear. There are those who died, those who lived in isolation and those who survived in fear.I am thinking about health care workers, as I said at the beginning of this speech, and about others who did not have the option of protecting themselves by working from home, those who are too often forgotten because they are invisible to us, because our lives are moving too quickly and we are not paying attention to the people around us, to those essential workers. I will talk more about them in a few moments.Of course, I want to start by talking about frontline staff, all types of health care workers: nurses, doctors and orderlies. They all put their lives at risk to care for COVID-19 patients. We are forever grateful to them. It was not easy for them either. Everyone in society was scared. Imagine how the people on the front lines felt, working directly with the sick.Then there are young people. Of course, this age group was not as impacted by deaths. However, young people still made the collective sacrifice demanded by health restrictions. This meant many of them missed out on the opportunity to socialize at a pivotal moment in their lives. We must think of them and thank them for their courage and resilience at that time.We must also acknowledge the work of the scientific community. Although imperfect by definition, our scientists' explanations informed our debates and answered our questions and concerns throughout the pandemic. We are fortunate to have been able to count on them and to still be able to count on them. My colleague from Vancouver Centre talked about how science helps us better understand.Finally, let me go back to the invisible workers I mentioned earlier. Many of them are women and young people. They may be grocery store clerks, pharmacy cashiers or shelf stockers. They may be delivery people, cleaners, construction workers, subway drivers or bus drivers. They could not work from home. They were essential during the pandemic, and they are no less essential now to our society's ability to function effectively. Too often, however, they remain invisible and forgotten. The pandemic shone a light on them, as workers too often relegated to the shadows.In conclusion, do we really want to go through something like this again? Do want to mourn the many people who will die, relive the same fear and isolation?To connect back to the start of my speech, without biodiversity, life is not possible. Our fates are inextricably linked. By preserving biodiversity, we reduce the risks and impact of global warming and its effects on our health. However, we must change now. Otherwise, we are treading the same path toward extinction as today's endangered wildlife.Biodiversity is our home. We can still save it, but we must act quickly. That will require courage on the part of politicians.Do we have that courage?BiodiversityCaregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19Essential servicesPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DayScientific research and scientistsSenate billsSenior citizensThird reading and adoptionYoung people8170643817064481706458170646817064781706488170649817065081706518170652817065381706548170655817065681706578170658817065981706608170661RosemarieFalkBattlefords—LloydminsterBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (2035)[English]Madam Speaker, today I stand on behalf of the residents of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra to respect the reality of the losses they suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic. I want to take this time to honour the lives of their family members who were lost during the pandemic and recognize that many of them died alone in those early days. I want to acknowledge the family members who could not be with their loved ones and still have not been able to heal from that trauma. I see them, and I recognize how hard it was and how hard it remains.At a National Pensioners Federation meeting recently, I heard from seniors from across the country that the hardest part of the pandemic was having friends and loved ones pass in hospitals or in long-term care homes. That is heartbreaking both for those who have passed and for those left behind, who could not say goodbye in person. These were the realities of the pandemic then, and they stay with us now.I want to take a moment to follow up on something my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway said earlier. Although this is about the pandemic observance day bill, this is the time for the Liberals to step forward and make sure they do the work, take the responsibility for living up to the confidence and supply agreement and get those national standards for long-term care. No person in Canada should die in long-term care from a preventable disease.The hurt people suffered during COVID-19 can be recognized with Bill S-209 by having a pandemic observance day each year, and that is why the NDP is supporting it.I want to note that caregivers also suffered during the pandemic. For nurses and long-term care workers, their work was and is exceptional. I know they deserve better wages, better working conditions and much more respect. The NDP will continue to fight for them. I say this to caregivers watching my speech tonight: We will continue to fight for them.The care economy, as well as the treatment of care workers in Canada, is an ongoing crisis. Care, paid and unpaid, is the backbone of Canada's economy, and it employs one in five Canadians. The physical, psychological and emotional care of people is essential work and needs to be recognized and compensated appropriately, yet this is not done in Canada, because of gender discrimination.Women are overrepresented in care and in the care economy. According to Statistics Canada, they comprise 80% of workers in health occupations, 68% of teacher roles and professorships and more than 95% of child care workers. All are underpaid and undervalued by our society and economy. I should not say by our society. I should say by these governments, the Liberals and the Conservatives before them.This needs to change; it is wrong. The pandemic has showed us that neglecting care workers as an underpinning of our economy, a hidden area that has not received the recognition it deserves, hurts society and our health care system. We especially see this in Conservative-led provinces, where child care and health care are fodder for private profiteers.Along with gender discrimination, racism is intertwined with the care economy's systems. Immigration policies for care workers are designed to control access to status and citizenship. Newcomers, undocumented people and low-income women are especially vulnerable to the exploitation and precarious working conditions of care. Black and Filipino women are overrepresented within the care economy, and they are some of the most exploited workers in Canada. This needs to change, and the Liberal government can make that change today. The NDP supports status for all.The pandemic has shown that care workers are essential. Immigrant care workers deserve their status; they should also be able to bring their families to Canada. The collective prejudice towards care workers has resulted in an unfounded belief that care work is unskilled work and, therefore, cannot receive better compensation. This too is wrong.(2040)Now is the time for the Liberal government to step up and end discrimination of care work. It is time for the Liberals to do the work required to improve working conditions for nurses and other care economy workers, and to immediately fulfill their promise to make the Canada caregiver credit refundable for any family caring for loved ones at home, to compensate some of that unpaid work that all of our society relies on.First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who passed recently, is quoted as saying that there are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers and those who need caregivers. The COVID-19 pandemic certainly proved that.Caregivers have gone above and beyond to support our communities, but while many stepped up to help their community, partisan politicians used it as an opportunity to advance their ideologies. Easy public health measures, like masks, were politicized and weaponized in our community. As the disability critic, I can say that the rejection of that simple gesture to keep people safe left the most vulnerable at risk. Persons with disabilities have spoken out about the reality of being socially isolated and experiencing worsening anxiety and depression during the pandemic, because even a trip to the grocery store was not safe due to the lack of masks. The isolation has been particularly acute for folks living with disabilities, who were medically advised to reduce their contacts with others, and for people living with mobility restrictions or who were and are immunocompromised.Today we are seeing the effects of increased loneliness and that two years without socialization have had a profound impact on the mental health of society. At this time, the Liberals have continued to hold back national funding for mental health resources. This is unconscionable. To leave low-income individuals unable to connect to private counselling, which is all that is available to them, is leaving them behind. I will echo my NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni by saying the Liberals need to live up to their promise and spend the billions they are holding back on for mental health funding. In addition, with the reality of long COVID, I must mention that the Liberals are also withholding implementing the Canada disability benefit. This, too, must change. It is unacceptable that in this time of rising costs of living, the Liberals would leave persons with disabilities behind and not recognize how the pandemic has exacerbated their lived reality.Before I close, I want to take a moment to recognize the incredible work that community members in the riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra did during the pandemic to rescue and redirect good, healthy food. Organizations like the Tri-Cities Moms Group, United Way, the Immigrant Link Centre Society, CityReach and The People's Pantry all stepped up to ensure that food from restaurants that needed to close, airlines that cancelled flights and food suppliers that had excess food was redistributed and not wasted. That work continues today as, unfortunately, more and more Canadians are forced to the food bank because the Liberal government and the Conservatives before them have been cutting and gutting affordable housing for decades. In this time of pandemic observance, I will close by saying that the NDP supports this bill, but the Liberal government needs to implement the standard of care that I mentioned; it needs to revisit extending that CEBA loan that we have asked for, and it needs to really get to work on improving working conditions for caregivers in this country. People in our communities deserve no less.Canada disability benefitCaregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19Mental healthPandemicPandemic Observance DayPersons with disabilitiesPrivate Members' BillsPublic healthS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsSocial marginalityThird reading and adoption8170662817066381706648170665817066681706678170668817066981706708170671817067281706738170674817067581706768170677817067881706798170680MoniquePauzéRepentignyFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.): (2040)[English]Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to be here with all of my colleagues this evening as the House has returned for its first week back sitting.Before I begin, I wanted to say one or two personal remarks. This morning I was able to return to my riding for a wonderful announcement with the Attorney General, the public safety minister, the Premier of Ontario and a number of his cabinet ministers in relation to an investment we are making to tackle gun and gang violence. When I returned to my riding, I found out from very good family friends of my wife and mine, whom we have known for nearly 10 years in the riding, and who are family to us and vice versa, that the patriarch of the family had passed away, so I was able to go to the visitation this afternoon. I rearranged the schedule, just as we all do in the House, and I was able to pay my respects to the family, who are dear friends of mine.The funeral is tomorrow morning, and I paid my respects this evening. However, I wanted to say to Domenico and Carm, as well as to their sons, Matthew and Michael, and their wives, Mia and Vanessa, along with the grandchildren and all the siblings, that their patriarch, the grandfather Serafino, much like millions of immigrants and newcomers who have come to this country, came to Canada for the opportunity that Canada has provided for all of us. They and their family are in my thoughts. He lived a full life, and he was one tough son of a gun from that generation. I send them my condolences.I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill S-209, an act respecting pandemic observance day. I am also pleased to announce the government's support of the bill.It is not often that bills are tabled in the House that we can all rally around, but I think this is one of those times. Bill S-209 proposes to designate March 11 as pandemic observance day throughout Canada. It was on March 11, 2020, that the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic.What would this day be all about? First and foremost, it would be a day to honour the over 6.8 million people who have died of COVID-19 globally, more than 51,000 of whom were in Canada. I will take a moment to let those words and those numbers sink in. COVID-19 is now the deadliest disaster in Canadian history, excluding acts of war. It has surpassed the 1918 influenza pandemic, which led to nearly 50,000 deaths in Canada.We can imagine if, in early March 2020, someone had suggested that 51,000 people living in Canada would be gone forever due to this terrible virus, it would have been unfathomable, but here we are, almost four years, and too many deaths, later. Collectively, we have lost friends, parents, grandparents and siblings. Nothing can change that, but a pandemic observance day could help us acknowledge these profound losses. We should let this day forever be a formal recognition of our collective grief. This day would also be an opportunity for us to recognize all the frontline workers who experienced higher risks of COVID-19 exposure in their work environment while ensuring continuity of critical services.The pandemic has placed unprecedented pressures and demands on Canada's health workforce and health care system. Since March 2020, health care professionals have extended themselves to meet the increased demands of COVID-19, but they are now stretched dangerously thin. Reports of burnout are increasing, and a significant number of health care professionals, particularly nurses, are considering leaving their profession altogether.Studies have shown that frontline workers are more likely to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and/or major depressive disorder than those who are not frontline workers. The pandemic has contributed to labour shortages across Canada, most critically in the health care sector.Without human health resources, there is simply no health care. Without those brave men and women who are nurses, emergency room workers and ambulance attendants, there is no health care. While this symbolic day of observance would not fix these problems, recognizing this outstanding group of Canadians would signal how grateful Canadians are for their work and dedication.Finally, this day of observance would acknowledge the serious impact COVID-19 has had on the health of Canada's population, both on health in the traditional sense and on mental health. While deaths are the ultimate, irreversible consequences of the pandemic, millions of Canadians have contracted and continue to contract COVID-19.(2045)Over 4.5 million cases have been confirmed in Canada, but we all know that this is a gross underestimate since the emergence of the omicron variant in December 2021, when we began increasingly to rely on at-home rapid testing. By now, we have all had personal connections with people who have contracted the virus, some more than once. While the majority of those infected will recover, some continue to experience ongoing physical and/or psychological symptoms. Based on the World Health Organization's estimate that at least 10% of those infected develop a post-COVID-19 condition, there could be thousands of Canadians who suffer from ongoing symptoms. Many consequences of this condition and its negative long-term impacts are yet to be understood.In addition to the long-term physical impacts associated with contracting the virus, many Canadians also experienced worsening mental health during the pandemic. For some, the pandemic experience was coupled with the stress of a job loss, isolation from loved ones, restrictions on community, learning and recreational activities, and/or the need to balance work and caregiving responsibilities. The breadth and depth of these challenges negatively affected the feelings and perceptions of mental health and well-being of many Canadians, especially among women, younger Canadians and frontline workers. Social distancing restrictions strained social ties, causing feelings of isolation and damaging mental health. Many people across the country have faced hardships as a result of the pandemic, as we all know.Again, while a national day of observance will not solve these issues, it would at least signal the importance of recognizing our losses while continuing to work towards understanding and addressing the health, socio-economic and broader consequences of COVID-19. I do hope that everyone here this evening can rally behind this bill.Since the pandemic was declared, COVID-19 has had an immeasurable impact on every single Canadian and every single Canadian family. It has impacted the way we have all worked, learned, connected with friends and family, and lived our daily lives.It is important to recognize that this national day of observance is not prescriptive. Everyone will be able to commemorate this day as they wish, leaving room for the imagination and creativity of individuals and communities, recognizing that there is a wide range of potential activities to memorialize this day.Individuals and groups can recognize this day in a way that will reflect the nature and intensity of their suffering, their needs and their communities. For governments, this could be a day for reflection, a time for an assessment of what worked and what did not.Every March 11, from here on, going forward, will serve to remind Canadians of the tragic events and the display of solidarity and empathy within communities. It will be a day to come together on what we have learned and how to collectively define a new way forward.I am thankful to have had this time to speak to this bill this evening and to indicate the government's support for a pandemic observance day.Caregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19Deaths and funeralsMental healthPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsPublic healthS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption81706818170682817068381706848170685817068681706878170688817068981706908170691817069281706938170694817069581706968170697817069881706998170700BonitaZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamGarnettGenuisSherwood 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' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (2050)[English]Madam Speaker, what a striking piece of legislation we have in front of us from a Liberal member of Parliament. In the same period here that the government has had its hand slapped by the court for the way it acted during the pandemic, we have a Liberal member who wants us to be aware and have an awareness day for the pandemic. By the way, it is sort of a running joke here that the Liberals' solution to every problem, the go-to for every issue, is an awareness day. It is very rare that members of Parliament have an opportunity to actually bring forward a private member's bill for debate and a vote. However, instead of putting forward substantive changes to the law, things that would impact people's lives, the member across the way, who is not a new member and who has had a long time to think about what kind of private member's bill to put forward, chose an awareness day, as if anybody was not aware of the pandemic. However, let us be aware of the pandemic while we are here and while the member opposite said that her biggest idea for a private member's bill is a day dedicated to awareness about the pandemic. Let us be aware of what happened during the pandemic, and let us be aware of what the Federal Court said about what this government did during the pandemic. We have a ruling from the Federal Court that the decision of the government to use the Emergencies Act during the pandemic was unconstitutional and was a violation of the charter. It is interesting because this government has, for a long time, tried to wrap itself in the charter. However, it has shown complete disdain for the charter when it gets in the way of its desire to demonize people who disagree with it and to divide Canadians. This has become clear. What typifies the value system of the Prime Minister is not the Charter of Rights and Freedoms but his admiration for the basic dictatorships that he sees in other countries. That has been clear from what he said, and that has been clear from what he did during the pandemic. During the pandemic, we had very difficult situations. Governments around the world tried to grapple with how they could respond to the challenges and how they could adjust quickly to those realities. I recall standing here in this place and making a simple recommendation. I said that we should look to and learn from the countries that were the most successful at reducing transmission, and those tended to be our East Asian democratic partners, countries that put in place effective border measures at the beginning and that built up a stockpile of necessary equipment and that took a collaborative approach around things like masking and contact tracing. I said very clearly at the beginning that we should be learning from countries like Taiwan and South Korea. Unfortunately, the World Health Organization failed to engage with Taiwan, in particular, and learn from what Taiwan was doing well. I asked questions in the House as well about the failure of the Liberal government to engage with Taiwan and to push the World Health Organization to engage with Taiwan. If we look at those early months, when the government said that any limitations on what happens at the border would be unacceptable. Representatives of the government said that masks did not work. All kinds of things were said in the early weeks and months of the pandemic, on which the government subsequently reversed itself. On some level, I think Canadians would have some sympathy for leaders who made mistakes in the early days of the pandemic if they had the humility to acknowledge that they did not know everything, that they understood the challenges and that they were doing their best to learn as things went along. However, the government showed a complete lack of humility in relation to the differences of perspective that existed in the context of the pandemic. In fact, this government tried to marginalize and demonize those who had a different point of view.(2055)That demonization escalated as the process went along. When vaccines became available, of course Canadians were reading what they could, trying to understand, trying to learn about the approach they wanted to take and evaluate personal health choices in the context of the information that was coming out. However, the Prime Minister tried to discriminate against and demonize people who chose not to get the vaccine.Particularly bizarrely, the Prime Minister tried to enforce a requirement where, for people who were working alone in the cab of their truck and did not have interactions with other people, for the most part, in the course of their work, as their nature of their work was to sit behind the wheel by themselves and drive, the effect of the policy he imposed was that they could not engage in cross-border trucking if they were not vaccinated. That provoked a strong response from Canadians; it was not just the policy but also the rhetoric, the name-calling against Canadians who had made different choices.I think there was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to try to show leadership and say, “Look, here is my view. Here is the approach we feel we have to take, but I understand this is difficult and I want to bring Canadians together.” He did not take that approach. He wanted to try to divide Canadians for political reasons.He had an opportunity again, when protesters came to Ottawa, to try to defuse the situation and to try to listen to the conversations that were happening, but he persisted in trying to use the events politically, including through the draconian imposition of the Emergencies Act, measures, or measures like them, that had not been used since another Trudeau was prime minister. These draconian measures have since been determined by the court to be unconstitutional.COVID-19EmergenciesGovernment performanceImmunizationOttawaPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsProtestsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption817070181707028170703817070481707058170706817070781707088170709817071081707118170712FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPandemic Day ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (2100)[English]The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.COVID-19Dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order PaperPandemicPandemic Observance DayPrivate Members' BillsS-209, An Act respecting Pandemic Observance DaySenate billsThird reading and adoption8170713GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanDanMazierDauphin—Swan River—Neepawa//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1755)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak briefly to Bill C-290.This is an important piece of legislation that would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which gives federal public sector employees and others a secure and confidential process for disclosing serious wrongdoings in the workplace, as well as protection from acts and reprisal.The bill proposes to expand the protections of the PSDPA to additional categories of public servants, permit that a protected disclosure be made to any superior, and add a duty to provide support to whistle-blowers, as well as repeal sections of the act that prevent overlap with other recourse mechanisms and provisions that set the standards of seriousness of wrongdoing. The bill is in line with some of the recommendations from the 2017 Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates' reports for legislative reforms regarding whistleblowing in the public sector. It is a bill that the government is very glad to see and is supportive of. We, as the government, believe that public servants who disclose serious wrongdoings must be protected.The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act helps to ensure an ethical workplace culture and supports the integrity of the public federal sector. Canada's whistle-blowing law is one component of the recourse mechanism for public servants that covers harassment, discrimination, labour grievances and privacy complaints. Soon, we will launch a comprehensive review of the act to strengthen protections for public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Its task force will include academic experts, union representatives and senior—C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsStatutory reviewThird reading and adoption8116511811651281165138116514AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMrs. Julie Vignola: (1800)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.The interpreters are telling us that there is a phone near the microphone that is vibrating. Perhaps my colleague could put it on the chair to stop the vibration.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoptionTranslation and interpretation services81165158116516MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1800)[English]I was just wrapping up, Madam Speaker, saying that although we look forward to a comprehensive review of the act in due course, we certainly are supportive of this particular bill and look forward to the Senate moving on this quickly so the legislation will pass into law.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsStatutory reviewThird reading and adoption8116519AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this House on behalf of the constituents of Calgary Midnapore in my role as shadow minister for the Treasury Board for His Majesty's loyal opposition.Before I begin, I would like to send a special wish to my husband James, who is currently in the hospital awaiting surgery. I am not sure if he is watching this, but I am certainly thinking of him and looking forward to seeing him at the end of this week, as well as my son Edward. I thank my mother, my sister and my niece as well for taking such good care of my son at this time.Bill C-290 is a private member's bill that was put forward this year. This bill would amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to strengthen the current whistle-blower protections for public servants; expand the definition of the term “wrongdoing”; broaden what is considered a supervisor so that public servants can make a protected disclosure to any superior within their organization; remove the requirement that a protective disclosure must be in good faith; and ensure that a whistle-blower will be protected as long as they reasonably believe what they are disclosing is true.It would expand the Auditor General's mandate to receive disclosures of wrongdoing from within the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; remove the requirement that investigations by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner cannot overlap with investigations under other laws; extend protections to former public servants, government contractors and all those involved in a disclosure; give supervisors a duty to protect and provide support to public servants involved in disclosures; allow for a remedy to be provided to a whistle-blower if a reprisal is taken; and extend the deadline to file a reprisal complaint from 60 days to one year.It would expand the annual report requirements, including the number of disclosures made by wrongdoing, the duration of all open cases and cases closed during the fiscal year; the distribution of cases by region and the distribution of cases by federal departments and agencies; increase the fines for reprisals against a whistle-blower from $10,000 to $200,000 for indictable offences and $5,000 to $100,000 for summary convictions; and require the act to be reviewed by Parliament every five years.This legislation was introduced under former prime minister Harper in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Ironically, we find ourselves again, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP coalition, with a significant number of scandals. The most recent was a whistle-blower alleging the Minister of Industry's office softened the STDC report in a cover-up. This is another example where the government attempted to cover up a whistle-blower rather than support a whistle-blower, as former prime minister Harper so bravely did in his first piece of legislation.In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates conducted a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act and published a report, and many of the recommendations made in the report are included in this bill. That is, no doubt, a positive thing. The question is: Why did the government not take it upon itself to adjust this legislation prior to a private member bringing a private member's bill forward? It is a valuable question.When this legislation was finally brought forward, the government operations and estimates committee spent hours going through this bill. The major point of the committee going through this bill was due to an attempt by the current Liberal-NDP coalition to water down this bill and provide no protection to whistle-blowers, as is evidenced in the example I just gave of the industry minister. It is very disappointing and not surprising.It was expected that the government would implement the recommendations in the 2017 report, but it did not make it a priority to do so. It did what it is really good at. It created a task force, someone to review this legislation and consult with. It is the government's forte to have consultations and gather groups together to review things, with no result.(1805)On December 7, it was the one-year anniversary of the government introducing this task force, which was supposed to review whistle-blower legislation. One year later, there is nothing to show for it. I was in the lobby right outside these chambers when the then president of the treasury board started this process. A year later, there is simply nothing to show for it.I am very proud of the history that the official opposition has of protecting whistle-blowers in the public service. In addition to the legislation that was brought forward by the Harper government, we also included, with our 2019 and 2021 election platforms, the promise to continue this legislation and to provide more stringent protection for whistle-blowers. Our party has been consistent in supporting increased whistle-blower protections as the policy issues arise.As I said, this government has a history of scandal. It has a history of cover-ups. It has a history of inaction. After creating task force consultations, it wants to just kick things down the line, push things down the line and avoid responsibility. It is unfortunate, but we actually see this beyond this whistle-blowing legislation, Bill C-290, is in front of us today. It did it today with the private member's bill that was in front of us on child pornography, on protecting our children, protecting the next generation.Liberals turned their backs. They did not support that legislation as well. This is absolutely in line with the government, to turn its back, to kick things down the line. It would be absolutely impossible for me to stand up here and not mention this as well, which is the most evident display of this. In the greatest conflict in the world right now, through turning its back on a long-standing defender of democracy, through not standing to bring a peaceful end of this conflict and the destruction of Hamas, it is willing to turn its back on not only an entire nation but also, essentially, the entire world order. The things that will come to pass in the Middle East are only, once again, a delay of the things that will soon arrive, that are arriving in other places in the world.We see this with this current government and what it is doing with world conflict, with the child pornography PMB that was in front of us today, and also with the Bill C-290 legislation.This government now has the opportunity to do the responsible thing and not only get this legislation through the House but also go one step further to complete the findings of that task force. I hope the President of the Treasury Board will deliver. She has not delivered on finding that puny $15 billion, hardly a drop in the bucket relative to our current deficit and our debt. I do not hold a lot of hope, frankly, that she will come through for whistle-blowers.It is unfortunate that she was not there for the testimony throughout the government operations committee, which was heartbreaking. It was absolutely terrible to see the things that our public servants have been going through.Our party was the party of supporting whistle-blowers at that time. We continue to be the party of workers all across Canada, standing up for them in both the public and private realms.I truly hope that it is within the heart of this government, at this special time of year, at Christmastime, at Hanukkah, at Kwanzaa, to find the responsibility to better handle the crises of the world, our future generation and the concerns of whistle-blowers.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActChain of commandConflict of interestContractorsDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceGovernment accountabilityGreen economyPenaltiesPolitical influencePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsSustainable Development Technology CanadaTask forcesThird reading and adoption811652081165218116522811652381165248116525811652681165278116528811652981165308116531811653281165338116534811653581165368116537MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsGordJohnsCourtenay—Alberni//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89263GordJohnsGord-JohnsCourtenay—AlberniNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JohnsGord_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, at third reading. First, I want to give a huge shout-out to my colleague from Mirabel for tabling this bill and taking leadership on this. I also want to thank my colleague and friend from Beauport—Limoilou, who worked really closely with me and our team of New Democrats because we both care and really are passionate about protecting workers' rights.I want to talk about those workers. These are brave Canadians and Quebeckers who report wrongdoing or crimes in their workplace and often experience consequences like losing their income, health and happiness and all for speaking the truth. All Canadian and Quebec workers should be able to feel safe when they are reporting workplace crimes and negligence.We know Canada has some of the worst whistle-blower laws in the world, tied with Lebanon. The Conservatives like to pat themselves on the back and say that they care about whistle-blowers, but it is Liberals and Conservatives who have teamed up over decades to make sure that whistle-blowers do not get the chance to protect our society and government.It was actually the current leader of the Conservative Party who last brought in legislation when he was in government. The experts say that he did not make things better; he made it even harder for whistle-blowers. He made it even worse. The Conservatives say they are for workers, but what did they do today? They moved a concurrence motion so that we could not talk about anti-scab legislation. The Conservatives are not here for workers.Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat numerous amendments that would actually strengthen protections for whistle-blowers in this bill. They voted against many amendments to Bill C-290. We talk about the coalition. Let us talk about the coalition of Liberals and Conservatives who are fighting workers, muting workers and stonewalling workers from doing the right thing and being able to have the opportunity to protect Canadians and Quebeckers. It is not surprising for the Liberals and their rich friends who are not worried about whistle-blowing. The leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservatives will always prop up their big bosses and not workers. We know that. They have a track record. We have receipts. We are keeping receipts. Canadians and Quebeckers need stronger whistle-blower protection, so that there is more transparency and accountability of government and the public service.As New Democrats, we are committed to protecting the rights and safety of all workers. That is why we are pushing to make sure Canadians and Quebeckers have the strongest whistle-blower protections possible. I want to talk about the importance of strong whistle-blower laws. Because of how weak our protections for whistle-blowers are, less wrongdoing will get reported and stopped. Protecting whistle-blowers is necessary to protect Canadians' and Quebeckers' lives and security.Whistle-blower reports protect Canada's global reputation and relationships, so this is important. Luc Sabourin reported that superiors at Passport Canada were destroying foreign passports and logging that they returned them to the foreign embassies. He endured eight years of harassment and abuse, including hand sanitizer in his coffee and threats to his children's safety. Before losing his career in 2016 and almost losing his life, he had the courage to show up at our committee and to fight to protect the future of all workers. He is a hero and the reprisal has been significant, and the impact and damage to his life have been significant. I want to thank Luc for the courage to have shared his story; and my colleague from the Bloc who brought Luc to committee and worked with Luc.As I said, whistle-blower reports save lives. In 1996, Michèle Brill-Edwards also lost her career after she reported that big pharma was influencing the drug-approval process here in Canada, endangering Canadian lives. We brought forward amendments that were defeated. Our first amendment that we brought forward was to allow whistle-blowers to go to the public or media in specific situations where, for example, the commissioner is not dealing with the complaint or decides not to do anything to stop the wrongdoing. Liberals and Conservatives teamed up in their coalition to oppose this. Therefore, now whistle-blowers are at a huge risk if they expose wrongdoing to the Canadian public.The second amendment was interim relief, which would have protected whistle-blowers from punishments like termination as soon as they reported wrongdoing. Instead, we are allowing punishments to happen to them and then spending years investigating whether they were indeed punished. The coalition defeated it.(1815)The third one is the reverse onus. Right now, the whistle-blower has to prove reprisal. I will give an example: If they were fired, they have to prove that it was because they reported wrongdoing, which is virtually impossible. This amendment would have forced their superiors to prove that there was a real reason to fire them. In other jurisdictions, this change brings the chances of success from as low as one in 500 to as high as one in three, which would make sense. Those would be strong whistle-blower laws. What happened? The coalition of Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to defeat the amendment.Again, these are critical amendments. Some things we brought forward as New Democrats were passed. I am grateful that the coalition did not fight these and that we actually got them through, working closely with our Bloc colleagues, who were fabulous on this bill. The first one is that we improved whistle-blowers' access to the tribunal. This is critical, because the commissioner has been acting as a gatekeeper, preventing workers from accessing the tribunal. In the tribunal's 16 years of operation, the commissioner has only referred nine cases to it. That is insane. It is a terrible track record for Canada and right there, as I said, with Lebanon. There needs to be access to both options, because the commissioner sometimes decides not to even investigate a complaint. It is unbelievable.The second amendment we brought forward and that passed, as we were glad to see, would create a survey metric to measure whistle-blowers' satisfaction with the process, how supported and protected they felt, etc. We have been looking at the effectiveness of these laws with no input from the whistle-blowers they were supposed to protect. Now they have a voice. Again, I want to go back to my colleague from Mirabel and thank him for that.The third amendment we were able to get through was adding psychological damage from harassment as a form of reprisal that whistle-blowers are protected from. That is absolutely critical. These are Canadians and Quebeckers who are standing up and fighting for the best services to deliver to their communities.I am going to finish with one area that is not covered, which is subcontractors. I will give an example: At the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, we found out through the ArriveCAN scandal that there were companies that received a contract, Coradix and Dalian, and they subcontracted to a company called GCStrategies, which then subcontracted to a company called Botler. However, they are not protected. Even though they are delivering services under a government contract through the Canada Border Services Agency, they are absolutely not protected. This is just unbelievable. Both Dalian and Coradix took a commission of between 15% and 30%, and GCStrategies took a commission of 15% to 30%. None of them had expertise in what they needed. These are headhunters. It is like the worst pyramid scheme, in terms of outsourcing, that is happening with Canadian taxpayers' dollars and the layering of commissions. For Botler, the reprisal was significant for Ritika Dutt and Amir Morv. It is unbelievable, the punishment they took for standing up for Canadian taxpayers, for whistle-blowing, and the treatment they have been under. The government is continuing to fail them for continuing to tell the truth. It is continuing to allow these contractors, who are suspended from the Canada Border Services Agency, to have contracts with other federal departments, even though they are under investigation by the RCMP. We can talk about how failed and miserable the situation is.We are taking a step forward to fix how the coalition of the Conservatives and Liberals teamed up to mute whistle-blowers. Again, it is because of my colleague from Mirabel, who used his slot. He was high in the order of precedence, and he took this on to stand up for human rights. New Democrats stand with the Bloc, and we worked really hard on this. I am glad it is moving forward. Let us hope for a better future. Let us hope we can address the concerns that are not addressed in this bill and continue to work together. Workers deserve it. We owe it to them.Burden of proofC-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActContractorsDisciplinary measuresDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceHarassmentLaw enforcementPolitical behaviourPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption81165388116539811654081165418116542811654381165448116545811654681165478116548811654981165508116551811655281165538116554811655581165568116557StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeJulieVignolaBeauport—Limoilou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104656JulieVignolaJulie-VignolaBeauport—LimoilouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VignolaJulie_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ): (1815)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased and proud to rise here today at the end of the third reading of Bill C‑290 so that this bill can go to Senate, where we hope it will be studied and passed quickly so we can protect our public servants.Public servants are the people who apply the rules and policies while ensuring that the federal services machine remains in good working order. Public servants are the first to notice when the rules and policies are not properly enforced, when they are asked to do things in a way that is not right or when people are doing things they should not be doing. They are the first to witness anything that could go wrong.When a public servant witnesses such behaviour, it is important that they be able to report it without fear for their personal, social and professional life, as well as that of their family. I will come back to that. We have information that has led us to believe that, despite the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, some public servants have kept quiet and others have been threatened. My colleague talked about this in his speech. With that in mind, my colleague from Mirabel decided to take the bull by the horns and say that we could not let this go.There is no small wrongdoing. Wrongdoing is wrongdoing. Whether it is big, small or mid-sized, it is wrongdoing, period. Each time there is wrongdoing, taxpayers' money is misused. Each time someone blows the whistle and, in the end, a public servant gets rebuffed, harassed or intimidated, there is a loss of expertise and loyalty. That loyalty must be protected. That is why my colleague from Mirabel introduced Bill C‑290.This bill needs to be passed. We need to protect our public servants, those who are the most loyal, who want things to run smoothly, who want taxpayers' money to be used appropriately. However, what we have been seeing is that some public servants are being harassed and intimidated. I am talking about those who dare to speak up. Some have even had threats made against their families. Some have been told that they will not get a pension. Some of these threats have been carried out. People have been forced to retire early, and their pension was frozen for months or even years. That is not how an employer should treat its employees. If any private sector employer did something like that, they would very quickly end up in court.Our role is to protect public servants and the public. By protecting whistle-blowers in the public service, we are protecting the public by extension. That is what this bill does. Does it go far enough? No, it does not. There are issues regarding royal assent, among others. Some provisions were weakened by committee amendments. That is unfortunate because, rather than becoming a leader, an exemplary employer, Canada is hardly making any headway with this bill.People will say I am gullible. Perhaps I am naive, but I had hope. I believed the member for Hull—Aylmer when he said that the government was going to introduce a bill that would complement and strengthen ours, so that Canada would become a leader in protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. That bill was to be tabled before the end of the year.(1820)Here we are, basically at the end of the year. I have yet to see a bill that would strengthen ours. That said, I am a bit gullible. I will remain positive. I will remain optimistic that the government is going to introduce a bill that will strengthen the one that my colleague from Mirabel introduced and that was studied in committee, in order to really protect public servants.The process of amending the bill was not easy, but it was extremely rewarding from a personal learning perspective. Amendments were tabled that narrowed the scope of the bill. Some of these amendments had to be introduced because my colleague from Mirabel's bill required royal assent. We do not run the government and we never will. In case this comes as a surprise to anyone, that will never happen. Certain amendments had to be introduced to avoid royal assent, which was an issue, apparently.I think the biggest disagreement we had in committee was on the bill's coming into force date. The government wanted to delay that indefinitely. We said the law needed to apply as soon as there was royal assent. If we delay its implementation indefinitely, as with other bills where the government said it would come into force 18 months after royal assent, we would end up with a bill that might never come into force because there will be an election or something, when we want the measure to be implemented as soon as possible.There is not a government in the world that would not benefit from having legislation that protects public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Every government should have strong legislation on the matter. This protects people who are loyal and it ensures that there is no corruption, no wrongdoing, no reprehensible or illegal act within the public service, which is why it needs to be exemplary. The government, too, needs to set the best example possible for other employers. That is why it is important to have strong legislation. I hope that the Liberal government, or any other government, will realize how important this is and will introduce legislation that will be even stronger than the one we have here.When we met with people about this bill, we were asked why the Bloc Québécois was introducing such a bill. They said that the Bloc Québécois is separatist, but it wants to protect Canadian public servants. It does, but there are Quebeckers working in the Canadian public service. It is important that we protect our shared values. They acknowledged that that was true, that the Bloc Québécois is used to being David fighting Goliath.Bill C‑290 is a David and Goliath bill. The Senate is another Goliath. I sincerely hope that the members of the Senate will do what was done in committee and come together to pass a private member's bill for the benefit of the entire public service and, ultimately, taxpayers' money.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisciplinary measuresDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption8116558811655981165608116561811656281165638116564811656581165668116567811656881165698116570GordJohnsCourtenay—AlberniCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the transparency-loving residents of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.It has been fascinating to hear members from the NDP-Liberal government speak to this legislation. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is a direct result of Liberal corruption. Whistle-blower protection was a cornerstone of the Conservative Federal Accountability Act. It was the first substantive bill introduced by the Harper government following over a decade of Liberal corruption that reached its climax with the sponsorship scandal. The Chrétien Liberals had given millions of dollars to well-connected companies to do little actual work other than to funnel the cash back to Liberal Party coffers. Canadians had grown tired of the arrogant, corrupt Liberals and demanded a change. Despite losing the election, the NDP and remaining Liberals refused to listen to Canadians. That is why the socialist coalition voted against our accountability act and whistle-blower protection. I saw the bow-tied banker from Ajax join with the failed punk rocker from Timmins—James Bay voting against whistle-blower protection. As different as those two members may appear, they share the same inverted belief that people should serve the government instead of government serving the people. Now, if Canadians have any doubt of this NDP-Liberal government's contempt for whistle-blowers, just look at its track record. One of the first acts this government did was to redirect a shipbuilding contract to its friends. When multiple people shared that information, what did this Prime Minister do? He called Vice-Admiral Norman a criminal and said the admiral would face the courts. Mark Norman spoke truth to power and paid a heavy price. I know he thinks this Prime Minister is not worth the cost.When another whistle-blower leaked the story of Jody Wilson-Raybould being pressured to direct a prosecution, this Prime Minister called the report fake news. He then fired Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott and kicked them out of caucus to boot. This government is so repulsed by truth and accountability, it attacked the people the whistle-blowers tried to protect.Then there are the multiple whistle-blowers who tried to do the right thing at the Sustainable Development Technology Corporation. They followed the procedures. They reported it to the deputy minister. The deputy minister even compared it to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. That same deputy said his minister would blow a gasket upon learning the damning information, except nothing happened. No gaskets were blown. No executives were fired. No board members were sacked. There were rampant conflicts of interest and comparisons to the sponsorship scandal. Yet, it was not until the whistle-blowers went to The Globe and Mail that anything happened. Swap out the words “sustainable development” with “foreign interference”, and we see a similar story. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, Canadians would still be in the dark about the extent of Communist interference. Our Conservative Party was attacked in the last two elections. The government knew it and covered it up. The Liberals had just spent the last eight years pushing conspiracy theories about Russia to smear Conservatives, so the last thing they needed were credible reports they had received assistance from Communists who control China. If not for the CSIS whistle-blower, there would not be a public inquiry into foreign interference.Given the recent partisan comments by the judge and her selection of intervenors, we may still not actually have an actual public inquiry. Even the hand-picked special rapporteur actually confirmed that many of the CSIS leaks were accurate. He confirmed that the member for Don Valley North did engage in secret meetings with the Communist consulate in Toronto and did discuss the two Michaels. That member would still be sitting in the Liberal caucus were it not for the whistle-blower.Yet, this Prime Minister sent his national security adviser out to speak to reporters just to let them know that this government is actively hunting for this whistle-blower. NSA Thomas actually said the whistle-blower would be caught and punished. The Liberal government is declaring a whistle-blower guilty without a trial again. It is as though it has learned nothing from Vice-Admiral Norman and his persecution. That is why we must pass this bill.The NPD-Liberal government will continue to ignore lessons unless we update the legislation. After eight years of Liberal corruption, whistle-blower protection must become stronger. The Liberals claim this is unnecessary, because they budgeted $2 million for a special task force that is supposed to review a committee report from six years ago. They can save taxpayers $2 million and just support the legislation. C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActConflict of interestDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceForeign influenced activitiesGovernment accountabilityGreen economyPolitical behaviourPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsSustainable Development Technology CanadaTask forcesThird reading and adoption811657181165728116573811657481165758116576811657781165788116579811658081165818116582JulieVignolaBeauport—LimoilouAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): (1830)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have always found you to be very charming, with your bright smile. I am feeling charmed today, but it is not because of you. It is because after hours of debate, after voting, testimony and amendments at committee, it is very moving to stand before you and my colleagues, who have worked with me for this last hour of debate on Bill C‑290 and on whistle-blower protection.Today, the House of Commons is at a crossroads. I will not go over the bill's history or its content once again. My colleagues did a great job—C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption81165848116585AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1835)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I was saying that we have reached a crossroads with this bill. All of the parties worked on it. It is a bit of a sliding scale. As we know, our interests diverge. Today, however, we have a good bill. This is obviously a first step, but everything starts with a first step.I would like to take this opportunity to do what I did during my previous speeches on Bill C‑290. Once again, I call on all the parties to work together, because absolutely nothing could be less partisan than protecting whistle-blowers, transparency and integrity. Absolutely nothing should be less partisan than that.I would add that today, we finally have a serious opportunity to send a message of hope to all federal public servants watching us today. They contact us, and we know that they are watching us. We want to tell them that their integrity and safety matter. I am speaking to them directly. Their safety, integrity, career, life and family matter. That is the profound message conveyed by this bill.Now, there are some people I would like to thank directly. I would like to thank whistle-blower Julie Dion and whistle-blower Luc Sabourin, both former public servants at the Canada Border Services Agency. They are courageous people with a sense of public service right down to their core. They paid dearly in order to stand up for transparency. I would like to thank whistle-blower Joanna Gualtieri, a former public servant—C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceGovernment accountabilityPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption8116588811658981165908116591AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/116022ShuvaloyMajumdarShuvaloy-MajumdarCalgary HeritageConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MajumdarShuvaloy_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Shuvaloy Majumdar: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to inquire about Private Members' Business. It ends at 6:57 p.m. today, as I understand, but there are no questions and comments. Perhaps the hon. member could come back tomorrow for questions and comments.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsQuestions and comments periodThird reading and adoption8116594AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: (1835)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think the reason some people are raising points of order is because the hon. member for Mirabel has been black-listed by the hon. member for Carleton. His Conservative Party cronies want to play games.Let us allow my colleague to finish. It is a great bill.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsQuestions and comments periodThird reading and adoption81165978116598AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110889BlakeDesjarlaisBlake-DesjarlaisEdmonton GriesbachNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesjarlaisBlake_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Blake Desjarlais: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very interested in the member for Mirabel's comments. I have seen the Conservatives several times attempt to shutdown debate in this place and censor members.If you could, please ensure that we have a lively debate and that the member has a full speech without interruption from the—C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoptionTime limits on speeches81166018116602AlexandraMendèsBrossard—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.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, asking to make sure we have interpretation is the right of every member of Parliament. I take offence to what that member said.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePoints of orderPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsSimultaneous interpretation and sound reinforcementThird reading and adoption8116606AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1835)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will refrain from rising on a point of order myself, but I will use the time I have left to thank Joanna Gualtieri, whistle-blower, former foreign affairs official and pioneer in this field in Canada. I would also like to thank Pamela Forward, president of Whistleblowing Canada; David Hutton, co-founder of the Whistleblowing International Network; Tom Devine, of the Government Accountability Project in Washington and Ian Bron, of the Centre for Free Expression, a former whistle-blower. This is clearly getting a lot of support.I would of course like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for their work. In particular, I want to mention the members for Courtenay—Alberni and Edmonton West. The latter has been championing this cause for a long time.I also want to thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou. If ever there was a caring, competent and understanding person to do this work in committee, it is her. As my colleague clearly demonstrated in committee, the current legislation discourages whistle-blowers. There is a breach of trust. Rather than encouraging whistle-blowers to speak out, we are discouraging them. These people are acting in the public interest, in the interest of Canadians, Quebeckers and taxpayers. We are seeing it here in the House. We saw it a few minutes ago. Certain types of conduct are eroding people's confidence in our institutions. Whistle-blowers counterbalance that.I will use the minute I have left to wish all of my colleagues from all parties a happy holiday season. I want to take a moment to say happy holidays to my constituents in Saint‑Placide, Kanesatake, Oka, Pointe-Calumet, Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac and Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑Lac, as well as those in the north in Saint‑Colomban and those in the east in Saint‑Anne‑des‑Plaines. I want to wish a merry Christmas to everyone who lives in Mirabel, around the airport, and to you, Madam Speaker.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActConfidence in governmentDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceGovernment accountabilityPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption8116609811661081166118116612AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1840)[Translation]Pursuant to Standing Order 98, a recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, January 31, 2024, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredC-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption8116619Jean-DenisGaronMirabelRichardLehouxBeauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96352MaryNgHon.Mary-NgMarkham—ThornhillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NgMary_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Mary Ng(1125)[English] moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Third readingC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112917Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1125)[English]Mr. Speaker, the words that come to my mind right away are “all MAGA, all the time”. To me, that is what this vote was all about. I think the vast majority of Canadians truly understand what we just witnessed, and this is not the first time. The Conservative Party today has gone so far to the right—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112918MaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. James Bezan: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Standing Orders say we are not allowed to reflect on a vote that has been taken in this House, and the parliamentary secretary is doing that.Also, the parliamentary secretary consistently rises in this place and extols very toxic rhetoric. We have the Minister of Trade sitting right here. Should she not be addressing this instead of the parliamentary secretary?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129198112920KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, the issue of reflecting on a vote and talking about how one has voted previously is something we all do in this House all the time. I do not know where the member is coming from, other than the fact that he does not want to hear the truth about—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112923AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, I am going to continue to reflect on the behaviour of the Conservative Party when the Conservative Party consistently votes against Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112926AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//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: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, on that point of order, not only do I take great offence to the fact that he referred to the Conservative Party as far right, but I would also note that according to the Standing Orders, that is not the subject of the debate at hand today.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112929AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that the Conservative Party is a little sensitive right now, because at the end of the day, more and more Canadians are going to come to the realization that the Conservative Party of today is far to the right. It is a pattern we have seen now for months, where the Conservative Party is becoming, as much as possible, the extreme right. I think it is appropriate to point—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112931AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//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: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, we all know that Liberal Party members do not like to participate in debate. They defer to the member for Winnipeg North to do their dirty work—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112933AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, we have seen this happen before, and it is about the procedure in this House. I know sometimes when this member speaks and sometimes when I speak, there is a coordinated effort among Conservative members to stand up on points of order that quite often are not anywhere near points of order, as the member just did.I am looking to you for guidance, Madam Speaker, as to how you will deal with this procedurally if they continually get up on points of order, especially when they are not relevant or not real points of order. How will you ensure that the member has the opportunity to properly debate in this House?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRelevancyThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129368112937AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. James Bezan: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, my point of order was on Standing Order 18, which you definitely ruled on. I have still not heard the member for Winnipeg North retract his inflammatory statements. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112940AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, on that point of order, I have been a parliamentarian for 30 years, and if we say that a member cannot reflect on a vote, one has to take a look at the traditions. It is not just what is in the book but also the traditions, and traditionally—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129418112942JamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, I am looking for clarity on the issue, because I think this is really important.At the end of the day, I cannot imagine how a member of Parliament or any parliamentarian would not be able to challenge a member for the manner in which their caucus is voting. I cannot imagine a world where it would be unparliamentary to do that. Every political party that I am aware of has done that throughout my 30 years in Parliament, whether it is here or at the Manitoba legislature.I would ask, with all due respect, that we reflect on the traditions of the House. Just because one opposition party is sensitive to the truth, I should not be censored from being able to express the reality on the floor of the House of Commons in Canada today. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811294481129458112946AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we were to go through the Standing Orders today, we would find a number of Standing Orders that are somewhat redundant and do not necessarily have value. I would suggest this is one of those Standing Orders, and I would ask— C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112949AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, there is another Standing Order that says we are not allowed to sing in the House, yet the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when introducing a petition earlier today, was singing. I think it would only be appropriate that the petition be removed from the record, because he presented it in a way that goes against our Standing Orders. As a member, I would like to call that out.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsManner of speakingPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129528112953AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/7251LarryMaguireLarry-MaguireBrandon—SourisConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaguireLarry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Larry Maguire: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, but I will get to my point in a moment. If the member who just spoke is calling out the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for singing today, he is pretty loose with what he calls singing.I just want to say—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsManner of speakingPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129568112957AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/7251LarryMaguireLarry-MaguireBrandon—SourisConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaguireLarry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionMr. Larry Maguire: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, the member across the way for Winnipeg North has challenged the Speaker's ruling.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112960AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, if at any point it was interpreted that I was challenging the ruling of the Chair, I apologize for that. I am glad the Speaker has recognized the very serious nature of what the Conservatives are suggesting by implementing that standing order because it will have a very profound effect on many speeches, not only today but well into the future. I suspect it will be referred to well into the future until the rule is changed. I suggest it is a dated rule and one taken out of context only because members opposite are against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which is not a reflection on the vote. It is very clear that the Conservatives do not support the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.We remember the voting marathon and voting line by line. We also remember the leader of the Conservative Party saying last week that Conservatives were going to keep the government working until Christmas, that they were going to fight the government over the price on pollution and keep Liberals voting endlessly. There were 30-plus hours of voting. That was the energy of the leader of the Conservative Party.What ended up happening? When midnight approached, a good portion of Conservatives decided to have a nap and did not necessarily participate in the proceedings. Some caused a great deal of concern. When we voted line by line, we saw the true colours of the Conservative Party on a couple of motions. One was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, better known as Operation Unifier. Canadians would have been shocked to see the manner in which the Conservatives dealt with that particular issue. People would be shocked—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112973811297481129758112976AlexandraMendèsBrossard—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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, a moment ago the member was reflecting on the presence or absence of members at the end of last week. That is very clearly against the rules. The member is not new and knows that reflecting on the presence or absence of particular members is against the rules. I hope he will bring himself to order.Absence or presence of membersC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112978AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, for clarification, if one were to say that 40% of the Conservative caucus was not present for 45% of the votes, would that be against the rules, as I am not talking about an individual?Absence or presence of membersC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112980AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I apologize for having an effect on the sensitivities of the Conservatives on this issue.As I said, Canadians would be very surprised and disappointed because of what we have witnessed, not only today but also the other day during the voting marathon, of the Conservative Party being influenced by MAGA from the deep south in the United States, where there is a movement that is very real and tangible and is being ushered into Canada through the leader of the Conservative Party. We see that the positions Conservatives are taking are now starting to impact Canadian public policy, to the degree that they are detrimental to our communities.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81129828112983AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it goes without saying that Canada is a sovereign nation. For a member to suggest that we are influenced by certain—Ms. Jennifer O'Connell: Debate.Mr. Brad Vis: No.Madam Speaker, when the member brings into question whether Canada is being influenced by a foreign government on certain policies—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112984811298581129868112987KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I am concerned that, through points of order, the Conservative Party of Canada, the so-called freedom party, is trying to limit and censor what I am saying in the House. I find that—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112989AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, I was explaining that we have the MAGA Conservative who has actually infiltrated the leader of the Conservative Party's office. We see that—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112992AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 18, I would consider that to be disrespectful and offensive language. I am not MAGA. I do not refer to myself—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112994AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1140)[English]Madam Speaker, they are a little sensitive on the other side. At the end of the day, they should take responsibility for their behaviour. The Conservatives, on one hand, want to take certain actions, but when they get called out on it, they get a little sensitive. They say they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about this, and they do not want the member from Winnipeg North to be talking about that. They are trying to censor what I say.This is the first time in 30 years I have heard people say we cannot tell people how we voted. I have news for them, despite their trying to prevent me from talking about how they voted inside in the chamber. They may have limited success inside the chamber, but I am going to let people know about the behaviour of members of the Conservative Party of Canada and how they are being influenced by the MAGA movement from the United States coming into Canada. It is very serious stuff. They are not going to stop me from talking about that issue. It is shameful the way members of the Conservative Party today are playing a destructive force, not only on the floor of the House of Commons in preventing legislation from passing, but also in their behaviour, which other people as well as myself have witnessed, in limiting the types of things that can actually be said.Members can think about it. They do not want me, from the floor of the House of Commons, telling Canadians how they voted on legislation because they are embarrassed. I am not talking about any specific piece of legislation. I am talking about the principle of my being able to tell Canadians through this platform how they behave inside this chamber. They will not allow me to say that the Conservative Party voted x on any piece of legislation or any motion. That is what they do not want me to say—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8112997811299881129998113000AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, it is not the Conservative members or the official opposition. It is Standing Order 18, which states, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except”—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113002AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1145)[English]Madam Speaker, to the member opposite, cry me a river. At the end of the day, he can cry all he wants, but Canadians are going to know how the Conservative Party is behaving within the House of Commons. They are going to know how its members are trying to limit debate and the freedom of individuals like me to tell Canadians specifically how the Conservative Party is voting within the House of Commons.Conservatives find a standing order. For the first time in 30 years, I see an opposition party that is so scared to be pointed out and told how its members are behaving. It is because they do not like what they are hearing. I believe there is a number of members in the Conservative caucus who feel very uncomfortable with the manner in which they have been forced to vote.Let me talk about some of the issues. The Conservative Party of Canada demonstrates very clearly the degree to which the MAGA movement in the United States has influenced its members. On the Ukraine trade agreement, there is no other trade agreement I can recall that the Conservatives were in opposition to. This is the only trade agreement they seem to be in opposition to. I am being very generous when I say “seem to be in opposition” because their actions over the last number of weeks, and in fact months, clearly show they have taken that far right stand in support of Russia and against Ukraine.All one needs to do is take a look at the voting marathon, when the Conservative caucus said it was going to challenge the government of the day. We went line by line, and discussions and votes occurred, as we went line by line. I will not say how the Conservatives voted because, after all, they do not want Canadians to know how they voted, but Canadians would be very disappointed. It is consistent with what we saw today on this particular legislation. On the issue of funding to reinforce Canada's support of Ukraine, which is better known as Operation Unifier, Canadians would be very disappointed to see how the Conservatives voted. I cannot tell the House because apparently the Conservatives are super sensitive. They do not want Canadians to know.An hon. member: They didn't vote the same way we did.Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, I do not know if I can say that. They might jump up.An hon. member: I voted no. You can comment on that.Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, one member says that I can say that he voted no. I do not want to be called out for being out of order, but it was a Conservative member who said I could say that, so I had permission to say it.At the end of the day, Operation Unifier is something that supports Ukraine in a very real and tangible way. When one takes—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113004811300581130068113007811300881130098113010811301181130128113013AlexandraMendèsBrossard—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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, you have very clearly made a ruling with respect to a standing order on reflecting on a vote. This is not a matter of what individual members want or prefer, it is simply a matter of enforcement of the ruling you made.This member is continuing to show disrespect for the Chair, which is against another standing order, by doing everything he can to make a point that the Speaker has said he cannot make. It is not for me to say what the standing order should or should not be or what the Chair should or should not have ruled, but this member is showing profound disrespect to—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130168113017AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, I look forward to the report back from the Chair.On that particular point, and I am rising on a point of order, I would like to use the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent as an example, when he stood up and indicated:The Liberals voted against that request and even the Bloc Québécois voted against. It is outrageous.The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Bill C‑234, but it voted against asking the Senate to adopt it.We find endless examples like this one, and that is the reason it is important that we—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130218113022811302381130248113025AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1150)[English]Madam Speaker, I was going through what had taken place during the voting marathon in which the Conservative Party continued to demonstrate its lack of support for Ukraine.When one thinks of Operation Unifier, that is something that literally trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and contributed positively to the war. The way in which Canada contributes can be found in many different ways. One of those was on that particular vote and that was actually Motion No. 54. I would encourage Canadians who want to find out exactly how the Conservatives voted to look it up. Another vote was on funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine, which, again, complemented Unifier. That was on Motion No. 55. Again, I will not say how parties voted, but I would indicate that Canadians might want to take a look at the votes and proceedings, to see how the Conservative Party voted. Motion No. 56 was on funding for military aid. Think about that: military aid for Ukraine. This item received funding from the Treasury Board vote 5, which is government contingency funding, for the expanded contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is budget 2023, funding to reinforce Canada's support for Ukraine.If those who are following the debate want to understand why I have said what I have said and have expressed my disappointment in today's Conservative Party, all they need to do is look at the voting record on those motions and, I would suggest, the report stage of the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement bill. A lot of Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition.I would suggest that the reason we have seen that voting pattern by the Conservative Party is the MAGA right movement in the United States of America and how that movement is coming north. It is being jumped on by the leader of the official opposition.In fact, as I have suggested in the past, we need to be concerned about patterns. One of the patterns that I have witnessed coming from the leader of the official opposition's office is the misinformation and how the official opposition is using that style of politics of MAGA right in order to generate the type of attention that the Conservatives want. They will do it at all costs.Ukraine is but one—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130278113028811302981130308113031811303281130338113034AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Brad Vis: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, I continue to rise on points of order because the language we are hearing from the member from Winnipeg is contrary to Standing Order 18. It is implying that the Conservative Party of Canada is breaking laws related to treason in Canada.As a member of Parliament, I find that offensive to assume that we are influenced by a foreign government—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130368113037AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88925JenniferO'ConnellJennifer-O-ConnellPickering—UxbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OConnellJennifer_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Jennifer O'Connell: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I would point out that the Conservatives often make false claims about associations and such—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113040AlexandraMendèsBrossard—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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, I think my colleague knows well the rules about accusing people of lying or being liars in the House—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113043AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, guilt is a wonderful thing at times. When I look across the way, I see a lot of heads that are down and those members look somewhat depressed. I suspect it might have to do with something that has taken place in terms of their behaviour with respect to Ukraine. Canadians have unified and understood the importance of what is taking place in Ukraine today, but they are disappointed in what they have witnessed coming from the Conservative Party.The President of Ukraine, at a time of war, came to Canada. While in Canada, he signed a trade agreement that is very meaningful not only for economic purposes, but also for morale and making a strong political statement to countries like Russia. It shows that Ukraine is building relationships with the European Union and North America, because Ukraine wants to be able to expand its economy and its relationships through trade agreements. The president, during a time of war, took the time to come here. Let us go back to when we first introduced the bill. In September, he was here. A couple of months later, we are actually dealing with the legislation.If we look at the comments that I put on the record back then, I said I suspect that all members of the House would be glad to see the legislation pass and how wonderful it would be to pass the legislation before Christmas. When I said “pass”, I meant that it had to go through the entire process, including in the Senate. The House will rise in a couple of days, and we have not even got out of third reading.The solidarity for Ukraine is not there because the Conservative Party of today has made the decision to do what it can to deny the unanimous support that is required to get this legislation through. What we have seen today is the Conservative Party does not want us to tell anyone how it is actually voting because the Conservatives feel ashamed about it. That is why.Never before have I been limited in any way, which is why I am very anxious to hear the ruling on being able to tell Canadians how another entity or individual in the House voted. However, I will respect what you have said, Madam Speaker, in the hope that we will get clarity on the issue. I suspect there are many people in this chamber who want to be able to ask the Conservative Party why and challenge it on its actions.The best excuse the Conservatives have come up with is the issue of the price on pollution. That is a red herring. That is all that is. The Conservatives say the reason they are uncomfortable with the legislation is that it has a price on pollution. What they do not recognize is that Ukraine already has a price on pollution. It has had one for over a decade. The whole European Union is moving toward a price on pollution.Only the leader of the Conservative Party here in Canada believes that there is no need for a price on pollution and that there is no need to have a plan for Canada's environment.(1200) I heard one of my colleagues say that it is going back to the Stone Age. I can appreciate why she would say that. They have climate deniers. They do not recognize it. They feel that all they have to do is one thing, but I am scared that if I say the word “mislead”, they will jump up like beans saying that I cannot say that. Let us think about it. Here is what the Conservatives actually say, coast to coast to coast. Conservatives with their shiny-new leader say they are going to cut the tax, that they are going to garbage the price on pollution, and that they are going to make life more affordable. That is what we see today from the Conservative right.I could provide a 20-minute comment in regard to their lack of respect for the whole issue of the environment, but rather, what I would like to point to is just the degree to which they are misleading Canadians. In essence, they are saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution for the residents of Winnipeg North, and that means they are going to axe the tax. That is what, in essence, the Conservatives are saying. They are saying that they would be making life more affordable. I say balderdash. At the end of the day, the Conservatives would actually take money out of the pockets of my constituents because 80-plus per cent get more money back in the rebates than they pay into the price on pollution. That tells me that the Conservatives would take money away from Canadians, but they do not tell Canadians that, because that is not part of the MAGA movement. The MAGA movement says to mislead, and that is what the Conservatives are doing to Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are deceiving real people. They are hurting Canadians. They are not helping on the affordability file—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811304681130478113048811304981130508113051811305281130538113054811305581130568113057AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, opposition parties oppose, and they oppose legislation that they think is bad. That does not cause harm to anyone. The parliamentary secretary's argument that somehow voting against a bill is bad makes no sense. However, something that was bad was the current government's granting—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113060CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the member just told Canadians, on the floor of the House of Commons, that the opposition party voted against a bill and that was just—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113061KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, what actually has harmed Ukraine was the government's decision to grant a waiver to export a gas turbine. It is interesting. The Liberals use President Zelenskyy's name all the time in support of their cause to try to score cheap political points. President Zelenskyy had a few things to say about that waiver. If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exemption to sanctions, what exemptions would it want? Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine but for all countries of the democratic world. Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse that decision. The Ukrainian ambassador went on to say that Russia is using energy as a weapon in Europe and all over the world and this money and fuel were going to support the war in Ukraine. Do the Liberals regret that they actually aided President Putin in his war by exporting that gas turbine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81130678113068CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, as the member tries to change the channel, we need to recognize the reality of today. The reality of today is that there is one political entity, better known as the Conservative Party of Canada, that seems to want to take the side of Russia over Ukraine. That has been clearly demonstrated—Mr. Kyle Seeback: No, giving the turbine to Russia—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81130698113070KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, for the member to suggest that I support Russia is despicable and—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113075CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I see some individuals on the other side, just as they should well be, are very ashamed of the way they have conducted themselves when it comes to issues with respect to Ukraine. Where there should have been unanimous support for Ukraine at a very difficult time in its history, we see the Conservative Party under its current leadership looking south to be inspired by MAGA politics. That is to the detriment of Ukraine. The Conservatives have to take responsibility for their actions, and by that I mean their votes, and not try to hide behind the Speaker's back.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8113078CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersOfficial ReportInterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to change my vote from last night on Bill C-56, Division No. 606, from nay to yea. I ran out of time and was unable to make that change then. I hope the House will allow me to change my vote.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCorrections in a voteGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8113079KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersOfficial ReportInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1205)[English] Is it agreed?Some hon. members: Agreed.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCorrections in a voteDecisions of the HouseGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81130808113081MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeAlainTherrienLa Prairie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it would be worth our while to discuss this bill. I would like the member for Winnipeg North to tell me about his vision for the free trade agreement with Ukraine. We obviously agree on the bill, though it still has some shortcomings. The Bloc Québécois has long objected to the fact that private companies can sue governments under free trade agreements by claiming that a government's legislation is detrimental to a company's trade. We see this as a mistake that needs to be corrected.Is my colleague willing to study this issue and make improvements? C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130908113091CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, as the member is likely aware, there are very serious limitations as to what we can do with respect to making changes. The simple reason for this is that we have an agreement that is signed off on, and it is more of a ratification process. I do not know the details of what kind of modifications would, in fact, be acceptable without having to sign a different agreement.Having said that, the real benefits of the agreement for both Canada and Ukraine deal with everything from infrastructure to high-tech companies, as well as many agricultural benefits. In essence, it enhances opportunities for both countries to be able to develop stronger and healthier trade links.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130928113093YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1210)[English]Uqaqtittiji, the other thing I very much appreciate about this trade agreement is the chapter that talks about trade and indigenous peoples. I understand that modernizing the agreement is important, and ensuring that indigenous peoples are allowed economic opportunities through this trade agreement is particularly important.Will the member make sure that, when his party is creating the bilateral committee, it will include indigenous representation from all indigenous groups?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81130948113095KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I am confident in knowing that, when we talk about trade agreements, economic development and the social impacts of these agreements, a wide spectrum of things are considered. These include the absolutely critical role, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated, of ensuring that we operate as two governments, making sure that indigenous and Canadian interests are being served well.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113096LoriIdloutNunavutJenniferO'ConnellPickering—Uxbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88925JenniferO'ConnellJennifer-O-ConnellPickering—UxbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OConnellJennifer_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about the obsession that the Conservatives have around pricing pollution, which will actually take money out of the pockets of his constituents. He also spoke about the influences from the Trumpist MAGA Republicans in the U.S. Is the member at all concerned that the Conservatives seem to be advocating for the far right in this country, which supports Russia, as well as big oil instead of constituents? C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113097KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, and that is the reason I would reference a pattern. What we have actually seen is that the Conservative Party of today is not the same Conservative Party even of Stephen Harper. Under the current leadership, it continues to move farther to the right. The MAGA right is very real. It is a movement that is in the United States, and it is coming north. The one who is selling it the most today is the leader of the Conservative Party, and the price on pollution is an excellent example of that. A bunch of Conservatives travel the country saying that they are going to get rid of the price on pollution and make things more affordable; in fact, it is just not true. A vast majority of Canadians would actually have less disposable income as a direct result of the Conservatives' policy, yet they would not know that from what they are being told by the Conservative movement today. Canadians need to be made aware of it. American-style politics is coming north through the leader of the official opposition.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811309881130998113100JenniferO'ConnellPickering—UxbridgeGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, of course, different sovereign states disagree from time to time about policy. Last summer, the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was actually summoned, and the President of Ukraine publicly and repeatedly expressed his extreme displeasure over the fact that this government granted a sanctions waiver for a turbine that was to facilitate the export of Russian gas. This was a very serious issue for the Government of Ukraine. One does not summon an ambassador lightly, but that is what the Ukrainian government did. The member is sort of on his high horse about how, somehow, we should never disagree with a country that we are friends with. Of course, Canada supports Ukraine; Conservatives support Ukraine. However, this member is now saying that we should do exactly what the government wants.I want to ask the member: Where was he last summer? Did he make any statements about the sanctions waiver? What, if anything, did he have to say when the Canadian ambassador to Ukraine was summoned by President Zelenskyy to express his displeasure? C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar811310181131028113103KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not going to accept the changing of the channel. At the end of the day, whether it is the President of Ukraine, the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or the Canadian Ukrainian Congress, not to mention millions of Canadians, they can see the behaviour of the Conservative Party today when it comes to the Canada-Ukraine agreement and the line-by-line allotments of support to Ukraine. The Conservative Party has been nothing but a disappointment; the far right has taken over the party on certain policies, and this is one of them. I say shame on the Conservative Party for not getting behind this and continuing to have that unanimous support. Rather, it caters to the far right. I think that does a disservice to all of Canada. C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81131048113105GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, as I rise for this third reading debate, I have to express my deep disappointment at the inflammatory rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. Its members are desperately trying to change the channel from the misery that they have brought to Canadians, whether in terms of the millions of Canadians visiting food banks or the 800,000 people in Ontario who have to rely on a food bank now. This would be the same as the fourth-largest city in Ontario being completely dependent on the food bank to survive. That is the result after eight years of the Liberal government. Liberals try to change the channel about a principled decision by the Conservative Party to vote against this free trade agreement. There are many reasons to do so. Of course, we have talked about the fact that there is a reference to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. There is also, as the Liberals like to call it, the polluter pays principle, with policies that those who pollute the environment should bear the cost of that pollution. Most Liberals say that emitting carbon is pollution. Therefore, as Ukrainians are in the middle of a war and are trying to heat their homes, the Liberal government is saying that they are polluters, because most Ukrainians use carbon-based fuels for heating.We get to have a principled objection to this free trade agreement on that basis alone. There are many other reasons we would be opposed to it that we have not debated in great detail. Opposition parties get to vote against what they consider to be bad legislation. The Liberals say it is no big deal that there are some references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage. However, what will they do in the next trade agreement they try to sign? This is the first time carbon pricing and carbon leakage have ever been in a trade agreement. Is it in the free trade agreement with the European Union, the CPTPP, our trade agreement with the United States or any other trade agreement that Canada has ever signed? No, it is not.This is the first time Liberals have put it into a trade agreement. What will it be the next time? Will Liberals mandate a certain carbon tax within a trade agreement? That is what they are trying to do. The Liberals are desperately trying to entrench the carbon tax and their version of carbon pricing into international trade agreements. What will be the next step they take on that?We get to oppose that on principle. The really despicable thing that has happened as a result of this is that the Liberals suggest that this is the Conservative Party not supporting Ukraine and, in fact, somehow supporting Vladimir Putin and Russia. That kind of toxic rhetoric is actually quite despicable. The Liberals should be ashamed that they are using it on the very principled position that Conservatives have taken on this free trade agreement.As we know, there are two other parties in the House that have supported this free trade agreement, so this is actually going to pass. Our vote will cause no harm to Ukraine as we voice our principled opposition to the Liberal government's obsession with carbon taxes and carbon pricing.When we look at—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon leakageCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment billsPolluter-pay principleThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113106811310781131088113109811311081131118113112KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is, if not directly, then indirectly, talking about how the Conservative Party has voted. It was ruled earlier that we cannot do that.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113117CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. These far left, megadisruptive tactics from this member have no place in the House. He should be ashamed of himself.The member in question was talking about his own decisions, which the other member has done, and he says this should be allowed.Again, I encourage these far left-importing tactics—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811311881131198113120KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, the party that complaints that points of order are disruptive makes a ridiculous point of order.I will go back to my point, which is that my decision as a Conservative to vote against this agreement is a principled decision. I will not stand for trade agreements having carbon pricing or taxes, because who knows what the Liberals are going to do next time. I get to do that. As we know, this legislation is going to pass, so there is no harm being caused by that.When we look, for instance, at what happened with the waiver of the export permit that the government granted for a gas turbine, that caused significant harm to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy said, “If a terrorist state can squeeze out such an exception to sanctions, what exceptions will it want tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? ...it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Liberal government to change its decision.The Liberals say we should listen to President Zelenskyy on the trade agreement, but Conservatives get to disagree with them on that. We think it is not a good trade deal. It is not good for Ukraine and not good for Canada. However, President Zelenskyy saying that the Liberal government should not grant the export waiver that is aiding Russia is somehow no big deal, there is nothing to see here. Their hypocrisy on this is really astounding.Then the government turns a principled vote in the House of Commons against including carbon taxes, carbon leakage or carbon pricing in a trade agreement for the first time ever into somehow aiding Russia or Vladimir Putin. Not only is that language despicable, it is completely unhelpful to the debate. Liberals saying Conservatives are supporting Russia is giving Russia some kind of a win.Conservatives, of course, are not saying that. We are saying it is a terrible decision and the decision helped Russia pump gas, which has helped fuelled its war. President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian ambassador said that. Those are their words, not ours. If we look at who is actually causing harm to Ukraine, it is the Liberal government in its decision to grant that export waiver. Many Liberal members stand and claim that Conservatives are doing terrible things to Ukraine as a result of our principled decision. Where were they on this decision? They are not there, which, to me, is deeply hypocritical. Ukrainian Canadians know exactly which party supported the export of that gas turbine. If that was all, I would say that is pretty bad, but not absolutely awful.However, let us look at what else has happened. There are now media reports that Canadian detonators are in Russian mines. That is a complete lack of export control by the government. We know that Liberals are not very good at doing much, but to allow Canadian detonators to find their way, as the media has reported, into Russian mines is inexcusable. They say our principled vote against the bad things they put in this trade agreement is somehow aiding Russia and Vladimir Putin, but they exported a gas turbine used to pump Russian gas to fund the war and Canadian detonators have found their way into Russian mines that are used during the war. If we compare these things, some things are desperately harmful to Ukraine and other things do not cause any damage whatsoever.If that was all, Conservatives would say it is terrible, though not absolutely awful, but there is more. Canada is the only G7 country that is not offering wartime insurance to businesses. Liberals say Canada is there to help rebuild Ukraine, but they will not put wartime insurance in place for businesses right now. Therefore, any businesses in Canada that want to help Ukraine during the war do not have wartime insurance. Every other G7 country has it. This causes real damage to Ukraine and they have the audacity to say that our principled vote against the trade agreement is somehow aiding Vladimir Putin. These three decisions the Liberals made are aiding the Russian war effort, so their hypocrisy on this is really stunning.(1225)At committee, we tried to improve the trade agreement. The Ukrainian ambassador said recently that they could use, in the future, co-operation on energy security. As we pointed out at the committee, there is nothing in this trade agreement on energy security. It is shocking.Ukraine needs energy security. Why would we not include a chapter on energy security? I know the Liberals and all their proxies say that has never been in a trade agreement before, so we cannot put it in. Carbon pricing and carbon leakage were never in a trade agreement before either. Clearly, we can put things into trade agreements that have never been in them before.They are going to ask why it is not in there. It is because when we negotiate a trade agreement, two sides decide what they are going to put in them. The Liberal government's priority was carbon taxes, carbon pricing and carbon leakage. We know the Ukrainians want energy security. The ambassador just said it recently on the news. Why was there not a chapter on energy security in the trade agreement? We can only conclude it is because the Liberal government did not want to put anything in the trade agreement on energy security. We can come to no other conclusion.The Conservatives tried to fix that. We brought forward a motion at committee to expand the scope of what could be included in the review of this trade agreement to allow for energy security. Every single Liberal member on that committee voted no, which is the exact opposite of what the Ukrainian ambassador was just asking for.When we talk about what is causing harm, there is only one wrecking ball going through this and it is the wrecking ball of the Liberals because they exported the gas turbine, they will not grant wartime insurance and Canadian detonators are somehow finding their way into Russian mines. I ascribe all of that to gross incompetence because we see gross incompetence from the Liberals on virtually every single thing they touch right now here in Canada.If that was all, we could say that it is not such a big deal. However, there were eight amendments at committee that we tried to use to improve the free trade agreement so we could actually find a way to support it. One of the amendments that I put forward would have delayed the coming into force of the agreement until the references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage were removed. If that had been done, I would have found a way to vote in favour of it, but that was voted down like every single amendment was voted down that we put forward to make this trade agreement better.This included an amendment to strengthen co-operation on matters relating to nuclear technology, including the export of Canadian nuclear equipment, expertise and uranium to Ukraine. Ukraine has lost 50% of its electricity-generating capacity as a result of this war from Russian bombing. Would it not have been great to put in this free trade agreement co-operation on expanding nuclear capacity?I know, everyone is saying surely the Liberals voted for that. It is what Ukraine needs, it is what the Ukrainian ambassador asked for. No, people would be wrong. Liberals voted against it. They want to include their ideological obsession with carbon pricing and carbon leakage, but they do not want to vote for co-operation in nuclear technology, and co-operation on energy to provide energy security.The other issue is this: There could have been co-operation on LNG capacity in Ukraine and increasing Canadian LNG exports. As everyone knows, Russia's war machine is primarily funded by the exports of gas. Ukraine is sitting on the third-largest proven reserves of LNG in all of Europe. Imagine a Europe that is getting its LNG exclusively from Ukraine, as opposed to getting LNG from Russia. Imagine if Ukraine got the revenues from being able to export LNG to Europe and to other parts of the world to help it fight the Russian invasion. This would be a double win. It would cut off the blood money that is going to Russia and it would increase the revenues of Ukraine. It would have more money to fight the war.(1230)Surely, Liberals voted for the trade agreement to include LNG co-operation, right? It would be a win-win for everyone. No, they did not; they voted against it, because the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have an ideological obsession with carbon taxes, carbon prices and carbon emissions. Even to the detriment of a country in the middle of war, a country fighting for its very survival, what is the most important thing for the Liberal government? It is carbon tax, carbon price and carbon leakage. Even in this context, Liberals cannot get out of their obsession with the carbon tax, which is something that absolutely would have helped Ukraine.I will move on to some of the amendments that were put forward. We put forward an amendment on the donation of Canadian military equipment because we have equipment somewhat past its functional life but not completely unusable. This could be exported to Ukraine and refurbished so it could have more Canadian military equipment to help in its war. Again, surely Liberals voted for that because it would be a direct benefit to Ukraine. No, they did not. Then they have the audacity to say to us that if we vote against this free trade agreement somehow it is a win for Russia and Vladimir Putin. The hypocrisy is really unbelievable.There are more and more amendments that were put forward—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon leakageCarbon pricingCarbon taxEconomic sanctionsEnergy securityGovernment billsMilitary equipment and facilitiesNatural gasNuclear energyOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81131228113123811312481131258113126811312781131288113129811313081131318113132811313381131348113135811313681131378113138811313981131408113141811314281131438113144CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, only because I do think it is important we get some sort of a ruling sooner as opposed to later. The member has now, on a couple of occasions, been reflecting on votes, whether they were in committee or here, which is a concern all members should be having.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113145KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, on what the parliamentary secretary just said, a member is allowed to reflect on their own votes. I do not believe the Standing Orders in the House of Commons directly affect how committees vote. I do not believe it has ever been part of the rules directly. Votes cannot be referred to in the House that are taken here. Part of the ruling that is made should also include whether we can refer to votes taken at committee, especially a member's own vote, which a member is allowed to reflect on because it is part of the public record. It should be public and they can refer to it when speaking to constituents and speaking in the House on it. That is what the member for Dufferin—Caledon was doing. If not for the interruption by the parliamentary secretary, I am sure he would have finished by now.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81131468113147KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I will read very specifically from the standing order I think the member is trying to refer to. This is Standing Order 18, the second half of it, which reads:No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.That makes fairly clear that reflecting on a vote of committee is not covered by the standing order.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsPoints of orderRecorded divisionsReflection on a voteThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811314881131498113150TomKmiecCalgary ShepardCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, it is amazing to me that the member who complained about points of order during his speech continues to rise to interrupt me when I am giving my speech about continuing to talk about motions that were brought forward to try to make the trade agreement better.Again, a motion was brought at committee for expanded munitions productions in Canada to increase munitions exports to Ukraine and to support the development of weapons and ammunitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry. A country in the middle of a war and using thousands of shells a day needs expanded munitions, so, of course, we brought forward the motion to say that we want to directly support Ukraine, because, despite the desperate attempts by the Liberal government and its members to say we do not support Ukraine, we absolutely do. Of course, the motion was defeated, with all Liberal members at the committee voting against it.We try to talk about actual support for Ukraine, and Conservatives have put forward real motions, real amendments to improve the trade agreement to help Ukraine. We have done that. What the Liberal government has done is export a gas turbine and be so incompetent and negligent as to allow Canadian detonators to end up in Russian mines. It has not provided wartime insurance for Canadian businesses to help rebuild Ukraine. We are the only country in the G7 not to do that. Liberals then have had the audacity to stand here and somehow suggest that we are supporting Vladimir Putin. That is a disgraceful comment to make. They should be ashamed of themselves for making it, but—C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811315481131558113156CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it would be really shocking if the Liberals accused the Conservatives of supporting Vladimir Putin, but I think the issue was that they voted against Operation Unifier on three separate occasions.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMembers' remarksPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113157KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, what we find is that the hyperbole coming from the Liberals does not match reality. Their criticism is deeply hypocritical. We all know it. They have done things that have directly harmed and continue to directly harm Ukraine with their decisions. They have become the party of disinformation by suggesting that we do not support Ukraine, disinformation that somehow our opposition to the free trade agreement means not supporting Ukraine. We tried to make the trade agreement better so we could support the agreement and, of course, Ukraine. The Liberal government did everything it could to make sure that was not possible. Why did it? It is because it wants to use the trade agreement in a desperate attempt to score cheap political points here in Canada with an incredibly false narrative.AmendmentI move:That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:“Bill C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Ukraine, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on International Trade with the view to amend the coming into force provision to allow it to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council after the removal of all references to carbon pricing and carbon leakage.”C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsReasoned amendmentsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113160811316181131628113163CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1240)[English]The amendment is in order.Admissibility of an amendmentC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementDecisions of the SpeakerGovernment billsReasoned amendmentsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113164KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonMarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, are we debating the amendment or are we still in the original debate?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113165CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105437MarcusPowlowskiMarcus-PowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PowlowskiMarcus_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Marcus Powlowski (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, the member spoke of the principled approach of the Conservative Party to the agreement, so let us talk about principles.This is not about the carbon tax, but today the Ukrainians are running out of ammunition. Today, President Zelenskyy is in Washington, D.C., desperate to get military support from the United States that is being blocked by the American far right. Today, more than ever, is a day when Ukraine needs the political support, and where is the Conservative Party? Conservatives voted against the free trade agreement today. On Friday, they voted against any military assistance to Ukraine. Today, of all days, is a day when Ukraine really needs political support around the world. Why do they continue to oppose support for Ukraine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81131678113168CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, of course we support Ukraine; that is absolutely true. We voted against the fall economic statement because we have absolutely no confidence in the incompetent, corrupt Liberal government.The member is talking about munitions. That is great; good for him. We had a motion at committee to support expanded munitions productions in Canada, increase munitions exports to Ukraine and support the delivery of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry. How did Liberal members of the committee vote? They voted against it. The member should perhaps get off of his PMO talking points that he just read to the House and actually understand what his party has done with respect to munitions.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81131698113170MarcusPowlowskiThunder Bay—Rainy RiverJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague referred to the amendments to the treaty that the Conservative Party proposed in committee. We disagree with most of those amendments, but we still think that we should have had an opportunity to debate them, because we are in a parliamentary system and a democracy.However, the way treaties are negotiated in Canada is unique. The government negotiates them behind Parliament's back in a way. The government decides on the content of the treaty, which means that parliamentarians are deprived of all their democratic tools and cannot debate or amend the treaty either in committee or in the House. The only thing they have a say in is the treaty's rules of application. That seems undemocratic to me and it is at odds with what is done in the United States and Europe. The Canadian approach seems very undemocratic to me.I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the undemocratic way that Canada negotiates treaties and prevents Parliament from debating amendments.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsParliamentary democracyThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811317181131728113173KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, coming to Parliament, table-dropping a 700-page trade agreement and expecting Parliament to just immediately rubber-stamp it is the kind of arrogance one gets with the Liberal government. It believes that, somehow, it is so infallible, so perfect, that it has brought to us, as we approach Christmas, something like the birth of Christ. Here it is: the perfect child.In fact, we get to have real criticisms of the bill. Yes, the challenge is, of course, this: There is a process to bring treaties and trade agreements to members so they have an opportunity to have input. The Liberals did none of that. They brought it here and said it is perfect, and now they are criticizing people for criticizing it. It is an embarrassing way for them to behave.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsParliamentary democracyThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81131748113175Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank our shadow minister for trade for his very thoughtful and well-articulated concerns about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I think he was very clear that Conservatives support Ukraine. Conservatives are the party of free trade.Unfortunately, the Liberals have stuck carbon taxes into the trade agreement. This is the first time in history. It is unprecedented, and we cannot accept it when we are the party that is opposed to carbon taxes.I know that the hon. member has already reflected on this, but we have been calling on the government since 2018 to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. It did not wait four weeks to send lethal weapons. It did not wait four months. It waited four years, until the hot, full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine. The member was very clear to say that we have been asking for the government to do more in support of Ukraine. The free trade agreement would not provide the opportunity for the Canadian defence industry to do business in Ukraine. There would be no war insurance provided.Right now, the Canadian Armed Forces is decommissioning old light armoured vehicles: Bisons, Coyotes and tracked LAVs, the M113s. Why are the Liberals sitting around? We have been asking since March of last year to actually export the vehicles, to send them to Ukraine in the fight against Russia. They have not. Why have they not?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary equipment and facilitiesThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113176811317781131788113179KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a great question. This is actually where we get to where the rubber hits the road. There are real and concrete things that the Liberal government could have done and could be doing to help Ukraine. Instead, it has wrapped itself in the free trade agreement to somehow suggest that this is the only way one can support Ukraine. Of course, it put a poison pill in it. It knew that the Conservatives could not support carbon pricing and carbon leakage.However, there are real, measurable things that would have made a difference. There was a motion on the exact issue that the member has just raised, to do that. Of course, it was defeated.Exporting a gas turbine to Russia, the Canadian detonators in Russian mines, no wartime insurance, not sending the armoured vehicle and not increasing munitions production are things that are actually harming Ukraine. Our vote does not harm it. The Liberals should stop talking the way they are. It is disgraceful.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary equipment and facilitiesThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811318081131818113182JamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, in his remarks, the member spoke about why all Conservatives oppose the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. He cited two things. First, there is the mention of carbon pricing in it, which, of course, is not a legitimate reason, because Ukraine has already had carbon pricing since 2011 and needs carbon pricing to enter the EU, which it is desperately trying to do. The agreement would not even force Ukraine to do anything on carbon pricing, so that is not a reason to oppose the agreement. We already know that.The other reason he gave was that the government is somehow imposing language about carbon pricing on Ukraine, or imposing something on it that it does not want. However, President Zelenskyy signed the agreement; he came to Canada to do that. He asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian ambassador asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Ukraine MPs who were visiting Canada asked all parliamentarians to vote for it. Conservatives seem to believe that they know better than Ukrainians themselves do what Ukrainians want.My question for the member is this: Why are Conservatives and Vladimir Putin the only people out there who seem to think they know better than Ukrainians themselves what Ukrainians want or need ?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811318381131848113185KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, the logical gymnastics the member just had to do are something that could probably have won him a gold medal at an Olympic gymnastics competition.President Zelenskyy actually asked the Liberals to not send the gas turbine. Did the member stand up against his government and say that it should not happen? No, he did not. There are currently no export controls in place to stop Canadian detonators from getting into Russian land mines. Has he stood up to criticize his government for doing that? No, he has not. However, somehow, voting against a trade agreement is one of the cardinal sins, one of the seven deadly sins. It is ridiculous and pathetic.The Liberals should be stopping the things I have raised. They should be including the things I have raised. That is how to show support for Ukraine, not this fake straw-man argument they are building up about voting against a trade agreement that includes language that we would never support, because in the next trade agreement, they will mandate a carbon price if we let them get away with it this time.Canadians know the misery of the carbon tax. We are against it in Canada and we are against it in trade agreements. We will be against it forever.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113186811318781131888113189YvanBakerEtobicoke CentreLarryMaguireBrandon—Souris//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/7251LarryMaguireLarry-MaguireBrandon—SourisConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MaguireLarry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that we are in favour of Ukraine. I want to go back to December 2, 1991, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made us the first country in the world to recognize the independence of Ukraine. I would ask my colleague to elaborate on the kind of dedication this country has provided to our Ukrainian cohorts, friends and families in Ukraine today, to justify some of the great comments my colleagues have made and to further denigrate what the Liberal government has done with respect to putting a carbon tax into a trade agreement with a country that is at war.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81131908113191KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, this could be a meme.Liberals think that sending a gas turbine that Russia uses to pump gas and make money to fund the war is no big deal, that allowing Canadian detonators to end up in Russian land mines that are killing Ukrainian soldiers is no big deal and that not giving businesses war risk insurance is no big deal. None of that is a big deal, but if we vote against a free trade agreement that we think is a bad trade agreement, they say, “Oh my God, you are supporting Vladimir Putin.” Their arguments on this are pathetic and embarrassing.Canadians have always supported Ukraine. Conservatives have always supported Ukraine, just like when we were almost the first country in the world to recognize an independent Ukraine. I think Poland beat us by something like 25 minutes. That is the Conservative record. We support Ukraine, so members should not listen to the misinformation and disinformation the despicable Liberals are trying to spread.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811319281131938113194LarryMaguireBrandon—SourisSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1250)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we are already debating third reading of Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, 2023, which the Standing Committee on International Trade had the opportunity to study. Several of my colleagues here were present during the committee study.Fundamentally, not much has changed about the reasons for our support. This time, the agreement puts some meat on the bones. The old version was pretty skeletal. This agreement will not make Ukraine a major trading partner for Quebec and Canada, of course. I would say Ukraine will remain a minor, not to say marginal, partner. However, this agreement does put meat on the bones. It is a real trade agreement, whereas the previous version was essentially a declaration of friendship.We note that there are some promising opportunities for Quebec. Our pork producers will be able to export more to that country. Also, since Quebec is home to many highly reputable engineering firms, there could be some very attractive contracts for them when Ukraine rebuilds. This will also benefit Ukraine economically, and we hope that the rebuilding takes place as soon as possible and that peace is restored quickly.However, I do want to point out that there is one clause I voted against in committee. I asked that it not be agreed to on division, like most of the clauses, and that we proceed to a recorded division. It is the clause concerning investor-state dispute settlement. I do not understand why, after removing this from the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, Canada would go back to negotiating agreements that include such provisions, which place multinationals on the same footing as governments.Yes, it is written very cautiously. There are exceptions, and it is written far more cautiously than the infamous chapter 11 of the former NAFTA agreement, but the fact remains that this still allows multinationals to take states to court when government measures run counter to the company's right to make a profit.Take the following case, for example. Ukraine seized property from Ukrainian citizens who were financing and supporting the Russian side. Under the guise of protecting foreign investors, this agreement would make it very difficult for Canada to do the same thing, that is, seize the assets and property of Ukrainian citizens here who support Russia. Our country could expose itself to lawsuits against public property, against the Canadian government, from these investors.This is unacceptable. We do not understand why it is still in there. When I asked for a recorded vote on this clause, which is in itself undemocratic because it limits the power of the states to legislate and make political decisions, only my NDP colleague, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, voted with me. The Liberals and Conservatives were quick to vote to keep this clause in the bill. The last thing they wanted to do was upset their buddies at the big multinational corporations, of course.I should also point out that one chapter in the agreement is full of lofty principles that the government likes to brag about. These lofty principles include the fact that companies will now behave responsibly and Canadian companies will behave properly, so there is nothing to worry about. However, these are nothing but lofty principles. Of course, this refers to international concepts, and it is in no way binding. That is why I am very proud to say that the only amendment that was adopted was the one I proposed, the Bloc Québécois's amendment. I will read it:That Bill C-57 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 6 the following new clause: “Compliance with principles and guidelines — Canadian companies 15.1 (1) The Minister must ensure that Canadian companies operating in Ukraine comply with the principles and guidelines referred to in article 15.14 of the Agreement. (2) The Minister must establish a process for receiving and responding to complaints of non-compliance with those principles and guidelines. (3) On or before January 1st of each year starting in 2025, the Minister must prepare a report that summarizes activities carried out in relation to the Minister’s obligations under this section. (4) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament on any of the first 30 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.” (1255)Thanks to the Bloc Québécois's work in committee, there has been a shift from lofty principles to an obligation of political accountability that is written into the bill. I think that we can be very proud of the work we have done. That being said, allow me to digress. The issue of Canadian companies respecting all human rights abroad is far from resolved. I want to read an excerpt from budget 2023. It is not partisan, I will read verbatim what is written:Budget 2023 announces the federal government's intention to introduce legislation by 2024 to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains to strengthen the import ban on goods produced using forced labour. The government will also work to ensure existing legislation fits within the government's overall framework to safeguard our supply chains.The budget was presented in March 2023. It says “by 2024”.May I remind the government that it has three days left to keep its promise to introduce legislation before the House adjourns, three days from now? May I remind the government of this, or will it add this to its long list of broken promises?At the Standing Committee on International Trade, I also moved a motion to send the Minister of Labour a letter to remind him of the commitment in his mandate letter. My motion was adopted, with all my colleagues, including the Liberals, voting in favour. The letter was sent. I am glad. I am looking forward to seeing the government's response. Perhaps we will get a nice surprise. Perhaps when we wake up tomorrow morning, the bill will miraculously be introduced and the government will keep its promise. I just want to remind it that it has three days left.Of course, the government may say that there was Bill S-211. That bill requires Canadian companies to prepare an annual report. It does not have much to do with respecting human rights. It only deals with forced labour. It does not cover human rights, which, according to international conventions, are indivisible. We are far from that. Under Bill S‑211, a company could comply just by reporting that it took no due diligence measures. All it has to do is submit a report in which it says it did nothing, and it will meet the requirement. The only consequences, the only fines, are for companies that fail to submit a report or that make false statements. Therefore, if the company reports that it did no due diligence, the government would say, “That is fine, thank you, good night”, and move on to the next company. Only companies with more than 250 employees that generate significant active revenue are covered.Instead, I urge the government to move forward with Bill C-262, which was introduced by the NDP, but which I am co-sponsoring and supporting. It covers companies of all sizes, gets the affected communities involved, encompasses all human rights and, above all, provides meaningful recourse for victims.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCanadian companiesCivil and human rightsGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementSocial responsibilityThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113195811319681131978113198811319981132008113201811320281132038113204811320581132068113207811320881132098113210811321181132128113213811321481132158113216KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25475JamesBezanJames-BezanSelkirk—Interlake—EastmanConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BezanJames_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. James Bezan: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the member inadvertently referred to the Prime Minister by his name.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementDesignation of Members by the name of their constituency or titleGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113218CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I did not mention the Prime Minister in my speech at all.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementDesignation of Members by the name of their constituency or titleGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113221CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am going to ask that my colleague listen before he raises points of order. He might find that useful later on during question period.That brings me to the matter of returning to the agreement. I have consistently said that I oppose it. Let us keep in mind that all of the Conservatives' amendments were ruled out of order. I was against all of them. Some of what they contained was totally irresponsible and dangerous, such as including the sale of weapons in a trade agreement. We want this to be an agreement for reconstruction and peace, not for what its wording implies, an agreement for perpetual warfare. It made no sense. However, every time that the amendments brought forward were ruled out of order, I voted with the Conservatives so that the amendments could be debated and heard.The definition of trade agreements has a major transparency problem. Something makes no sense. I intend to talk about it.Ottawa is not being transparent with its own MPs even though they are the ones chosen by the people to represent them in the House. No matter the issue or the party in power, governments do not like their opponents scrutinizing their actions too closely. When it comes to trade agreements, Canada's monarchical culture demands secrecy. Canada clings to that monarchical tradition, keeping its trade agreements hidden in the shadows lest they perish like vampires in the sun.As an MP, I have experienced this on several occasions, including in November and December 2020, when the Standing Committee on International Trade was supposed to study the transitional Canada-UK free trade agreement without actually seeing it. It was a genuine theatre of the absurd. We heard witnesses, experts who told us what they liked and did not like, and who encouraged us to vote for or against certain parts of it. Not one of those people had seen the agreement, not even the MPs who were supposed to study it. What was the point?When Canada's Department of External Affairs was created in 1909, the Secretary of State presiding over it was required to provide an annual report to Parliament on the department's activities. Logically, this included a report on Canada's international discussions and commitments. In 1995, at the height of globalization, the department's act was amended to give it a freer hand by granting it jurisdiction over international trade, to the detriment of Parliament. The requirement for an annual report was abolished at that time.However, in 1926, the House of Commons passed a resolution stating the following: ...before His Majesty's Canadian Ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.In actual fact, this practice was applied unevenly for 40 years until it was finally abandoned in 1966. A parliament worthy of the name should adopt procedures aimed at increasing the level of democratic control over agreements.My political party, the Bloc Québécois, introduced seven bills on the procedure for reaching agreements between 1999 and 2004, requiring the minister responsible for the ratification of an agreement to table it in Parliament, along with an explanatory memorandum, within a reasonable time frame, and requiring the approval of members of Parliament before any ratification. As a result of the Bloc Québécois’s efforts, it is now policy that an explanatory memorandum be submitted within a reasonable time before an agreement is ratified by elected members. There is currently a policy in place, but no government has had the courage to create binding legislation. That is not the same thing.As a result, the government can act arbitrarily. We are certainly not a British regime where Parliament is supposed to have partial veto rights over ratifications. Also, this process, while desirable in itself but ridiculously inadequate, consisting in asking members what they think after the fact, could be a means of controlling Parliament. Rather than really involving members in the drafting of international agreements, this policy is merely an instrument to sound out the opposition parties’ position.(1305)Some parliaments around the world even consult elected members before starting negotiations to obtain mandates on sectors to be promoted or protected. The United States, for example, has a law that protects the sugar sector. It is written down. The European Union has members vote before starting negotiations. It asks them which mandates they wish to give negotiators.The principle makes sense. Members of Parliament are elected by the public to represent the interests and values of their constituents. Given its lack of transparency before, during and after trade negotiations, Canada has a long way to go when it comes to involving members of Parliament in the process.We might have hoped for progress when yet another agreement was reached between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party in 2020. We would have thought there would be more transparency in the process. I remember that we were studying the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, in the Standing Committee on International Trade. Before CUSMA was adopted, the NDP reached an agreement with the Liberal Party, agreeing to accelerate the adoption of CUSMA in exchange for the government’s commitment to increase transparency in trade agreements. There would be less transparency at the time, because there was less time to study CUSMA but, in exchange, there would be more transparency in the future.What happened? The next agreement, with the United Kingdom, was referred for consideration for several weeks without us having any text. This tells us how successful the agreement was. Now, there are talks with Indonesia. There were talks with India until not long ago. There are talks with the whole Indo-Pacific region and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. There are talks with the United Kingdom for a transitional agreement. Eventually, there will be talks with Mercosur. We know absolutely nothing about any of these. The meetings of the Standing Committee on International Trade, even when we hear from Canadian negotiators, tell us very little.That agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada yielded negligible results, which does not seem to have discouraged the NDP from continuing to forge alliances with them. Good for them, but when it comes to transparency, I wish them better luck next time.I would also like to talk about transparency toward the provinces. There is nothing in Canadian federalism—and this is a misnomer, since there is no longer any federalism; we are on the road to a centralized unitary state—that requires consultation with the provinces.There was one sole exception. It was for an agreement with Europe, when Quebec was allowed one negotiator. However, that negotiator had no seat at the negotiations table. The chief negotiator for Quebec, former premier Pierre Marc Johnson, has said that he was there just to be a cheerleader for the Canadian delegation, which essentially engaged in backroom negotiations. In contrast, Wallonia nearly scuttled that whole agreement, because it disagreed with one provision, and because that is how the Belgian system works. Perhaps there is something here for Canada to learn, in terms of how it operates. That would be showing real respect for the provinces.It is a proposal for reform, but it is not my preferred solution. My preference would be for Quebec to be at the negotiating table as an independent country.I would add that, if the federal government is to represent all Canadians in international agreements and we cannot even manage to enjoy the benefits, Quebec is becoming an increasingly negligible quantity in Parliament. How can we ever gain the smallest advantage if year after year, electoral reform after electoral reform, we are losing more and more ground?We are going to become a more and more insignificant minority in this Parliament. When I say “we”, I mean the Quebec nation. With the new electoral map coming into effect shortly, Quebec will have 70 seats out of 341 instead of out of 338. Since votes in Parliament are often close, Quebec’s political weight will be reduced, accounting for around 22% of the total number of members. The trend is clear. As Quebec’s demographic weight decreases, its power in the House of Commons will become increasingly insignificant.(1310)Beyond the numbers, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences, because Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is that not the real consequence of our presence in this regime, which seems to be designed to perpetually marginalize us?Before the creation of the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we had the right to equal representation. We were two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority. Once we became less numerous, the regime magically switched to proportional representation. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up.I will conclude my speech by repeating that we are in favour of the agreement, but that we would have preferred a much different process in which the provinces and elected members could have taken part in the negotiations.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementElectoral representationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsParliamentary democracyProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811322381132248113225811322681132278113228811322981132308113231811323281132338113234811323581132368113237811323881132398113240811324181132428113243811324481132458113246CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech, his comments, and his and his party’s support for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I would like to ask him why he thinks this agreement is important for Canada and Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113247Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, this agreement will certainly be good for the economy. For Quebec, I think that there are interesting prospects in the sports and engineering industries. Of course, the agreement will also promote trade, which will also be good for Ukrainians and their country.However, I will reiterate that I do not understand why Canada elevated multinationals to the status of sovereign powers. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement was replaced by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, there is no reason for this. That is why I asked that we vote separately on that particular aspect. I voted against that aspect.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81132488113249YvanBakerEtobicoke CentreTomKmiecCalgary Shepard//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89136TomKmiecTom-KmiecCalgary ShepardConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KmiecTom_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC): (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech about the free trade agreement and the bill, which will implement it in Canada. I travelled with him several times to Washington, and I must say that he is a champion of workers’ interests in the labour and battery sectors. Every time we met with the Americans, he would talk about that, trying to convince them.I think there is something that is very difficult for us when it comes to free trade agreements, even with our closest allies, including the U.S. We need to convince them that Canada can bring something to the table to help them. I think that our trade in goods and services with Ukraine is worth about $1 billion.In committee, we Conservatives proposed eight amendments to the free trade agreement to try to broaden its scope. I will try to summarize the member’s statements. He says that he wants a free trade system to promote peace. However, Ukraine is at war, having been invaded by Russia under Vladimir Putin. It needs weapons and it needs to be able to manufacture weapons within its borders.Would it not be preferable to include that in the free trade agreement?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113250811325181132528113253Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who did travel with me.He also defended his region’s interests quite vigorously in meetings we had with U.S. elected officials. This being said, it is the prerogative of all sovereign states to sell or donate weapons. Of course, there are ways of doing so, and this is regulated by conventions. However, it is the prerogative of a state to support one of the parties in a conflict.Still, should this be included in an agreement that is intended to remain in effect for many years? That is where I have a problem.In the interest of transparency, I want to say something. Although I was radically opposed to every amendment proposed by the Conservatives, I agreed that they should have been ruled in order for debate. I find it sad to have an agreement thrust upon us and not be able to change it later.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsMilitary weaponsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113254811325581132568113257TomKmiecCalgary ShepardRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, for his speech.[English]I would also like to thank him for his support at committee during the discussions on the investor-state dispute mechanism question. I would like to give him some more time to expand on that. He mentioned that the ISDS gives corporations the status of sovereign nations. It puts them above Canadian corporations here in Canada. It brings up the possibility that Ukraine would be on the hook for huge settlements if one of these disputes was made against Ukraine by a Canadian company.I am wondering if the member could comment on that and comment on why the world is moving away from ISDS agreements while Canada seems stuck in that lane.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811325881132598113260Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not understand why this keeps getting brought up even though it was removed from the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. It is a non-issue.That said, in terms of the general consequences, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms allow litigation based on the right to profit.Early on, in the old North American Free Trade Agreement, this was called “expropriation” or “equivalent to expropriation”. That is the vague term that opened the way to every possible kind of abuse. It justified countries being sued for increasing minimum wage, for cancelling certain offshore petroleum developments, and for banning the use of chemicals in certain lawn care products. It was really a step backwards for democracy. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, political will declined partly or completely in 60% of cases. In other words, it was a victory for multinationals or out-of-court settlements.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811326181132628113263RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his brilliant speech and for his continued, meaningful defence of Quebec's interests.I would like him to elaborate further because, before he arrived in the House earlier, I asked a question regarding that same issue. The parliamentary secretary replied that we were only approving the agreement and could not change it. That is exactly what my colleague has just demonstrated in his speech.What must we do for this not to be the case in subsequent international agreements? How can we change the way that we reach international agreements?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811326481132658113266Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the entire culture needs to be changed. We heard some pretty amazing things in the debate on our supply management bill, which my colleague and I sponsored and for which we toured Quebec twice, virtually in 2021 and in person this year.We heard some pretty amazing things, like Parliament should not have anything to say on the matter, because it would interfere with negotiators' methods. We live in a democracy. The first idea we need to adopt in our culture and our way of doing things is that debates should take place before the negotiators get to work. That is the first thing.Then, through legislation rather than policy, there should be time built in to make amendments to the agreement and to produce an explanatory memorandum. We do not need a policy, we need a law. I emphasize this point.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811326781132688113269YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, when we talk about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, a great deal of interest goes well beyond this chamber, whether it is from the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada or President Zelenskyy.A letter that I received from the Ukrainian Canadian Congress was sent to the leader of the Conservative Party. The letter says, “The UCC therefore asks that the Official Opposition revisit their position on Bill C-57 and vote to support the Bill”. I think that would be in our best interests. At one point, it seemed that everyone inside this chamber was behind Ukraine and showed Ukrainian solidarity given what is taking place in Europe. The trade agreement is sound and solid.I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the Conservative Party rethinking its position so we can get unanimous support for this trade agreement.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811327081132718113272Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1320)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would also invite the Conservatives to rethink their position. I radically disagree with their arguments. I think a lot of them could easily be disproved by the facts.That being said, let us be clear about one thing: A trade agreement is not a religion. It is reasonable to raise questions and to disagree with certain aspects. If they are fundamentally opposed to most of them, they can oppose them. I do not want to send them to the stake for opposing those things. They are entitled to disagree.That being said, of course, their argument has obvious weaknesses. For that reason, I also invite them to rethink their position.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811327381132748113275KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1320)[English]Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today to once again speak to Bill C-57, the new Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, this time at third reading, the final stage of debate.The Canada-Ukraine friendship is very special. Over one million Canadians are very proud of their Ukrainian heritage. In fact, when Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Canada was the first western country to recognize that act. Shortly after that recognition, in 1995, Canada signed an early foreign investment protection agreement, or FIPA, with Ukraine, so we have always supported attempts to strengthen our trade with Ukraine.In 2017, Canada signed the first version of this free trade agreement. Let us remember that, at that time, Ukraine was already involved in conflicts with Russia. It was recognized that a broader, more complete agreement would be needed. The two countries agreed in 2019 to begin the process of creating this new agreement. That treaty was completed early in 2023 and signed at the end of September when President Zelenskyy visited Ottawa.The text of the treaty, however, was not released until this implementation bill, Bill C-57, was tabled on October 17. Debate on the bill began only a few days later. The compressed timeline of parliamentary debate on this agreement is problematic, and I will speak to that later.Ukraine is now literally fighting for its life in an illegal war instigated by the Russian invasion in 2022. Canada has been providing aid in many forms to Ukraine since that war began. With respect to trade, Canada issued remission orders to temporarily open up trade with Ukraine, allowing supply-managed products such as poultry to enter Canada. We have heard some concerns about these remission orders in the international trade and agriculture committees, but it is fair to say that most Canadians are happy to help Ukraine in any way during this horrific time in their struggles.I mentioned the FIPA that predated the free trade agreements with Ukraine, an agreement signed in 1995. FIPAs allow foreign corporations to sue Canadian governments if they feel the new laws or regulations in Canada impact their profit. The most famous of these in Canada is the FIPA that Stephen Harper signed with China in 2012 without any debate in this place. That still haunts us to this day. FIPAs now find their way into broader free trade agreements in the form of investor-state dispute systems, or ISDS. It is no secret that New Democrats are not a fan of ISDS. When we have voted against free trade agreements in the past, whether it was the CETA with the EU or the CPTPP agreement with Pacific nations, it was almost always because those agreements included ISDS clauses. New Democrats were happy when the new CUSMA agreement with the United States and Mexico eliminated the ISDS provisions that had been included in the original NAFTA, so we are very disappointed that this new agreement with Ukraine has inserted ISDS provisions in its investment chapter. It basically rolls the old FIPA conditions into this treaty with some updated language. We joined the Bloc Québécois member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot in committee to try to remove the ISDS implementation in this agreement, but we were voted down by the Liberals and Conservatives.The world is moving away from ISDS language in trade agreements. Canada should be at the forefront of that trend, not a laggard trying to catch up. Australia and New Zealand have negotiated side letters with the United Kingdom taking out ISDS language in the CPTPP agreement as part of the U.K.'s accession process to that agreement. The U.K. Parliament is actively debating whether it wants to include ISDS provisions in future trade deals. The European Union is moving away from ISDS, and Canada should do the same.(1325)Bill C-57 passed second reading on November 21. Surprisingly, the Conservatives voted against it. They voted against a trade agreement that Ukraine very much wanted full support for. Why? The Conservatives found very deep in the environment chapter the words “carbon pricing”. They concocted a scenario of Canada forcing Ukraine in its time of need to agree to support carbon pricing. The fact is that Ukraine has had carbon pricing since 2011, long before Canada put the carbon tax in place. Ukraine strengthened that resolve in 2018 as part of its efforts to join the European Union. If anything, Ukraine has been leading Canada in the carbon pricing scenario. The mention of carbon pricing in this agreement in no way obliges either Canada or Ukraine to implement or continue carbon pricing. Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians noticed that the Conservatives voted against the agreement. They pleaded for unanimity. What did the Conservatives do in response to Ukraine's concerns? Well, they voted against funding for Ukraine aid in the supplementary estimates last week. They voted against funding for Operation Unifier as well. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress commented online, “For the second time this month, Conservative MPs undermine support for Ukraine by voting against funding for Operation Unifier and other support for Ukraine in the supplementary estimates. Canada's support for Ukraine should be unanimous and beyond political games.”Just a few minutes ago, the Conservatives doubled-down and once again voted against the Ukraine free trade agreement at report stage. Then they added an amendment to send the bill back to committee, further delaying a bill that the Ukrainian government has asked us to pass without delay. We cannot make this stuff up.I would like to turn back to the issue of how we debate free trade agreements in this Parliament. Too often in the past, we have barely known that a trade agreement was being negotiated before it was presented with a signed agreement that we were asked to ratify, a fait accompli. The NDP thinks it is important that Parliament have input into trade negotiations before they begin. When the government negotiated CETA and CPTPP, Canadians were kept in the dark about what was being negotiated. When we finally learned what was on the table, the deals were already finalized, and the government said there was absolutely no way to change anything at that point. It is not too much to ask for input on these important policies. The United States Congress has the right and ability to debate what priorities its country will have before entering into free trade negotiations. The member for Elmwood—Transcona wrote a letter in December 2019 to the Minister of International Trade, who is now the Minister of Finance, regarding increased transparency around the negotiations for the new Canada-United States-Mexico Free Trade Agreement. In response to that letter, the minister agreed, on February 19, 2020, to change the policy on tabling treaties in Parliament. Those changes were to “require that a notice of intent to enter into negotiations toward a new free trade agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 90 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” That is three months. Under normal parliamentary procedures, the notice of intent would be referred to the committee on international trade. The second one was to “require that the objectives for negotiations toward the new free agreement be tabled in the House of Commons at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of negotiations.” Under normal parliamentary procedures, those objectives would be referred to the committee on international trade.As I mentioned previously, there were discussions with some stakeholders around the scope of changes to this free trade agreement in the winter of 2020, but the international trade committee was only able to provide input well after negotiations had begun. It is also important to allow ample notice once the treaties are signed for debate in this place before they are ratified. We should know what the treaty contains as soon as it is signed.(1330)The standing policy of this place is there should be 21 sitting days between the tabling of treaties and the tabling of implementing legislation. At the same time, the government must table an explanatory memorandum and a final environmental assessment.When the first Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement was tabled in 2017, the government followed that policy, but that did not happen at all with this agreement. The treaty and the implementing legislation were tabled on the same day with the memorandum. On top of that, the minister tabled the legislation on a Tuesday, and we began debate the following Monday. As the Conservative member mentioned, it is hardly enough time to read a very large agreement, find out what it is all about and really make meaningful debate in this House to properly discuss the ramifications of these treaties that mean a lot to Canadian companies and Canadians.This has to change. MPs should have the opportunity to debate the priorities of free trade negotiations before they begin and should have ample opportunity to debate the implementation of treaties after they are signed. I urge the minister and her government to follow the standard policies on how to introduce treaties and implement legislation before Parliament. These are not minor details. They are important points on how Canadians expect us here in this place to hold the government to account.To conclude, the NDP is very much in favour of free trade. We supported the original version of this agreement with Ukraine in 2017. Our main caveat for free trade agreements in general is that they must be designed to protect and create Canadian jobs and protect the ability of Canadian governments at all levels to care for our environment and promote the well-being of all citizens.The measure of success of free trade deals must not be just the profits made by Canadian corporations. They must include measures of good labour agreements both here and in the countries we are making deals with and measures of good environmental and human rights laws on both sides as well. These agreements must be beneficial to the people of both countries involved.This new agreement with Ukraine and the bill before us which would implement this agreement seem to do a good job in that direction. We must do everything we can to support Ukraine and to prepare for the rebuilding of Ukraine after its victory over Russia.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsInvestor-state dispute settlementParliamentary democracyThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8113276811327781132788113279811328081132818113282811328381132848113285811328681132878113288811328981132908113291811329281132938113294811329581132968113297Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I hear the member's points about the process in negotiating free trade agreements and have taken that under advisement and to heart.One of the things he did speak about was that the carbon tax purportedly is the reason the Conservative Party has voted against this agreement and does not support this agreement. I am wondering if he could share with the House and with Canadians what his point of view is on the Conservatives' rationale for opposing this free trade agreement.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81132988113299RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives, and I really cannot understand their position here. We have mentioned in this agreement carbon pricing in a way that would not hold either Canada or Ukraine to having a carbon price, or increasing it or promoting it. It simply talks about this in a broad list of environmental objectives.As I mentioned, Ukraine already has a carbon price. It has had one for 12 years, which is much longer than Canada. We heard in debate here today the Conservatives think that this is some kind of poison pill. I cannot imagine Volodymyr Zelenskyy would sign an agreement that had a poison pill in it. It is the height of illogical thinking that Canada would put a poison pill in a free trade agreement so the Conservatives would vote against it. It simply does not make any sense at all, and so I am baffled. The member should ask the Conservatives that question.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81133008113301YvanBakerEtobicoke CentreKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's fair criticism of the decisions that the Conservatives have made on this, unlike the hyperpartisan rhetoric that we hear from the Liberal government. He talked about how President Zelenskyy signed this agreement and wants Canada to go forward with it, so he accepts that what President Zelenskyy says means something.I am wondering if he wants to comment on President Zelenskyy's comments about how this Liberal government allowed a gas turbine to be exported from Canada to pump Russian gas, to actually help fund Putin's illegal war in Ukraine.President Zelenskyy said, “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also [dangerous] for all countries of the democratic world.” President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. The Canadian ambassador said, “Russia is using energy as a weapon, in Europe and all over the world. This money and fuel are going to support the war in Ukraine.”Does the member also agree with President Zelenskyy that this was a terrible decision by the Liberal government that actually helped fund Putin's war machine?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8113302811330381133048113305RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, I think it was the wrong decision, for all of the reasons he mentioned.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8113306KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1340)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I have always appreciated the hon. member's solidarity with indigenous peoples and the work that he does to meet the needs of his constituents.One of the things that seems quite important about this particular modernization of this free trade agreement is the chapter on indigenous peoples and trade.I think that these are important acknowledgements about what we need to do for indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, we have been hearing about causes trumping these kinds of important issues. I wonder if the member can speak to what the difference is, in terms of advocating for human rights, indigenous rights, as well as how fighting for a cause might not be as effective as what we are seeing today.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811330781133088113309RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nunavut for her important and wonderful voice here in this Parliament, constantly reminding us about the rights of indigenous people. It gives more than just words and thoughts to their rights, and actually puts those rights into action in our agreements and our laws.Yes, I am very happy that we have a chapter here on indigenous rights in this agreement. It speaks to the Tatar people of Ukraine, as well as the indigenous people here in Canada, and that these types of chapters will be in further agreements.We had the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have recognized here in Canada. British Columbia has laws. We have to make sure that, every day, we think of what those rights mean and how we make our laws and decisions here to uphold those rights.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsIndigenous peoplesIndigenous rightsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811331081133118113312LoriIdloutNunavutJudy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague is a wonderful member of the international trade committee, who contributes very significantly to whatever the discussion or debate is in a very comprehensive and thoughtful way. I understand, after the next election, he is not going to be returning to the House, which I think is a real loss for the House of Commons, because he adds a tremendous amount in the House and at the committee level.I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the concerns of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and so many other organizations that have echoed their support for this. President Zelenskyy sat right in front of me and urged us to pass this free trade agreement very quickly.Was my hon. colleague concerned with the amount of opposition that was led by the Conservative Party of Canada?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811331381133148113315RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Humber River—Black for those warm regards and for being a wonderful chair of the international trade committee.Yes, as I said before in answer to a previous question, I am surprised at the Conservative response to this agreement. The Conservatives seem to have reacted to a couple of words in the agreement and used that to vote against it when Ukraine and Ukrainian Canadians have been very vocal in calling them out on this decision. We should be unanimous in our support for Ukraine. I was surprised that the Conservatives doubled down today and have done a couple more things to try to slow down this bill, when Ukraine wants it passed right now.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81133168113317Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, the point of this trade agreement, or part of it, is allegedly to help rebuild Ukraine. That is some of the rhetoric that we hear from the the Liberal Party. However, one thing that actually is a problem is that Canada is the only G7 country that has not offered wartime insurance to Canadian business operators who want to rebuild in Ukraine. That means that the projects that they undertake are subject to enormous risk because, of course, it is a war. Every other G7 country has recognized this risk and has provided wartime insurance to business operators. Canada has not. Was the member aware of that, and does he think that is another major failure of the current Liberal government?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8113318RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is valuable member of the international trade committee. This issue of wartime insurance for Canadian companies is important. I do not believe it belongs in a free trade agreement, just as I do not believe that calls for more munitions to Ukraine or natural gas to Ukraine belong in a free trade agreement. These agreements are about taking tariffs off things and not about trying to promote one thing or the other. This is something that the government should be looking into. This is an agreement that is supposed to help rebuild Ukraine and right now we are talking about issues within the war experience.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar81133198113320KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Humber River—Black Creek.As we speak, the Ukrainian people are risking their lives and sacrificing their lives to defend their homeland. Notwithstanding the courage and resolve of the Ukrainian people, the situation in Ukraine is dire. There are millions of refugees inside and outside Ukraine. Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine every day. We have heard about many forms of war crimes, including the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, as one example.There are hundreds of millions of people in the global south who are facing food shortages and famine because of Russia's invasion and blockade of Ukrainian ports. The war is the primary reason for food and energy price inflation around the world, including here in Canada. When Canadians pay higher prices at the pumps and the grocery store, the primary reason for that is Russia's invasion of Ukraine.This is an existential threat to global security and to Canada's security. It is critical that Ukraine win this war, not just for the sake of the Ukrainian people and not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it is important to us. Ukrainian people are not just fighting for themselves, but they are also fighting for us. I believe we should be fighting for them.The Government of Canada has been fighting for them. Canada has been a leading country in supporting Ukraine. We have provided over $5 billion in financial aid to Ukraine. That is the largest amount of financial aid per capita of any country in the world.An hon. member: Oh, oh!Mr. Yvan Baker: My Conservative colleague is heckling me as I speak, so clearly he does not support that.Madam Speaker, we have provided about $2.4 billion in military support that is going to help the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the front line fight against this invasion. There has been over $350 million in humanitarian assistance, $127 million in development assistance, and over $102 million in security and stabilization assistance. We have the implementation of the CUAET visa program that has allowed about 200,000 Ukrainians fleeing the war to come here for temporary refuge in Canada.We have been a leader in supporting Ukraine's entry into NATO. We have been advocating for Ukraine's entry into the EU. There was some talk earlier in this debate about what we can do to help Ukraine rebuild. The reality is that Canada is a leading country. We are making sure that we are seizing Russian assets here in Canada, and other countries are looking to our leadership on that, to make sure that we can sanction Russian assets here in Canada and use them to help rebuild Ukraine. We are leading in terms of working with Ukraine, the International Criminal Court and others to make sure that Russia's war crimes are prosecuted. We have trained 40,000 members of the Ukrainian Armed Forces through Operation Unifier. Let us just imagine 40,000 Ukrainian men and women fighting and giving everything to defend their homeland, and they were trained by Canada. I think that is something that, as Canadians, we can be very proud of.One of the things we can be very proud of is the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which I would note was negotiated in record time at the request of the Ukrainian government while it was under attack by Russia. These are steps that we can be very proud of. These are important, material steps to help Ukraine win the war.The reality is that this will not be enough until Ukraine achieves a decisive victory. To me, a decisive victory means it wins the war, but it also wins the peace. Winning the war means they recapture all of their territory, and that includes Eastern Ukraine, Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.Winning the peace, to me, means many things. It means that Ukraine is secure as a member of NATO, that we secure reparations from Russia to help rebuild Ukraine, that there is justice for Russian war crimes and that we help rebuild Ukraine's economy. That means not just helping to rebuild the physical infrastructure that has been destroyed in Ukraine, but it also means helping Ukraine's economy rebuild so it can be prosperous and so the Ukrainian people can achieve the freedom, the democracy, but also the prosperity that they are fighting for every minute of every day, and that tens of thousands of Ukrainians have given their lives to defend.That is where this Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement comes in. It is actually incredibly important, not just to Canada's economy, but also to Ukraine's economy. Ukraine's economy, since the invasion started, has declined by over 30%. Let us imagine a 30% decline in a country's economy. The reality is that is why signing free trade agreements, with countries like Canada that are interested in not only trade, but also investing in Ukraine, is so critical, especially at this time.(1350)If Ukraine is going to fight this war, it will need an economy that is functioning, that is allowing it to fund the war by collecting taxes to pay for munitions and everything else it needs to pay for. I think it is very important that we appreciate the importance of this agreement for that purpose.The other reason this agreement is important is that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement we currently have in place covers goods. It covers the trade of physical material, physical stuff, that goes back and forth, which is very important. However, the bigger economic opportunity is in trade and services and allowing investment to flow between our countries.Just from a purely Canadian perspective, it is good for Canada to have this trade agreement with Ukraine. It is an economic opportunity for our workers and our business people, so it should be unanimously supported. It is equally important for Ukraine from an economic perspective to trade services and allow investment to flow. It is critical and urgent for Ukraine, not just because we need to help Ukraine's economy but because the flow of investment is critical to helping Ukraine rebuild. Ukraine cannot rebuild without investment from individuals and businesses who want to invest to build businesses and help rebuild Ukraine.This trade agreement was asked for and signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It is supported by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. It is supported by the Ukrainian ambassador. Ukrainian MPs have travelled to Canada to ask MPs of all parties to support it. It is widely supported. It is beneficial to Ukraine and is beneficial to Canada, but there is a problem: Every single Conservative MP continuously votes against it. They just voted against it an hour or two ago here in this House again.The argument they have put forward is that there is mention of a carbon price in the agreement. First of all, the mention of a carbon price does not require Ukraine to do anything. It is just a mention. The second thing is that Ukraine has had a carbon price in place since 2011. It had a carbon price before Canada had one. It needs one to join the EU. Ukraine committed to a carbon price long ago and has committed to a carbon price for the future, so nothing here is being imposed on Ukraine.The other thing that is a little odd is the suggestion that Canada somehow imposed this on Ukraine. This is the government, its leader and the people fighting to defend themselves from the second-largest military in the world and somehow Canada imposed something on them. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument in my life from the Conservatives.The Conservatives have argued here in this debate that they know better than President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government what Ukraine needs. They have said we should delay this agreement, we should amend this agreement and we should remove segments of the agreement, all of those things because this would be better for Ukraine. Do members know who knows better what Ukraine needs? Ukrainians do. We should be listening to them. They have asked us to pass this agreement. We should respect their decision and respect the fact that they want this agreement signed and need it urgently.Unfortunately, this is part of a pattern now that has emerged since the member for Carleton became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. The Conservatives talk about what Brian Mulroney and Diefenbaker did. That is great, but we are not talking about them because those folks are not sitting in the House today. The member for Carleton is the leader of the Conservative Party, and since he has become the leader, members of the Conservative Party and he specifically have never advocated for more military, financial or humanitarian support for Ukraine. He has been silent on Russia's acts of genocide against the Ukrainian people. He has echoed the false narratives that the war in Ukraine does not affect inflation around the world when expert after expert tells us it does. The other day on—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCanadian companiesCarbon pricingCarbon taxEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsInternational development and aidInvestmentRussiaSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar811332181133228113323811332481133258113326811332781133288113329811333081133318113332811333381133348113335811333681133378113338811333981133408113341811334281133438113344RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, the leader of the Conservative Party has echoed false narratives about the war, suggesting the war does not affect us and does not affect inflation in Canada. He has said that in this House multiple times, which is of course not true. We know that not to be true.The Conservatives specifically challenged spending in our budget and voted to cut Operation Unifier, Canada's training mission of Ukrainian soldiers, through which we have trained 40,000 of them. They voted to cut military aid to Ukraine on Friday. Now they have voted again against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Every single Conservative MP did that.This is part of a pattern. The Conservative Party under its leader does not support Ukraine. It is very obvious and apparent. I think it is important that we all support Ukraine. Ukrainians are fighting for themselves but they are also fighting for us.Let us unify. Let us support Ukraine. Slava Ukraini.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8113347811334881133498113350CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58841KyleSeebackKyle-SeebackDufferin—CaledonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SeebackKyle_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Kyle Seeback (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy of the member is astounding. He says we should listen to President Zelenskyy. Well, what he said on Canada exporting gas turbines is that it was “absolutely unacceptable”. “Moreover, it is dangerous not only for Ukraine, but also for all countries of the democratic world.”President Zelenskyy called on the Canadian government to reverse the decision. Where was the member when that was going on? Was he condemning his government? Was he standing up and saying that we have to listen to President Zelenskyy? No. The member was quiet as a church mouse on an issue that is serious: a gas turbine being used to pump Russian gas to fund the war in Ukraine.He did not listen to President Zelenskyy then, but somehow it is outrageous that we disagree with President Zelenskyy on a trade agreement. How does the member square his hypocrisy?C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar811335181133528113353YvanBakerEtobicoke CentreYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, during this debate and during their consistent opposition to measures that help Ukraine over the last few weeks especially, Conservatives focus on the past, on nostalgia: what Mulroney did, what Diefenbaker did, what somebody did 10 years ago, what somebody did two years ago.What the Ukrainian people need is not nostalgia. They need help. They are fighting for their lives, and they are fighting for us. The members opposite should stop focusing on what happened 10 or 20 years ago and focus on today.Today, President Zelenskyy is asking us to pass this free trade agreement because it is vital to Ukraine winning this war. Let us support them. Slava Ukraini.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementEconomic sanctionsGovernment billsOil and gasPipeline transportationRussiaThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar811335481133558113356KyleSeebackDufferin—CaledonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1787Judy A.SgroHon.JudyA--SgroHumber River—Black CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SgroJudyA_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionHon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to applaud the efforts of my colleague, along with many other members of the House of Commons, to advance this free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine and the importance of it.We know Ukrainians are fighting an illegal Russian aggression against them. I would like to know what else the hon. member suggests we could be doing to advance and promote the free trade agreement with Ukraine.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81133598113360CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingYvanBakerEtobicoke Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105121YvanBakerYvan-BakerEtobicoke CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BakerYvan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersCanada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023InterventionMr. Yvan Baker: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, it is critical that we continue to work with our allies and encourage them to support Ukraine until it wins. That is a critical step.We have seen some wavering of support among some in the United States. It is important that we buffer that support. Canada can help Ukraine by continuing to send military aid to Ukraine, by continuing to train the Ukrainian armed forces and by continuing to send humanitarian aid. Also, let us expand our economic relationship with Ukraine and work toward Ukraine's rebuilding after the victory.If we stay resolved and work with our allies to stay resolved, Ukraine will win. If Ukraine wins, we all win.C-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine811336181133628113363Judy A.SgroHon.Humber River—Black CreekValerieBradfordKitchener South—Hespeler//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/33LawrenceMacAulayHon.Lawrence-MacAulayCardiganLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacAulayLawrence_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionHon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of Finance) (1200)[English] moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the third time and passed.Bill C-56. Third readingBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108225CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present updates to Bill C-56, as they are timely and are required to better tackle the increasing cost of living by strengthening Canada's competition law. Two months ago, the government introduced Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. As members may recall, it was presented as a down payment of sorts on broader reform efforts with respect to Canada's competition law, with more comprehensive amendments to follow pursuant to the fall economic statement.There has already been considerable debate in the chamber on this important piece of legislation, so let us talk about market studies, which are a key part of the legislation. Bill C-56 would provide the Competition Bureau with much-needed market study powers. It is important to ensure that the bureau would retain its independence while it does this. This is why we have supported an update that expressly confirms that the commissioner would be able to initiate a market study. This would remove any possible ambiguity over the market study process and would ensure that the bureau retains its discretion as an independent law enforcement agency. The update would ensure that the bureau would be able to look into specific market issues that it identifies as warranting scrutiny. The modification reflects the existing inquiry structure under the act, where it is already the case that either the commissioner or the minister may initiate an inquiry into potential anti-competitive activity, at which point the commissioner assumes full control of the investigation.The government's proposal has taken these concerns into account by creating a framework that would balance the need for independence, the benefit of collecting information and the safeguards required to protect businesses and public funds. This is why both the commissioner and the minister would be required to consult before any study is undertaken. Requiring consultation would ensure that Canadians would benefit from a market study that has been thoroughly considered and appropriately tailored. The proposal made by the government to update Bill C-56's market study provisions would also keep the framework aligned with international precedents, with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia all offering various forms of oversight to ensure appropriate use of market study power. Central to this is a test of the abuse of dominance.In order to effectively address increasing prices, we need to enhance more than just the bureau's ability to conduct market studies. It is also important that the law be able to hold today's well-resourced and sophisticated businesses to account. In particular, we need to better address large players who, many believe, abuse their market power to shut out competition, especially given the clear concerns raised throughout our consultation about protecting competition in and contestability of these markets.There are all different kinds of competition. We could talk about the fact that the big grocery chains have been recording record profits. One would think that if companies are posting record profits, they would be in a position to lower prices in order to attract more market share, but we did not see that, which suggests that something in the free market system is not working as we would normally expect it to work. There are other forms of potential anti-competitive behaviour. The ability to get shelf space in a major grocery store is a real competition, and the grocery stores have the hammer, to use a curling term, to find out who gets the market space. More and more, in my own personal observations when I go into grocery stores, I see the in-store brands taking more and more shelf space, with the other brands effectively being crowded out.We believe there has been an unnecessarily high burden to prove behaviours clearly damaging to the public interest. This is out of line with our international partners, by the way, including the United States, the European Union and Australia. These jurisdictions better allocate the burden of proof and allow the agencies to act more easily where harm is apparent. This can include by requiring proof of intent or effects, but not necessarily both. The government's update to Bill C-56 would allow abuse of dominance to be established on the basis of either intent or effects, following the actions of a dominant firm. This would allow for more effective enforcement of the act where there is harmful conduct by large players. It would accomplish what the act is meant to do: stop big businesses from abusing their position to the detriment of competition. The detriment of competition is a detriment to the citizens of Canada.(1205)As I noted before, the purpose of remedial orders is to protect competition in the market, not to punish its actors. Recognizing the lower burden involved in securing a remedial order that this change would bring about, the law would limit the remedy in these cases to a prohibition order. More serious remedies, such as monetary penalties and divestiture orders, would continue to require that both anti-competitive intent and effect be proven. This two-tiered approach would help guard against chilling, aggressive competition on the merits.The government already took an important first step to address this concern by positioning penalties to serve as more effective compliance measures against abuse of dominance. We did this through the 2022 amendments to the Competition Act that removed an ineffective and outdated cap on monetary penalties. We introduced a more principled approach that could better accommodate larger volumes of commerce. Firms engaged in anti-competitive conduct can now face a penalty set at up to three times the benefit obtained for their anti-competitive conduct, to ensure that it is not profitable to them. While this was an important update to move away from the outdated and ineffective fixed penalty system, the old fixed amounts of $10 million, or $15 million for a second order, still remain in the law. This is in the event that they are still higher than the new proportionate maximum. However, it is possible that these fallback numbers could still be too low to act as a deterrent in certain cases where abuse by a big business is significant but caught early, and thus benefit derived from it is still modest.As everyone here knows, competition is a driving force behind innovation and efficiency in our economy. It ensures a healthy, fair and vibrant marketplace. This is what the free market system is supposed to nurture and protect. Of course, competition is instrumental in bringing down prices. The fact that we have not seen prices fall in spite of the dominant profits being recorded by big grocery and some of the producers but that we see things like shrinkflation and skimpflation creeping in, where we are paying more for a smaller or inferior product, means that something is not working. When something is not working between what the market price is and what Canadians value, then we think it is the job of government to come in and close that gap.For Canadians, the updates to Bill C-56 would mean more choice and better affordability. When someone needs to pay their bills, the exact motivations or mechanisms behind anti-competitive conduct do not matter. The effect of paying higher prices remains the same. What does matter is that businesses can be held to account. It matters that the law can impose meaningful penalties to ensure compliance. It matters that the Competition Bureau has the information it needs to study problems in the market.The updates to Bill C-56 have been prioritized because they are the most directly related to addressing the issues identified in the grocery retail sectors. In fact, if we look at the whole landscape, particularly the concerns about inflation, the two big players to this point, at least in the retail market, have been gas, oil and diesel, and grocery. We have seen the market handle gas and oil, because the prices have been dropping at the pumps, which is a welcome sign for most Canadians, and probably one of the main reasons inflation in Canada has dropped to well less than half of what it was about a year ago. However, the thing to remember is that the provisions in Bill C-56 now, and what is coming, would apply to all sectors of the economy. As such, they would have a broad and, we hope, positive impact.These changes would also be just the first steps in responding to the issues that have been identified by the stakeholders and the public in our comprehensive consultation on Canada's competition law. As the government announced in its fall economic statement, it intends to introduce significant additional amendments for the consideration of Parliamentarians in the coming weeks. Perhaps in the question period to come, some of the hon. members here in the chamber can suggest some additional amendments that we should consider in the coming weeks.Abuse of dominant positionAnti-competitive practicesBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsMarket researchPenaltiesSupermarketsThird reading and adoption810822681082278108228810822981082308108231810823281082338108234810823581082368108237LawrenceMacAulayHon.CardiganRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, competition is at the front and centre of everyone's minds right now, especially when Canadians are paying the highest grocery bills ever in the history of this nation. Even the report that came out last week said that grocery bills in 2024 are going to go up still another $700 per family, and they are struggling now just to buy the basic necessities.Could the member please tell the House what exactly this bill would do to lower that $700 bill per family next year?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81082388108239KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, to be honest, the hon. member's question is key. The first thing we have to do is really get a firm grasp about what is causing prices to be so high. Hon. members would point to the carbon tax, but there was a report out of the University of Calgary that said, no, that was not really it. We would point to the war between Ukraine and Russia, with Ukraine's exports of grains being greatly reduced because of the conflict, which has had a chilling effect on the availability of food around the world that then had an effect on prices. However, it is anti-competitive behaviour at a time when all of the major grocery chains are recording record profits that suggests there is something not working properly in the free market system. That, I think, is the purpose of the Competition Act amendments.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81082408108241RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104922LucDesiletsLuc-DesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesiletsLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): (1210)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues in the House are having a good start to their week.The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-56, which would refund the GST to builders. What bothers me, however, is that Bill C-56 extends over seven years, so that means the rebate will be spread over seven years. In 2023, it is hard to foresee what is going to happen in a month or six months.How can we be sure that a bill like this will be effective when it is going to extend over seven years and plenty of questions remain about the criteria for housing affordability and the desired potential reduction in rent?I would like my colleague to comment on that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption8108242810824381082448108245KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, the fact is that two years ago we would not have foreseen the situation we face today. The fact is that this is going to be long term. It will intentionally be a forever measure to deal with anti-competitive behaviour in whatever sector it arrives. It is necessary right now to deal with groceries. It will certainly be fundamental in dealing with some of the issues on housing, which the hon. member presented, but it is also going to have to be nimble.Over the course of the years to come, the House will have to sit down and consider what is going on in the day, look at the Competition Act and make the changes necessary to ensure that basically everybody in the market is getting a fair shake. That means not only the producers, the grocery stores and the farmers, but also the consumers.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption81082468108247LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, very much related to Bill C-56 is the degree to which corporations are making record profits these days while everyone else seems to be suffering.We recently had Galen Weston, chairman of Loblaw, appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. His profits continue to rise while everyone else, all Canadian families, especially in my riding, are having to struggle and make do without. We see the same thing in the oil and gas sector. Over the last three years, its profits have gone up by over 1,000%. Mr. Weston thought that his executive compensation, which is 431 times the average salary of one of his workers, is a reasonable amount, and he could not tell the committee how many of his full-time workers have had to access a food bank to get by.Conservatives do not want to talk about gross corporate profits these days, but I would like to hear from my hon. colleague what the Liberals are going to do to tackle this corporate culture in which corporations are continuing to make profits while everyone else suffers. We have had 40 years of too much corporate deference in this country. What are they going to do to start turning that around to make sure that the pendulum swings back in favour of Canadian families?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompaniesGovernment billsProfitsThird reading and adoption810824881082498108250KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, it is like an onion. There are layers upon layers of things that need to be considered. I would direct him and anybody witnessing this to the Roosevelt Institute in the United States, which is looking at a fundamental rebalancing of the wealth that comes out of the market. That rebalancing will be away from the CEOs, the boards and the executives and more towards the workers. We have seen this in the resurgence of union activity in the country, where unions are again having the opportunity and the ability to assert the rights of working people and skim maybe a little more off of the top of the executive compensation, which has really gone off the rails, I would say, in the last 20 to 30 years.This Competition Act amendment is an iterative thing. It will be subject to amendments as we see opportunities to make things better for Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompaniesGovernment billsProfitsThird reading and adoption81082518108252AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, my question to the member concerns both legislative and budgetary measures. On the issue of the affordability of groceries, the government, in the last budget, came forward with a grocery rebate, which literally put cash in the pockets of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians. I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts as to why that was an important thing to do for Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108253KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, that question highlights two things. First of all, the strategy generally used by the government has been to ensure that the people who need the help get it. That is the reason, for instance, that we took the Canada child benefit away from millionaires and made it income tested so the people who actually needed the help got it.In the case of the grocery rebate, that could not have come at a better time because things such as the Competition Act and this act are all meant to relieve the pressure on people and fix things that are wrong in the market system, and the grocery rebate was something that helped to bridge people earing very low incomes over the hump while all of these elements came together for Bill C-56. I would not discount, perhaps, the need to do that again at some point in the future. I would advocate for it as an individual MP. Of course, it is up to the government to assess the situation and move forward.Bill C-56 is meant to solve the problem for which the grocery rebate was a band-aid on a wound that needs healing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsThird reading and adoption810825481082558108256KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, part of the legislation deals with the purpose-built rentals in an attempt to see more rentals being constructed emphasize a good strong public policy. Now we are witnessing other provinces adopting the same approach where PST is also being exempted. I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the federal government working along with the provincial government, with the federal government playing a leadership role, and on how it really makes a difference because we are going to see thousands of new units come on stream in the coming years. Could the member provide his thoughts on that aspect of the legislation and the impact it would have?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsRental housingThird reading and adoption81082578108258KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsKenHardieFleetwood—Port Kells//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89274KenHardieKen-HardieFleetwood—Port KellsLiberal CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HardieKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ken Hardie: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, my experience with metro Vancouver's transportation authority revealed a number of issues connected to the hon. member's question.Municipalities are stressed because, if, for instance, we build new high rises, as we will through our riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells along the new SkyTrain line, which the government is supporting with funding, the municipalities have to keep up with the water, sewer, all of the other infrastructure, schools, parks, recreation centres etc. The pattern until now in metro Vancouver has been for new growth to pay for new growth. The could easily erase the benefits of the removal of the GST and the PST on purpose-built rental units. Therefore, with respect to the support that we are offering and want to offer, and in addition to the partnerships that we have with the provinces, we need to factor in our municipalities as partners as well because they are left holding a pretty large bill that also needs to be satisfied if this is going to be a success.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsRental housingThird reading and adoption810825981082608108261KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8108262KenHardieFleetwood—Port KellsCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I can speak for 20, 30 or 40 minutes about this important topic. I am happy to stand in the House today on the report stage of Bill C-56.We have been talking about competition quite a bit in the House, including the need for competition and the lack of competition. We know that Canada has a competition problem. We see it in every sector that Canadians are a part of, including cell phones, banking, groceries, wireless and Internet. There is not really any sector in the Canadian economy that is not dominated by oligopolies and monopolies.When this bill came along, we looked at it favourably because certain aspects were going to be improved. Mostly we looked at it favourably because there were Conservative aspects that were part of it, including my private member's bill, which was read into the act. Of course, I have a new private member's bill. We are all happy for that, and we are moving on.The crux of the bill, the affordable housing and groceries act, is really anticlimactic in that, when this bill receives royal assent and becomes law, it will not really change the fact that Canadians are still paying the highest grocery fees and are in the worst housing crisis in this country's history. That is because the bill does promise to make some changes to the Competition Act. This bill would do some minor tinkering around the edges for what we need to have changed in the Competition Act. However, it does not do the real hard work. It does not have the courage to change the real things that need to happen to change competition in Canada.The bill would enact Competition Act changes. It would certainly make some provisions and changes to the abuse of dominance. It looks at illuminating the efficiencies defence, which was in my private member's bill that came forward. It looks at how market studies should be handled by the Competition Bureau itself.However, when it comes to the real aspects that are hurting consumers at the grocery store right now, where they are paying 20% more for groceries after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it does not tackle the biggest aspect, which is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is added to the farmer, to the trucker, to the manufacturer, to the cold storage facility, so it is added one, two, three, four times to the consumer bill and passed on to the consumer.It certainly does not tackle the fact that, when it comes to housing in Canada, we are building fewer homes now than we did in 1972, when we have over 40 million Canadians in this country right now. It certainly does not tackle the fact that, because of high inflation after eight years, the costs of everything have gone up, including building materials and labour for homes. The fact is that over the years, we have built up a big barrier of what we call Nimbyism, protecting our backyards from others so that we cannot build homes.Consumers are stretched. Mortgage renewals are coming due. Over 70% of Canadians with a fixed mortgage will have to renew their mortgage over the next two years, this during the fastest run-up of interest rates in the whole history of this country.The carbon tax had unintended consequences, and consumers are screaming. They were promised that they would get more back in rebates than they put in. However, the unintended consequences have been that those carbon taxes have added costs to grocery bills. Those added costs are on the price of almost everything that Canadians are paying. They see the rebate in their hands, compared to the bills they are paying each and every day, and Canadians are smart. They now know that they are paying way more in those carbon taxes than they are getting in rebates. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians cannot afford any more.We have looked at competition, and we have looked at the two parts of the act that we need to solidify. One is to put a stranglehold on how big the big, bossy, dominant conglomerates, oligopolies and monopolies can get in Canada. Canadians have had enough, whether it is cell phone bills, where we have three companies that control 90% of all cell phones in Canada, which are the most expensive three carriers out of 128 carries in 64 countries, or whether it is groceries, where we used to have competition in Canada. Eight grocery stores used to run and compete with one another, driving prices lower. It is now down to only three Canadian companies competing with two American conglomerates. They used to all be Canadian competitors. We used to be able to go to different stores. Now Canadians find that they oftentimes going to the same competitors.(1225)Obviously, prices have not gone down, and this is only after the last eight years with a Competition Act that was outdated. It has certainly outlived its prime, since the Competition Act was created based on the 1960s industrial policy, which said, “We want Canadian companies to get as big as possible to compete internationally.” It is actually in the purpose clause of the Competition Act right now to make Canadian companies as big as possible so that they can compete internationally. This is what we deem as competition. When it comes to competition, we want more companies to compete, not internationally but to compete for Canadians' dollars. Canadian companies should not be able to make all of their money on the backs of hard-working Canadians; Canadian companies need to compete with one another for Canadians' hard-earn tax dollar. The breadth of this Competition Act, which needs to be changed, is the premise and the purpose of the Competition Act. Number one, we need to ensure that big-box conglomerates and corporations cannot get bigger on the backs of hard-working Canadians. However, the second and most important aspect of the Competition Act is to ensure that we have competition or that we have start-ups in Canada.Canada now, according to the BDC, has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs compared to 20 years ago, despite our population increasing by over 10 million people. Canada has failed to create competition. We can look at one aspect to say that we would really love to make sure that we stifle the top monopolies and oligopolies and make sure that they cannot merge with one another, but the other big problem we have missed along the way is to have start-ups created to compete with one another. It used to be that Canada was the bastion for that, and we were able to find start-ups and have great Canadian companies start up and grow in scale, but for the first time in our history, we have fewer start-ups per capita than ever before, after eight years of this government.When we talk about new jobs and creating wealth in this country, which is something I am afraid we are going to have to speak about a lot over the next year, we look to small business and start-ups to fulfill that role. Ninety-seven per cent of all new jobs in Canada are created by small business. When we look at the complexity and the value of these small businesses, the men and women who can take a risk and start something new in Canada, right now what we are missing most of all is to ensure that we create those jobs and businesses in this nation. At the end of the day, we have to really look at what this bill would do and what it would not do. We are certainly going to vote for this legislation. At the end of the day, the Competition Bureau itself has been ignored for the last eight years. Coincidentally, the first time that this government starts talking about it is when the opposition leader names a competition shadow minister for the first time in government, which looks at the importance of what competition can do for the nation and what it means for Canadians. Of course, the first thing it means is prices, and the second thing is our jobs and paycheques. We can create new start-ups and new businesses. For instance, when we look at the banking sector, the biggest thing we are trying to put forward is consumer-led or open banking. There is an opportunity, where this government has been dragging its feet, to create hundreds upon hundreds of financial tech institutions that can not only create jobs and paycheques for Canadians, but provide options for Canadians of where to put their hard-earned money when it comes to financial services in Canada. I would hope that through this, and we will be talking about it when we get back in January, the government introduces the legislation that it promised in 2018. More importantly, as Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, comes forth, Canadians are going to be angry about how anti-climactic it will be. Grocery prices are not going to go down after the bill passes, nor will our housing crisis be solved. It would do something important for the Competition Act, but not nearly enough to undo what has already been done. Most importantly, it would not create the start-ups that have stopped, the start-ups that can drive housing starts and create more options and more food in the value chain. We need boldness, and we need courage. We need a new government to present policy that would actually create homes and grow food without punishing our farmers in this country. It is time to bring it home for farmers, for our country and for Canadians looking for a home of their own. Abuse of dominant positionBanks and bankingBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCompetitionConsumer priceCost of livingEntrepreneurship and entrepreneursFood and drinkGovernment billsHousingInterest ratesMortgagesThird reading and adoption810826581082668108267810826881082698108270810827181082728108273810827481082758108276810827781082788108279810828081082818108282CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy here. The member talked about, at the beginning of his speech, the idea of competition and said that the Conservatives want competition. Then he talked about the big five. The last time there was actually an amalgamation of grocery stores, when a grocery store was bought up, was with Shoppers under Stephen Harper. Stephen Harper and the member's current leader allowed Shoppers, through billions of dollars, to be consumed by Loblaws.Then the member stands up and says that they want more competition. Where was the member when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, let alone today's leader of the Conservative Party? They were nowhere when it came to competition. Why should Canadians believe that anything has changed with the Conservative Party, when its members consistently vote against good, solid policy initiatives?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81082838108284RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, let us talk about hypocrisy, then, for a minute. Here are the mergers that have been approved by the Competition Bureau since the Trudeau government has been in power: Air Canada was approved to buy—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108285KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1230)[English]I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I did not even realize I did that.Here are the mergers that have gone through: Air Canada and Air Transat in 2019, approved by the Competition Bureau; Rogers and Shaw in 2022; RBC approved to buy HSBC in 2023; WestJet buying Sunwing in 2022; Superior Propane buying Canexus in 2018; and Sobeys approved to buy Farm Boy in 2018. The hypocrisy knows no bounds.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81082888108289CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1230)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about one of the two aspects of the current debate on Bill C-56, which amends the Competition Act, among other things. We agree; it is not going to solve every problem.The other aspect this bill addresses is housing, in particular the GST on rental housing. It touches on this other problem that we have heard a lot about and that is a real scourge this year: housing.What my colleague did not mention is that the only solution his party has proposed so far on the housing issue is a bill introduced by his leader, a bill that is essentially designed to show cities some tough love and tell them that funding will be cut if they do not meet their targets.That is not what cities, particularly those in my riding, need to successfully address the housing issue. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsGoods and Services Tax Rebate for MunicipalitiesGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108290810829181082928108293RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, housing is very important. Speaking as a former municipal councillor, I know the buck really falls with the municipalities. There is a provincial act that oversees the municipal act itself, but it does come down to the municipalities to be able to push things forward, and that is the Nimbyism I have point out.I am going to talk about some stats that came out today, and this is after eight years of the government. The Rentals.ca December rent report confirmed that while American rents are beginning to stabilize, Canadian rents remain at record highs. The average rent increased 8.4% this year. “One-bedroom apartment annual rent growth remained strongest”, with an average of $1,943. There are people in Toronto who are renting the other side of the bed; that is how bad it has become. We believe we need to incentivize but also reward municipalities for pushing through rental and construction as a whole. We believe that as party, and I believe that as a former municipal politician. There are so many times when it is easy for a municipal politician to vote down a rental agreement or a plan that comes forward. We need to find ways to incentivize municipalities that are getting things done, especially around high-density transit, especially where we need housing and especially where we need rental.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsGoods and Services Tax Rebate for MunicipalitiesGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108294810829581082968108297AndréanneLaroucheSheffordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, another point the member did not talk about when he talked about how much they would love to get rid of the price on pollution is the rebate. The rebate ensures that over 80% of people get more money back than they pay in with regard to the price on pollution. Could the member be very clear on whether he supports Canadians getting the environmental rebate?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108298RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, members I have talked to are all looking forward to the rebate when we axe the tax and get rid of all the tax they are paying. Canadians know when they go to the grocery store now that they are seeing the increase because the farmers and the manufacturers and the truckers have all incurred increases and are passing them on. Why are food prices the highest they have ever been in the history of Canada? It is because of the carbon tax. Canadians want that tax off. Let us axe the tax.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108299KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC): (1235)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing his time with me.After eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister, inflation has reached its highest level in 40 years. I can say that I would not want to be in the shoes of the Liberal government right now.Salaries of middle-class Canadians no longer cover even housing, which has doubled, and groceries, which are predicted to rise even more this year. Increasing numbers of people rely on food banks, and children have almost nothing in their school lunch boxes, which is a crying shame.The effects of drug legislation are being felt. The increase in addiction rates is harming families and our sense of security. This is where we have landed, thanks to the wildly reckless spending of this Prime Minister and his spendthrift government, which attempts to buy votes with wishful thinking. He wants people to forget the disaster he has caused to those who can no longer make ends meet.Let us not mince words. We will all pay for this Liberal government's disastrous policies over the next 25 or 30 years. Let us be frank in the House. We now find ourselves with a failed Prime Minister, a failed government, public spending in the red, and a society that is being unwittingly bankrupted, and no longer knows how it is going to pay its grocery bills.I would like to be reassuring, but how can we continue to have faith given the scale of the challenges before us each day and the financial threat that looms over so many households? As the Prime Minister says, we will continue doing this, that or the other. Well, empty words no longer work.This is truly scandalous, without a doubt. In eight years of governing, only the Liberals could think of this and pull off such a thing. Since 2006, I have proudly represented the people of Lévis—Lotbinière. The previous Conservative government was responsible and had a vision for our young people, our future and our economy.The sad reality is that this bill resolves absolutely nothing while increasing public spending and taxes. Years ago the Liberal government should have put in place new housing measures and certain measures to reduce the cost of groceries. Homelessness is now a reality for hard-working people who, not so long ago, could afford housing. Faced with $20 billion in new costly spending, we were quickly walked through this mini-budget in the fall. Prices are going up, rents are going up, the debt is going up, and taxes are going up. What about the price of groceries? That is going up too. More than $20 billion in new inflationary spending will keep inflation and interest rates at a higher level than Canadians can afford to pay.The end of the year is approaching, and the honeymoon with this Liberal government is definitely over. I wonder what the Prime Minister will be thinking on his next trip while he is lying on the beach in the sun. We hope that this time the trip will be at his own expense. What will he think of the sad reality of people who have trouble affording a turkey for Christmas, putting presents under the tree, if there is one, heating their homes, or putting gas in their vehicles? Many Canadians and Quebeckers will find that 2024 is going to be as harsh as this winter, especially since the government is proposing to raise taxes on the backs of the middle class. Ironically, there is a lot to be stressed about: Next year this Prime Minister will spend more money on servicing the debt than on paying for Canadians' health care.As for balancing the budget, maybe that will happen in 30 years, because it has become a mirage. Members may recall that the Liberal government told Canadians they would balance the budget by 2028. Since the Minister of Finance announced that pious wish, she has announced $100 billion in new expenses. Even though we need millions of new housing units by 2030, the government, which has been scrimping on important issues since it came to power, announced this fall it would spend $15 billion on a fund that will support the construction of barely 1,500 housing units a year. I would like to remind the government that 2030 is only six years away. That is not very long, except for the people who have to sleep outside or those who have been paying double for housing since the Liberal ice age.Now more than ever, it is clear that this bill does nothing to help ordinary Canadians. Even worse, Canadians are becoming even poorer.(1240)We have seen what this Liberal government has gotten wrong. Here are a few facts to help convince my colleagues. There were a record two million visits to the food bank in a single month. The cost of housing has doubled. Mortgage payments are 150% higher now than when this government came to power. Violent crime has increased by 39%. There are tent cities in almost every major city in Canada, and a lot of the people who live there are people we know. More than half of Canadians are $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Canadians who renew their mortgage at the current rate will see an increase of 2% to 6% or more. The IMF says that Canada is the G7 country most likely to experience a mortgage default crisis. Worse yet, the business bankruptcy rate increased by 37% this year.While Canadians are up to their necks in debt and there is no foreseeable miracle forthcoming from the Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition, we are trying to find a way back to a common-sense solution, a way of really being heard to mitigate the daily suffering of people across the country. I said I have been a legislator since 2006. I can say that I am not the only one to long for a government that knows how to count and invest every one of Canadian taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. A lot of people were deceived by the siren song of the Liberals’ promises, and we are all paying the price now. This also proves that voting for the Bloc is costly.They can say anything they want across the aisle and talk about the horrors of going backwards, but this country needs a Conservative government to put it back on track. We need to understand that our country was doing well, very well, actually, before this Liberal government came to power. Let us remember the interest and inflation rates before this Prime Minister. They were low. Taxes dropped faster than at any other time in our country’s history. We had a balanced budget. Crime was down 25%. Our borders were secure. Housing cost half of what it does today. Net wages increased by 10% after inflation and income tax. What are we seeing now? It is a disaster. Many Canadians will have to wait up to 25 years to save enough money to buy their first house and, for many of them, home ownership is an impossible dream.The legacy the Liberals are leaving us is a world upside down. Come the next election, voters will have two options. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc-NDP coalition that will take taxpayers' money, raise taxes, and enable more crime. The second option is a common-sense Conservative government that will enable people to earn a bigger paycheque to buy groceries, gas and a home in a safe community. The choice is obvious. Let us just hope that our country can hold on until then. With last fall's mini-budget, we are going to pay more taxes, because the government raised the carbon tax across the country. It is going to quadruple. That does not make any sense, and it is truly outrageous. Bill C-234 would give Canadian taxpayers a little breathing room by eliminating the carbon tax for Canadian farmers. That would bring down food prices in Canada. When the government taxes the farmers who grow food and the truckers who transport it, Canadians have to pay more to put food on the table. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change promised to resign if this bill were passed. He is not thinking about those who are struggling to make ends meet at the end of every week.Will the Prime Minister choose to save his environment minister or to feed Canadians by lowering the cost of food through Bill C-234, which must be passed but is stuck in the Senate because of the Prime Minister's machinations? The choice is easy and obvious. Let us help our farmers and all Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCost of livingDrug use and abuseEnergy and fuelFarming and farmersGovernment billsGovernment performanceHousingInflationPovertySplitting speaking timeTax exemptionThird reading and adoption81083008108301810830281083038108304810830581083068108307810830881083098108310810831181083128108313810831481083158108316RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, as an FYI to the member, this bill is not about what he talked about. What he needs to recognize is that one of the big initiatives in this legislation would exempt purpose-built rentals from GST, a good, sound policy. I suspect that the Conservatives might vote in favour of that. After all, we have now seen provinces get on board. A number of provinces are doing likewise for the PST.The federal government is leading on the housing issue, and I am wondering if my Conservative friend can explain why we as a national government today lead on housing-related issues, whereas the Conservatives in the past, under their current leader, did absolutely nothing when it came to housing in Canada.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption81083178108318JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, let me remind the government that what little it has fixed when it comes to housing in Canada is only a drop in the ocean.The government promised $15 billion in loans and to possibly build 1,500 more housing units per year when millions more are needed. With the Liberals, it will take 2,500 years to get to where we want to be. We will need between 4 and 5 million more housing units by 2030. With the Liberal government, that is an unattainable target.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption81083198108320KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, the Conservatives made cuts too and did not invest enough in social and community housing, which is what is needed.That said, how does my colleague from Quebec deal with the fact that his Conservative colleague was shown on Infoman to have taken some liberties with the truth—to keep things parliamentary—on the carbon tax, according to independent journalists?This morning, we learned that independent economists raised red flags regarding the Conservative leader's so-called documentary. They said that his viral video—again, I am trying to keep things parliamentary—lacked in correctness and used arguments that are much too simplistic for such a serious crisis.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption810832181083228108323JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am going to talk about actual facts.I have five children. Around 10 years ago, my oldest daughter bought a house for about $150,000. Seven years ago, my second daughter bought a house. It cost an additional $100,000. Three years ago, my son bought a house that cost an extra $100,000 on top of that. It cost him $350,000. My two youngest are barely able to rent a place because house prices have shot up past $450,000, $550,000 and $650,000 in the space of half a generation.When the Conservatives were in government, young people could buy and build a home. Today, in the Liberal era, it is impossible to even rent a home. Imagine that. These are the facts and this is reality. My family has lived it. This is what every Canadian family is experiencing today.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption810832481083258108326AndréanneLaroucheSheffordEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, the Liberals in the House have been crowing about removing the GST on housing construction. I find it ironic, and would ask my colleague to comment on this, that they talk about making life more affordable by removing GST on housing yet the government has refused to remove the carbon tax on groceries, on everything we produce in this country and on gasoline.I would ask my colleague to comment on the apparent contradiction between the Liberal government's intent to make life more affordable by removing the GST on housing and the fact that it will not axe the tax.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingThird reading and adoption81083278108328JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreJacquesGourdeLévis—Lotbinière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35397JacquesGourdeJacques-GourdeLévis—LotbinièreConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GourdeJacques_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Jacques Gourde: (1250)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The carbon tax is a totally hypocritical tax for all Canadians. It increases the price of everything, everything that is transported. All of our goods and services are transported all over Canada several times, and everyone keeps a cut. That is how we end up with two-by-fours going from $3 each to $12 each, and fruits and vegetables going from maybe 35¢ a pound to $1.50 a pound.This is never going to end. We need to get rid of the carbon tax, because that will lower the cost of everything.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingThird reading and adoption81083298108330EdFastHon.AbbotsfordRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ): (1250)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8108331JacquesGourdeLévis—LotbinièreCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. René Villemure: (1250)[Translation]Madam Speaker, this is the first time in two years that I have gotten the unanimous consent of the House, and I am proud of it. Before beginning my speech, I would like to make one thing clear. This is not a case of the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party standing together. It is the Conservatives that stand alone. That is not the same thing.Today we will be discussing Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. I will be talking mostly about that last part of the bill, in terms of both its technical points and its rationale. Before we begin, though, we always need to establish what we are talking about. What is competition? It means coming together and converging on the same point. That is what competition is. It is not necessarily a bad thing. However, what is the motivation for coming together? What is the purpose? Is it good or bad? As members of Parliament, our objective must be commendable, because we obviously have the public interest at heart.In one amendment, the bill would increase the maximum monetary penalty for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for the first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. The aim is to give the law teeth, to make sure that it will not be taken lightly, that people will not think that they can get away with a slap on the wrist. This provision also makes Canadian law more comparable to U.S. law, of course.The second important amendment in the part on competition would allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if the minister responsible for the act or the commissioner of competition so recommends, and would require the minister to consult the commissioner before doing so.The Competition Bureau already has significant powers, but it cannot demand certain things from the people it is investigating. It cannot request a search unless there is a clear offence. It cannot request a search just to look around. It cannot make assumptions. All of us here know that groceries are expensive and that we pay the highest cellphone fees in the OECD. It does not take a genius to realize that the commissioner might want to investigate these things.When it conducts a study, the bureau will have to determine whether there is adequate competition in a market or industry. Right now, it does not have that power in every industry. What the Competition Bureau can do at present is all right, but it is not necessarily the best thing right now. It may have been sufficient at the time, but now it needs to be enhanced.In its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. I like that euphemism: “did not really co-operate”. They said no, which is not the same thing, and the Competition Bureau, with its current powers, could not make them say yes. They refused to provide the documents the bureau asked for, and they refused to answer certain questions. My colleagues will no doubt agree that there are many shades of meaning between “did not really co-operate” and “refused to answer”. The aim of Bill C-56 is to solve this problem by granting the Competition Bureau the power to conduct inquiries where applicable. Lastly, the bill would revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct that is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing competition. That is the technical part of the bill. However, when someone drafts a bill, they need to think about why they are doing it, what they are trying to accomplish.The purpose of the Competition Act is to ensure that Quebec and Canadian consumers have freedom of choice. We sometimes talk about monopolies. What is a monopoly? It is an exclusive right. What does “exclusive” mean? It means doing everything possible to keep others out. It means restricting, refusing, blocking, rejecting. Exclusivity means limiting access. It is almost like a secret agreement.The bill also seeks to prevent stakeholders from abusing a dominant market position. To dominate means to master, to control. In the past minute, I have talked about refusing, blocking, mastering, controlling, exclusive rights. All of this goes against the free market that this country promises, that it says it has, but that is sometimes, in reality, only an illusion.(1255)Essentially, the drafters of the bill wanted the Competition Bureau to have more power, the power to provide us with freedom of choice, the power to investigate where appropriate until it is satisfied that it can make this possible.As I said at the beginning of my speech, competition means getting together and converging on the same point. If that is not possible, if certain players dominating a market prevent that from happening, we are being deprived of our freedom of choice. It is a sort of manipulation. It is a sort of lie.Without calling anyone a liar, we can still talk about what a lie is, here in the House of Commons. A lie from someone in a dominant position may prevent someone else from doing something they would have done had they known the truth. Lies imply secrecy. Monopolies imply secrecy. It is this secrecy that this bill seeks to eliminate so that everyone can exercise freedom.Abuse of dominant positionBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumers and consumer protectionGovernment billsMarket researchPenaltiesThird reading and adoption8108335810833681083378108338810833981083408108341810834281083438108344810834581083468108347CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments about the bureau and how when we think of competition and enhancing competition, making changes to the act would, in fact, take away the efficiency argument.Therefore, I believe, at the end of the day, it would be healthier for Canadians because it would ensure there is more competition. The member made reference to cellphones. Whether it is cellphones or groceries, taking away the efficiency argument within this legislation, I believe, would help address that going forward.Can he expand on why it was good to see changes to the legislation affecting the bureau?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption810834881083498108350RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. René Villemure: (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, those who hold monopolies or exclusive rights do not need to be good at what they do. They just have to be there. At the end of the day, they can charge whatever they want, with whatever conditions they want, to whoever they want. They do not have to sell to everyone if they do not want to.The law will need to improve the efficiency of service providers, because they will not have the luxury of serving a passive and captive clientele.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81083518108352KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthEdFastHon.Abbotsford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35904EdFastHon.Ed-FastAbbotsfordConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FastEd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, all the legislation in the world and all the regulations in the world will not help us make our environment and economy more competitive if we do not have a government that has the backbone to say no to anti-competitive mergers. There have been a lot of mergers over the last eight years that the Liberal government has approved, and those mergers have reduced competition in the marketplace here in Canada.Has the Bloc supported those mergers or does it support a more cautious approach to making sure Canadians have full competition, so the price of groceries and the price of housing go down in this country?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81083538108354RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. René Villemure: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, competition is for oil companies too. Funny how the price of gas never goes down, only up.Regulation is not always a cure-all, but it is the right solution in this case because the players are not trustworthy. If they were, we might be inclined to let them self-regulate, but they have shown that that was not good enough, particularly when they refused to answer questions from the Competition Bureau.I think that the proposed legislation seeks to restore consumer confidence in the bureau's services. I do not believe that there will be a loss of efficiency. I think that we will see increased efficiency, because the players will have no other choice.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsThird reading and adoption810835581083568108357EdFastHon.AbbotsfordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, as I have pointed out previously, another aspect of the legislation is to increase the number of purpose-built rentals to increase housing supply. What we have witnessed, and I mentioned earlier, is provinces adopting the same policies where they are incorporating sales tax relief to encourage more construction. I am not too sure what the Province of Quebec has done.Does the member know what the Province of Quebec has done with respect to the GST being forgiven for purpose-built rentals?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramRental housingThird reading and adoption81083588108359RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresRenéVillemureTrois-Rivières//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110306RenéVillemureRené-VillemureTrois-RivièresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VillemureRené_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. René Villemure: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will respond candidly and honestly: I simply do not know.If my colleague so desires, I can look into it and get back to him later. At this point, I could not say.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramRental housingThird reading and adoption81083608108361KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, on many occasions I had the fortune or the misfortune to observe that when a member of the Bloc Québécois uses the old expression “it is about time” in the House, most of the time, unfortunately, it is a euphemism. Unsurprisingly, that old saying “it is about time” applies well to the bill before us today.Currently, when the Competition Bureau studies the competitive environment in a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. That is not very convenient. However, with the passage of the Bill C‑56, it will be able to do so. When I say it is about time, that is because the Bloc has been calling for this measure for a good 20 years.On the other hand, I would be lying if I said that Bill C‑56 did not lack teeth. I will spoil the surprise right away: I will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 like my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Here are the reasons why. This bill contains some good measures. Most of all, it does not contain any that are outright harmful. Let us just say that I expected more. For me, this is just a drop in an ocean of needs. Now I will explain my thoughts in greater detail.Part 1 of Bill C‑56 modifies the Excise Tax Act. It extends a GST rebate, 5% of the sales tax, to builders of rental housing. The rebate will occur at the moment of sale or alleged sale if the builder becomes the owner. The rebate does not apply when the purchaser is already entirely or partially exempt. For example, this is the case for government organizations, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations or housing co-ops. That means that Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects because it concerns only private housing.Part 2 makes three amendments to the Competition Act. The first, as I said earlier, gives real investigative powers to the commissioner of competition. The second broadens the range of anti-competitive practices prohibited by law. At present, competitors cannot agree to push another player out of the market. Bill C‑56 will prohibit agreements even with non-market players aimed at reducing competition. For example, when a grocer rents space in a shopping centre, it is common for the lease to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting to another grocer. Such practices that effectively limit competition will be prohibited under Bill C‑56.The third amendment to the Competition Act will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Today, when a business wants to buy a competitor, for example the Royal Bank's proposed acquisition of HSBC, the act states that the Competition Bureau should allow the merger if it can be proven that the purchase will result in a gain in efficiency, even if the merger will reduce competition. This provision, which appears to favour concentration, will be repealed by Bill C‑56. The Bloc Québécois and my colleague, the member from Terrebonne, have been asking for this measure for some time now.As I said at the start of my speech, Bill C‑56 contains a number of good measures and, more importantly, none that are outright harmful. However, I also said I believe it is but a drop in an ocean of needs.In housing, there is real urgency. However, nothing indicates Bill C‑56 will do anything to reduce rents. It would be astonishing if a landlord dropped rents just because they no longer had to pay the GST on a new property, especially since interest rates alone are driving up mortgage costs. This increase will greatly exceed the GST exemption on new rental units. When landlords renew their mortgage, who will they pass the increase on to? The question is rhetorical. We can expect prices will keep rising, with or without Bill C‑56. At best, by removing the tax on rental buildings, Bill C‑56 might entice some developers to build rentals instead of condos. It might simply become more profitable for them. Again, this is just speculation.Although Bill C‑56 will not directly affect rents, it could help alleviate the housing shortage in some small measure. If Bill C‑56 increases the percentage of new rental housing construction even a little, it will be a good thing. However, we would still be light years away from meeting needs.I repeat: There are some good things in this bill, such as the amendments to the Competition Act. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses those. On the other hand, we consider it misleading to claim that the bill will help lower the cost of groceries, as the government suggests.(1305)Giving the commissioner of competition real investigative powers when carrying out a study should enable him to get to the bottom of things when it comes to the competitive environment in a given sector. That is very true. Now, learning more about an issue is a good thing, but it does not increase competition and it certainly does not bring down grocery costs.Since 1986, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared, after being bought out by competitors. Steinberg disappeared. A&P disappeared. Provigo was bought by Loblaws. IGA was bought by Sobeys. Marché Adonis was bought by Metro. Of the 13 grocery chains that existed in 1986, only three remain. If we include the two American big box stores that also sell groceries, Costco and Walmart, that means that five players control 80% of the market.While it is true that a number of factors are contributing to the increase in food prices, it is important not to lose sight of the grocers' profit margins. When prices go up, profits go up. However, according to the Competition Bureau study published last June, grocers did not just maintain their profit margin, they increased it.When a merchant can raise prices at will, it is a blatant sign of a lack of competition. The amendments to the Competition Act found in Bill C‑56 will certainly prevent the situation from worsening, and they will make mergers and acquisitions harder to do in the future. However, they do not resolve the situation. The damage is done and, unfortunately, Bill C‑56 will do nothing to fix it.In short, even though Bill C‑56 does put forward some good measures, this cannot possibly be the government's one and only response to the skyrocketing cost of housing and groceries. When it comes to housing, the government needs to review and improve the national housing strategy, which, let us face it, has failed.In terms of competition, they need to review the notion of abuse to prevent the big players from endlessly profiting from their disproportionate market share. Those two initiatives must be undertaken, and we are just starting both, whether Bill C‑56 passes or not.To end my speech, I would like to say the following. The Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑56 is certainly not a motion to congratulate the government, quite the contrary. However, we do see it as a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois's support today is like a pat on the back. It is like a nod of the head, but coupled with a “what comes next?”.I suspect that I may have to wait awhile before the government actually takes any further action, but I hope I will not have to wait too long.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsHousingMarket researchMergers and acquisitionsProfitsSupermarketsThird reading and adoption810836281083638108364810836581083668108367810836881083698108370810837181083728108373810837481083758108376810837781083788108379RenéVillemureTrois-RivièresLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened carefully as the member described the steps we are taking as a federal government to try and alleviate some of the pressure in the rental market. The rental market is generally under provincial jurisdiction, which I know the Bloc watches very carefully. Removing the GST in a time of high interest rates is to try and stimulate construction, create conditions where there are more units to rent and introduce competition in the rental market and, therefore, drive down prices. That is the move we are trying to make as a federal government. Could the hon. member comment on how creating the right conditions in the market might actually help the people of Quebec?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsRental housingThird reading and adoption810838081083818108382AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.The problem that we have with this provision, which seeks to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing, is that the government is making assumptions. The government is trusting the private sector to bring prices down. It is always a bit risky to trust the private sector to lower prices. There is nothing to guarantee that, once the rental units have been built, private builders will pass those savings on to renters in the form of lower rental costs. The government is making assumptions.That is why we do not think that this is the answer to the problem we are facing. However, as I said in my speech, this measure could result in the construction of more rental units, which would reduce pressure on the market by increasing availability, but there is no guarantee of that. The government is hoping that is what will happen if it implements this measure, but we are not convinced that it will have such a major impact on lowering rent. In fact, we are not convinced that that will happen at all. That being said, we will not vote against Bill C‑56, because it contains good measures and nothing harmful.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsRental housingThird reading and adoption810838381083848108385LloydLongfieldGuelphAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, for the most part, I agree with my colleague's observations and analysis.I am not suggesting that removing the GST from rental housing construction is a bad measure. It was one of our proposals as well. However, I agree that this measure alone is not going to solve the housing crisis that has been going on since 1994, when the federal government completely pulled out of building truly affordable social housing.I would like to hear his thoughts about the fact that the real solution is non-market housing, such as co-ops, community housing, student housing and, most importantly, social housing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption810838681083878108388AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanAlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-Jean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104786AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeAlexis-Brunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Brunelle-DuceppeAlexis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe: (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie and I generally agree on that.Quebec is a unique ecosystem. In fact, we call that a distinct society, a nation. The co-operative system is rather unique in Quebec, at least in terms of the number of co-operatives that exist in Quebec.Housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Social and affordable housing requires funding. As usual, Ottawa knows best and it is interfering in a jurisdiction that is not its responsibility. The federal government does not have the expertise, but it has the money because of the fiscal imbalance and because all of the revenues are in Ottawa and all the expenses are in Quebec and the provinces. We are asking Ottawa to send money to Quebec, the provinces and the territories who have the expertise in affordable and social housing. Then things will go much smoother. That being said, there is an even more radical solution that would be even better and would practically solve everything: if the federal government stayed out of Quebec and we had all the power over such matters. If we were a country, the housing situation would be lot better.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsHousingThird reading and adoption8108389810839081083918108392AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 once again and maybe take a stab at addressing some of the issues that have come up in debate. I will start just by saying, first of all, that New Democrats, of course, support this legislation.What we said at the beginning in respect to housing was that it is good to increase supply but that it is not just any increase in supply that is going to help with the housing crisis. We have to be concerned about the various kinds of housing along the way and ensure that we are increasing supply in all parts of the housing spectrum where there is need. Of course, there is a need for more market-based, purpose-built rental and eliminating the GST off purpose-built rental is a way to incent the development of more market rent apartments. This will be great for Canadians who can afford market rent, which is certainly a smaller percentage of Canadians than it was just a short time ago. Nevertheless, for those who can afford it, are looking for it and cannot find it, more market supply will certainly be helpful.However, we cannot wash our hands of the issue and think that the work is done simply because we have brought in a measure to incent the development of more market-based housing. A lot of other Canadians out there will not be able to access that market housing; nevertheless, they need to be housed, deserve to be housed and, as far as I am concerned, should have an enforceable right to be housed in Canada. That is why, from the word go, when this bill was introduced, New Democrats said that this on its own would not be enough. We want to see the government accompany this legislation with some measures for development of non-market housing, which does not always mean affordable or social housing. Non-market housing can be provided at market rents. We see that in some co-ops that choose to offer market rent suites to those who can afford them and, at the same time, offer some affordable rents or social rents, where rent is actually geared to folks' income. Therefore, it is only ever a percentage of their income. It does not eat up the entirety of a household's budget.All this is to say that incenting more market supply is not enough. This bill would do that. It is one component of addressing the housing crisis. There is a lot more to do. New Democrats were certainly disappointed in the fall economic statement for not having been more ambitious on that front. There was a billion dollars announced for a replenishment of the coinvestment fund, but the fact that this replenishment does not come until 2025 is a serious issue. I think it is a sign that the government still does not understand the extent to which we need to confront the housing crisis in Canada with a serious sense of urgency.Other housing that we need to look at, whether market or non-market, is housing to be able to address the concerns of many indigenous communities across Canada. I just want to take a moment to recognize the good work that my colleagues from Nunavut have done, both the current member for Nunavut and Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, who was the MP for Nunavut in the last Parliament. She spent a considerable amount of time travelling through her riding, the territory of Nunavut, documenting the serious housing need there: the overcrowding, the mould and the dilapidated condition of a lot of housing that has been built. I think it is important to note that taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a thing for folks in Nunavut and small remote communities, where there is not an abundance of contractors waiting to build housing. They are not looking to go there as a market.We have talked a lot about the competition space, whether it is telecoms, grocery companies, banks, fossil fuel companies, where we have these oligopolies that have developed in Canada. Members can just name the market. We can talk about better competition policy until we are blue in the face. If we are talking about grocery prices at the one grocery store in a rural community where people have to drive hundreds of kilometres just to get to the next grocery store, the fact is that improving the competition framework is not going to do a lot in respect to pricing in a community like that. Taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a lot to incent the development of new housing in small and remote communities in Nunavut. That is why we have to go outside just thinking about the market and how to incent market players. What do we hope they will do? It is not profitable in the way that they are used to making profit in a place such as Toronto, Vancouver or even Winnipeg or Halifax.(1320)It is not profitable to build up there, and folks certainly do not have the money to pay to make it profitable for somebody to build up there. However, we need people to do so. That is why we need good public policy that is not dependent on just trying to provide little carrots for profit-seeking companies in the market.It is not that they are doing anything wrong. They are not bad people for not wanting to move their business from downtown Toronto, where they develop condos, to Nunavut and start building appropriate housing for people in small, remote northern communities.We should not expect people to do that all on their own; however, one needs public policy in the context of a strategy that includes addressing workforce needs and training up local people to have skills. Such a strategy includes having the funding required, when they are done building homes in one community, to move that infrastructure and the people to the next community to do some of that building and to share those skills. It also includes having what amounts to an economic development plan that is about putting indigenous people back in charge of their own communities while ensuring that they have the resources to do something with their skills as they develop them.The market is not going to do that. It is not meant to do that, nor is it interested in doing that.We get up and talk a lot about these things. People say that we do not care about entrepreneurs, business or risk-taking. That is not true, but we understand the limits of it.There is an intellectual and administrative laziness that permeates the Liberal and Conservative parties, where they would rather just pretend as though somehow, if one gives the market enough of a free hand, it will fix all these problems. It is not true.The market is not designed to fix certain kinds of problems. Sometimes, the very problems that it is not designed to fix are some of the most important problems. The people who, not wrongly, but we all make choices, decide to live their life seeking profit in the market are not interested in solving these problems, because there is no money to be made in solving them in that way. However, they are life and death problems.The problem of housing in Nunavut is killing people right now. It is making it impossible for them to get an education. We have heard stories about schools built in indigenous communities that were not even open for six months before they got shut down. A shoddy job was done of building the school, and they ended up having structural problems with the school right away. We were just talking about this last week.If a child is fortunate enough to have a school, and they go to school, come back and try to do homework, but their home was built for five people and houses 15, we can be damn sure that this child is going to struggle to get their homework done. If they have to sleep in shifts because there are not enough bedrooms for people to go and lie down, the child will struggle to focus on learning.We know that, even in major centres, kids in school right now are having a hard time concentrating. This happens more and more as Canadians struggle to afford food, because the kids do not have a full belly.This is why New Democrats have been supporting the idea of a national school food program. I am proud to say that this is a priority of the new government in Manitoba, and I look forward to it getting done. I do not think it should have to do it on its own. I think the federal government should be at the table doing that. We have heard a lot of words, but we have not seen a lot of action. We certainly have not seen any funding for that. We need to get on with that. If we want people to succeed, if we want the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” language to make any sense at all, it has to be in a world where people have the resources to be able to do that. As a starting point, they have to be housed. They have to be fed. Their parents cannot be working three jobs just to make ends meet and never be around to have any time to provide support or direction.These are some things that the market is not going to do for us. That is not what it is there for. It is all well and good for people who are well resourced, whose children have opportunities and who are well-supported, to say, “We did it. Why can't everybody else?”The fact of the matter is that there are so many more children who can do it and would do it if they had the right start and just a little bit of those resources that so many of us have the privilege of being able to take for granted.(1325) I say yes to eliminating GST from purpose-built rental, but we cannot then pretend that the work is done. I think the fall economic statement betrayed that the government does think that the work is done and that it can take its sweet time getting around to the rest of it. The government thinks it can say to the territorial government in Nunavut that if it wants money for housing, it will have to apply to the indigenous government that it already gave money to, failing to recognize that they serve different populations. There is a lot of overlap, but their mandates are not the same. Indigenous governments should get money to provide housing to people in their communities, but not in lieu of territorial governments getting resources to build housing in those communities. The deficit of affordable housing is large enough that we need both of these organizations, if they are willing, to be working together to try to meet the housing need.We need to start addressing some of these things, just as we need to address some of the larger infrastructure required in order to build the housing. I think of the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, for instance, which, if built, would deliver power to a community in Nunavut, as well as a mine. It is an important thing we could do, both to incent economic development in the region and also to make it possible to build housing. There is no point in building a house in the 21st century for somebody who does not have electricity. We need to find a way to get power to communities even as we think about building more housing in those communities.I talked before a little about what I think is a kind of intellectual laziness and an administrative laziness, by which I mean governments that do not want to do the hard public policy work of developing an effective strategy, funding it and resourcing it. Let us be frank; I think we tend to dismiss the work of public administration. However, it is important to be able to have a plan and line up all the players, which includes market players. For instance, we are not going to have a housing strategy that does not involve talking to the people who build the homes. I am an electrician by trade. There is a lot of good information that can be gleaned from the people who actually do the work, as opposed to talking just to the engineers or the estimators.To put together a public strategy like that, to bring all of those pieces together, takes a lot of time and a lot of work. It is also a unique set of skills that we do not necessarily see everywhere else. That is why courses in public administration are offered. For too long, there has been a prevailing attitude, in both of the parties that have governed since the mid-1990s, when they cancelled the national housing strategy, that we are here just to make it easy for the guys in the market to take care of it all, and that if cannot be taken care of by the market, it is not for us to worry about.It is quite the contrary; that is exactly the thing that people in government should be worried about. It is exactly the job of government to take care of some of the very important things that the market will not take care of. However, first of all, we have to accept and admit that the market will not take care of every need if it is left to its own devices. Thankfully there is a lot of overlap between what one can make a lot of money at and providing services to people in good ways. We see that in many facets of our economy; small and medium-sized businesses, particularly, are very good at identifying gaps in the services in their local communities, and developing a product and selling it at a fair price. When we look at some of the larger companies, like telecom companies, oil and gas companies and banks, that is not what is going on. Even though they make a lot of money and benefit greatly from a public policy environment designed to help them make their money and defend their interests and power in the economy, they do not accept any reciprocal responsibility.There are only three big Canadian grocery chains. Do they accept any responsibility for providing groceries at an affordable price to Canadians? No, it is very clear they do not see that as their job. Just take a look at the work that my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has done, asking difficult questions of grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee. They made it pretty clear that they accept no responsibility. They have a completely privileged position in that market. Food is something Canadians cannot decide to do without. The CEOs accept no reciprocal sense of responsibility to Canadians for that.We can look at oil and gas companies that have been making money hand over first lately, even while laying off more employees. Do the Canadian oil and gas companies think that they need to do anything to try to reduce the cost at the pump? Absolutely they do not. They see an opportunity. They see that they have a captive market. To the extent that they can push prices up, they certainly have been doing so.(1330)Between 2019 and 2022, oil and gas profits in Canada rose by 1000%. This is not an industry that accepts any responsibility for the privileged position it occupies and the power that comes with it in the Canadian economy. The idea that we are going to leave it all to the market is, I think, a false idea, but unfortunately it has been the predominant idea for at least 30 years in Canada. We can trace it back at least to the original free trade agreement debate in 1988 and the years leading up to that. This is relevant to the point of competition, I would say. My Conservative and Liberal colleagues usually argue about who is the greatest supporter of corporate free trade.It is interesting to watch, after the Conservatives voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement most recently, how the argument goes. We see that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement for no good reason I can identify except to make everything about the carbon tax. That includes things that are not about it, like a conflict half a world away that has everything to do with the preservation of democracy. Instead of taking that seriously on its own terms, they would rather make it about the carbon tax for their own domestic political needs. That is a sign of a government that does not have our back. It has been interesting to watch Conservatives try to defend their position as the greatest defenders of corporate free trade while voting against that trade agreement. It has been interesting to watch the Liberals not just zero in on the Ukraine issue but also see this as their opportunity to establish themselves as the biggest champion of corporate free trade in the Canadian political space. That has been fascinating, because the thing about free trade is that it was supposed to bring us lower prices. I just heard a Conservative member talk about how there are only five big grocery companies in Canada, three Canadian ones and two American ones. He talked about how he wants more Canadian companies. That was the argument New Democrats were making in the free trade debate: that if we opened up the economy, what we would end up with is Americans coming over and taking over essential industries. Just watch.There are Conservatives who believe we should deregulate the air industry and invite American airlines into Canadian spaces as a way to lower prices and improve service. Just wait until it happens; they are going to be singing the same crocodile tears song 20 years after it happens that they are singing now about grocery companies, as if anyone should believe them. Either we are of the point of view that we can take a strategic approach to certain pillars of our economy and believe that we need the tools at our disposal to protect those things and conduct business in a certain way, or we believe that we should open it up completely to competition and free trade agreements and even give foreign companies the right to sue the Canadian government, which is what Conservative and Liberal governments have done when they have tried to have a strategic economic approach.Conservatives get up and cry foul, not just on groceries but also on the battery plant jobs and on workers coming in. Do they know how they are coming in? They are not coming in through the temporary foreign worker program, for the most part, although we would not know that when listening to the Conservatives. What is interesting on that point too is that the TFW program blew up under the Conservatives' watch and then had to be fixed because it had become such an exploitation of foreign workers. The workers are coming in under international labour mobility provisions negotiated in free trade agreements by the Conservatives. At the time, when we asked them if they knew that would mean that multinational companies were going to import foreign workforces when there is a big investment in Canada, they said that it would not happen, that they would just bring in supervisors who were going to help share some specific expertise and then move along. The jury is out on whether that is what is happening in the battery plants. The government owes Canadians a better answer and more guarantees for what it is doing for their tax dollars. The fact of the matter is that it is just egregious for Conservatives to get up and pretend they do not know how those international labour mobility provisions work or that they did not negotiate them.I look forward to talking more about these things in the Q and A.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCompetitionConsumer priceFood and drinkForeign workersGovernment billsHousingIndigenous peoplesOil and gasSchool meal programsSchool mealsSupermarketsTemporary Foreign Worker ProgramThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81083938108394810839581083968108397810839881083998108400810840181084028108403810840481084058108406810840781084088108409810841081084118108412810841381084148108415810841681084178108418810841981084208108421810842281084238108424810842581084268108427AlexisBrunelle-DuceppeLac-Saint-JeanMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I noted, when he was talking about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, that he was positioning it as though the government's position were to somehow one-up the Conservatives with respect to our commitments to free trade.I have been very vocal on this issue. For me, this is not about bringing attention to one side's being better than the other on free trade; rather, the whole issue of the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement is to suggest that Canadians look into why it is that Conservatives have taken this position. I believe it is because they are moving so far to the right that we are now seeing an all-right influence from the United States, the pro-Russian propaganda they are buying into. Would he agree with me that this is a shared concern that he and his NDP colleagues have?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81084288108429DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, as I said, what is important is that the conflict be judged on its merits and that Canada take a position to support Ukraine, because I do think that is an important front for freedom and democracy in the world right now, and Russia cannot be allowed to win. The effort to try to make it about something else, like the carbon tax, to suit the domestic political needs of the Conservatives is short-sighted, and I think it is wrong. There is a serious question to be asked about why they do not see that and why it is not decisive for them.We can think about the time that Canadian Conservatives spend with the Republicans across the border talking about political strategy and about how to implement a common agenda for North America, and about the prominence of Donald Trump in the Republican movement and the fact that he was bought and paid for by the Russians a long time ago and has been influencing the Republican Party, which is not to let any of the Republicans themselves off the hook, to diminish support for Ukraine. I think that there are some real questions we should be asking about the Canadian Conservative connection to that movement.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81084308108431MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague opposite, but there seem to be a lot of conspiracy theories flying around the chamber about the Conservatives' view of Ukraine. We have been clear that we support Ukraine. We already have a free trade agreement with Ukraine. Ukraine has asked for more munitions and weapons; the liberals and the NDP voted against that. The Liberals have also not given the LNG that Ukraine is asking for. Certainly, I think it would be good to look at the record of the members opposite on that file. However, the current debate is about affordability. Instantly, if the Liberals and the NDP both cared about affordability for Canadians, they could axe the tax that is going to be quadrupled and the tax on that tax.Why is the member standing and supporting the Liberal government to drive people into poverty?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoption810843281084338108434DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I have supported carbon pricing consistently from the time I was nominated, right through all three elections in which I have been elected in Elmwood—Transcona, so there has been no change of position on my part. I am happy to answer to the electors in Elmwood—Transcona any time on that issue, and I have already three times.However, when it comes to the question of Ukraine, I just watched, on Friday morning, the Conservative caucus that bothered to show up and vote, because they did not all bother to vote and the record will show that, but of the ones who did—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsThird reading and adoption81084358108436MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//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 OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Bob Zimmer: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, the member well knows we are not supposed to point out absence or presence in the House of Commons.Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, there were a lot of Conservatives absent. We are not talking about an individual.Mr. Bob Zimmer: Madam Speaker, to finish my point of order, if we were able to reflect on who was or was not here, we could easily reflect on that party, the NDP, whose members were not here either, or members of the Liberal Party as well.Absence or presence of membersBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoption810843881084398108440CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, it is very clear to see that between midnight and 6 a.m., fewer than 49% of the Conservatives were actually voting.Absence or presence of membersBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8108441BobZimmerPrince George—Peace River—Northern RockiesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I do apologize, I should not have used the term “show up”. What I was referring to was the public voting record. No number of points of order are going to change the public voting record, and if Canadians consult the record, they will see that many Conservatives did not vote through the whole voting marathon.However, the point stands that the Conservatives who did vote voted against $500 million in military aid to Ukraine. On three occasions, they voted against funding for Operation Unifier, and on a separate occasion, they voted against funding for the emergency assistance for folks who want to leave Ukraine and come to Canada. If we add up all of what they voted against, the baseline is $500 million, but I believe it is almost $1 billion in aid to Ukraine. That is after they voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which President Zelenskyy asked us to vote for. His ambassador to Canada has expressed disappointment that there was not a unanimous vote. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has written a letter to the Conservative leader, also expressing disappointment not only on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement but also on the Conservative votes last week against funding. Therefore, let us not pretend that somehow I am making something up. I will take no lessons about conspiracy theories from the member for Sarnia—Lambton.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine81084448108445CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104922LucDesiletsLuc-DesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesiletsLuc_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.Many of us in the House believe that the GST rebate for rental property builders will not really have any impact on the availability and affordability of housing. If the results are questionable, how does my colleague explain the government proposing that this be spread over seven or even 12 years for the final reimbursement, until December 31, 2035, to be exact? I would like his opinion on that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramRental housingThird reading and adoption81084468108447DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I said, I believe it is appropriate to introduce targeted measures for the market, but not in a context where the work is not being done to ensure that housing is being built and that the necessary resources are available for not-for-profit organizations that have a mandate to build other kinds of housing.I think this government has a habit of focusing on what amount to market mechanisms and ignoring its responsibility to invest in non-market housing. The government's highest duty lies precisely in that type of housing, because the other players in the economy will not be interested in that type of housing, which does not make a lot of money.Yes, we can build more housing that turns a profit, but the government must also focus on non-market housing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramRental housingThird reading and adoption810844881084498108450LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his speech and also for his interventions with other members of this House. We have been studying this issue in depth at the agriculture committee and I have had the chance to question multiple CEOs; notably Galen Weston of Loblaw. The problem is that we can see the data and everyone talks about small margins in the grocery sector. The fact of the matter is that the margins have actually doubled since the pandemic and the grocery chains are making record profits and they do have gross amounts of executive pay. Mr. Weston's compensation is 431 times the average salary of his employees. We know from unions representing grocery workers that in many cases those workers cannot afford to shop where they work. None of the CEOs could tell me how many of their employees are using food banks to get by.I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that through both Liberals and Conservatives we have a policy, over the last 40 years, of too much corporate deference in this country and not enough hard analysis of how we are letting corporations get away with this. Canadians are being asked to shoulder the blame while corporations are continuing to make a lot of money off their backs.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsProfitsSupermarketsThird reading and adoption810845181084528108453DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague has done so much work on this. Canadians do see that they have just a handful of companies that largely control their access to food, which is something they cannot just decide to do without, and that the leadership of those companies do not feel any sense of responsibility for their incredible money-making power, which has grown, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has pointed out, over the last number of years. The leadership of the companies do not have any sense of responsibility for the fact that they are the ones who control the food. This is not just another product on the market. This is Canadians' access to the basic necessities of life. The companies have been allowed to do that for exactly the reason that my colleague identified, which is a sense of deference: If they are a big company, they must be doing something right and we do not want to get in their way. However, we have to do better in Canada than to allow a handful of companies that control our access to food to single-mindedly pursue the highest return to their shareholders, because it is Canadians who are getting burned.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsProfitsSupermarketsThird reading and adoption81084548108455AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-56. It is yet another initiative the government is taking to support Canadians. From virtually day one, through the introduction of legislation and taking budgetary measures, as a government we have been very supportive of having the backs of Canadians, whether with the very first piece of legislation we introduced back in 2015-16 regarding a tax break for Canada's middle class or the many support programs put together during the pandemic that ensured small businesses and Canadians had the disposable income and supports necessary for Canada to do as well as it has. This was done through a team Canada approach, not only getting us out of the pandemic but putting our economy in a great position to do exceptionally well going forward.This is reflected in one of the most important stats I believe we have, which is regarding employment. Employment numbers are very encouraging, especially when we compare Canada to other jurisdictions particularly in the G20 or the G7. Relatively speaking, Canada is doing quite well. It does not mean we let up. It means we need to continue to recognize the issues Canadians are facing on a daily basis, which is what Bill C-56 is all about.Bill C-56 would be there to support Canadians. Before I speak about Bill C-56, I want to recognize this week is a very important week, because we are doing the formal expansion of the dental program. This will allow for seniors and people with disabilities to participate in the dental program, which is going to help literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Again, this is a very progressive move. It is a move that clearly demonstrates there are elements with the House of Commons today, contrary to the Conservatives', that are there to provide more hope and opportunities for Canadians.Bill C-56 would, in essence, do a couple of things. I want to focus on two points. First and foremost is the issue of competition. Changes would be made to the Competition Act that would ensure we have more competition here in Canada going forward. For example, it would get rid of the efficiencies argument. The efficiencies argument is something corporations have used in the past in order to justify taking over large businesses. The one I have often made reference to is a very good example because it is relative to the debates and discussions we have had for a number of months now. It is about the price of groceries, the concerns over that and the steps being taken, whether by the Minister of Finance or the standing committee calling the big five grocery companies to come to Ottawa to be held more accountable for their actions. I see this as a positive thing.Bill C-56 would provide more of an opportunity to ensure healthier competition into the future. The best example I can come up with offhand is when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table of Stephen Harper and that government actually approved the Loblaws purchase of Shoppers Drug Mart. For individuals watching or listening in to the debate, I invite them to visit a Shoppers Drug Mart, where they will see a great deal of food products. We are talking about a multi-billion-dollar deal that took away competition. I do not know all of the arguments that were used at the time, but what I do know is that was the last time we saw such a major acquisition of a grocery line. I would suggest that was not healthy for Canadians, and we are starting to see that today.(1350)We are now down to five major grocery stores and we are looking at having a grocery code of conduct. We need to establish that certain behaviours are not acceptable. I was pleased when Canada Bread actually got a fine through the courts. It was tens of millions of dollars because of price fixing. We need to ensure the Competition Bureau has teeth for this type of thing. Not only does it get rid of the efficiency argument, but it also increases the opportunity for fines and gives it more power to conduct investigations. That would make a positive difference. I think all members of the House should support this legislation.The other part to the legislation is something that I believe would make a huge difference. We know housing is an issue in Canada. Never before have we seen a national government invest as much in housing as we have with this Prime Minister and this government. We are talking about historic levels of funding. This is in terms of our involvement, support and encouragement in housing, like non-profits, and that is what Bill C-56 would do. It would encourage the growth of purpose-built rentals. These things would have a huge impact. We are talking tens of thousands of new units. The policy is so sound that provinces are also looking at engaging with the provincial sales tax component. They realize this is a good way to ensure we build purpose-built rentals.Ironically, as has been pointed out, the Conservative Party has taken a position that is very anti-housing. When the current leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing in Canada, it was an absolute disaster. The federal government did not do its work back then and that is very clear by the actions, or lack of actions, from the Conservative Party. He might say he was just following Stephen Harper's orders. Maybe that is his excuse. However, on Thursday going into Friday, there was a voting marathon. There was a vote dealing with housing and ensuring that the money would go to supporting over 80,000 new apartments, including an affordable home component. The Conservative Party members who showed up to vote actually voted no to that measure. That reinforces that the Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership, does not support housing.When Conservative members raise issues about housing, they have zero credibility on that file. Never before have we had a government that has demonstrated as much leadership in working with municipalities and provinces, and invested more financial resources than this government in the history of Canada. On the other side, we have an incompetent Conservative leader who was a disaster when he was the minister responsible for housing. When there is such a huge demand, what does the Conservative Party do? The members who decide to vote, show up and vote against supporting housing. They are oozing with hypocrisy. Unfortunately, that example is not alone. I was listening to the back and forth, and the questions that were being asked.(1355)Consistently, this government has recognized the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for all Canadians in all regions. That is the reason we have invested so much energy into trade. Trade supports all of us.It is surprising, when we think of affordability, that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement. I have talked a great deal about that, the principles of trade and how important it is that we get behind the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Hopefully I will get more time to focus on that in a while, but I was shocked to see the Conservatives not once, not twice, but on three occasions vote against financial supports for Ukraine. There were votes on individual lines, and they voted against Ukraine once again.It is a consistent policy with the Conservative Party. Whether on housing or trade, the Conservative Party is reckless in its policy development. A number of Conservatives have stood today on this legislation and talked about affordability. We recognize affordability. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we have legislation such as this, which will have a positive impact. What is the Conservative Party's policy? It is very simple. It is a bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax”. The Conservatives' whole concept of axing the tax is stealing money from Canadians. That is what they are doing, because most Canadians get more money back than they pay for the price on—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxCode of practiceCompetitionDental BenefitGovernment billsHousingOral and dental healthSupermarketsThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineUnparliamentary language81084568108457810845881084598108460810846181084628108463810846481084658108466810846781084688108469DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, let us think about it. They are saying they are going to get rid—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsThird reading and adoption8108472CarolHughesAlgoma—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.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I believe the language the member used is unparliamentary. We cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly. He basically stated that Conservatives are stealing from taxpayers. I would ask him to withdraw that statement and apologize.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsLamoureux, KevinPoints of orderReferences to membersThird reading and adoptionUnparliamentary language8108474CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, if they take away the rebate, they are taking money out of the pockets of Canadians. Many would say that is taking away—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionUnparliamentary language8108475MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersAffordable Housing and Groceries ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I withdraw it.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsPoints of orderThird reading and adoptionUnparliamentary language8108479CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1900)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 606Recorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8109200Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96081AnitaAnandHon.Anita-AnandOakvilleLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AnandAnita_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionHon. Anita Anand (4715)[English]Third readingmoved that the bill be read the third time and passed.C-60, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Government billsSupplementary estimates (B) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8103304RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (4730)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-60, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 605Government billsRecorded divisionsSupplementary estimates (B) 2023-2024Supply billsThird reading and adoption8103312PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1630)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 479Long-term carePrivate Members' BillsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons8090983CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to give some of my thoughts on Bill C-295, which was introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre. It is an act that would amend the Criminal Code on the subject of neglect of vulnerable adults.I am very pleased to be speaking to this subject, especially on behalf of all vulnerable seniors in my riding, but also their families. Families, as we have seen over the last three years, also suffered through the subject matter we will be discussing as part of the bill.It is a fact the chronic neglect and abuse of older adults living in long-term care facilities is a long-standing problem. This is something that slipped under the radar for many years before COVID so frighteningly put it to light and exposed what was there all along.Bill C-295 would specifically amend the Criminal Code to create a specific offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and officers when they fail to provide necessaries of life to residents of facilities. We would finally, this Parliament, be putting into the Criminal Code a specific offence when the people who run these facilities fail to uphold their part of the bargain.It would also allow the court to make an order prohibiting any owner or officer of such a facility from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge or in a position of trust or authority toward vulnerable adults. Again, there will be consequences for people who are in those trust positions, but it will also allow courts to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty it owed to a vulnerable adult.We could rightly question why it has taken so long to even consider putting these things into the Criminal Code, but here we are, and it is about time we moved forward with the bill.I want to also recognize that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights did its due consideration of the bill. During its review of the bill, 15 witnesses appeared before the committee, including the research chair on the mistreatment of older adults, from the University of Sherbrooke, the Canadian Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse, Elder Abuse Prevention Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions. There were 15 witnesses in total over four meetings at that committee. The committee also had 26 briefs submitted to it as a part of its study.Going to the committee report, I will direct members of the House to the fact that one of the big changes that was made was replacing the word “manager” with the word “officer” and specifically putting a new definition, so now the people who are covered by the word “officer” include the chair person of the board of directors, the president, vice-president, the secretary, the treasury, the comptroller, the general counsel and the general manager or managing director of a long-term care facility. Again, it goes after that top echelon of people who are responsible not only for the overall budget of a place but for how it directs its care levels, its staffing standards and the level of service that residents can expect at those facilities.It is no secret that there has been a long history of neglect, and what the pandemic did was shine a very important light on that. However, it has often been called “hidden neglect” because many people who worked in the industry, worked at long-term care homes or even those who were responsible for reviewing their actions have known that unfortunately this has existed for quite some time.It is also a fact that during the pandemic especially, there was a huge difference between the for-profit long-term care homes and the public or non-profit facilities. The for-profit facilities had a much worse patient outcome overall than not-for-profit homes in general.In my home province of British Columbia, the Seniors Advocate recently reviewed the situation with for-profit long-term care homes. It has been noted that in British Columbia the cost of a publicly subsidized long-term care bed through a private operator has jumped 35% in the last five years. The Seniors Advocate found that not-for-profit facilities spent about 25% more per resident on direct care when compared with for-profit care.(1110)When a review was conducted on the financial records from 2021 and 2022, it showed that long-term care facilities operated by for-profit companies delivered 500,000 fewer care hours than they were funded for by the province.Again, it speaks to the larger theme, that when profit is introduced into the health care system, other considerations seem to make their way to the forefront rather than looking after the people for which the facility was designed.I also want to point out that we are all very familiar with the time when the Canadian Armed Forces were deployed to some of the hardest hit long-term care homes, where they documented horrific accounts of inhumane treatment, abuse and substandard care.According to the Canadian Armed Forces' reports, dozens of residents in two Ontario nursing homes died, not from COVID-19 but from dehydration and neglect.I have looked at some of the short Coles Notes from those reports. I will read them out for the record: “conditions in two of the seniors homes...appeared to be nothing short of horrid and inhumane as ill-trained, burned-out and, in some cases, neglectful staff coped with the growing care needs of elderly residents”, residents faced “inadequate nutrition” because most of them were not getting three meals a day — and when they did, “underfeeding was reported.”; “Respecting the dignity of patients is not always a priority.”; Other patients were “left in beds soiled, in diapers, rather than being ambulated to the toilets.”; and “troops had to send a senior to hospital after the resident fractured a hip and was not cared for by staff.”These are just some of the alarming things that came out from the Canadian Armed Forces that were deployed to those homes. Again, for the people who are familiar with long-term care homes in Canada, this was nothing new. All COVID-19 did was to serve to shed a light on that.On October 23, 2020, CBC posted a story to its website. I will quote from a part of its investigation:CBC Marketplace reviewed 10,000 inspection reports and found over 30,000 "written notices," or violations of the Long-Term Care Homes Act and Regulations (LTCHA), between 2015 and 2019 inclusive. The LTCHA sets out minimum safety standards that every care home in Ontario must meet.Marketplace isolated 21 violation codes for some of the most serious or dangerous offences, including abuse, inadequate infection control, unsafe medication storage, inadequate hydration, and poor skin and wound care, among others. The analysis found that of the 632 homes in the Ontario database, 538 — or 85 per cent — were repeat offenders. I also want to recognize that women represent 65% of patients in Canadian residential continuing care facilities. This is absolutely a gendered issue to which we need to pay close attention.In addition, the vast majority of care providers in supportive care are women, with a significant portion of these individuals being newcomers or immigrants, especially among personal support workers. Women account for the majority of the workers among both immigrants, which was 86%, and non-immigrants, 87%.My NDP caucus believes that the victims of negligence in Canada's long-term care facilities deserve justice. Part of the confidence and supply agreement that we have with the Liberal government is the tabling of a safe long-term care act to ensure that seniors are guaranteed the care they deserve, no matter where they live.Although Bill C-295 is a step in the right direction, I do not believe it goes far enough in this regard. Rather than addressing this issue solely through a private members' bill, we expect that the government will follow through on this requirement and table legislation that puts these standards into more encompassing law, so that all Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, can not only ensure that their loved ones are getting the care that they deserve, but that our vulnerable seniors have the full force of law to ensure they are living with the dignity they deserve.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Caregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19CriminalizationElder abuseLong-term carePandemicPrivate Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoptionVulnerable personsWomen808371480837158083716808371780837188083719808372080837218083722808372380837248083725808372680837278083728808372980837308083731808373280837338083734808373580837368083737GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1115)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am rising to speak to Bill C-295, an enactment that amends the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to ensure necessaries of life are provided to residents of the facilities.I have had a few opportunities to replace my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study this bill a little more in my capacity as a former project manager responsible for raising awareness of elder abuse and intimidation.To come back to the bill, it also “allows the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and the officers of such facilities from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults and to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult.”The bill is perhaps a little opportunistic. It follows the abuse that occurred in seniors' residences during the pandemic. That is what it seeks to address, but the bill creates criminal offences in these cases. Liberal logic dictates that filling the Criminal Code with offences is a way of helping people.I will explain the bill in a little more detail, along with progress made in Quebec and what remains to be done.Bill C‑295 adds two definitions to the Criminal Code, long-term care facility and officer, with the goal of building criminal offences around them. I could list them. We seriously examined the bill. In particular my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord studied it in depth in committee. Upon reflection, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at third reading, because the Bloc proposed two amendments that were adopted.The first sought to replace the definition of “manager” by that of “officer”. We discussed this a great deal in committee. The notion of “manager” that previously appeared in the bill was much too broad. In the previous definition, an official responsible for purchasing or a nursing team leader would have been affected by the bill. Many witnesses said this went much too far. As for the notion of “officer”, it is well defined in the bill. It covers directors and senior members of the board such as the president and the vice-president. In short, the amendment places the responsibility on people in charge of the centres and not on the workers, who are already struggling to keep the health care system going.The other amendment ensures that the judge will take into consideration penalties under the legislation of Quebec and of the provinces. Some provinces, like Quebec, have laws against abuse that force health care facilities to have policies and a complaint process. The judge will take that into account in imposing a prohibition order.The Bloc Québécois believes that it is relevant to determine whether including criminal negligence of seniors in long-term accommodation in the Criminal Code will help them get the care and services to which they are entitled. Seniors have been the biggest victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. We recognize that. They were overrepresented in the number of deaths. They are also the ones who suffered and continue to suffer the most from the aftershocks of the virus through isolation, anxiety and financial hardship.I want to point out that Quebec already has legislation on elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines and protects informants who report mistreatment. That is what I was working on at the time. Community organizations and the health care network worked together on this new law.The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government is acting within its purview with this bill, which would add tools for investigators. We therefore took the time to study the bill in committee to assess its usefulness. Beyond prosecuting managers who commit crimes or who could do so, it is important to ensure that seniors receive services that improve their quality of life. In this regard, the Bloc Québécois would like to emphasize the other important role the federal government should play in health care, and that is to increase transfers so as to cover 35% of system costs. The Bloc Québécois also wishes to reiterate that the sad events that happened in residential and long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs, are no excuse for the federal government to impose national standards on these facilities.Of course, we saw the critical situation in CHSLDs, which ultimately forced the government of Quebec to ask for military assistance on April 22, 2020, following a failed call to mobilize citizens to help with staff shortages in care facilities. In May 2020, negotiations between the Legault and Liberal governments were particularly tense because the federal government refused to extend the military assistance in Quebec. In a way, the federal government used Quebec’s need for military assistance in the throne speech to announce its intention to impose Canadian standards in CHSLDs.(1120)This was a way for the federal government to impose its requirements when faced with the provinces and Quebec joining forces and calling for a 35% increase in health care transfers. Quebec reiterates that demand. The government is back on the attack, supported by the NDP, trying to impose its standards. The Liberals are still clinging to this idea. In the 2021 electoral campaign, they promised $6 billion for long-term care in exchange for imposing their standards.I could list many events in Quebec politics that show how concerned Quebec is with what is happening in residential and long-term care facilities. I will remind members that sections 91 and 92 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, define the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces. They specify that health is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, except when it comes to the health of indigenous peoples, military hospitals, drug certification and quarantine. Let us keep this in mind, because it is important.The Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP keep stubbornly trying to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially health care, because it is so obviously important to people. The federalism they stand for, however, requires each level of government to operate within its areas of exclusive jurisdiction. We had this debate before the election. In 2021, the NDP introduced a motion to impose national standards on long-term care facilities. We had already spoken out against that back then. What we want is for the federal government to do its part, because of the staff shortage and, obviously, because we have to find ways to work on solving the many problems facing the health care system.Thirdly, the Quebec government had to answer to the opposition in regard to its ministers’ decisions. As we know, the Quebec minister who was responsible for seniors and caregivers at the time moved a motion on December 2, 2020 denouncing the Liberals’ desire to impose Canadian standards on long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs. It was adopted in Quebec’s National Assembly. The Bloc Québécois supports the National Assembly of Quebec’s unanimous position and denounces the Liberals’ centralizing vision.Since then, the Quebec ombudsman has released a report making recommendations to the government. A provincial plan for deploying emergency personnel, a protocol for deploying extra staff in exceptional circumstances, and a Quebec strategy to combat staff shortages are also in place, and our computer systems have been updated. In addition, Quebec’s department of health and social services presented a Quebec action plan to recognize the complexity of care and service provision in long-term care facilities. We also adopted legislative measures to define the guiding principles that must be followed regarding living environment quality and organization and established the procedure for applying them through regulatory means. In short, Quebec is taking action and already has ideas for fixing the situation. The federal government will not be able to any better, since it knows nothing about the situation on the ground in these particular hospitals.We know that the Quebec government has presented its plan to reform the health care system. This plan includes a range of measures, including large-scale recruitment of workers, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals and more accountability for executives. In addition, the coroner is still investigating, and some people are calling for a public inquiry. In short, in every case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and fix their system; the federal government cannot just jump in and start doing the work Quebec is already doing.As we know, these regulations are part of the Quebec Act respecting health services and social services. Most long-term care facilities, some 86%, are public, compared with only 46% in the rest of Canada. We said all this before, when we were debating national standards for long-term care facilities. Let us be clear, Quebec and the provinces have the expertise and experience needed to manage long-term care facilities. The federal government does not. For all of these reasons, Quebec opposed every one of these national standards. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec emerge from the pandemic and provide better care to our seniors, it should stop being so paternalistic. It should forget about imposing federal nationwide standards that are not a good fit for a range of different social and institutional contexts. It should actually increase health transfers, which would enable Quebec and the provinces to attract and retain more health care workers.At least, there have been some amendments to this bill that the Bloc Québécois agreed with. We heard the testimony and followed the committee's work very closely and rigorously. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill, with a view to focusing on the Criminal Code, which is under federal jurisdiction.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Canada Health TransferCOVID-19CriminalizationElder abuseFederal-provincial-territorial relationsLong-term carePandemicPrivate Members' BillsProvince of QuebecSentencingSetting of standardsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons8083738808373980837408083741808374280837438083744808374580837468083747808374880837498083750808375180837528083753808375480837558083756808375780837588083759AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordChurenceRogersBonavista—Burin—Trinity//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/98744ChurenceRogersChurence-RogersBonavista—Burin—TrinityLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RogersChurence_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Churence Rogers (Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.): (1125)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code on neglect of vulnerable adults.COVID-19 brought to light issues in the long-term care industry. Canadians did not, and will not, accept the conditions that were on display during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in long-term care facilities. This bill was initiated in that global atmosphere, with the primary objective of better protecting vulnerable people living in these facilities. Seniors and persons with disabilities in long-term care deserve safe, quality health care.Bill C-295 is one method of delivering this care. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, who sponsored this bill, is proposing changes to the Criminal Code in three ways. First, this bill proposes to amend section 215 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes the failure to provide the necessities of life for a dependent. The bill would give owners and officers of long-term care facilities a duty to residents that is similar to parents' duty to their children; it would criminalize failure to ensure that the necessities of life, such as food, lodging and care, are provided to residents.Second, this amendment would be supplemented by a prohibition order against persons convicted of this new offence. This order is an accessory to the sentence that may be imposed. It is discretionary and would allow the court to prohibit, for a period of time that it determines, the convicted person from seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, even voluntary employment, that would place that person in a position of authority towards a vulnerable adult.The third and final change proposed by this bill is the addition of an aggravating factor at the sentencing stage, requiring the court to consider a heavier sentence for organizations that fail to meet their legal obligations to a vulnerable adult.This bill was studied last spring by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I would like to focus my remarks on the work done by this committee and the results obtained.Various witnesses were heard, several briefs were submitted and the majority shared the same concern, that the term “manager”, which was initially proposed in the bill, could result in the inclusion of frontline workers in this new offence. Given the critical shortage of staff in care facilities, according to the Canadian Association for Long Term Care, the proposed measure could “have a devastating impact on recruitment and retention by unintentionally creating undue risk and hardship for front-line staff. This will exacerbate an already emergency situation in many [group] homes” and facilities. LTC providers across the country provide an invaluable service to seniors and persons with disabilities.Justice committee members from all parties welcomed amendments to this bill to carefully identify owners and officers as the responsible decision-makers, who are accountable for mismanagement. They are the ones holding senior management positions, such as those of CEO or chairperson.The objective of the bill is laudable, but it should not interfere with the already precarious operation of LTC facilities. Officers are the individuals who make the key decisions on the care offered, the staff in place and the budget allocated to equipment, to name a few examples.For vulnerable persons, their inability to care for themselves makes them completely dependent on the care provided by these people, who have committed to helping them by making these decisions with their best interests in mind. However, neither owners nor officers provide direct care to their residents; rather, they oversee the facility's operations, make key management decisions and ensure that the staff under their direction have all the tools they need to carry out their duties. Owners and officers who take all reasonable precautions and care in the performance of their duties would not be affected by this change in federal law.With this amendment, the bill would specifically place responsibility on owners and officers of long-term care facilities who fail to ensure the necessities of life are provided to residents of the facility they manage, if this would result in causing or risking permanent harm to the health of the residents in their care.(1130)Vulnerable adults in long-term care facilities depend on the good care of frontline workers and also on the thoughtful decisions of the management team. Frontline workers such as personal support workers, who provide direct care to LTC residents, would not be affected by this change in federal law. Sufficient staffing levels and adequate functional equipment, to name a few examples, come down to management decisions that can have an impact on the health of long-term care facility residents. Owners and officers therefore have a central role to play in the health of the adults entrusted to their care.I am grateful for the work of the committee members who adopted the amendment to make the maximum sentence four years in this case, similar to the offence under section 161 of the Criminal Code, which deals with orders prohibiting persons convicted of offences against minors from working around them. The committee worked collaboratively to advance the cause of vulnerable people in long-term care facilities, and I remain convinced that we can continue to work in the same direction. Our seniors deserve better.The current state of the bill is, in my opinion, improved and more in line with the principles of criminal law. We have all heard the difficult stories of people trapped in long-term care facilities at the very start of the COVID-19 pandemic, in many cases without food or water. The individuals at the helm of these facilities must be dissuaded from making decisions that risk jeopardizing the health of their residents. The bill would send a clear message: Vulnerable adults in long-term care facilities can rely on third parties to provide them with a decent life, and there is no justification for compromising their health and dignity. We remain committed to working with the provinces, the territories and the long-term care sector to ensure that seniors and persons with disabilities live and thrive with the highest standard of care.I would like to conclude by saying that I am confident that Bill C-295 will be passed quickly by this chamber so it can be studied by the other place. The revised version would more specifically place the responsibility on the people whom, as a society, we trust to make sound decisions with respect to the care of our seniors so they can live out their final years in peace. Canadians should have access to safe and quality health care at all stages of their life.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)CriminalizationLong-term careOrders of prohibitionPrivate Members' BillsSentencingThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons808376080837618083762808376380837648083765808376680837678083768808376980837708083771808377280837738083774AndréanneLaroucheSheffordBradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89289BradVisBrad-VisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VisBrad_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC): (1135)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand and to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to neglect of vulnerable adults.The reason I want to speak to the bill is that my grandmother passed away in September. In fact, December 9, this Saturday, would have been her 96th birthday. I call my grandmother “Oma” because we are of Dutch heritage. In 2020, at the beginning of the pandemic, I remember my oma being pretty lively. She still had her wits about her; she could sing songs in Dutch and English, and she really participated in our family life. We very much enjoyed and cherished her, like many other families do across Canada with their elders.However, when the pandemic came, I, along with my cousins, aunts and uncles, had to make some hard decisions regarding the treatment of my grandmother in our family home, where she resided. For a period of time, to protect her, she was isolated from the broader community that had sustained her life in such a positive way since she immigrated to Canada in the 1950s. To make a long story short, like with members of many families across Canada, my grandmother's dementia accelerated at a very quick rate once she was isolated from those she loved. When I first got elected to Parliament, we heard at the HUMA committee from experts in geriatric care that one of the biggest mistakes we might have made during the pandemic was separating seniors from those they loved. My grandmother was isolated in her home, and her mental health deteriorated very quickly. My aunts and uncles and my mother, who was her primary caregiver, had to make the difficult choice to put her into an assisted living facility, one that would have been covered under Bill C-295. I have to say that I was very pleased with the quality of care my grandmother received at the Chartwell facility in Mission. Staff were loving and conscientious, and they did everything to protect my grandmother. That was positive. However, while she was there, her dementia continued to accelerate; it got worse and worse, and she could no longer stay in an independent living facility with her meals provided. Family members had to make the very difficult decision to put her into a long-term care facility. What I am about to say now is a little brash, but it is a fact. When children make a decision to put their parents into a long-term care facility, it is almost like a death sentence. They know that it is the last place they are going to go. For children to make that decision for their parents is one of the hardest things they are going to have to do throughout their life.Canadians believe in the health care workers at our long-term health care facilities. They believe that those people have the best interests of vulnerable Canadians at heart. They believe and trust that our systems are going to work, to make sure that the quality of life for those they are responsible for is upheld in a dignified way, one that respects the human dignity of the individual. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all long-term care facilities across Canada. All of us read, heard and experienced the horror stories that people talked about during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially when loved ones were separated from their seniors. I will be very clear that this was not the case with my family, but like many other MPs across this country, I heard from families who had negative experiences. For that reason, I am supporting the intention of the bill before us because it gets to the essence of a very big fear that many children have for their parents: Will they be protected? Will their human dignity be upheld when they cannot be with them and they have to entrust the care of their parent to a stranger at a medical facility?The amendment to the bill, made to paragraph 215(2)(b), reads, “with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(b.1) or (c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” It goes on under the prohibition order to outline, as the member of Parliament referred to before, that an owner or officer would be responsible in those conditions. The bill would send out a signal to long-term care facilities that maybe have not got it right, that not getting it right is not good enough. We always need to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens, our seniors who have devoted their lives to this country, receive the type of care they need.(1140)For me and my children, it was a daunting experience when we went into some of those facilities. Many seniors, unlike my grandmother, unfortunately, do not have a large support system to protect them. They do not come from a large family like mine, where there are 20 grandchildren, another 20 great-grandchildren and six siblings to spread out the work and make sure someone is there every day to watch out. Not every family has that. Not every senior is blessed with a large family like that. That is why the bill is important. Sometimes seniors may have only one advocate, and that person may still be working a full-time job or have other responsibilities and cannot be there every day. When they do show up and see that something is wrong, they would know that laws in Canada are there both federally and provincially, as outlined in the legislation, to ensure that, in the case of abuse or neglect, there would be a mechanism to protect the senior, and laws to safeguard them if a horrible situation does occur.We have so much to do, mostly at the provincial level, in this country to uphold the dignity of seniors at the vulnerable stages of their life that they encounter upon entering an assisted-living facility or a long-term care facility that the bill before us would address. I do acknowledge certain apprehensions that came forward in witness testimony. I believe in the essence of the bill and its use of a collaborative approach, which I have heard about from my colleagues. The bill is worth supporting in order to send a signal that we need to do more to protect our vulnerable seniors to ensure their quality of life at the end.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)COVID-19Long-term carePandemicPrivate Members' BillsSenior citizensThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons80837758083776808377780837788083779808378080837818083782ChurenceRogersBonavista—Burin—TrinityLucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-Îles//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104922LucDesiletsLuc-DesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesiletsLuc_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): (1140)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, speaking of Bill C-295, I assume I am not the only one here today to be overcome by sad memories of the COVID-19 pandemic.My thoughts go out to everyone who lost friends and family during the pandemic, one of the most difficult times we ever experienced as a society. There were 14,000 deaths in Quebec. It would be an understatement to say that the pandemic has had a lasting impact.On that note, I will now address Bill C-295 in greater detail and share what the Bloc Québécois thinks of it.The Liberal Party of Canada is suffering from a worrying bout of amnesia, since, in March 2021, the NDP moved a motion to nationalize and impose standards on long-term care facilities. All of the other parties voted against the motion. Why then are the Liberals introducing this bill today? Have they forgotten that that is an NDP position and not a Liberal one? Who knows? I must say, since the emergence of the NDP-Liberal government, the two parties seem to share some of the same positions. At least the bill introduced today is slightly different from the motion moved by the NDP in March 2021.The Bloc Québécois proposed two amendments to Bill C-295 that were accepted. The first aimed to replace the concept of manager with that of officer. In an earlier version of the bill, the concept of manager was far too broad. As my colleague from Shefford so eloquently put it, if the concept of manager had been retained, the bill could have applied to a public servant responsible for procurement or to a nurse team leader. This is absurd, considering that the bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their officers to fail to provide the necessaries of life to the residents of facilities. The concept of officer is well established, since, in the bill, it applies to directors and senior administrators, including the president, vice-president, and so on. In short, the amendment puts the responsibility squarely on the people who run the homes, and not the workers who are already doing all the work.The second amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois requires judges to take the laws of Quebec and the provinces into account. It seems to me that members here in the House of Commons often need to be reminded that health care falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the other provinces. While successive Liberal and Conservative governments have repeatedly tried to interfere in this provincial jurisdiction, nothing will magically change that fact.Several provinces, including Quebec, already have legislation in place to tackle elder abuse and require care facilities to have policies and processes for handling complaints. It is therefore important that judges take these laws into account before imposing any prohibition orders.Lucien Bouchard, one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois, said the following:The government has neither the intent nor the mandate to abandon any part of Québec's constitutional jurisdictions...Successive governments in Québec, regardless of their political option [as to the status of Quebec], have always worked to reaffirm its jurisdiction in order to foster its people's [Quebeckers'] control over its economic, social and cultural development.... This quotation is timeless, as enduring as Canada's resolve to make decisions for Quebec.I campaigned for the “yes” side during the referendums of 1980 and 1995. I distinctly remember the federalists' fear campaign. They still make similar arguments today.(1145)When Quebec stands up to Canada and stands up for its interests, threats to freeze funding that Quebec is entitled to usually follow. It is funny. Ottawa pulls out this argument as though it were pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Just two weeks ago, here in the House, Ottawa threatened Quebec with lower health transfers if we refused to exchange our francophone workers for unilingual anglophone doctors.During the pandemic, in May 2020, the negotiations between the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, and the federal government were particularly tense, including about the need to call in the army to help with the long-term care facilities. In his Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister of Canada used Quebec's need for military assistance to announce his intention to impose Canadian standards in long-term care facilities. It was also a Liberal campaign promise in 2021. The Liberals promised a hefty $6 billion for long-term care facilities provided their standards were imposed.This bill raises a question. If the federal government is now going to be interfering in Quebec's long-term care facilities and private seniors' residences, will the government threaten to freeze or reduce Quebec's health transfers? That is an issue that needs to be considered. Do we also need to reiterate that, in December 2020, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion denouncing the implementation of pan-Canadians standards for long-term care and demanding an increase in health transfers?This paternalism must stop. Not only does Quebec already have standards to prevent neglect and abuse, but it also has solutions on how it can improve in this area. Earlier, my colleague from Shefford listed a set of standards that Quebec is implementing to try to ensure that what happened during the pandemic never happens again. We are talking here about prevention, rather than criminalization, in order to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. In closing, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑295, so that it can be improved in committee. We need to ensure that, with this bill, we are actually helping the provinces and Quebec to protect their seniors, rather than just quickly adding criminal offences to the Criminal Code without thinking about the long-term consequences.I will end my speech on a more personal note. My mother lived in a long-term care facility from January 2020 to November 2020 and passed away there. She did not die from COVID‑19 necessarily, but she did experience it. She received remarkable care. When talking about this bill, I want members to keep in mind that there are people in our health care system who do an amazing job. It is not the workers themselves who are targeted by this bill, but the officers.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)COVID-19CriminalizationFederal-provincial-territorial relationsLong-term carePandemicPrivate Members' BillsProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons808378380837848083785808378680837878083788808378980837908083791808379280837938083794808379580837968083797808379880837998083800BradVisMission—Matsqui—Fraser CanyonMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1150)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-295, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make sure it is a criminal offence when owners and managers of long-term care facilities fail to provide the necessities of life to residents within them.We have an aging population. One is six in Canada will be one in four in just a couple of years. We all have members in our families, such as mothers and fathers, who are aging. I am aging. We are all going to need long-term care. The Conservative Party absolutely agrees that we have to protect the most vulnerable, and this bill is a good start. It would make sure the necessities of life are provided. However, the bill does not necessarily go far enough. I am going to take up the theme of the pyramid of needs. We know that in the pyramid of needs, food, shelter, clothing and security are at the bottom, and this bill would address those necessities. We all heard stories of people who were left in their own excrement, did not have enough water or were dehydrated and of the lack of food during the pandemic, but what about their emotional and mental well-being? More needs to be done there.My mother died in long-term care, and the children had to choose who would go in. That is not fair or compassionate, so there is more to be done with the bill. We also saw, even after science showed that those who were vaccinated could get and transmit COVID the same as the unvaccinated, that people were discriminated against and not allowed to visit their loved ones, even with reasonable accommodation. Let us think about what happened during the pandemic. I received so many calls at my office from people who were trapped on one side of the border and could not visit their loved ones who were dying in long-term care facilities. There was no compassionate exemption made. I applied many times, but usually the length of time it took to get approval meant the person had already died. It is tragic when somebody is alone and vulnerable without even one family member there.I can remember that when my mother died in long-term care, I had to hold up an iPad so that my brother, sister and all the people who were not able to see her could say goodbye. After 95 years of a well-lived life, it was very sad. Then there was the whole issue of funerals. The number of people was limited and people were not allowed to go to them. That was also very sad. The bill takes a good first step to address some of these things.At committee, I was pleased to see that some amendments were accepted, one being that the definition of “managers” was not specific enough. We want to make sure that all facilities, whether private or public, have standards of care. That is another issue that was not addressed. There are differences in the standards of care across provinces and types of facilities. I was lucky that my mother was at Albany Retirement Village in Petrolia. It did a wonderful job of taking care of her, although many times I had to stand at the window to say hello to her during the pandemic.The other thing this bill would allow is for judges to consider this an aggravating factor in offences involving volunteer activities or somebody in a position of trust or authority. That is a good thing.I thank the member for Vancouver Centre, who is a doctor herself. We are all aging, and she has brought these concerns before the House. It sounds to me like this is the moment when all parties are agreeing that, yes, we need to do something and it needs to be an enforceable criminal offence. We have a lot of laws in the country, but we do not necessarily spend a lot of time enforcing those laws. In this case, it is so important. These are vulnerable people who, in many cases, like if they have dementia, do not have the acumen to fight for themselves. We need to be the ones to put measures in place so those looking out for them are dealt with.(1155)I would say, as a woman, this is also a gendered issue. We know that 85% of the people who are in long-term care facilities are women. We also know that 86% of the workers and volunteers in these facilities are women. We need to provide protections for those who give care and for those who are being cared for. We need to make sure that we are not just meeting the base level of the pyramid when it comes to their emotional and mental health needs. We know that isolation caused huge issues during the pandemic not just among people in long-term care facilities, but even in the general populace. One in five people ended up with mental health issues coming out of the pandemic. The suicide rate was up immensely. Violence was up immensely, at 32% for the people in this age demographic of long-term care. Of course, we have seen a huge rise in crime across the country, a 39% increase. Therefore, addressing all levels of people's well-being will be important and this bill does not go that far. I would argue that, in the future, people need to remember the lessons learned from the pandemic. It did not really help when we kept individuals away from seeing their loved ones and let others in because, at the end of the day, we let 90% of the people do what they wanted and the 10% who were unvaccinated could not, yet the science showed that both could transmit COVID. I think the reasonable accommodations of masking and personal protective equipment would have really addressed a lot of the loneliness, the agony of watching loved ones die, or not being able to get to loved ones who were dying, which was very serious. The other thing I would say is that long-term care facilities have been studied over and again. There was a report at the health committee in 2018, when I was there, that talked about standards of care and the number of individuals needed per resident, which is not the same for all residents, for example, those who have dementia compared to those who are at a high-functioning level. Therefore, we certainly need to look at best practices in the country and adopt some kind of minimum standard of care with respect to the number of caregivers and the amount of time provided. We hear a lot about how many minutes of care residents will get a day. Clearly, we cannot tell human beings that they have had their seven minutes for the day and that is it, that is all; we need to be more compassionate than that. While I am happy to see this bill and think it is a great first step, I would like to see us go further. I think the government has a huge opportunity, as it reflects on what happened during the pandemic with the violation of people's rights and freedoms, not just for those in long-term care facilities, but also the seven million Canadians who were prevented from leaving their country for three years, to do a thorough review and come back with policies that will address not only the basic needs of people, but their mental health needs and the emotional supports they need. Obviously, it is one step at a time. I am happy to say that we will support this legislation and look forward to doing more things to protect our seniors, who are the most vulnerable in society.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Caregivers and health care professionalsCOVID-19Long-term carePandemicPrivate Members' BillsSetting of standardsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable personsWomen808380180838028083803808380480838058083806808380780838088083809808381080838118083812808381380838148083815LucDesiletsRivière-des-Mille-ÎlesPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—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' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today. I very enjoyed my talks with the member for Vancouver Centre. We have had a number of great conversations about various issues, including seniors issues. I have found her to be an outspoken supporter and critic when it comes to seniors issues. It is an absolute privilege to be standing here on legislation she has no doubt proudly brought forward.This is an act that would amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners or their managers who fail to provide necessities of life to residents of the facilities.I believe it was Rawls who said that if we could go back to what he called the “original position”, meaning if we knew we were entering society but did not know how we were going to enter society, it would make sense that, if we knew one of the outcomes was to be in one of the more difficult positions in our society, we would want to do everything we could for such individuals.For example, one could be sitting outside the world, and one could come into this world not knowing where one was going to come in, whether one was going to come in as Bill Gates, a billionaire, or whether one was going to come in as someone at the other end of the economic spectrum. If coming in as Bill Gates, one would probably be fine. One's concern would probably be if one came into a more challenging place in our society. For example, on the challenges an individual who faces a disability may have, one would want to make sure society was innately fair to persons with disabilities. I believe this is a little analogous here. If in fact we knew we might have the lottery and might end up as an individual without any sort of control over our life whatsoever, with perhaps reduced faculties going forward, we would want to make sure this society, this country, was fair to those individuals. Unfortunately, that is not always the case today. I, of course, as everyone else in here, will be in that situation hopefully at some point in my life. That is a little different than the original position, in that most of us will be in the position where we will be coming toward the winter of life, and perhaps facing reduced faculties and having our complete life, from food to recreation or even just to seeing daylight, completely at the control of someone else. What a difficult position to be in.I revel in the wisdom of folks who are a couple of years my senior, and so I have often had conversations with individuals. It can be a very challenging time for individuals who have had very high-functioning lives or have been in charge of the destiny of many others in life. These are people who have been surgeons and doctors, or people who have had other lives under their control and who had control over everything in their life and have been successful in life. They find themselves now in a state where they are completely reliant on others. What a sacrosanct responsibility for those individuals who are now in charge of these individuals who have given so much to society and who have built the greatest country in the world.(1205)We have such an incredible responsibility to make sure those people who built our country are taken care of. Unfortunately, we heard through the pandemic and before the pandemic that oftentimes people just did not get fair treatment in their life. That is why this legislation is a step in the right direction. We, as a society, have to make sure those individuals who have given their entire lives to building this country, building the best country in the world, are protected. If others are in fact letting them down, there must be consequences for not providing these people the care when they need it most. Individuals in some cases are completely and utterly reliant on those individuals, so if there is neglect or, worse, willful neglect or even purposeful harm, these individuals must be held accountable. That is why I will be proudly voting for Bill C-295. I thank the sponsors of this bill for bringing it forward.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Long-term carePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons808381680838178083818808381980838208083821808382280838238083824MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessCriminal CodeInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1205)[English]Division on motion deferredPursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, December 6, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.The hon. House leader for the opposition is rising on a question of privilege.C-295, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (neglect of vulnerable adults)Long-term carePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionVulnerable persons8083828KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAndrewScheerHon.Regina—Qu'Appelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88984PattyHajduHon.Patty-HajduThunder Bay—Superior NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HajduPatty_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50InterventionHon. Patty Hajdu (Minister of Indigenous Services and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, Lib.)(1010)[English]Motion moved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, shall be disposed of as follows:(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources,(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for the committee meetings,(ii) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m. on the sitting day following the adoption of this motion,(iii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,(iv) the committee shall meet at 6:30 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of this motion to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 8:30 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,(v) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);(b) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, 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, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred; and(c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, 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, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred. AdjournmentC-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economyClause-by-clause studyCommittee amendmentsCommittee meetingsConsideration in committeeEmployment opportunitiesGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 31Green economyPresenting reports from CommitteesPutting the questionRecognition to speakRecorded divisionsReport stageRules of debateStanding Committee on Natural ResourcesThird reading and adoption8077952AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertJulieDabrusinToronto—Danforth//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89198ShannonStubbsShannon-StubbsLakelandConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/StubbsShannon_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50InterventionMrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC): (1040)[English]Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years. Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime,being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it. Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade. That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.(1045) When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021. They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop. For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.(1050)The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before. There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.(1055)The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.Atlantic CanadaC-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economyCommittee witnessesConsideration in committeeEmployment opportunitiesEnergy and fuelEnergy transitionEnvironmental assessmentGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 31Green economyIndigenous self-governmentMétisReport stageRules of debateStanding Committee on Natural ResourcesThird reading and adoption8078049JulieDabrusinToronto—DanforthChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1625)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Decisions of the HouseDivision No. 461Private Members' BillsRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8068964Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88715KarinaGouldHon.Karina-GouldBurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GouldKarina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1045)[English]MotionMr. Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 30, I move:That the debate be not further adjourned.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564338056434Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//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. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, lately the government likes to claim it has had a conversion to being concerned about affordability. Meanwhile, for years it has been running a horrifying economic experiment. It has massively increased spending and more than doubled our national debt. We know now that it is spending more on debt servicing than it is sending to the provinces for health care. Outrageous amounts of money in debt servicing costs are making life less affordable for Canadians. Fundamentally, since the Liberals claim to have had this conversion to being concerned about affordability, will they tell the House when the budget will be balanced?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564378056438Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): (1045)[English]Mr. Speaker, I hope all Canadians watching at home are looking at this debate. They would agree that there is a time to consider and a time to debate, but also a time to act. I have been saying that to Canadians and even to the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one thing he can do for Canadians, which is to vote for Bill C-56. Why? The Conservatives would be well advised to listen to Canadians.Canadians have told us that the two things they are concerned about are housing and affordability. That is why we have already had 20 hours of debate over five days. Imagine that. Canadians at home need the help contained in this bill and are wondering why members of Parliament have been talking about 20 days. I think Canadians watching today want action and that is what we are going to deliver.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564398056440GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that there are two bloc parties in the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party, the Conservative Party, which has blocked dental care and provisions for doubling the GST credit so that Canadians can put more food on the table. It has blocked every piece of legislation coming forward, except of course the Canada-Ukraine trade bill, which it voted against on the Day of Dignity and Freedom, when Ukrainians were commemorating their democracy. That is when the Conservatives, one by one, voted down the Canada-Ukraine trade bill. Aside from that, they have blocked every other piece of legislation. We know their history. Under the Conservatives in the Harper regime, housing prices doubled, and they lost or destroyed 800,000 affordable housing units. Is that why the Conservatives are yet again blocking legislation provoked by the NDP that would help Canadians?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564418056442François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears when I hear that from the party blocking everything. We can imagine that folks at home are watching, and they are saying that the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I am sure people at home are asking what is going on in Ottawa these days. They want to know what kind of Conservatives would vote against a nation that is fighting for democracy on behalf of all of us.My hon. colleague is right; he brings words of wisdom to this House. Bill C-56 is about helping Canadians with housing and affordability. Will the Conservatives ever vote in favour of Canadians? We are going to be watching them.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805644380564448056445PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabySébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is very proactive on many files.However, as the saying goes, the longer we wait, the worse things get. That is what happened with the Competition Act. The government could have taken action years ago. If it had, we would not be stuck with these huge monopolies, especially in the grocery sector, that have pushed prices up with margins that benefit them, rather than producers or processors, and that have doubled prices for consumers.The same goes for telecommunications, gasoline and banks. Costs have gone up because this government did not act in time. It waited too long to introduce Bill C-27. It also waited too long to introduce the bill to amend the Copyright Act.When will the government take action? Can the minister assert his legislative power to ensure that these files actually get debated? Right now, it seems to me that there is no movement on his side.Business practice and regulationC-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other ActsC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056446805644780564488056449François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1050)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that is exactly what we are doing. There have been five days of debate, which adds up to 20 hours. I am listening to the member, and I hear him. He says we must act, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. I hope the Bloc Québécois will be with us.My colleagues need to remember that there were 120 days of consultations on competition, including five round tables and 400 submissions. Nearly 120 organizations filed submissions. We consulted all the stakeholders. Today, we are asking the House to move forward.Canadians also agree with the member. They want us to forge ahead. We expect the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of Bill C-56. That way, we will be able to push forward and reform the Competition Act, which has not been updated in 37 years.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805645080564518056452SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1050)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is true, the Conservative Party is the “block everything” party.However, the Conservatives are not even consistent. They delayed with respect to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, and suddenly, in the 11th hour, with about a week left, they came up with this red herring that it had something to do with a price on pollution.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mr. Mark Gerretsen: I hear the heckling from my Conservative colleagues.Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has had a price on pollution since 2011. As a matter of fact, the only way it could get into the European market was to commit to that. This is nothing more than a red herring.Is the minister concerned that the delay of this bill is, once again, just another red herring being put out there by Conservatives?Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056453805645480564558056456805645780564588056459François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I am going to respond to that, because I know Canadians are watching.My colleague is right. Yesterday must have been a shock to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, seeing the Conservatives voting against Ukraine in a time of war. Did they really vote against the Canada Ukraine free trade agreement? They tried to find excuse after excuse for it.Now we are going to see if the Conservatives find another excuse to not help Canadians. Bill C-56 is simple: It would help people with housing and affordability. I am sure Canadians are asking whether the Conservatives will ever do something for them.Conservatives have the opportunity of a lifetime. It is just before Christmas. They should give a gift to Canadians by voting for Bill C-56 and letting us move forward in this country.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056462805646380564648056465Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaPatKellyCalgary Rocky Ridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89130PatKellyPat-KellyCalgary Rocky RidgeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KellyPat_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is good that we can actually bring it back to the debate on the motion at hand.This motion contains a promise that the Liberal government made in 2015. I find it a little difficult to take that the minister waxes incredulous when members may want to debate the bill. It took the Liberals eight years, kicking and screaming, to do this, after the opposition leader actually tabled a private member's bill that presented the exact thing that the Liberals promised to do in 2015.After eight years of the Liberals not keeping that particular promise on housing, how on earth are Canadians to think that it is somehow the Conservatives' fault that this legislation has not been enacted? How are they to accuse Conservatives of blocking the Liberals from doing what they promised to do eight years ago?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805646680564678056468François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1055)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the member, but let me repeat in English what I said in French. Do they know how much we consulted on that when it came to competition? There were 120 days of consultation. Five round tables were held across the country. Four hundred submissions were received in 120 stakeholder organizations. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more debate, consultation and time. On the other, they are trying to blame us for delaying. We are saying no. Canadians are saying no to them. They said no to them in the last election.There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for action. Canadians want action on housing and affordability. Can they help Canadians for once? Bill C-56 is very simple; it is a bill for helping Canadians. I am sure people at home will look at the Conservatives and wonder whether they will do the right thing for Canadians once and for all.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805646980564708056471PatKellyCalgary Rocky RidgeXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister is getting all worked up talking about competition, saying it is important to promote it.I have a proposal for him to promote competition. In Quebec, a lot of small businesses need help. We asked that the deadline for small businesses to pay back the emergency business account be extended by one year. Due to inflation and what they lived through with the pandemic, they are not able to reimburse the loan so quickly.The government said it would grant them 18 days. What are they going to do in 18 days? They cannot do much. We proposed that the government extend the deadline for small businesses to reimburse the loan. We also offered to help in expediting passage of Bill C‑56. The government refused.Is it telling us it has decided to abandon small businesses in Quebec? Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056472805647380564748056475François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1055)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague is talking about competition because we know all about competition in Quebec. Consumer protection is a value that Quebeckers hold dear. Right now, Quebeckers who are looking at my colleague must be thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly support a bill that promotes competition.One of the problems we have seen recently involved the food sector. Bill C‑56 would give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate, to undertake a comprehensive study. I am sure that Quebeckers at home are thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly vote in favour of Quebeckers because, if it believes in competition, it believes in Bill C‑56.Bill C‑56 will create new tools to help Quebeckers. I am sure that people at home listening to us today are convinced the Bloc Québécois will do the right thing and support Bill C‑56.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805647680564778056478XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresMikeMorriceKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110476MikeMorriceMike-MorriceKitchener CentreGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorriceMike_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, as Greens, we believe we are sent here not to play partisan games but to focus on the priorities of our communities. Right now, we are not even debating Bill C-56 or the programming motion to move more quickly on Bill C-56. We are debating another motion to limit debate on the programming motion. This has happened dozens of times in this Parliament alone. I believe it is 29 or so. One day, the minister might be in opposition. Is he at all concerned with the precedent that this sets of bringing forward allocation to limit time on debate again?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056479François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would not bet on that. However, I would say that I know the member; he is a man of good heart. I have had a number of discussions with him, and he is someone who wants to do what is right for Canadians. However, like me and I hope all members, when they get groceries, when they walk in their ridings on the weekend and when they talk to people in the street, they hear that there are two things that Canadians are facing today. They are facing the cost of housing and affordability. Those are the things Canadians want us to take action on, not only as government but also as parliamentarians. Christmas is approaching. Canadians are watching, and they ask whether Parliament will finally do something to help them. They want help on affordability and on housing. This bill would do that. We can imagine: It would enhance the GST rebate on new rental housing; it would give more tools to the Competition Bureau to go after uncompetitive practices in this country. If the Greens want to help Canadians, as I am sure they do, I have no doubt that when the vote comes up on Bill C-56, they will vote in favour of it and in favour of Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056480805648180564828056483MikeMorriceKitchener CentreKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to give the minister a chance to highlight the importance of passing this bill again. The reason I ask is that, a couple of weeks ago at church, a senior slid over behind me, tapped me on the shoulder and thanked me for the way that I voted on the carbon tax on home heating oil. She also told me that she was at Sobeys grocery store that week, picking up a few items. When she got to the lineup for the checkout, she said she added up in her head what those items were going to cost and had to walk away and leave them in the cart. She left the store and went home; she could not afford to buy those groceries or buy those items.Can the minister explain how this bill will help that person be able to afford to buy groceries?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564848056485François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is the reality for many Canadians. One thing we have seen across many nations is that the best way to bring affordability and stabilize prices is through competition. Bill C-56 would do something that has not been done in about 37 years in our country. It would reform the Competition Act in ways that are very clear.The bill would give more power to the competition authority, for example, when it does a market study. The last market study was done on groceries. Can we imagine having an authority with no subpoena power? That has not been seen in any other G7 country. Now we are going to fix that. Another thing it would do is ensure that anti-competitive mergers can be blocked. We have seen, time and time again, that we have restricted competition. Lastly, Bill C-56 would remove restrictive covenants that we can currently find in leases. We have seen in the member's riding, as in my own, a grocer in one shopping centre. Today, there are some restrictive clauses in leases that would prevent an independent grocer from going and competing with them. We need to put a stop to that.Canadians watching at home are trusting us to do the right thing for them. The only reason we are here is to serve the people at home. They sent us here to do something. We are committed to doing that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805648680564878056488KenMcDonaldAvalonJeremyPatzerCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1100)[English]Mr. Speaker, we already heard earlier that there are elements in this bill that belong to Conservative private members' bills. The fall economic update also took in four more Conservative private members' bills, including portions of my own.How many more Conservative ideas will the government have to steal to try to help Canadians? When will the government call an election so that we can actually take Conservative ideas and implement them as a Conservative government instead?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564898056490François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take that question from the member because, as we said, Parliament is the place where we should debate ideas. This is the place where the best ideas should come from and actually be implemented. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-56 and this motion. There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for voting and acting.If the member believes what he said, he should be in favour of the bill and running to his caucus to tell them that Christmas is approaching, Canadians are going to be watching and they need to do the right thing for Canadians. The two things that matter to Canadians are housing and affordability. Bill C-56 is going to help Canadians. If he is true to his word, he is going to convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C-56.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80564918056492JeremyPatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe this.Today, my colleague tells us it is urgent, that we must quickly pass Bill C-56 for its housing initiatives. The GST credit is a marginal measure to fight the housing crisis. Still, in the economic update, two days ago, we had a unique opportunity to invest in housing. However, most measures will only come into effect in 2025-2026.We need billions of dollars in investments now. We need to build 150,000 new units a year in Quebec. In the agreement with Quebec, 8,000 units will be built in the next five years. There are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. We asked for an emergency fund to prevent deaths in Granby, in Rimouski and in Saint-Jérôme. Not a cent was allocated. The crisis is here now. I can hardly believe we were told this morning it is urgent to vote on the bill, while the government put nothing in its economic update two days ago.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805649380564948056495François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1105)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is so urgent that we have to move a motion to force members to vote.I understand why my colleague says this is urgent, I feel the same way. That is why the government believes it must move this kind of motion this morning. After 20 hours of debating, after five days of debate, it is time to act.I have listened to my colleague and I share his views. That is exactly right. What we are facing as a government is that on the other side of the House people want to slow down the process. Ultimately, they are preventing us from moving forward for Quebec, for Quebeckers, for the entire country.I know the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. He is someone who wants to get things done and move forward. He will convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C-56. He will help Quebeckers when it comes to housing. He will certainly help Quebeckers when it comes to affordability. That is what people are asking us to do. That is what we are trying to do today.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056496805649780564988056499DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertLianneRoodLambton—Kent—Middlesex//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105210LianneRoodLianne-RoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RoodLianne_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMs. Lianne Rood (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks the big talk. He wants to help Canadians with affordability, yet the bill would not do that. The government is quadrupling the carbon tax on farmers. The Senate is stalling Bill C-234, which could give $1 billion of relief to farmers to help bring down our food prices, and the government is also trying to take away the ability of free enterprises to make their own business decisions. The reality is that the bill would not do anything to bring down grocery prices for Canadians. The government is living in a fantasyland if it thinks that retailers are not going to pass along to consumers any new taxes or protocols that the government puts in place.Why will the government not do something concrete, like axe the carbon tax and push its senators to get Bill C-234 passed in order to give farmers immediately relief from the carbon tax?Business practice and regulationC-234, An Act to amend the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565008056501François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1105)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would agree that there is one way to help everyone in Canada. If we look at countries around the world, the best way to stabilize prices, reduce consolidation and have lower prices is through competition. Everyone would agree that this is the best way to make sure we help Canadians, and the bill would do exactly that.The last time anyone touched the legislation was 37 years ago. We are presenting the most important reform in competition. Why are we doing that? It is because we want to have more tools in the tool box so we can act. We want to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Those at home understand, as they have seen time and time again, that the best way for us as parliamentarians, collectively, to do something meaningful and concrete is to increase competition in this country.I am sure my colleague would agree with that, because I know her and I know she cares about the people in her riding and about Canadians. They are watching today. I am sure they would say she will do the right thing, that she will convince the Conservative caucus and say, “Yes, we are going to do something for Canada; yes, we are going to do something for consumers; and yes, we are going to do something for competition.” They will be watching.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805650280565038056504LianneRoodLambton—Kent—MiddlesexLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1110)[English]Uqaqtittiji , this is such an important bill, especially for Nunavut, given that the price of housing and the price of groceries are so high and that it is so difficult in Nunavut. I would love to have seen more conversations about how we could make improvements, and I think the bill would do just that.It is unfortunate that we are discussing closure. If I understand it correctly, and maybe the member could help me understand it better, it is because there has been a lot of filibustering in the House, not just during debates in the House of Commons but also in committees. I had the unfortunate experience of replacing a colleague of mine at one of the committees yesterday, and all I sat through was Conservative filibustering.I wonder whether the minister could explain the cost of filibustering and why we needed closure.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805650580565068056507François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very thoughtful, and she pointed out what is going on in this place. I hope Canadians are watching.There is a party in front of us that will do anything to block any progress. Yesterday, we saw something egregious. The Conservatives blocked the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. What the member is saying is that we see it time and time again. If I look into my own heart, I would think there should be unanimous consent. This is a bill that would improve housing and affordability. Everyone was sent here by families and other members of their communities. I know that these people expect us to do the right thing when it is about helping them. Like the member said, she would not expect people at home to say they sent members here to block and filibuster. They sent people here, on all sides of the House, to make sure we work for Canadians.The bill is about more housing and more competition for Canadians. I hope that every member of the House will vote in favour of Bill C-56. Let us give a gift to Canadians at a time when they need it most.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805650880565098056510LoriIdloutNunavutXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: (1110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the minister is talking to us about competition. I am glad he is, because right now there is a problem with competition.People are paying more than ever for their groceries. Not so long ago, after speaking with grocery executives, the minister told the House that the problem had been solved because, looking at the flyers, he saw good discounts.However, the reality is that, shortly after that, we saw grocers make even more profits, record profits. We were told people had found a solution for inflation by changing their buying habits. Instead of buying fresh vegetables, they were buying frozen vegetables. Instead of buying a big steak, they were buying ground beef. We were told that, in fact, there was no problem because people had changed their buying habits. This is what grocery executives told us.The minister told us the problem was solved by flyers. How can we take these people seriously? Honestly, I think something is broken here. Is the minister proud of his work? Does he really believe the grocery inflation problem has been solved?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056511805651280565138056514François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1110)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we have to do more. This is why we introduced Bill C-56. We said the meeting with grocers was a first step. We asked them to do what was necessary to help Canadians, but we are not fools; we know more has to be done.I know my colleague will vote in favour of the bill. I can see it in his eyes. He is thinking that Bill C-56 gives more power to the Competition Bureau specifically to investigate big grocers across the country. If what he says is true—and I know he thinks what he says—he will vote in favour of Bill C-56. This bill will give more power to the Competition Bureau so it can conduct inquiries, and we know that the best way to help consumers across the country is to strengthen competition.Quebeckers will be watching the member when he votes on Bill C-56. I am convinced he will vote the right way.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805651580565168056517XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1110)[English]Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years of the government's failing Canadians over and over again. The reason we are in the circumstances we are in today in this country is the economic decisions of the government, along with increased taxes at a time when Canadians are earning less and the cost of everything is more. The question the government is not answering and that Canadians are asking, which is more important to them even than this, is why it chooses not to take responsibility for the fact that Canadians are in the urgent scenarios they are in today because of decisions made by the government.When will the government do what the Conservative Party has said from the very beginning? Our leader recognized a long time ago that this was going to be an issue. The government refused to respond to it in any way, so when will the government do the things that will get the long-term and fast responses this country needs and remove the carbon tax so Canadians can afford to live and inflation will go down? Those are the things Canadians need from the government.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565188056519François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would not have talked about the leader of the Conservatives, but since my colleague raised it, let us remember, for those watching at home, that this is the leader who advised Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency. In terms of economic advice, I am sure Canadians would probably agree with me to not follow anything he says.When the member talks about our record, I am so happy. She will have seen, because I know her and she looks at stats, that the OECD ranked Canada third in foreign investments that have come into this country, just after the United States and Brazil. This is a record. We are attracting investments like we have never seen before. We think of Volkswagen, Stellantis, GM, Ford and Volta.The world is realizing Canada has what it needs for the economy of the 21st century, a decarbonized economy, an economy that bets on the talent of people, renewable energy and open markets. I know that the member is looking at that and saying, “Wow, what a record.” I wish the Conservatives would join us to make sure Canada is the place everyone around the world looks to for investing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805652080565218056522CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Conservative Party has courted membership of the People's Party, we have seen the far right actually take over the Conservative Party. To amplify that fact, one only needs to take a look at how the Conservatives collectively voted against Ukraine and the trade agreement the other day. The reckless behaviour we are witnessing on a daily basis coming from the Conservative Party is demonstrated on the floor, as it is determined to filibuster and do whatever it can to prevent legislation from passing. I am wondering whether my colleague can provide his thoughts on how the far right has reached into the House of Commons today through the Conservative Party of Canada.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056523François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1115)[English]Mr. Speaker, it would take me more than an hour to try to explain that to Canadians, but I do not think I could find any answers. On what Canadians witnessed yesterday, I am sure they are still at home wondering whether what they saw really happened, that in 2023 the Conservative Party of Canada would vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Did it really? A time when a nation is fighting for democracy, and when it is fighting a war, is the time when one needs to help it.I know that maybe there is still a glimmer of hope, because Christmas is approaching. I know my colleagues are eager to go home, but Canadians are asking them to do one thing: to please vote for Bill C-56. They should give something to Canadians before they go on vacation and make sure we have more affordable housing and more affordability across this country.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565248056525KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1200)[English]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 453Government billsGovernment Business No. 30Recorded divisionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056532Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1200)[English]Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today would have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.I would like to bring to this debate the Conservative Party's attitude towards legislation in general. I put it in the form of a question earlier about the Conservative Party today, the leader of the Conservative Party, his attraction to the People's Party and the membership of that particular party. As a result, the Conservative Party has moved far to the right. I would ultimately argue that the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today. I do not say that lightly. I truly believe that to be the case, and we have seen a good demonstration of that. Talking about the legislation we have today, one would think the Conservative Party would recognize the value and the good within this legislation and have a desire to see it passed. However, that is not the case of the far right Conservative Party today.We saw that amplified just the other day when the Conservative Party voted against a trade agreement. Conservatives actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is unbelievable. Then they try to rationalize why.It is rooted in the leadership of the Conservative Party. We see that far right element has virtually taken over. That has started to filter down into what we see across the way today. That is why, whether it is the Conservative Party voting against the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or against the legislation we are debating today, there is a desire on the part of the Conservative Party to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.Then they look surprised that we would bring in time allocation for the debate on Bill C-56. The bottom line is that time allocation was brought in because the Conservatives do not want to see this legislation passed—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805653480565358056536805653780565388056539Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaGarnettGenuisSherwood 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 OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the member's comments saying that he apparently wants to do more for Ukraine, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent for the adoption of a motion put on notice by the member for Dufferin—Caledon, which is that there be an instruction to the Standing Committee on International Trade that, during its consideration of Bill C-57, an act to implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to support expanded munitions production in Canada and increasing munitions exports to Ukraine, and support the development of weapons and munitions manufacturing capabilities in Ukraine by Canadian industry.I hope there would be unanimous consent for the adoption of that motion so that we could move forward.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Leave to propose a motionMotion of instructionPoints of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingStanding Committee on International TradeThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80565408056541KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25454AndrewScheerHon.Andrew-ScheerRegina—Qu'AppelleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ScheerAndrew_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionHon. Andrew Scheer: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I have a very quick procedural question. Will the Hansard reflect that it was the Liberal member for Winnipeg North who said no, or—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Members' remarksPoints of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056544CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservatives just demonstrated just how dumb they can be. Let us remember that they tried to move a unanimous motion to, in essence, kill the free trade agreement completely. What do they think would have happened if that motion had actually passed? There is an agreement that is in place. The Conservatives remember that President Zelenskyy came to Canada to sign that agreement, and now they just want to throw it out the window. It is irresponsible. That is what I mean when I speak about the far right extremists in the Conservative caucus today. Shame on them.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80565478056548CarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, my point of order was going to be to ask you to address the issue of the Liberal member calling someone dumb—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Members' remarksPoints of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionUnparliamentary language8056551CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize for calling them dumdums.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Members' remarksPoints of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionUnparliamentary language8056554CarolHughesAlgoma—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.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): (1205)[English]Madam Speaker, the member asked what would have happened if the Conservative motion to expand the scope had passed. It is quite simple what would have happened. The amendments I drafted to expand the scope of the bill to make specific legislative changes to expedite weapons transfers to Ukraine could be proposed, and if adopted, those amendments would then become part of this legislation. It would not in any way undermine the existing agreement. It would simply be a matter of Canada's adding additional legislative measures that would expedite the sale of weapons to Ukraine. It would be things such as, for instance, putting Ukraine on the list of open policy countries, which would reduce the time and review standard required to get these weapons to Ukraine. It would be things such as having EDC and BDC play a greater role in supporting the manufacturing of weapons in Ukraine through Canadian business investments. These are concrete measures that would make an actual difference to Ukraine as it fights the war. Why does the member not support those measures?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80565578056558CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, each and every one of the Conservative members needs to take ownership and responsibility for their behaviour and their unanimous decision to vote against the Canada-Ukraine agreement. The Conservatives can come up with all the red herrings that they want. The bottom line is that President Zelenskyy came to Canada and signed a trade agreement with Canada, even during a time of war, recognizing the value of that trade agreement. Only the Conservative Party, in its wisdom and its far right extremism, made the decision to vote against him. Shame on them. If the member has remorse already, then he could apologize and ask for unanimous consent to reverse his vote.An hon. member: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine805655980565608056561GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I would just like to reiterate the comments that my colleague made about the Conservatives voting against supporting a trade agreement with Ukraine. In fact, they did it on the Day of Dignity and Freedom for Ukraine, just to make it that much more appalling and inexplicable.The bill we are trying to get through today and the work we are trying to get done would provide some support for Canadians with housing. I know that the government has admitted that it has not done nearly enough to address the situation of housing. I listened today to my colleague from Nunavut when she spoke about how dire the situation is for housing in the north. I am just wondering how this piece of legislation, which we would like to be able to talk about and be able to pass, would help with to nutrition, food prices, grocery prices and housing in northern communities, such as that of my colleague from Nunavut.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingNorthern CanadaReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565648056565CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, to give a very specific example, the legislation would establish getting rid of the GST for purpose-built rental homes. This would have a profoundly positive impact. We have now seen provinces do likewise with respect to the PST. I hope to see more provincial jurisdictions continue to do that.The member made reference to a special day. This is Holodomor week, a week to recognize what took place in Ukraine when Russia starved millions of Ukrainians. This is in the same week that the Conservative Party voted against the Ukraine-Canada free trade deal. It is very hard to imagine why the Conservatives voted that way, with the exception of the far-right element that I referenced.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingNorthern CanadaReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565668056567HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-56, and it is important to bring us back to what this bill could offer to Canadians.I am particularly interested in the piece around strengthening the Competition Act. We know that Canadians are deeply concerned about the rising costs of living. Christmas is coming. Ideally, not moving toward closure is what we want to see in the House, but we need to unfortunately because of the games that are played.Could the member speak to some of the things we are seeing in the House that unfortunately prevent us from passing critical legislation like this?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Parliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805656880565698056570KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, the legislation would enable us to strengthen the Competition Bureau, which is very important. It would also take away the efficiency argument in regard to when a large company acquires another one. A tangible example of that would be to go back to the days when Stephen Harper was the prime minister. We used to have Shoppers, a stand-alone company that provided all sorts of groceries. It was consumed by Loblaws in a multibillion dollar deal.We all recognize that competition is healthy. It helps us keep prices fair for consumers. This legislation would make competition better in Canada, whether it is that aspect or the rental supports to ensure we have more homes into the future. This is good, sound legislation. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to see its passage.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Parliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565718056572JenicaAtwinFrederictonMikeMorriceKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110476MikeMorriceMike-MorriceKitchener CentreGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorriceMike_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, I am really glad to see the governing party so keen to move forward with this measure to address the housing crisis. At the same time, we just had a fall economic statement with no new funds for the rapid housing initiative and no new action to address the financialization of housing.For example, the Liberals could have removed the tax exemption that real estate investment trusts are benefiting from every day and put those funds toward building the affordable housing we need.Why are the Liberals so selectively keen to move ahead on housing policy?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805657380565748056575KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, never before in the history of Canada, at least for the last 50 or 60 years, has a government been more focused on dealing with the issue of housing. The member made reference to the fall economic statement that was released yesterday. I know the member is a big fan of housing co-ops. Within that statement was a serious commitment of somewhere in the neighbourhood of over $300 million toward supporting and seeing the realization of more housing co-ops.I have always argued, and will continue to argue, that a housing co-op is a wonderful form of housing. People are not tenants; they are residents. That is a big difference. If I had more time, I would love to talk about all the things this government is doing on housing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565768056577MikeMorriceKitchener 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.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Garnett Genuis: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, in her previous comments attacking the Conservatives, the member for Edmonton Strathcona tried to pretend that she supports Ukraine. Here is what she told the committee in February 2022, the same month as the invasion. She said the following:Some people in this committee and some members of our Parliament have been calling on the government to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine. I have some concerns about that, obviously.Do you believe there are risks to providing those lethal weapons to Ukraine? This applies in terms of keeping track of those weapons, but more importantly, I'd like some information on how Russia would perceive that. Would they perceive that as an escalation instead of a de-escalation?That is an unbelievable statement by the member for Edmonton Strathcona, the foreign affairs critic for the NDP. She was expressing an unwillingness to transfer lethal weapons to Ukraine because of fear of how Russia would perceive it. That is what the NDP was saying in February 2022.Does the member think the NDP should apologize for those pro-Russia statements?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80565788056579805658080565818056582KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, from that question, I take it that there is a lot of remorse, at least from some of the Conservative members, for the manner in which they voted the other day. It is incredibly difficult for Canadians to believe that the Conservative Party would vote against a trade agreement that would have a profoundly positive impact for both Canada and Ukraine. It will make a positive difference.What we have heard from the Conservative Party today, from the far right wing element, is a policy that is so reckless that it just does not make sense. People should think about the Conservative leader. It is a risky business nowadays being a Conservative. Those members really need to consider how they voted. I would highly recommend they make a major flip-flop and support the Canada-Ukraine agreement.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80565838056584GarnettGenuisSherwood Park—Fort SaskatchewanBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, we need to get this work done. This morning I was at a anti-poverty event. I can tell members that people do not have time to wait for housing, for food and for medication, pharmacare. We have a lot of work to do.I wonder if the member across the aisle could tell us how quickly we can get to the Canada disability benefit, because that legislation needs to get passed very quickly or come into force. Could he give us some updates on that, please?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada disability benefitGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Persons with disabilitiesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565858056586KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1215)[English] Madam Speaker, the government has a very proactive and progressive legislative agenda. We would like to get a lot of legislation through. We just brought in the anti-scab legislation. Whether it is budgetary measures or legislative measures, we have a full agenda. We know that it is in the best interests of Canadians for them to be passed.The frustration is when the Conservatives stand on concurrence motions to filibuster debates or try to adjourn the House to prevent debates from occurring in the first place.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada disability benefitGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Persons with disabilitiesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80565878056588BonitaZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamCarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1220)[English]Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country.We are debating Bill C-56. The NDP-Liberal government continually fails to address the real issues that it has caused for all Canadians. It says the bill will somehow bring down the cost of living and grocery prices. People in my community are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Food bank usage is the highest it has ever been, with over 30% more clients year over year. This is consistent across the country and also in my community. People with disabilities and seniors on fixed incomes are hit particularly hard. Instead of cutting the carbon tax and government spending, which is driving up inflation, the Liberal-NDP government believes that implementing Bill C-56 would somehow solve the inflated cost of living and grocery price issue.There is a lack of competition in Canada's grocery industry, an industry held mostly by Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, and this is a problem the bill would not solve. We have already seen the Prime Minister and the government fail at keeping their promises, like having cheaper groceries before Thanksgiving. That date has long come and gone.Canadians are faced with higher costs than many other developed countries due to a lack of competition, whether in industries like grocery, airline, banking or telecommunications. High taxes, bureaucracy and red tape make Canada unproductive and uncompetitive. The Liberals added a second carbon fee, basically a second carbon tax. Saying the legislation takes some kind of stand against grocery stores is nothing short of performative with a nice title.The policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition, with its inflationary deficit spending and high-tax agenda, has caused our inflation rate to be as high as it has been, and continues to be, which has caused the highest interest rates in a generation. The legislation is trying to deal with problems created by the government without addressing any of the causes. It is as if we are walking along and someone trips us and while we are lying on the ground looking up, that individual puts his or her hand out and asks to help us up. Meanwhile we would be thinking that if that person had not tripped us in the first place we would not be on the ground.The NDP-Liberal coalition thinks that taxing farmers who grow our food, taxing transport trucks that move our food and then taxing grocery stores that sell our food has nothing to do with inflation. We have to remember that it was the Liberal finance minister who had declared victory on inflation only to see it go higher. We also have to remember that inflation is compounding. Most people are familiar with compounding interest on their investments. However, this is the harmful kind of compounding, because it means things cost more. For a 3% inflation, for example, that is 3% on top of last year, where during the same month it could have been 8%, as we were seeing in 2022. Therefore, the inflation rate this year is 3% plus 8%, which is 11%, but is even more because it is compounded compared to two years ago. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that inflation was homegrown and that it was costing the average Canadian $3,500 a year. That is not per family; it is per person. No wonder people are having trouble heating their homes. They were last winter and we are seeing them have a tough time again this year.I send multiple surveys each year to every home in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, and it is amazing the huge amount of people who respond to them. A recent one was this past summer. Here are the results: 70% say they are buying fewer groceries; 81% say they are taking fewer trips; 78% say they are donating less to charity; and 89% say they are putting less into savings. Many people also put detailed notes, sharing their ideas, solutions and heartbreaking stories with me.The John Howard Society of Okanagan and Kootenay has stated that it is now having clients come to its organization saying that they have just lost their homes and do not know what to do. Now the organization does not know how to support these people because it was not built for the capacity it is now seeing.It is no surprise that people cannot afford a home when the price of homes and rent in Canada has doubled over the last eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years to save for a mortgage.(1225)Saving for the average mortgage for the average home used to take five and a half years before the Liberal government. A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants. The NDP-Liberal government has poured billions of dollars into housing programs and there is little to show for it. Removing the GST from home construction was proposed in a private member's bill by the leader of the official opposition. The difference between what he was proposing and what this bill would do is that this bill would help, but it is not focused on affordability like the official opposition member's bill is. When I am home in my community at many different activities and events, a top issue many people bring to me is the increasing cost of their mortgage payments and how it is affecting their families and families they know. I was talking to a dad who said his mortgage just increased by over $1,000 a month. Another person, who has three kids, reached out. He is the sole income-earner for the family as his wife stays home to look after the kids. He was looking for any tax credits for kids' fitness and other activities, something I had to tell him the Liberals cancelled. The latest MNP consumer debt index shows 51% of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to complete their financial obligations. It said, “Facing a combination of rising debt carrying costs, living expenses and concern over the potential for continued interest rate and price hikes, many Canadians are stretched uncomfortably close to broke. There is no mystery as to what is causing Canadians’ bleak debt outlook: it’s getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet.”A recent survey released by financial firm Edward Jones Canada said, “Canadians are stuck in a chaotic whirlwind of personal financial stress,” and, “The poll clearly shows that Canadians are so preoccupied with just getting through the day, that the idea of paying debt feels like a distant dream.” It also found that 88% of Canadians say their personal financial situation is impacting their well-being. In addition, 65% of Canadians now say they are concerned about saving for retirement, and 63% are concerned about how to prepare for an unexpected financial event. There are less savings, more concern and more risk. Forced sales events are up 10%, with mortgage defaults climbing, as just reported by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. It is not just me talking about the financial situation in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada said that Canadians are now facing the biggest financial challenges of their lives.The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition have really lost touch with Canadians. This bill would assist with one small sliver of an issue with building homes, but it is not a housing affordability bill. As we see now with the fall economic statement and the Liberals being supported by its partner, the NDP, this spending will continue on a path of deficits and keeping inflation and interest rates high. This bill would not address the causes of high food costs, inflation or high interest rates. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. We can send this bill to committee to be studied, and hopefully, some amendments can be made at committee and brought back to the House. Benefits for childrenBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCost of livingFinancial hardshipFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingInflationInterest ratesPersonal debtReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption80565918056592805659380565948056595805659680565978056598805659980566008056601805660280566038056604805660580566068056607805660880566098056610805661180566128056613CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, the member referred to Loblaws and the importance of competition. I would be interested in her thoughts regarding when Stephen Harper allowed Loblaws to acquire Shoppers, thereby decreasing competition in Canada's grocery industry. He is the one who brought it down ultimately to five companies. This legislation would take away the efficiency argument. It seems to me, like the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, this is good legislation. I do not know what the Conservative Party is going to do on this legislation. Can the member indicate whether she will be voting in favour of this legislation or will she be doing like she did on the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement and voting against it?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566148056615TracyGrayKelowna—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.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the member was listening to my speech, because I actually said I would be supporting it going to committee and that I was hopeful there would be some amendments at committee. That is what I said at the very end of my speech.Regarding an organization like Loblaws, we have to remember how the government treats an organization like that. It gave refrigerators to Loblaws. During that time, I was getting phone calls from small businesses in my community, such as floral shops and a very small cheese shop, asking if they would also be given fridges. Of course, that was not the case. They were only given to one of the largest companies in Canada.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566168056617KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad the member said she is going to be voting in favour of the legislation. What she did not answer is if the Conservative Party would be. I would hope the Conservative Party would be supportive of the legislation. Maybe the member could give some sort of indication why the Conservative Party tends to want to prevent government legislation from passing, even legislation that the Conservatives support. The member says she supports this legislation. I am going to believe her on her word that the Conservative Party will be supporting the legislation.When would she like to ultimately see this legislation pass through Parliament, including the Senate? Would she like to have it done before Christmas? Is that not a reasonable expectation?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566188056619TracyGrayKelowna—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.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, referring to how there are debates and debates are shut down, it is the government that does the calendar. The government chooses what is brought forward every day. The Liberals continually shut down debate in this House. I am really glad I was able to bring forth the comments from people in my community on this particular piece of legislation. I can think of three times over the last very recent weeks where I had prepared a speech, was prepared to debate and bring the voice of my community here, and the government moved closure and shut down debate. The reason we are here is to bring the voices of our community into this place, and the government continues to shut down debate on legislation and stifles us from bringing the voices of our community here.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566208056621KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, can the member share with this place recommendations we have tried over and over again to extend to the government to use that would do far more to meet the needs of Canadians at this point in time?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActEconomic conditionsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056622TracyGrayKelowna—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.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, we have made a number of recommendations. As I mentioned in my intervention, the government does nothing to address the causes of why inflation is high and why interest rates are high. We have made recommendations to cancel the carbon tax. We have also made recommendations to be reasonable and accommodating and to look at removing the carbon tax for farmers. That is sitting in the Senate right now and is being stalled. We have made suggestions to take the carbon tax off all forms of home heating across the country, because the government, due to its panic over Liberal members who might lose their seats, decided to only make the carbon tax unavailable to one type of home heating. We have made that suggestion. The carbon tax alone we know has been analyzed, and removing it would bring down inflation. That is just one thing we would do.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActEconomic conditionsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056623CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, as well as all Canadians.It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is breathtaking just how desperate the Liberals have become. In the House of Commons, we are witnessing a curious trend: imitation disguised as Liberal innovation.The recent flurry of activity from our Liberal counterparts presents a spectacle. It is desperation masquerading as originality.It is really fascinating. The Liberals have hastily adopted common-sense Conservative strategies to cloak their actions as a remedy for affordability, all the while seeking recognition for ideas that were not theirs to begin with.Unfortunately, their replica has flaws, and the Liberals know that they need to ram this legislation through before Canadians realize that it is nothing more than a cheap knock-off.If the government is looking for another idea to steal from Conservatives, maybe it could finally decide to repeal the carbon taxes, which are the real reason Canadians are facing the soaring cost of living.First, let us dissect the fabric of the Liberals' imitation. The Liberals’ newfound fascination with affordable living appears more as a last-ditch effort to mirror our common-sense Conservative initiatives, although it lacks the authenticity and the understanding required to genuinely address the woes of everyday Canadians.This sudden adoption reeks of desperation. Maybe they have seen the polls. Maybe they are hearing in their ridings that the Conservatives are the only party putting forward common-sense ideas.Maybe the Conservative message of common sense sounds good to them too, but their leadership comes down heavy-handedly when they vote in favour of our legislation, like the Liberal member for Avalon, who tried to do the right thing for his constituents initially, although he eventually betrayed them and caved to his master like a typical Liberal always does.The government's thievery of Conservative ideas seems relentless. Were members aware that the fall economic statement contained no less than four Conservative private members’ bills?For example, there is Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act with respect to mental health services, from the good doctor from Cumberland—Colchester. There is Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code for adoptive and intended parents, from my friend, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster. There is Bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act, on interoperability, from my riding neighbour to the east, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. There is Bill C-365, an act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians by the amazing member for Bay of Quinte.While the Liberals eagerly snatch concepts from our playbook, they turn a blind eye to the actual root cause of the economic pains faced by Canadians: their out-of-control debt and deficits, out-of-control spending, a carbon tax that does not do anything for the environment, a rapid housing initiative that cannot build homes and inflation that results from all of their financial mismanagement.These are the real culprits behind the soaring cost of living, behind escalating interest rates and the burdensome grocery store bills and fuel prices that burden the citizens of this country every day. Our Conservative blueprint for affordable living, particularly our Conservative leader’s building homes not bureaucracy act, stands as a testament to our commitment to the welfare of Canadians.Our messaging, like the “bring it home” initiative, encapsulates not just slogans but a genuine drive to resolve the housing crisis plaguing our nation.In contrast, the Liberals’ response to this crisis they partly crafted lacks the depth and innovation required for a lasting solution. Their plan, often confined within the boundaries of existing programs and reannouncements, fails to project a path forward. It is a patchwork of recycled notions rather than a blueprint for real, sustainable change, and they have no problem announcing the same promises over and over again with the same pompous Liberal attitude that most Canadians have grown tired of. (1235)The question remains: Are the Liberals truly addressing the housing crisis or merely engaging in performative arts to mitigate the damage that their policies have caused and the fact that the vast majority of Canadians desire to see them removed from office? Their sudden attempt to provide solutions and then force them on Canadians seems more reactive than proactive, a calculated response to evade accountability rather than an earnest effort to rectify the havoc they created. I can only hope it means they are getting ready for an election. Liberals may tout their actions as responsive and comprehensive, but in reality, they bear the marks of limited vision and failure of leadership.The building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by our Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, is not just a set of words—Business practice and regulationC-294, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (interoperability)C-318, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (adoptive and intended parents)C-323, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mental health services)C-365, An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for CanadiansC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCost of livingEconomic conditionsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government performanceHousingPolitical behaviourReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805662480566258056626805662780566288056629805663080566318056632805663380566348056635805663680566378056638805663980566408056641TracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, the building homes not bureaucracy act, as presented by the Conservative leader, is not just a set of words or an ostentatious announcement. It is a clarion call for genuine reform, which that act is all about. It embodies the Conservative commitment to forge a future where affordable living is not a privilege but a right for all Canadians. Its depth, its foresight and its genuine intent to alleviate the housing crisis differentiates it starkly from the borrowed and incomplete solutions offered by the Liberal government.We, as Conservatives, are not satisfied with token Liberal gestures, and Canadians are not either. We need substantive change and substantive solutions that do not create just photo ops and news clippings. Canadians cannot live in a photo op, a press release or an initiative. They need affordable housing and a Conservative government that is going to bring it home. The choice is very clear. It is between either a Conservative vision anchored in genuine innovation and a desire to provide common-sense solutions to Canadians, or a Liberal stance marred by imitation, which lacks depth, and is not worth the cost. Canadians deserve more than rehashed plans; they deserve visionary initiatives that ensure a brighter, more affordable future and a leader with the common sense of the common people who is united for our common home. Let us bring it home.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805664480566458056646CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, the member just implied that they deserve a leader with a visionary nature. We had that in the last federal election when 338 Conservatives and their leader said that a price on pollution was actually a good thing. Yes, Conservatives have ideas, but we find that they often flip-flop, and this is one of those ideas they actually flip-flopped on. We saw it today in the debate when Conservatives said that they wanted to get rid of the price on pollution.We cannot trust the Conservatives and their policies, which are very reckless. We cannot tell what they are really going to do on this legislation, or if they even want it to pass, because they are so preoccupied with the far right. My question to the member is this: Recognizing the issues of the flip-flops within the Conservative Party, can we acknowledge today that the Conservative Party will in fact stay in touch with Canadians and support this legislation?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805664780566488056649GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I think it is important to understand that, first of all, Canadians are speaking very loudly. They are tired of the government. They are tired of policies that damage their futures, and that impact the ability of their children to afford homes and themselves to afford homes. As far as his suggestion, for example, that the Conservatives supported the carbon tax is concerned, he will not hear one word out of my mouth, ever, that I supported the carbon tax, as I do not, and I never will, because it does not work, end of story. Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566528056653CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am always surprised to hear the Conservatives harp on the carbon tax day after day when they talk about inflation. When serious studies—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056654GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Mario Simard: (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to do so.I was saying that I am always surprised to hear the Conservatives harp on the carbon tax day after day, when we know that it does not have a major impact on inflation. Serious economic studies tell us that the carbon tax causes inflation to rise by 0.1%.The Conservatives keep harping on this. Not only that, but their leader recently said that the carbon tax would be the issue at the ballot box. We know very well that this tax does not apply to Quebec, which means that the Conservative leader does not care one iota about what is happening in Quebec.I wonder what is really driving the Conservatives to talk about the carbon tax. Are they perhaps doing this to give their friends in the big oil and gas companies some overt, explicit support? Are they not ultimately oil and gas lobbyists?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Oil and gasReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056658805665980566608056661CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I have just a couple of things.The clean fuel standard, which applies in Quebec, is actually a carbon tax. While there may not be a carbon tax as such, there is a clean fuel standard. That is a carbon tax.When I talk to my constituents, they want me, as their representative in the House, to ensure they have the ability to move forward and to make a living. I see farmers who have hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of carbon tax on irrigation operations, on grain drying, on heat for their barns and those sorts of things. It affects their bottom lines, and their prices are fixed.It is about Canadians' well-being. If the carbon tax actually had a positive impact on the environment, then it would be worth looking at, but it does not. It has not, and it will not because it is a tax. It is only a tax, and it has no impact on improving the environment whatsoever.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Oil and gasReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056662805666380566648056665MarioSimardJonquièreHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague from Alberta spoke a lot about housing. Obviously, we hope that we could get through to the bill so that we could actually get some supports in place for people who are fighting for housing.However, my concern is around how he expects that Canadians could trust his leader on housing when, really, he has only come to this in the last two years, while New Democrats have been calling for more action on housing for over 30 years. We know that the party executives are lobbyists for oil, for pharma, for real estate and for non-unionizing companies. The Conservative leader has actually blamed municipalities and, in fact, has called Canadians' homes “shacks”.How could we trust the leader on housing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805666680566678056668GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerGlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—Warner//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/94305GlenMotzGlen-MotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MotzGlen_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Glen Motz: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I agree that the current leader of the government is not to be trusted. The Prime Minister is a sham, and he has achieved nothing but failures for our country.If we want to look at an act that would help Canadians with housing, then we need to look at the Conservative leader's and the Conservative Party's plan in the housing and not bureaucracy act, which would actually make a difference for Canadians and would get them into homes that are sustainable moving forward. Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566698056670HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. It is committed to continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger future for all Canadians.We all know the rising costs of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56. We know that for far too many Canadians, including young people, the dream of owning a home is becoming increasingly—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80566718056672GlenMotzMedicine Hat—Cardston—WarnerCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, my apologies to my colleague, but I believe that he was going to share his time with the member for Avalon.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8056675CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague.We know the rising cost of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country, and I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach, and paying rent is becoming more expensive across the country. The housing crisis is having an impact on our economy. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for business owners to attract the workers they need in order to grow their businesses and to succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means they spend less of their money in their communities for necessities like groceries.Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that begin construction after September 14 and on or before December 31, 2030. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in.The measure would also remove the restriction on the existing GST rules so that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, would be permitted to claim the GST new residential rental property rebate. The government is also calling on provinces to join it by matching its rebate for new rental housing. It is also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage apartments to be built near public transit.Launched in March, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, which is about 100,000 units in total, by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development to choose public transit. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing the housing supply. It also would support the development of complete, low-carbon, climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster, so we need to reduce the cost of housing for everyone.We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceCost of livingFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingHousing Accelerator FundRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056678805667980566808056681805668280566838056684CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I understand the rules indicate that if a member wants to split their time, they have to affirm that they would like to split their time. Is that not correct? Do they have to say it?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8056687CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1250)[English]Madam Speaker, I thought that when I thanked the member for his intervention, I confirmed that. However, for the record, yes, I do wish to split my time.We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and an extra up to $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew we needed to do more to address the rising cost of groceries.Through Bill C-56, the government is introducing the first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act to, one, provide the Competition Bureau with the powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; two, remove the efficiencies defence, which includes allowing anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices; and three, empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where large grocers prevent smaller grocers from establishing operations nearby.Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians: delivering automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefits, starting in July 2023; supporting up to 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,400 per child under the age of six and up to $6,200 per child aged six through 17; increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10% as of July 2022, which is providing more than $800 of additional support for pensioners; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, 2023, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier to build more of the homes Canadians need and want, to help them thrive. It would also help families with the growing cost of putting food on the table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us to provide a brighter future for Canadians. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family, and making life more affordable is a key part of that.I urge hon. members here today to conduct their review of this bill expeditiously and support its speedy passage so that we can conclude this important work.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceCost of livingFood and drinkFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial benefitsSplitting speaking timeSupermarketsThird reading and adoption805669080566918056692805669380566948056695CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1255)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as usual, the Liberal members are awfully pleased with themselves. They are bragging about their government's achievements.My colleague had a lot to say about housing. Unfortunately, the GST rebate in Bill C‑56 is not going to make much of a dent in the housing crisis in Quebec and Canada. It is a marginal measure, especially in Quebec.The government tabled its economic update two days ago. Unfortunately, many of the measures in it will not take effect until 2025 or 2026. Quebec has 10,000 homeless people. I have seen them in Longueuil, Saint‑Jérôme and Rimouski. There are people on riverbanks. This is going to be very hard.We asked the government to put an emergency fund in the economic update. Winter is coming, and it is going to be cold. We know that. It is going to be hard. I know people will die in Quebec, on those riverbanks, in small towns, all over the province. That is unacceptable.We asked for an emergency fund to help address the problem, but we got nothing. Most of the economic measures will not take effect until 2025 or 2026, but we need to build 150,000 housing units a year starting right now. If we do not build them this year, there will be a backlog, and they will have to be built sooner or later.When will the Liberal government get serious about this problem and come up with measures that will make a real difference? Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805669680566978056698805669980567008056701TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1255)[English]Madam Speaker, I would save that debate for when the fall economic statement comes forward. Today we are discussing Bill C-56.While I cannot speak to the impact of the GST, I can say that in my community of Newmarket—Aurora, there is one project that will provide us with 568 new units. These were ready to go, but the business model was not effective until the GST was implemented. In a community of 24,000 housing units, that number is quite significant, so we cannot take away from the fact that this is a progressive measure that will help many communities like Newmarket—Aurora.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567048056705CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1300)[English]Uqaqtittiji, this bill is particularly important for Nunavut because it addresses housing and affordability, two major issues in my riding. To give an example of current grocery prices, a one-litre bottle of orange juice is $17 and one case of bottled water is $28. Even programs like nutrition north are not working. I wonder if the member can share with us how this act would help to reduce grocery prices in places like my riding.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056706TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising the concerns of her riding. Frankly, my heart breaks to hear that this type of inequity is going on. Our government is committed very much to prioritizing relief for remote areas, and hopefully there will be further discussion on that when we get to the fall economic statement.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056707LoriIdloutNunavutTerryDowdallSimcoe—Grey//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105410TerryDowdallTerry-DowdallSimcoe—GreyConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DowdallTerry_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Terry Dowdall (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, in the member opposite's past life, like me, he was a mayor. I know he is familiar with the county of Simcoe, and I represent a portion of it. There is huge disappointment with the government among many of the politicians in the area, and there are two parts to that. One is certainly the bureaucracy and the timelines to build, but there are places in my area, such a New Tecumseth, Collingwood and Clearview, where there is no infrastructure money available. It takes time.Has he not heard before from his constituents about the dire need for housing and that perhaps it is the government that has been taking up the timelines? Houses have been built that will not have water until 2028, and people have purchased them. Would the member like to comment on those two parts, the bureaucracy and the fact that there are a lot of announcements about funding but it does not seem to hit any of the local municipalities?Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567088056709TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraTonyVan BynenNewmarket—Aurora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105270TonyVan BynenTony-VanBynenNewmarket—AuroraLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VanBynenTony_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Tony Van Bynen: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, it is important that we work closely with municipalities to move these projects forward. I heard a reference earlier today that the build homes, not bureaucracy legislation was going to move things along, but it reminds me of a phrase my father used to say, which is ironic: The beatings will continue until morale improves. The approach the opposition is providing when it comes to improving relationships and making municipalities more efficient is dead wrong.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056710TerryDowdallSimcoe—GreyKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Government Business No. 30 and the affordable housing and groceries act. It stands as a cornerstone of our commitment to building more homes faster and stabilizing prices.Regrettably, the urgency and significance of this bill have been overshadowed by the repeated filibustering and delay tactics employed by the Conservative opposition, resulting in over 20 hours of debate across five days. It is evident that despite garnering support from within its own ranks, including commitments made by the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon over a month ago to vote in favour of this bill, the Conservative opposition remains committed in its attempts to hinder the bill's progress.Bill C-56 is designed to address the challenges faced by Canadians, specifically in relation to the cost of groceries and the need for affordable housing—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805671180567128056713TonyVan BynenNewmarket—AuroraCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ken McDonald: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, regarding housing affordability, the ability to own a home or secure reasonable rental accommodations has become increasingly unattainable for many, especially for young people and newcomers. Bill C-56 proposes substantive enhancements to the goods and services tax, GST, rental rebate for newly constructed purpose-built rental housing. This initiative serves as a catalyst for fostering the development of rental properties encompassing apartments, student residences and homes for seniors. The proposed rebate system, offering significant tax relief, exemplifies our commitment to facilitating the creation of the much-needed housing inventory suitable for diverse family needs.We urge provinces and local governments to work in tandem with this bill on rebate initiatives and actively support housing developments situated in close proximity to public transit systems, enhancing accessibility and promoting sustainable communities.Concurrently, the government has taken concrete measures to mitigate the costs associated with groceries. The introduction of targeted inflation relief through the one-time grocery rebate in July represented a proactive step. Bill C-56 supplements these efforts by proposing legislative amendments to the Competition Act, augmenting the authority of the Competition Bureau to conduct comprehensive market studies. These amendments seek to eliminate the efficiencies defence for anti-competitive mergers and address collaborations that impede competition, specifically those disadvantaging smaller competitors in contrast to larger grocery entities.The significance of Bill C-56 extends beyond its immediate implications. It complements a suite of measures aimed at enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. Since the beginning, our government's commitment to delivering meaningful benefits to Canadians has remained unwavering. The 2023 fall economic statement, delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week, is a testament to our dedication toward creating an inclusive and thriving economy that supports the middle class while striving to build more homes faster.This year's fall economic statement serves as a blueprint to tackle the prevailing challenges of high prices and impending mortgage renewals. Our government stands resolute in taking targeted measures to stabilize prices, support Canadians with mortgages and enhance affordability. The comprehensive plan outlined in this statement introduces substantial funding for housing initiatives, cracking down on illegal short-term rentals and making significant advancements in making housing more affordable across Canada.Continuing our legacy of delivering tangible benefits to Canadians, the economic statement reinforces our commitment to supporting Canadians. The government has taken proactive steps by introducing measures aimed at making groceries more affordable, cracking down on junk fees and removing GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. These initiatives underscore our dedication to fostering an economy that offers equitable opportunities for all Canadians. Moreover, our economic plan is not merely in response to immediate challenges. It is also strategically positioned to propel Canada toward a cleaner and more sustainable future. Investments in Canada's clean economy, the introduction of the Canada growth fund and advancements in the indigenous loan guarantee program signify our unwavering commitment to fostering a robust economy that is sustainable and inclusive.The robustness of our economic plan is underscored by the federal government's unwavering commitment to making housing more affordable across Canada. Federal investments in housing have witnessed a substantial increase, surpassing previous benchmarks. This year, the federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared to the previous government. The comprehensive strategy outlined in our economic plan allocates billions in new loan funding to support the creation of more than 30,000 additional new homes and dedicates a substantial portion to affordable housing projects, all aimed at enhancing the accessibility and affordability of housing options for Canadians.(1305)Our government's responsible economic stewardship has yielded commendable results, reflected in the employment of over a million more Canadians compared to prepandemic levels. Canada's unemployment rate has remained consistently lower than in previous records, while inflation rates are on a downward trajectory. Moreover, our commitment to fiscal responsibility is reflected in maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 nations. In conclusion, Bill C-56 is a testament to our government's unwavering commitment to addressing the critical issues faced by Canadians today. It symbolizes our dedication to fostering an inclusive and prosperous Canada for all. As members of Parliament, it is our collective responsibility to prioritize the well-being of Canadians, ensuring equitable access to housing and essential goods. I would encourage all members to support the measures included in Bill C-56.I am thankful for the opportunity to advocate for the passage of this crucial legislation.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCost of livingCounselling servicesEconomic developmentEconomic recoveryGoods and services taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingMiddle classPsychology and psychologistsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingSupermarketsSustainable developmentThird reading and adoption80567178056718805671980567208056721805672280567238056724805672580567268056727CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCliffordSmallCoast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109867CliffordSmallClifford-SmallCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameConservative CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SmallClifford_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, the Liberal-NDP coalition's so-called free trade bill with Ukraine aims to quadruple the carbon tax on Ukrainians, as it is doing in Canada, and increase their suffering. While the coalition virtue signals about Conservatives' lack of support for this, it has failed in its promise to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to lobby Japan and South Korea to stop the importation of Russian crab. After it made this promise, exports of Russian seafood to South Asia in the last half of the year increased by 63%.The Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade and the Minister of Foreign Affairs promised the people of his riding, my riding and all the ridings in Newfoundland and Labrador to hammer those countries to stop supporting the Russian war effort and let Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen keep their homes and enterprises. How does the member for Avalon feel about this broken promise?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCrabsExportsFisheries and fishersGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567288056729KenMcDonaldAvalonKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ken McDonald: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I know the member opposite from Newfoundland fights hard for the fishery, which is very important to our province.I believe the Minister of International Trade is doing everything she can to make sure more markets are opened and established. It is no different than the bill we voted on this week, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. The Conservative Party hangs its hat on being the party in favour of trade, but all members stood and voted against it. They do not want trade with Ukraine for some reason. It is a bit rich that the member on the other side talks about what we are doing about trade initiatives across the world.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCrabsExportsFisheries and fishersGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567308056731CliffordSmallCoast of Bays—Central—Notre DameDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but once again it was little more than an infomercial for the Liberal government's action on housing. That is rather unfortunate, because the housing crisis is a major problem, and the further along we get in the debate, the more we see that the government is not facing the facts when it comes to this crisis. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we need to build 3.5 million housing units by 2030. That is a huge task. In a report published two weeks ago, the federal housing advocate even indicated that we need to build nine million housing units in Canada in the next 10 years. That is a huge task.In the economic statement, the government announced the construction of approximately 30,000 housing units in 2025-26. That is just the tip of the iceberg. Any housing needs that are not met now are just going to accumulate. The government is not going to get off that easy. In Quebec alone, 500,000 households are in dire need of housing.I look forward to hearing from a government that will stand up and say that we are on the verge of a serious humanitarian crisis in Quebec and Canada and that it is going to take strong action to deal with it. I look forward to hearing that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056732805673380567348056735KenMcDonaldAvalonKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ken McDonald: (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, nobody is going to build houses overnight. It takes time. I have spoken to developers in my area in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are anxious for this bill to get passed, so they can take advantage of the incentives to build affordable rental units and affordable housing for seniors, low-income families and the whole gamut.Will it be completed in a year or six months? No, it will not. This is a long-term initiative that we want to make sure gets rolled out the right way, gets done the right way and delivers the right results.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567368056737DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, the member talked about there being more funding this year than there was last year and how the current government and previous governments did not invest in housing. We know that housing is a human right. I very much appreciated the question today from my colleague from the Bloc, who talked about the urgency of this crisis. Why has it taken the government this long to get serious about investing in affordable housing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80567388056739KenMcDonaldAvalonKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ken McDonald: (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I cannot answer for why it took so long. I do not sit around the cabinet table for discussions on which policies come forward and which do not.However, I am delighted, and I know the people in my riding are delighted, that we are actually moving this envelope forward. We are going to make more houses and rental units available and have more people living in homes that they deserve. It should be a right, not an option, for people to have homes.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80567408056741BonitaZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon West.I rise today to address Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This debate is crucial, as it concerns not only the legislative process but also the fundamental issues of housing affordability and market competition that affect Canadians nationwide. This bill, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, demands our careful consideration and thorough analysis to ensure it meets the needs of the people we represent.In discussing Bill C-56, it is imperative to address the manner in which it is being ushered through the House, specifically through Motion No. 30. This motion, a procedural manoeuvre by the government, significantly limits the time allocated for thorough debate and consideration of this substantial piece of legislation. By limiting parliamentary discussion and expediting the bill’s passage, Motion No. 30 undermines the democratic process that is fundamental to our legislative system.Such a hastened approach is particularly concerning given the bill’s wide-ranging implications for housing affordability and market competition. These are complex issues that warrant detailed scrutiny and thoughtful debate, ensuring that every aspect of the bill is examined for its potential impact on Canadian society.The use of Motion No. 30, in this context, suggests a Liberal government preference for achieving catchy headlines on affordability instead of democratic thoroughness. Such a stance risks overlooking critical nuances and potential shortcomings of the bill. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a duty to ensure that legislation, such as Bill C-56, receives the comprehensive attention it deserves.Turning our focus to the housing affordability aspect of Bill C-56, it is essential to analyze its proposed measures and compare them with the initiatives outlined in our Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act. While Bill C-56 suggests removing the GST on new purpose-built rental housing, this approach is merely a fragment of what is needed to genuinely address Canada's housing crisis.Our Conservative vision, as set forth in the building homes not bureaucracy act, offers a more comprehensive and robust plan. It aims not only to reduce the financial burden on housing construction but also to tackle the systemic barriers that hinder the development of affordable housing. This includes removing the gatekeepers who delay the building of homes, as well as all the other red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that are adding to the housing crisis. These aspects are notably absent in the government’s current proposal.Our plan mandates significant yearly increases in housing construction, ensuring a steady growth in supply, and it proposes punitive measures for cities that fail to meet these targets. This strategy recognizes that the housing crisis is not just a matter of fiscal policy; rather, it also requires structural changes in the way housing projects are approved and developed.Moreover, our proposal goes beyond the mere construction of housing. It includes incentives for municipalities that exceed their housing targets, promoting not only the quality but also the quantity and expedience of housing developments. In contrast, that Bill C-56 has a singular focus on GST removal, but does not address the broader regulatory and procedural challenges, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complex nature of the housing crisis. Our approach also recognizes the importance of building communities, not just houses.By tying transit and infrastructure funding to the construction of high-density housing around transit stations, we ensure that new housing developments contribute to the creation of sustainable, well-connected urban environments. This is crucial for improving the overall quality of life for residents and fostering community development. While Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability, it falls short of offering a holistic solution.(1320) The Conservative Party's building homes not bureaucracy act, in contrast, presents a detailed, actionable plan that addresses the root causes of the housing crisis and proposes viable, long-term solutions. It is a plan that not only addresses the immediate need for more affordable housing but also lays the groundwork for sustainable urban development and community growth. In addressing the amendments to the Competition Act within Bill C-56, it is crucial to recognize their inadequacy in effectively tackling the real issues plaguing our market competition. The proposed measures, though seemingly progressive, fail to address the root causes of the problems they aim to solve.The government’s approach to amending the Competition Act, as stipulated in Bill C-56, primarily focuses on empowering the Competition Bureau with greater investigative powers and addressing collaborations that limit competition. However, this approach overlooks the broader, more systemic issues within our market structures. For instance, the highly concentrated nature of certain sectors, such as the grocery industry, remains unaddressed. This concentration is a critical factor contributing to the lack of competition and the resulting high prices that Canadian consumers are forced to endure. Moreover, the bill's omission of the efficiencies defence repeal is a significant shortcoming. The efficiencies defence, which allows certain anti-competitive mergers under specific conditions, has been a point of contention, undermining fair market competition and consumer interests. The Conservative Party has long advocated for the repeal of this defence, recognizing its role in facilitating monopolistic practices. By neglecting to address this defence, Bill C-56 misses an opportunity to make substantial, meaningful reforms to our competition laws.In addition, the amendments proposed in Bill C-56 lack clarity regarding the specific entities they cover and the concrete standards for service. This vagueness creates uncertainty about the legislation's effectiveness in tackling market challenges. Effective competition law reform requires precise, targeted measures that directly address the issues at hand. Generalized amendments, without clear direction or focus, risk being ineffective in bringing about the necessary change.While the amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-56 represent a step towards addressing market competition issues, they fall short of offering a comprehensive solution. The Conservative Party's stance on this matter is clear: We need more than just surface-level changes. We need a thorough overhaul of our competition laws, one that addresses the deep-rooted issues within our market systems and ensures a fair competition environment for all Canadians. It is important to emphasize that while Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability and market competition, it falls short of the comprehensive, proactive strategy that Canadians desperately need in these challenging times. As Conservatives, we are unwavering in our commitment to implement solutions that tackle the fundamental issues affecting our nation's housing supply and the integrity of our market systems. The Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act offers a road map for real, tangible change, in stark contrast to the limited scope of Bill C-56. Our approach is about addressing the root causes of these critical issues with a long-term perspective. We believe in creating legislation that not only meets the immediate needs of Canadians but also sets the stage for sustainable growth and prosperity for future generations. Conservatives call upon the government to look beyond short-term fixes and consider more holistic, impactful measures. It is time to move away from reactive legislation and towards forward-thinking policies that genuinely reflect the challenges of Canadians. We must acknowledge these challenges and address them rather than pursuing this legislation. Building and construction industryBureaucracyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsCompetitionConsumer priceGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingParliamentary democracyPublic transitRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeSupermarketsThird reading and adoptionUrban community development8056742805674380567448056745805674680567478056748805674980567508056751805675280567538056754805675580567568056757805675880567598056760KenMcDonaldAvalonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, the member made reference to more of a holistic approach in dealing with the issue of housing, and I will use that as an example. I have said in the past that no government in the history of Canada, at least not in the last 50 to 60 years, has actually invested more in housing than the current government has. We can talk about the national housing strategy of billions of dollars, as well as a litany of different types of programs to encourage the development of housing and working with provinces. We can go to the fall economic statement, where we are seeing an expansion being proposed under the housing co-ops for alternative forms of housing. Would the member not recognize that this legislation is just one aspect of that? Does he not support the holistic approach that the government is actually proposing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805676180567628056763GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member's talking about the failures of the government. He is correct. It has spent the most amount of money on housing to get the least number of returns, so good on you that the Liberal government is doing such a horrible job and admitting it to the House. Thank you very much for that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056764KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1325)[Translation]Madam Speaker, there was one part of my colleague's speech that I really liked. When he talked about the housing crisis, he said it is a complex issue. He is right.At some point, the government is going to need to wake up and face the facts. Those 3.5 million housing units will require hundreds of billions of dollars in investments. I am not even convinced we are going to get there.However, there is one issue the government could work on, and that is the financialization of housing. That is a significant issue. We are talking about the fact that a growing share of rental housing is being bought up by large private investors, often international ones. It is estimated that, in Montreal, less than 1% of owners own 32% of the rental housing stock. They could not care less about the right to housing. All they want to do is make money. They buy buildings with 60, 80 or 100 units. They demolish or renovate them. They renovate and double the price of the units. They have a major impact on the rise in housing prices. We absolutely have to tackle this issue.Could my colleague suggest some measures today to deal with this?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056767805676880567698056770CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I think that is what we have always talked about, which is making sure we have affordable housing. There is a big difference between having housing at a high price and having actually affordable housing.The majority of Canadians do not have six-figure salaries. There are way too many Canadians who have lower incomes, and we need to do exactly what the member is recommending: build affordable housing for all Canadians. That is something that the Conservative plan would definitely address.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567718056772DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1325)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the member was talking about prosperity. In my region, retail grocery stores outside my riding are allowed to prosper by being subsidized by the nutrition north program. I think that the bill before us is particularly important so we could ensure that nutrition north becomes a social program that would change that system so it is not subsidizing for-profit grocery stores, so my constituents can also prosper.Does the member agree that the nutrition north program needs to tax the rich grocery stores better and become a social program so my constituents can also prosper?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567738056774GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1325)[English]Madam Speaker, I really do not think we need more social programs. What I really think we need to start doing, especially for the north, is to start a program where people can grow their own food in the north through greenhouses, making sure they can produce top-quality food and do it on their own terms, with the kinds of food they want to produce, not being brought in from different levels of government or different corporations.That is what we need to start looking at: more self-sufficiency in the north as opposed to reliance on government.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Northern CanadaNutrition North Canada programReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80567758056776LoriIdloutNunavutBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker:Tuesday is a day where if you thought there was something wrong in this country you would have more evidence you are right. If you sense the system and those in charge, the high-and-mighties thought to be smarter than the rest of us, have let us down big-time and without apology, you would be right again.If you feel a general sense of unease, dissatisfaction, your gut telling you there should be a shake-up you would be far from alone.I just quoted a passage from Rick Bell's column in the Edmonton Sun newspaper yesterday. Mr. Bell was commenting on Tuesday's fall economic statement by the finance minister, a speech she delivered that ties directly into the legislation we are discussing today, Bill C-56. I want my friends in Saskatoon West to hear what else Mr. Bell had to say:Sunny ways have turned into darkening storm clouds....If this was supposed to be a Hail Mary pass in the direction of [the Prime Minister's] political redemption, the pass was incomplete, under-thrown, hopelessly off-target.The high cost of living. Groceries, mortgages, rents, the price of so many things. Up. Federal government spending. Up.The ever-increasing carbon tax. Up.It is true. After eight years of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians are facing the worst affordability crisis in decades. Spending on the bureaucracy in Ottawa is out of control. The money supply has been severely increased to the detriment of consumers and wage earners. The Bank of Canada is strangling our economy with massive interest rate hikes. The NDP-Liberals keep turning the screws on Canadians with every increase of the carbon tax and with the introduction of a second carbon tax. This has led to massive inflation and grocery bills that families cannot afford. The fact is that everybody is spending more money. The uber-rich are the only ones who will be able to afford a house in the future. This needs to change.The NDP-Liberals tell us not to worry, that they have legislation, Bill C-56 which we are supposedly debating today. I say “supposedly” because what we are actually debating today in the chamber is not Bill C-56 but an NDP-Liberal programming motion. I think it is important that the folks in Saskatoon watching this understand that while I want to be debating the legislation on its merits, the NDP-Liberal government is actually forcing us to debate what we colloquially refer to as a programming motion.Motion No. 30 is almost 900 words long, and it would take me half of my time here to recite the whole thing, but here are the highlights. First, it would limit the amount of debate MPs are allowed on Bill C-56. Second, it would limit the amount of time the finance committee has to hear from witnesses on the legislation. Third, it would limit the amount of time and the capacity to make and then debate amendments to clauses in the legislation. Fourth, it would instruct the committee to accept amendments beyond the scope of the bill, which, under our regular procedures, would be out of order. Fifth, it would limit the amount of time for debate of Bill C-56 for report stage amendments and third reading to one day when it returns to the House.This may sound complicated, but it is not. Each of these would override long-standing rules or procedures of the chamber that guarantee the rights of members of Parliament to represent their electors and to speak to legislation. In what is supposed to be, by design, a lengthy process of debate and a cautious and thoughtful examination by MPs, this motion would cut the committee process down to three days, and the remaining time in the House, between second and third reading, to a day and a half.I know that defenders of the NDP-Liberals in the mainstream media will scream from the rooftops that we are approaching Christmas and that Bill C-56 was introduced in September, so Conservatives should just let it roll through. Is it really the job of Conservative MPs to roll over for a government that has so badly mismanaged its work calendar that it is in a panic to take its Christmas holidays? Does the average Canadian get the ability to ram their work through without any scrutiny just because Christmas is approaching, or does it wait there until they come back after their two or three days off?Of course the Prime Minister does not know how regular people live. The National Post reported earlier this week that since he became Prime Minister in 2015, he has taken one-quarter of his days off. Would it not be nice if every Canadian could get one-quarter of their days off? That is the ridiculous nature of the programming motion. The NDP-Liberals are so inefficient and hopeless at getting anything done in the House that when faced with the upcoming Christmas break, they panic and go to extreme measures to get anything done.Let me get into the legislation. Would the legislation work? Would it actually solve anything? The stated purpose of the legislation is to eliminate GST on rental builds and make changes to the competition laws that govern retail stores like grocers. It is meant to be a solution for Canadians who are stretched to their limits, but does it actually solve these problems? The answer is no. That is not my answer; that is the answer the Minister of Finance stated in her own fall fiscal update just two days ago in the chamber. She said, “The apartments that renters need are not getting built fast enough, in part because the builders who would like to build more currently don’t have access to enough of the financing needed to make rental projects financially viable.”(1335)Whose fault is it that builders do not have access to the capital and the financing they need? It is the current government that has put in place economic conditions so dire that the Bank of Canada has increased interest rates to their highest level in 40 years. The central bank, in direct response to government actions, is cutting off the lifeblood of our economy: the ability to borrow and finance the building and buying of new homes.John Ivison, in the National Post, succinctly put it this way: “[The finance minister]'s fall economic statement was bulging with statements that, if not outright whoppers, were certainly distortions....Growth is expected to be muted....Unemployment is forecast to rise to 6.5 per cent by the middle of next year, from 5.7 per cent now.” Conservatives agree with these damning indictments of the government’s economic policy, the fall economic statement and its failure to get housing built. It is a pattern of failure that the costly coalition repeats over and over again. The costly coalition claims that the legislation is the solution that Canadians are looking for.Do members remember this time last year? The NDP-Liberals were singing the praises of their one-time GST rebate, which nobody even remembers now. Then, earlier this spring, the Liberals cooked up another scheme with the NDP, a one-time rent rebate for low-income wage earners that nobody remembers now. Now, they think this latest idea will take a bite out of inflation. Did they not say that of their toothless dental program last year? It was another failure, because all of these ideas are temporary and do not get to the root of the problem. Instead, the Liberals are always scheming to stay in power, never delivering tangible, real results for Canadians. It has been failure after failure.Why is there this overwhelming record of failure? It is because with the current government, the underlying economic landscape is set to fail. It is no wonder. We only need to look back at what the finance minister passed off a couple days ago as an update to the government’s budgetary policy, the costly coalition’s fall economic plan. With $20 billion of costly new spending, the mini-budget can be summed up very simply: prices up, rent up, debt up and taxes up. Time is up.The finance minister announced more than $20 billion in new inflationary spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that proposes to increase taxes on the backs of middle-class people. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that will spend more money on servicing the debt than on health care. The signature policy in this mini-budget was to pour $15 billion into a fund to build barely 1,500 homes a year, while we need 5.8 million new homes built by 2030.Do members remember when the finance minister told Canadians that the budget would be balanced by the year 2028? Since then, the costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals has announced $100 billion dollars of additional debt. After eight years, it is clearer than ever that the costly coalition is not worth the cost, and this mini-budget does nothing to help everyday Canadians. The only way to undo the damage the Liberals have done is by reversing course and doing the opposite. The common-sense Conservative plan would axe the tax, balance the budget, and build homes and not bureaucracy to bring home lower prices for Canadians.Despite warnings from the Bank of Canada and the Canadian financial sector that government spending is contributing to Canada’s high inflation, the Prime Minister ignored their calls for moderation and yet again decided to spend on the backs of Canadians, keeping inflation and interest rates high. These interest rates risk a mortgage meltdown on the $900 billion of mortgages that will renew in the next three years. High inflation means the government is getting richer while Canadians are getting poorer.Under the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, here are the facts. There are a record two million food bank visits in a single month. Housing costs have doubled, and mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the Liberals took power. Canadians renewing their mortgages at today's rates will see an increase from 2% to 6% or even higher. The International Monetary Fund warns that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year. Tent cities exist in every major city, including in Fairhaven in my community of Saskatoon. Violent crime is up 39%, and drugs are everywhere. Instead of listening to common-sense Conservative proposals to reverse the damage, the NDP-Liberal government has introduced more half measures and photo-op funds that will do nothing to solve the problems that Canadians have. It is time for common sense to return to the Canadian government's decision-making process. It is time for Canadians to say to this costly coalition that enough is enough. It is time for a Conservative government. Let us bring it home.BankruptcyBudgetary policyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCost of livingCrime and criminalityEconomic conditionsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresGovernment performanceGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHomelessness and homelessHousingInflationInterest ratesMortgagesPolitical alliancesRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056777805677880567798056780805678180567828056783805678480567858056786805678780567888056789805679080567918056792805679380567948056795805679680567978056798805679980568008056801GeraldSorokaYellowheadKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, it is interesting when Conservative members talk about the government not allocating enough time. It was not that long ago when the Conservatives were trying to adjourn the House and filibuster debate. In fact, they bring in concurrence motions. I said during the debate on one concurrence motion that the Conservatives liked to waste time, that they were filibustering, preventing debate from occurring. I also said that there would be a time in the future when they would stand and criticize the government for bringing in time allocation. If we do not bring in time allocation, we can never get anything passed. This is what the member just demonstrated at beginning of his speech. He is criticizing the government because the government is not allotting enough time for debate, yet the Conservative Party continues to filibuster and be a very destructive force on the floor of the chamber. I suspect it has a lot to do with the extreme right of the Conservative Party today to try to be disruptive in the chamber.Maybe the member can explain why the Conservatives continue to do things like adjourn debates and bring in concurrence motions to prevent debate from occurring in the chamber.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFilibusterGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805680280568038056804BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, the one member in the House who has spoken more than anybody, and I guess we could call that filibustering, is the member who just spoke. He loves to speak all the time. The Conservatives have a job to do in the House. Our job is to defend the Canadians who we represent. Our job is to prevent foolish policies from being implemented by the government. We do our jobs. I am sorry to say that the member is admitting, I guess, that he is not very good at his job, being the secretary to the House leader, and that we can do a better job of it. Our job here is to hold the government to account and to do everything we can to ensure good laws and good legislation are passed by the House.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFilibusterGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805680580568068056807KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1340)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am always happy to talk about housing.Earlier, I asked my Conservative colleague a question about the financialization of housing and the growing number of large investment funds buying up housing in Canada. This is a huge problem. We know that, for every affordable housing unit built in Canada, we lose 10 to the private market because those units are being bought up by big investors.The Bloc Québécois wanted the economic update to include an acquisition fund to take affordable housing off the private market and keep it affordable for the long term. That is what non-profit housing organizations across Canada want, too. The goal would be to shelter the $600, $800 and $850 units that are still on the market. The government could buy them and take them off the market. Everyone agrees that this would be a solution.Does my colleague agree?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056808805680980568108056811BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I am very hesitant to say that the solution to the housing problem is to get the government more involved, to have it owning and producing houses. The current government especially has proven it is unable to get that done. I was a home builder before I became a member of Parliament. I probably built more houses than the government has ever built.The fact is that we cannot rely on governments, especially the NDP-Liberal government, to have any hope of building more houses. We have to engage all different parties. The more the government gets out of the way, the better it will be for our future in housing and the economy in general.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80568128056813DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertTedFalkProvencher//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/84672TedFalkTed-FalkProvencherConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FalkTed_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be discussing the Competition Act this morning, but we are discussing the delay tactics of the Liberals. Some have said that the reason we have high grocery prices is the lack of competition in the grocery industry. Could the member think of any other reasons why there are high grocery prices?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSupermarketsThird reading and adoption80568148056815BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestBradRedekoppSaskatoon West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105598BradRedekoppBrad-RedekoppSaskatoon WestConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/RedekoppBrad_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Brad Redekopp: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians are certainly suffering from high prices. At the root cause of almost everything is the carbon tax. The carbon tax adds costs, first of all, to the growers who grow and produce food. Then the tax is added to the companies that truck the food to the places that process the food. Then there is the grocers who pay carbon tax on their facilities and everything else. There is carbon tax throughout the system. We are not talking a little, we are talking tens of thousands, and, in some cases, hundreds of thousands, of dollars for a farmer, for example. Those costs have to go somewhere and they do not get those costs back. Those costs end up in the price of food Canadians need to buy every day, and it is one of the big drivers in why things are getting more expensive, whether we are talking about bread, meat or whatever it might be. For that reason, two million people a month are going to food banks. People I have talked to tell me they cannot afford to buy meat anymore and are feeding their children cereal. This has to stop. We have to get rid of this terrible, destructive carbon tax.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSupermarketsThird reading and adoption8056816805681780568188056819TedFalkProvencherStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): (1345)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Calgary Midnapore. I will be splitting my time with a fellow Albertan, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.I am going to tell members something that they know, that their constituents know, that my constituents know and that all of Canada knows. Without question, Canada is in an economic crisis. We see record inflation rates. We have certainly seen this across all consumers products, most specifically food where we saw a 40% hike across Canada. All families need to put food on their tables. As well, the cost of clothing, home heating, all these things have increased.We have seen horrific interest rates as a result of the government's out-of-control spending. Every single opportunity it has, it throws more fuel on the inflationary fire, as we saw this week with the fall economic statement. People who are currently trying to renew their mortgage, as was brilliantly pointed out by my leader, the member for Carleton, are now in a crisis as they attempt to get the best rate possible, as they attempt to hold onto their homes since mortgage rates have doubled, as have rental rates.We are in a housing crisis. The government has a failed housing accelerator plan, which I believe built, at the last count, 15 homes in the last fiscal year. It is an absolutely shameful number. What did the Liberals do? They brought forward this bill, Bill C-56. We have hope when we hear there is a fiscal bill on the horizon. We hope that somehow the Liberals will get the message, that they will do something sweeping for Canadians, something that will move the dial, that will make even a small change in the lives of Canadians.What did the Liberals do in the bill? They put forward two measures. We have inflation, interest and a housing crisis, and they put forward a bill with two small measures. The theme here is the same as it always is. The government could be doing so much more to help Canadians, but it consistently does the minimum. It consistently makes the choices that harm Canadians. This bill is another example of that, where it did the tiniest thing possible in the face of the economic crisis across the country.I am sure members are aware that the most recent deficit this year was at $46.5 billion. The President of the Treasury Board and the finance minister were off by over $6 billion. Certainly, $6 billion is an absolutely incredible amount, but this shows the lack of respect they have for Canadian taxpayer money. Canadians work hard to bring home this money and the government cannot even get it right in a single year.In fact, the deficit will be going up an average of $4 billion a year through fiscal year 2028-29. To put this into context, that is the year my son, who is now 12, will graduate from high school. He can only hope for the possibility that the government might balance the budget and get out of deficit by 2028. As we have seen, the government is incapable of that by putting forward Bill C-56 with two small measures.Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was at the government operations committee, and will be returning today to discuss the supplementary estimates. I am sure he will give us a lot of good information. Last time he came to the government operations committee, he did not have very positive things to say about the government and its fiscal management in this time of an economic crisis. I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer if the government reduced spending, would it have to rely less on nominal GDP, which is another area that is suffering, the productivity of Canada. In addition to having a spending problem, the government has a productivity problem. As my leader said, Canadians just want to get to work. His answer was yes, if I was asking if the government spent less could it reduce taxation.(1350) It is not surprising as we see the government's obsession with taxation, including the carbon tax, which has now quadrupled. It will go to any extent in an effort to support this carbon tax. We heard the Minister of Rural Economic Development admit that if other Canadians had just supported the governing party, they too might get this carve-out, the exemption from the carbon tax. This is the way the government operates. It cannot manage its finances and it cannot increase productivity for Canadians. There is this level of corruption, as is evidenced by the comment from the Minister of Rural Economic Development. The government could be doing so much more.On August 15, the President of the Treasury Board, my counterpart, said that she would find $15 billion, which is a tiny drop in the bucket, by October 2. As we have seen, $15 billion is not even a quarter of the current deficit. October 2 came and went, and what was announced? Nothing. There was one thing. One billion dollars was removed from our defence budget, at a time when we have significant instability in the world, with the war in Ukraine, with what we see currently in the Middle East and with Taiwan continuously under threat from its aggressor, China. Even she was not able to keep her promise of finding $15 billion by her imposed date of October 2. If the deficit is going up an average of $4 billion a year, that does not even negate the increase in the deficit. As I said, the President of the Treasury Board did not even meet her own target. Again, the government, with Bill C-56, had the opportunity to do something significant for Canadians and chose not to. It could be doing so much more.We will have the Parliamentary Budget Officer at the government operations committee today. The government is seeking approval for another $20.7 billion of spending in the supplementary estimates, which is more than a significant amount. It is a horrific amount. What has the government spent a huge sum of money on? Not surprisingly, and unfortunately, it was on consultants and consulting services. My Conservative colleagues and I tried to raise the alarm last year about McKinsey, not only with respect to the amount being spent on consultants but how the Liberals did not take their instructions from their constituents, as we do on this side of the House, but from their Liberal insider friends. The spending on professional and special services continues to increase and will be a record $21.6 billion in this fiscal year, in addition to the significant deficit I mentioned. Again, it will probably only increase based upon the spending request in the supplementary estimates.We have seen a failure with the Liberal-NDP government over the last eight years and a failure with the supplementary estimates. Then, when we are looking for hope in the fall economic statement, it is not there. It is more disappointment, as we see another $20 billion worth of fuel poured on the inflationary fire. We have seen this time and again. The government has a spending problem. It has a productivity growth problem. It has no leadership in Canada or in the world. The government could be doing so much more with Bill C-56, but it again chose to do nothing.Budget deficitBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCost of livingGovernanceGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresHousingInflationInterest ratesProductivityReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption805682080568218056822805682380568248056825805682680568278056828805682980568308056831805683280568338056834BradRedekoppSaskatoon WestKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, speaking of problems, the Conservative Party has a problem with the truth. People who listened to what the member was saying would wonder what the heck she was talking about, because that was about the fall economic statement from yesterday. Today's legislation is substantial legislation that would support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is substantial and would ensure that they would see thousands and thousands and thousands of new purpose-built rental homes constructed. It would ensure a fairer sense of competition by ensuring there would be more choice in the future. These are the types of substantive measures the Government of Canada is taking in order to support Canadians, and yet we get the Conservative Party, in that reckless fashion, going all over the place, listening to the far right and not listening to what Canadians have to say.When is the Conservative Party, and particularly the leadership of the Conservative Party, going to get out of the right wing and start listening to what Canadians are saying coast to coast to coast? Let us get behind and support this legislation. Will the member vote for the legislation, yes or no?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056835805683680568378056838StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, what I really do not appreciate in this House is being lumped into a group. This is absolutely an effort to scapegoat and divert from the Liberals' horrific record in every single area of society and in every single area of the economy. I do not appreciate that at all.We are here today talking about these two little pieces which are supposed to help housing. We know that the housing accelerator fund has been a complete failure. As my leader said yesterday, one year, okay, we will give them that, maybe two years and maybe even three years. However, it has been eight years and housing is a failure. These two little pieces would not help Canadians. Again, I do not appreciate their diverting with name-calling at a time when Canadians are facing the greatest economic crisis we have had in decades.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805683980568408056841KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for doing the important work in the House of sharing opinions. I read a report from Oxfam the other day, which said that the top 1% earners across the planet are sending out as much emissions as the lowest 66%. Obviously, if we do not have things in place to support people, we see that they are really not getting the benefit. I really appreciate this bill, because it talks about getting resources to people who desperately need them right now. It does not go as far as I would go. I have a lot of other ideas that I would love to see. We have mentioned them in the House. I wonder if the member could talk about why a windfall tax is so important. We know there are businesses that are making a huge amount of profit while so many are suffering.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionWindfall profits tax8056842805684380568448056845StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, there is an important point here. We both agree that the government has failed on the environment. Everyone in this House knows the government has not met a single target to which it ascribed. However, on our side of the House, we believe that we can have a plan for the environment as well as have industry functioning. We can fire on all cylinders. As I said, the Liberals failed on spending as well as on productivity in Canada; whereas, the member, unfortunately, given her hand-in-hand work with her coalition partner, the Liberal government, believes that we need more taxation. That is just not our position on this side of the House.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionWindfall profits tax80568468056847RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverMarilynGladuSarnia—Lambton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88938MarilynGladuMarilyn-GladuSarnia—LambtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GladuMarilyn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMs. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about housing and she mentioned the accelerator fund. I wonder if she is aware that the fund has been closed since August 18 of this year, so there is no further money coming forward and no further money announced until 2025-26.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingHousing Accelerator FundReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8056848StephanieKusieCalgary MidnaporeStephanieKusieCalgary Midnapore//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96367StephanieKusieStephanie-KusieCalgary MidnaporeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KusieStephanie_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersConsideration of Government Business No. 30InterventionMrs. Stephanie Kusie: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, this is what we have seen time and time again. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton knows this well, since she is the only member of Parliament to have gotten two private members' bills through the House to royal assent. One of them was the palliative care bill. My point is that she and I and everyone in this House see bill after bill with structures, ideas and ideologies, but they never deliver any results. They never put any meat on the bones. I am sick of it. We are sick of it. Canadians are sick of it.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingHousing Accelerator FundReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80568498056850MarilynGladuSarnia—LambtonElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1530)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56, the Liberals' so-called affordable housing and groceries bill. I say “so-called” because nothing in the bill would make housing affordable or reduce grocery prices.After eight long years of the Liberals, Canadians are facing an unprecedented affordability crisis. Let us look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberals, housing costs have doubled; rent has doubled and mortgage payments have more than doubled, up 150% compared to eight years ago. After eight years of the Liberals, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation. Meanwhile, interest rates are rising at the fastest rate in Canadian history and have reached a 22-year high. Interest rates are projected to be hiked even further. When it comes to essentials like groceries, prices have gone up a staggering 70%, resulting in nearly two million Canadians a month going to the food bank. What Canadians are facing after eight years of the Liberals is a dire situation in which Canadians are struggling to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head.This begs the question “Why is it that Canada faces an affordability crisis?” There is one person who bears primary responsibility, and that is the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created an affordability crisis as a result of eight years of reckless spending. This is the Prime Minister who, in eight years, has run up the largest deficits and has managed to double the national debt. So reckless and so out of control is the spending on the part of the Prime Minister that he has managed to do the seemingly impossible: rack up more debt in eight years than all of his predecessors over the previous 150 years combined. This is the Prime Minister who thought it was a good idea to pay for his out-of-control reckless spending by printing, through the Bank of Canada, $600 billion. As a result, the money supply has increased eight times faster than economic growth. Is it any wonder that, in the face of that, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation and interest rates rising faster than ever before?That is the record of the Liberals after eight years. That is what they have to show. They have manufactured a cost of living crisis, and everyday Canadians are hurting. In the face of that, what have the Liberals done and what are they doing to address the issue of affordability, the mess they have created? Earlier this week, Canadians got the answer, and that is based upon the finance minister's presenting the government's fall economic statement. What did we get from the finance minister? We got $20 billion in new deficit spending on top of the more than $100 billion of deficit spending that the finance minister has racked up in the three years that she has held the portfolio. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending that pours fuel on the inflationary fire and is sure to keep interest rates high. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding the fact that even the Bank of Canada is calling on the Liberals to rein in their spending, and has made clear to the Liberal government that its reckless spending and money printing are contributing to inflation.(1535)There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding Scotiabank's issuing a report recently that confirmed that a full 2% of interest rates is directly attributable to the government's inflationary spending. Canadians have been hit, after eight years of the Liberals, with a double whammy: high inflation and high interest rates. They are now also being hit with a third whammy by way of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax. It is a tax that the Liberals falsely sold as a means to reduce GHGs, but we know, after eight years of the Liberals, that GHGs have gone up and not down. I would remind Liberals across the way, who talk so much about climate action, that the COP27 rankings ranked Canada, after eight years of the Liberals, at 58 out of 63 countries.However, I digress. The carbon tax is nothing more than another tax, but I qualify that because it is not quite that. It is, after all, a tax that disproportionately impacts lower- and middle-income Canadians. It is a tax that increases the cost of everything, including essentials such as food, fuel and heating. It is a tax that, according to both the Bank of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is exacerbating inflation. Despite that and despite the fact that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, with nearly half of Canadians $200 away from insolvency, the Liberal government's plan is to quadruple its punitive carbon tax for hard-working, everyday Canadians.I say to the Liberals across the way that I would be keenly interested to see whether one of them can stand up in their place and explain to Canadians how the policies of the government, namely money printing, massive deficits and the quadrupling of the carbon tax, all of which are exacerbating inflation and increasing interest rates, are a policy prescription that is going to make life more affordable for Canadians. Very simply, those policies are making life less affordable. Canadians are paying a very dear price after eight years of the costly policies of the Liberal Prime Minister.After eight long years of the Liberals, costs are up. Rent is up, taxes are up and debt is up. The government's time is up.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon pricingCarbon taxClimate change and global warmingCost of livingEconomic conditionsFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresInflationInterest ratesMonetary policyMortgagesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80571998057200805720180572028057203805720480572058057206KarinaGouldHon.BurlingtonKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1535)[English]Madam Speaker, the legislation the member is debating is very substantial. I know he wanted to talk a lot about the fall economic statement, but the legislation is good legislation that would support Canadians in many different ways, especially when it comes to the issue of giving more authority and power to the Competition Bureau. It would also provide literally thousands of new homes into the future.People are concerned about the reckless behaviour of the Conservative Party today. We listen to some speeches in which the Conservatives seem to be in support of the legislation. In other speeches, they seem to be against the legislation. Look what happened with the Ukraine legislation. At the end of the day, every one of them voted against Ukraine. That is fine; it was their prerogative, and hopefully some of them will make a flip-flop and support the Ukraine-Canada trade deal going forward. I will not hold my breath.What is the Conservative Party collectively going to do with the legislation before us? Does it support it or not?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805720780572088057209MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. parliamentary secretary referred to changes that are being made to the Competition Act, because the amendments put forward in the bill pertaining to the Competition Act are copied and pasted from the private member's bill introduced by the member for Bay of Quinte. Very simply, it would remove the efficiencies defence with respect to mergers. That could, in the long term, have an impact, an increase in competition in the groceries sector, and therefore have some long-term impact upon prices, but Canadians cannot wait for five years or seven years down the road. They need relief today, and all the government has offered them is the quadrupling of the carbon tax.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057210KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, it is good to stand in the House today to talk about a very important bill. It is the idea that we are going to get some purpose-built rental housing built. To the member's point, it is not going to be as fast as we need, and that is why we need other measures outside of this bill. However, on this bill, there are people in my community waiting for purpose-built rentals, so I would like to see this go through, but I would like to see more than what is in this bill.Can the member share some of the solutions they have? I believe that the Conservatives can support this bill and improve it. Let us see what they have.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80572118057212MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, with respect to the GST measure on rental housing, that is something the Liberals promised six years ago and are only now acting on it. It was provided for by the bill put forward by the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, the building homes not bureaucracy act. That bill is a common-sense piece of legislation aimed at getting gatekeepers out of the way by tying infrastructure dollars to the number of homes actually built.The Liberal government has thrown around billions of dollars, yet there were fewer houses built in the past year than were built in 1972 when Canada's population was half of what it is today. The record of the Liberals is to build up bureaucracy and not houses. The plan of the Leader of the Opposition is to get homes built for Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80572138057214BonitaZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamMikeMorriceKitchener Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110476MikeMorriceMike-MorriceKitchener CentreGreen Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorriceMike_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP): (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton spent a lot of his time talking about the quadrupling of the carbon tax, but absent from the conversation was the quadrupling of the rebates that go with it. I mention this because we all get emails in our inboxes from constituents who have been misled by those kinds of statements. Can the member make clear whether he believes that rebates also go back to Canadians?Secondly, can he speak to any concern he might have with the fact that the carbon tax went up 2¢ a litre last year, and the profits of the oil and gas industry went up 18¢ a litre as it gouged Canadians at the pumps. That is what is truly driving affordability. Does he care about that at all?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxFuel tax rebateGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80572158057216MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Michael Cooper: (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, with respect, the member should get his facts straight. A good place to start would be to review the report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It established that more than 60% of Canadians lose out with the carbon tax. In other words, they pay more than they get back from the rebate.What needs to happen, and what Canadians are asking for, is that we axe the tax, and that is something Conservatives are going to do to keep—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxFuel tax rebateGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80572178057218MikeMorriceKitchener CentreAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1540)[English]Madam Speaker, I will first say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.I am honoured to speak to this programming motion, Government Business No. 30, and its amendment today. Before I start, I would like to pay tribute to a great constituent by the name of Dot Thompson, the spouse of the late member of Parliament Myron Thompson, whose funeral I attended this past weekend. The two were inseparable and always had the community of Sundre in their hearts. Myron was an unforgettable MP who served on town council, was the high school principal and, through his athletic prowess, taught many youth how to play ball. Sundre was lucky to get him as his New York Yankees professional ball career was put on hold as he played backup to Hall of Famer Yogi Berra.I am sure that Myron Thompson would have seen many pieces of legislation over his time with bills like Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as well as motions that would have found their way to the floor of Centre Block for discussion. During his 1993 to 2005 era, there were many “suggestions” that the official opposition had lifted by the Chrétien and Martin Liberals in order to minimize the economic damage that had occurred from the era of stagflation caused by Trudeau, the elder. Sadly, that Liberal government chose to drastically cut the transfers of health funding to provinces, which has haunted our provincial health care services for decades. Handcuffing the provinces was an easy fix to change the federal government's bottom line, but downloading the costs onto other levels of government simply took the heat off the feds and pushed it onto the provinces and their local authorities. I am well aware of how federal neglect and financial shell games work because I was a hospital board chairman during those dark days. The federal Liberals of the 1990s artfully joined with the Friends of Medicare to back provinces into a corner when they were forced to rationalize services. There is no better example than the daily attacks on former premier Ralph Klein when he was faced with the economic reality of federal cuts to health transfers. The effects of that federal action are still evident, but, thankfully, no government has returned to the era of cuts to health care transfers since the Chrétien era.The reason that I give this historical reference is that there are different paths governments can follow when trying to work their way through, or out of, a crisis. They can download the problems onto other levels of government; they can analyze policies of other parties in the House and, as is usually the case, claim them as their own; or they can at least acknowledge that the official opposition takes its responsibilities to Canadians seriously and that by usurping the learned advice, the government is ignoring the views of a large number of Canadians. I will get to some of the specifics in the legislation in a minute, but, as many have stated, it is the heavy-handedness of the government and its inability and unwillingness to work with other partners, unless they are willing to rubber-stamp initiatives in exchange for propping up a minority government, that are at issue here. What we are seized with today is the government's programming motion, Government Business No. 30. Programming motions have the effect of not only limiting debate in the House, which to many is an affront to democracy in itself, but also dictating instructions to the committee as to how it will deal with this legislation once it gets to committee. Issues related to Government Business No. 30 have to do with the expanded scope that the committee must consider. I will read from Government Business No. 30, which says:(c) if the bill has been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, (i) it be an instruction to the committee, that during its consideration of the bill, it be granted the power to expand its scope to,(A) increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse...,(B) allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries...,(C) revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct....If those points were important, perhaps they could have been in the bill in the first place.(1545)Also, we will then start with a marathon sitting of two days, after the motion's adoption, to gather witness testimony, with amendments to be submitted within 12 hours at the end of the marathon sitting. Then, at the next meeting, once that time is up, no further debate or amendments will be entertained. Finally, after a few other points, we will have closure after the bill is reported, which will once again be guaranteed.The Conservative amendment tries to infuse some credibility by at least ensuring that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities will be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each. At least some level of accountability will be salvaged if this amendment is adopted.By forcing Motion No. 30 to the committees through the House process, the Liberals avoid the other option, which is to force a programming motion through the committee. They always say that committees are masters of their own fate, which is true, until, as we see with Motion No. 30, it is not. Programming motions are usually enacted when the government knows it has messed things up royally.Our responsibility as legislators is manyfold. First, we must thoroughly analyze legislation to minimize potential unintended consequences. As a country that boasts six time zones, the need to have regional voices heard is paramount in order to head off such negative consequences. Second, it is important that Canadians get an opportunity to have input as well. Those who live in the real world understand how legislation will, good or bad, affect them.Third, and this is so evident presently at our natural resources committee, once federal legislation has been challenged, once the regions take on their responsibilities to protect their citizens through such initiatives and once such legislation has been deemed unconstitutional, the government must stop using the challenged parts of legislation in its development of new legislation. This procedural motion, Motion No. 30, is to be determined through a vote in the House. Since the Liberal government has found various willing dance partners, that has been virtually assured. The only time I saw this process sidetracked, ironically, was when the Liberals had a majority government. It became quite evident at the time that the Liberals never really showed up for duty on Monday mornings. The Mulcair NDP managed to create a second reading vote on a prized Liberal bill. It was quite the scramble, but the vote ended in a tie. Because it was at second reading, the Speaker voted with the government so it would live to fight another day, and, oh my, it did fight. It produced a motion that would have stripped the opposition of all tools to do its job of holding the government to account. That motion dictated how things would transpire in the House and would have been one of the most egregious motions ever moved in our Westminster system of government. When the vote on that motion was to take place, once again, the members of the NDP were milling around and were in the path of our whip Gord Brown. There is a tradition we see all the time where the whips walk toward the mace, acknowledge each other and then, once their members are settled, take their seats to start the vote. The confusion in the aisle caused one of the most unhinged actions I have seen anywhere. The Prime Minister rushed through the crowd, grabbed our whip by the arm and told him to get the “f” in his place. As he did that, he swung around and hit a female NDP member in the chest, which forced her to leave the chamber. That bizarre action caused a question of privilege that continued for days, whereby the juvenile actions of the PM were constantly on trial by his peers. In order to prevent the continued series of questions of privilege, the government relented and withdrew the egregious motion. Now, with voting apps being used, perhaps the Prime Minister can avoid such a conflict in the future. Of course, maybe by now the government is also aware that there is a time-out provision whereby the vote would take place whether the whips walk down the aisle or not. Hopefully this motion can be defeated without the theatrics.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Health TransferGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Health care systemParliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption805722080572218057222805722380572248057225805722680572278057228805722980572308057231805723280572338057234805723580572368057237805723880572398057240805724180572428057243AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1550)[English]Madam Speaker, truly, we cannot make this stuff up. At the end of the day, the Conservatives will whine and cry about wanting to have more debate time, but in reality, what do they do? They behave like a bunch of juveniles.At some point, the members will stand up and move, seconded by so and so, that a person be heard, which will cause the bells to ring for half an hour, instead of voting. Sometimes they will adjourn debate in an attempt to prevent debate from taking place. Most common more recently, it is concurrence motion after concurrence motion.Why all these games? It is because they do not want to debate legislation. They want to filibuster. They want to prevent. This is the far right wing of the Conservative Party pushing the Conservative Party to be destructive, and the members are very successful.We are looking at a very extreme right-wing Conservative Party today. Why is the Conservative Party neglecting the vast majority of Canadians in favour of the far right?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057244805724580572468057247EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen: (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, the member can continue to insult. Nothing in what I said indicates in any way, shape or form that I approve of any of his far right allegations. It is something the Liberals chose to talk about today, as they felt this was one of the good things they could do during question period. We have heard it all day. It is just as ridiculous now as it was earlier in the day. Quite frankly, perhaps the member should consider the role and actions of his Prime Minister, because, believe me, everything I said was accurate.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057248KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask a serious question of the member. I was here in the House when, under the Harper regime, we saw housing prices double over nine years. They doubled again under the Liberals, but the Conservatives were just as bad.They have been worse. The Conservative record is far worse when it comes to affordable housing units. Between the two parties, the corporate coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, over a million affordable housing units have been lost over the past 17 years. Some 800,000 of them, or 80%, were lost under the Conservatives' watch.Conservatives say that finally the Liberals are interested in housing, so I do not understand why they would block a bill to create more housing units and why they would block it so ferociously, in the same way they blocked dental care and the same way they blocked all of the NDP efforts, including to ensure a doubling of the GST credit to put more food on the table. Every single affordability measure the NDP fights for and succeeds in getting, Conservatives block.Has the member spoken to the constituents in his riding who want to see these measures, including dental care?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057249805725080572518057252EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen: (1555)[English]Madam Speaker, have I spoken to them? Yes, I absolutely have. As a matter of fact, this morning people from FCM, from my riding, were visiting with me and we were talking about all of these issues. We were talking about homelessness issues. We were talking about affordability in housing. We were talking about all of the different initiatives that have been part of governments for years. I speak to constituents constantly about the issues of affordability. I am not sure exactly where the member was going, but, believe me, that is always uppermost in our minds.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057253PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services, Lib.): (1555)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He has identified himself as an MP who is not on the far right like his leader.He talked a lot about inflation. In Canada, the drop in inflation over the record high of 8.1% in June 2022 must be good news for him. However, more needs to be done, without filibustering committees, to get bills passed. Having more affordable housing would be good for his riding. We were able to meet the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He met different people.How is the member for Red Deer—Mountain View going to face these organizations that are going to receive the GST rebate and tell them that he is voting against the measure?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsGoods and Services Tax Rebate for MunicipalitiesGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805725480572558057256EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen: (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, that was one of the discussions I had when a number of members of the FCM were with me this morning, and I know how important it is. Communities have some very good initiatives that they are already incorporating. It is more a case of how we take the good ideas we see from our municipalities and help incorporate them into major ideas that help the provinces and then help the federal government. Believe me, thinking that—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsGoods and Services Tax Rebate for MunicipalitiesGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057257StéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35909MarcDaltonMarc-DaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DaltonMarc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1600)[English]Madam Speaker, after eight long years of the Liberal Prime Minister, costs have shot up and millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Housing costs have doubled, rent has doubled, mortgage rates have doubled, grocery prices are soaring and the lineups for food banks are shocking.I received an email from Tyler, who bought a home a couple of years ago. His mortgage has gone up from $1,600 to $4,000 a month. He says he has no other choice but to sell his home and downgrade to make his life livable.Candis is from Maple Ridge, and she has seen her payments double also. She can no longer afford new clothes for her children and needs to take them out of sports to try to make ends meet.Then there is Shaffy. I met him at Seaspan Shipyards in North Vancouver. He is a welder. He showed me on an app that his mortgage is $7,528 a month. He told me that he is not living in a palace. It is a 40-year-old four-bedroom home in one of Vancouver's suburbs. He is being forced to work 10-hour shifts seven days a week and has no freedom. He said he cannot give his body a rest or he is going to lose his home.These are not just stories. These are real lives, and the same thing is happening across Canada.The blame rests fully on the members of the Liberal-NDP coalition for their incompetence and ultimately, I would say, their lack of concern for Canadians. They have shown they lack a basic understanding of economics or how to run a country. I will take that back. They are good at running a country into the ground.It was not that long ago that our nation was one of the richest in the world, but under the Prime Minister, our rankings have been dropping. Country after country is passing us in GDP and per capita ranking.I met a tourist on the way to Vancouver Island about a month or so ago. He has come to Canada numerous times over the past 40 years. He asked me what has happened to Canada. From his perspective, it just seems to be in decline. Unfortunately, he is right. What has happened to Canada is eight years of being run by an incompetent Liberal government that is joined at the hip with the socialist NDP and Bloc.Why has everything become so unaffordable? The Liberals went on a crazy spending orgy, doling out hundreds of billions of dollars. The definition of that word is “excessive and indiscriminate indulgence in a specified activity”. We will call that spending.The Prime Minister has added more debt to Canada than all the prime ministers before him, for 150 years. The Liberals have been absolutely careless with finances and have been racking up, for all intents and purposes, the credit card debt. This has caused great problems and chaos, but they have made sure that their friends, buddies and insiders have gotten their share.I think of the ArriveCAN app scam, where millions of dollars were spent, essentially given to a two-person company in the basement of a house for no work, other than sending a few emails out. Something that should have cost a few thousand dollars has cost millions of dollars. There has been scandal after scandal. It has almost become part of the narrative.Last week, we heard about the billion-dollar green slush fund. The chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada had to resign and is under investigation by the RCMP because money was going directly to her company and to her.(1605)These are some of the buddies we are seeing. This is happening, and I do not have time to talk about all the different situations and the people who have become rich off the Liberals. The Conservatives will turn over these stones. That is our objective here in Parliament, as it will be if we are elected to government.The message from the Liberals for a long time was essentially that interest rates were low so what was the danger of borrowing. With this borrow and borrow and spend and spend, what has happened? For one thing, interest costs have escalated. We are now spending $51 billion on interest payments alone this year. That is more than we spend in health transfers. It is twice as much as we are spending on the Canadian military. One of the very few things the Liberals decided to cut back on is the Canadian military, at a time of great danger. Look at what happened with Russia attacking Ukraine and the situation with China. With all sorts of threats, the Liberals decided to cut the one important piece they should be increasing, but that is typical for them.Canadians are suffering by the Liberals' indulgence in spending, their addiction. We keep hearing the word “investing” and that the Liberals are investing in this and that. It is not their money; it is taxpayers' money. Their actions have led not just to increased interest charges but to a significant rise in inflation. Anybody who goes to the grocery store can attest to that. People are not eating as nutritiously as before because of this. I met with a number of university students last week, and they said they are having a hard time making ends meet. They are using food banks. I talked to the president of a university, who said there are lineups and that the use of food banks has gone up dramatically. Two million Canadians a month are going to food banks. This is not good, and the Liberals and the NDP need to be accountable for this. They can try to blame Harper from eight years ago, but it rests fully square on their shoulders.What is happening here? The Liberal brain trust, as we see in the bill, has begun to panic. To the Liberals, this is about politics, power and money. As inflation has gone up and costs have gone up, guess what has gone down. It is their poll numbers, and that is causing a bit of panic on the government benches.What have they been forced to do? They have raised interest rates, which is a time-tested way to lower inflation. However, what they have succeeded in doing is escalating the cost of carrying a mortgage. Half of mortgage owners will be renewing their mortgages in the next two years, 70,000 per month, and it is hitting them hard. This is happening everywhere in Canada, especially in areas with the biggest mortgages, such as metropolitan Vancouver, Toronto, Victoria and other large centres. People are losing their homes and losing their quality of life. This is real and it is painful. One of the Liberals' solutions is to extend mortgages to 90 years or 100 years so their great-great-great-grandchildren can pay off the mortgage and people can keep their homes. That is not a solution.The Liberals have realized the big mess they have created and the political urgency, and what they have done is taken a piece of Conservative Party policy, put on their superhero outfits and told people not to fear because they are here to help with solutions. They took one of our solutions, which was to take away the GST from purpose-built rental housing, but there is a lot more they need to do.Application softwareBordersBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConflict of interestCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government contractsGovernment expendituresGovernment performanceGreen economyHousingInflationInterest paymentsInterest ratesMortgagesPublic debtReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSustainable Development Technology CanadaThird reading and adoption80572608057261805726280572638057264805726580572668057267805726880572698057270805727180572728057273805727480572758057276805727780572788057279AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, the one thing I did not hear the member talk about was a carbon tax. I know he is a really big fan of the carbon tax, because when he was in the provincial legislature in B.C., he not only voted in favour of it, but he also spoke very highly of it. He said: It means that every dollar collected from B.C. carbon tax is given back to the taxpayers in the form of tax credits or tax cuts. Our carbon tax appears to be working. He said: We view this tax as a tool to change behaviour and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If a Liberal had said that, he would have been heckling.An hon. member: Maybe he was a Liberal back then.Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, maybe he was a Liberal back then. I do not know. Maybe he could inform me why he is against the carbon tax. Why is he hypocritical?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057280805728180572828057283805728480572858057286MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, I am proof that there can be redemption. If I can see the light, there is hope for the Liberal Party. It is absolutely clear from one end of Canada to the other that it is a disaster. I totally endorse the removal of the carbon tax from coast to coast to coast.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057287MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and his Conservative colleagues are asking Canadians to believe in a fairy tale. They want people to believe that all these problems with housing magically started over the last several years or at least since 2015. In fact, it goes on a lot longer, with the current government, the Harper government before it, the Chrétien government and the Mulroney government. What we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy. This did not happen overnight.Similarly, when the Conservatives go after the carbon tax but completely ignore the fact that corporate profits are at the highest level ever, which is a key driver of inflation, it is a shame to their constituents and a shame to the political discourse in this chamber.I have a question on Bill C-56. Does the member at least agree that these measures strengthen the Competition Act and remove the GST? Will he support them? Will he agree that the motion today is thanks to the hard work of the NDP driving the Liberal government to do better, and in fact that the Conservatives have been, again, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805728880572898057290MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, one of our Conservative members introduced a private member's bill on competition, because we need to have competition in the airline industry, in the banking industry, in telecommunications, in every industry. Canadians are suffering. We support competition. We need to have competition.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80572918057292AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordTracyGrayKelowna—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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC): (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member is a colleague from British Columbia, and we know that in British Columbia we have some of the highest housing prices in the country. We know that rent has doubled, and housing costs have doubled.In this legislation that we are debating today, two of the biggest issues that we are dealing with are inflation and the cost of housing. Inflation has caused interest rates to increase which has then caused interest rate payments to be higher for people.Could the member tell us if this legislation would address inflation or interest rates?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30InflationInterest ratesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805729380572948057295MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Marc Dalton: (1610)[English]Madam Speaker, no. This is just a bill of part measures.It has a couple of pieces that are good, but it does not really address inflation. One of the causes of inflation is that the Liberals have not changed their reckless spending. They have a $15-billion plant that is costing every Canadian family $1,000 to employ 1,600 temporary foreign workers.The Liberals are still out of control with their spending, and things are only going to get worse, even if they take little pieces here and there. Rather than Canadians having little pieces of what the Liberals are bringing out of Conservative bills, what they need to do is actually vote for the real deal, and see lives positively changed.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30InflationInterest ratesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805729680572978057298TracyGrayKelowna—Lake CountryMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1615)[English]Madam Speaker, before I get started, I really want to thank the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge for answering my question. He could have tried to skate around it, but he hit it right on. I question the sincerity in his answer, but at least he answered my question. He did not skate around it. I appreciate that, and I just wanted to put that on the record.Here we are talking about this very important piece of legislation that has to do with affordable housing and the groceries act and how we can amend other acts in order to improve those two challenges that Canadians are facing right now. However, I have heard at least two Conservatives in this debate. Just moments ago, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View was talking about time allocation and concerned about limiting debate on this, but then he never even talked about the bill. The member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge never even talked about the bill. My original question for him, had I not been waiting to ask him this question on the carbon tax in B.C., was going to be whether he had actually read the bill because what he was talking about had nothing to do with the bill. He did not even reference all the measures that are in the bill. An NDP member asked him a question, and he still did not answer it. I find it very fascinating that here we have the Conservatives with their full outrage jumping up and saying, “You're not letting us debate” and “You're allocating time.” Meanwhile, with the time that is allocated to discuss this bill, they are not even talking about it. I can only imagine it is not all that important to them if they are not even using the allocated time to actually discuss it.I am noticing a trend. When we introduced the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement a few weeks ago, the Conservatives were taking a very similar approach. They talked nothing about the bill and did not seem to have a position on it. However, after it had been tabled for quite a while and there had been a prestudy in committee and it had been going on for quite a while, all of a sudden they decided, “Oh, I think we found something that we could use to justify why we are going to vote against this. It mentions a carbon tax in the preamble. Yes, this is exactly how we will vote against this.” Suddenly, the next week, they focused on this narrative and then they voted against it, but they did not mention it once before that. I wonder who the award goes to in the Conservative Party for finding that red herring for them. It is absolutely shameful. I say this in the context that this is what is happening with the bill before us. I would love to know if they are going to vote in favour of it or if they are still in the process in the backrooms over there trying to figure out what words they can find in it to justify voting against it.In this debate, I will try to focus a little bit on what I have heard. I have heard the member for Red Deer—Mountain View and a couple of members earlier talk about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, and I will take the opportunity to set the record straight on some of that stuff.Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off with the rebate they get back after the price on pollution. Now, I should clarify, in all honesty, that the two out of 10 Canadians who do not are probably the most well off and probably the base that the Conservatives are banking on and so they spread this misinformation to try to suggest that this is not the case. However, I will give members the facts. This has just recently been published. The average family of four in Alberta gets $1,544 back per year. The average family of four in Manitoba gets $1,056 back. In Saskatchewan, it is $1,360. In Nova Scotia, it is $992. In P.E.I., it is $960. In Newfoundland, it is $1,312. In New Brunswick, it is $368. In Ontario, my home province, it is $976. As a matter of fact, when we look at the four provinces that are fully under the federal backstop because they have not implemented their own program, the average family spends about $500 on the price on pollution and gets back $804. Eight out of 10 Canadians are better off as a result of what they are getting back. (1620)The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader raised this in a question earlier. Why do they never talk about the rebate? The rebate is such a fundamental core part of this.Conservatives are more interested in spreading misinformation by suggesting that this is a tax, by suggesting that it contributes to inflation, which we know it does not, and then, most recently, by suggesting that it somehow impacts the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement.That was probably the biggest mistake they made. What they did was make a concerted effort to obviously find this little bit in the agreement and say, “Aha, we found it. In the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, we found it. It says 'carbon tax' in the preamble. Let us use it.”The genius who discovered that probably did not take the time to look. Had they done that, they would have discovered that Ukraine has had a price on pollution, a carbon tax, since 2011. Ukraine needed to do that because as part of its efforts—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon pricingCarbon taxFuel tax rebateGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057299805730080573018057302805730380573048057305805730680573078057308805730980573108057311MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1620)[English]Madam Speaker, the reason Ukraine has had that price on pollution since 2011 is that in order to get into the European market, which it had been trying to do for so long, the European market required that it have a price on pollution in order to stay competitive. That is why Ukraine had it. This incredible red herring that we are hearing recently from the Conservatives is nothing more than just that, a red herring.The reality is that there is a faction within the Conservative Party of Canada. Some of the MPs over there have gone down the rabbit hole of alt-right-wing American politics. Now we are seeing that come out. I kind of always suspected it, because we have been seeing it happen over the last number of years, but I did not realize that this faction actually had a stranglehold on the party.It is very likely that the Leader of the Opposition is part of that, given everything that he has done. Let us go back to the YouTube meta tags.If members want to understand the Leader of the Opposition's support for Ukraine, they should just look at his social media posts from when President Zelenskyy visited us in September. He did not tweet about it. He did not put anything on Facebook about it. He did not put anything on Instagram about it. He was completely silent. He never said a word about Zelenskyy's visit.The irony is that he did say a word about Zelenskyy appearing before this Parliament when he came a year earlier, when he came by video conference. He actually tweeted, at that time, in 2022, how proud he was to see President Zelenskyy appear before Parliament.Do members know what the member for Calgary Nose Hill did? I do not know if a lot of people caught this, but it was almost a little subtle act of defiance. Do members know what she did? When he came this year in 2023, she quote tweeted his tweet from a year ago, congratulating him on coming. That was clearly a dig at the Leader of the Opposition because she recognized how silent he was on it.The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and all Conservatives can stand up and preach to me all they want about how much they support Ukraine, but their actions speak louder than words. They are silent when the president comes here. They are silent when it came to determining what they were going to say on the Ukraine free trade deal, and then they voted against it.This is a deal that President Zelenskyy asked us to vote in favour of—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon pricingCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine80573148057315805731680573178057318805731980573208057321AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer: (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to remind the member of the bill we are talking about today. It is Bill C-56. I believe he is talking about Bill C-57, which was passed—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActC-57, An Act to implement the 2023 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and UkraineGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057323AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1625)[English]Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member was sitting in the chamber when his two colleagues just spoke, but neither of them spoke about the bill at all.The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support Ukraine. The Conservatives can say all they want about what they do, but their actions speak louder than words. We have seen that, and Canadians have seen that. It is coming to light now, and everybody is becoming aware of it. It is not supporting Ukraine for the same reason that Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not supporting Ukraine, which is that far right influence, and it is in the Conservative Party of Canada. They know it. For those who are still wondering, the real reason the Leader of the Opposition is so petrified to show support for Ukraine is that he would lose votes to Maxime Bernier. It is that simple. He is trying to hold on to a base.When it comes to this particular piece of legislation, we are talking about increasing competition and, by default, increasing trade. We know that, to ensure we put the right measures in place when we are looking internally within our own country, we have to recognize that there are anti-competitive practices going on. When Loblaw has nearly 40% of the market share of groceries between Loblaw's and Shoppers Drug Mart and every other entity it owns, we quickly start to see that it would be extremely difficult for competition to exist. In comparison, Walmart in the United States, which is the retailer with the largest grocery share, has about 18% of the marketplace. We know that, in Canada, there is a problem with this. That is why this bill seeks to strengthen the rules around competition. It seeks to empower the Competition Bureau further, providing it with more resources and the money it would need to effectively operate and giving it the tools to make advances and make moves, when it needs to, to ensure that competition exists.Competition is great, and we need to encourage competition, but sometimes government, or government-charged agencies, have to get involved because we do run into situations where that competition starts to get limited, and then we see price-fixing, as we saw with the Canada Bread Company and its bread price-fixing. That is why this is so incredibly important.Conservatives are going to tell people that inflation is driven by a price on pollution, when it has virtually no effect on it. They are going to tell people that a price on pollution is why the price of gas and oil has skyrocketed over the last year, and it is simply not true. The reality is that, in the oil and gas sector specifically, the carbon tax added two cents per litre. It is two cents and people get more than that back. Meanwhile, wholesale profit margins for the large oil distributors rose by 18¢ per litre. I do not hear the outrage about the profits. The profits of Loblaw were announced just yesterday for its third quarter, and it was, again, a double-digit increase in profits over the previous quarter. It is extremely important that we put the right measures in place to assist with this.I can understand why Conservatives are reluctant to do this. They never seem to fall on the side of those who are struggling, of those who need these supports and tools in place, or of those who need the benefit of healthy competition. This government will do that. I have said this many times in the House before, and I will say it again: I am very glad there is another party in the room who are acting like adults, which is the NDP. It sees this need as well, and it sees the need to push this legislation through for the betterment of all Canadians.(1630)We all know that, if we had not put closure on this today, the bill would be here forever. That is what Conservatives have done with so many other pieces of legislation.Anti-competitive practicesBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon pricingCarbon taxCompetitionCorporate incomeGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30InflationProfitsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSupermarketsThird reading and adoption8057325805732680573278057328805732980573308057331805733280573338057334AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, the member got to the point towards the end, under your guidance.I would like to stay on the topic of the bill and talk about one of the main things this bill would do, which is that it would take the GST off of purpose-built rentals to promote the building of new rental accommodations. In my riding of South Okanagan—West Kootenay, it is almost impossible to find rental accommodation. When I talk to the city planners, they say that every day they are building more housing units than they have ever built before, but every day there are fewer affordable housing units because they are being lost to Airbnbs, people buying holiday homes, etc. The people buying the new housing units are the people who can afford them, and they already have houses.What is the member's government doing to actually build affordable, non-market housing that would really make a difference for Canadians? Getting out of the way and taking the tax off will build more units, but it will not help people who need affordable housing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805733580573368057337MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, it is the government's job to incentivize various parts of the marketplace from time to time when it sees the need for the betterment for society. Sometimes we do that with respect to encouraging the growth of a particular manufacturing sector, such as we have seen with electric batteries and the car revolution that is coming along with EVs, and sometimes it is about incentivizing through removing the GST on building new rental units.On the topic of affordable housing specifically, this is just one tool of many. I have made various announcements that are based on different levels of government support. We may see the rents in a particular building being required at 80% of CMHC market rents and sometimes as low as 50% or 60% based on the supports that have been received. We also have supports for rent that is geared to one's income. The member would know that the ministry responsible deals with that as well.This is one program he mentioned, but there is a whole host of programs. We have to approach housing from a holistic perspective. If we were just doing the one measure he mentioned, it certainly would not be enough, but we are doing a lot more than that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805733880573398057340RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayJeremyPatzerCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today contains parts of two different Conservative private members' bills buried within it. I am wondering if the member opposite could enlighten us as to how many other great Conservative ideas it will take for his government to get to the point where it can finally look at balancing the budget.Balanced budgetBudgetary policyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057341MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1630)[English]Madam Speaker, does the member really think that Canadians care whose idea it was? It is an amazing idea. I thank him very much for it. Let us celebrate it together. Now I hope the member will vote for it. That was such a ridiculous comment. I know this better than most people. I brought forward a private member's bill in 2016, and before it got voted on, the government put it in a piece of legislation it had brought forward. I rejoiced in that, knowing that Canadians would be better off as a result. Only a petty politician would spend time talking about it being a certain person's idea, not someone else's, and why the other person is getting the credit for it. Who cares? This is for the betterment of our country.Balanced budgetBudgetary policyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80573428057343JeremyPatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have the scale and scope of a housing crisis, and it is manifest right across this country. In fact, in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, average rents are now $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. That means families are homeless or are doubling or tripling up. In some cases, there may be half a dozen people living in a one-bedroom apartment.With that scale and scope, and knowing how awful the Harper regime was, why did the Liberals not move to immediately build the housing that is absolutely necessary? Why are they looking, through the fall economic statement, to wait two years before the funding that is so crucial to building affordable housing, which is based on 30% of income, and that so many Canadians need now, is put into place? Why are the Liberals, despite the pressure, hesitating on doing the right thing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80573448057345MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it has a false pretext, which is to assume that nothing else has ever been done, which is not the case.We have had, for a number of years now, the national housing strategy. I am aware of several projects in my own riding that have been built, as well as those on the west coast and on the east coast. This is what I find most frustrating about the last two questions. They assume that this is the only measure that has ever been taken by the government on housing. We have been dealing with housing challenges since we came into office. We had the first national housing strategy introduced, I believe around 2018, and we have been trying to tackle this ever since. Yes, the problem has been getting worse. That is why we are throwing even larger measures at it right now, such as the one the member indicated.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805734680573478057348PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyKenMcDonaldAvalon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88283KenMcDonaldKen-McDonaldAvalonLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McDonaldKen_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, on the whole affordability issue, and this bill apparently deals with affordability, how can we guarantee that it is going to go down or get easier for constituents in my, the member's and everybody else's ridings? We have tried this and that, and we have said that we were going to lower prices, but people are still feeling the pinch. How can he say this bill would help Canadians with affordability?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057349MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, I cannot guarantee anything. I do not think anybody can guarantee anything realistically. What I can say is that we look at where the problem is. We know the problem is in food inflation. We know that food prices have inflated much faster than the average. We know there is a small oligopoly in Canada in the major retailers of food. That is why the minister responsible brought those CEOs to Ottawa to talk about what can be done. That is why this bill would empower the Competition Bureau to do more by putting more teeth into its ability to deal with the problems of anti-competitiveness. Again, this is one measure that I think goes to the heart of competition and to ensuring competition because we recognize that, when there is healthy competition, people get the best value for their dollar, which they are not getting right now specifically as it relates to the retail grocery industry.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805735080573518057352KenMcDonaldAvalonEarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain View//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59226EarlDreeshenEarl-DreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DreeshenEarl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Earl Dreeshen (Red Deer—Mountain View, CPC): (1635)[English]Madam Speaker, just so the member is aware, we are talking about Motion No. 30. Therefore, there is no reason why anybody should be chastised for not talking about some of the other issues. Of course, they are important and have been described before.One thing I would like to mention, because the Liberals seem to feel they have found something special to speak about, is that, yes, Ukraine is part of carbon pricing in the European Union, but that is so it can participate. In 2019, and this comes from McKinsey and Company's Ukraine carbon pricing policy, in Poland it was $1.00, in Sweden it was $139, in Ukraine it was 36¢, and in Canada at that time, to be fair, was $20, which is 55 times more. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, I think it is somewhat rich that the Liberals are taking that position.The point I wish to make is that I have gone to OECD meetings in Europe where they were discussing the concept of the carbon tax. The major push from this country was that those countries must make sure to put their stamp on Canada's carbon tax. That happened both in Berlin when I was there and in Birmingham two summers ago. These are the types of things the government is pushing, and it continues to do it now.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805735380573548057355MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen: (1640)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment about talking about whatever we want. Maybe he should talk to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands about that, as he is the one who called me out on it.This does not matter because nowhere in this deal does it commit Ukraine to Canada's system. It is a red herring to suggest otherwise.The member will have to explain to me why Conservatives never raised the issue. First, they started talking about how it was a woke free trade deal. They started out talking about everything but a carbon tax. They only started talking about a carbon tax being in this about a week ago. They just discovered it then. They should not act like they have been on this all along because they have not. They know it is a red herring.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805735680573578057358EarlDreeshenRed Deer—Mountain ViewJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ): (1640)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am always happy to see you. I like speaking when you are in the Chair. I know you are eagerly awaiting my speech, but I know you are even more eagerly awaiting that of the colleague with whom I am sharing my time, the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, a man so very cultivated that his riding is zoned for agriculture.I feel like repeating that we are faced with closure yet again. They are reducing our debate time and bypassing the process. They are taking time away from the Standing Committee on Finance for a bill that we feel is important.The argument the government gives for working this way is this. It says that housing is so important that we need to ram this through by bypassing parliamentary processes and that the Competition Act reform is so important that we need to ram it through before Christmas by bypassing parliamentary processes.I am not very satisfied with that type of logic for the following reason. There have been problems with the Canadian competition regime for years. In the early 1980s, we had 13 big box stores in Canada. Geographically speaking, Canada is a rather large country. We allowed mergers and acquisitions to occur at the expense of consumers to the point where the minister can now sit down with the entire grocery market around a coffee table in his office one morning. The government let that happen. The Liberals and Conservatives let that happen. We have had alternating Liberal and Conservative governments, and this has never been urgent until now. It was never urgent until the Liberals' pre-session caucus meeting where an argument broke out and then, all of a sudden, they had to move quickly. All of a sudden, this is so urgent that every parliamentarian who is not a Liberal is having their rights violated.Housing and the GST on housing are so urgent that they have to be rammed through under a gag order. Where did this measure come from? I am not saying it is a bad measure. I am not saying that it will not help increase the supply of housing.What I can say is that the Liberals had a caucus meeting prior to the parliamentary session. They were down in the polls, they panicked and they had to do something about housing. They came up with the GST measure, but were not even able to include the parameters of a major change to the tax laws in the bill. Now here they are introducing a very flawed bill that will give the government disproportionate regulatory power. Now they are telling us that it has to be passed quickly.However, they had not thought about it before. This is the government's new way of skirting democratic debate: gag orders.Today, when we ask questions about the administration of the Canada Revenue Agency's programs, we are told that the CRA is independent.Now there are new bills where we are given only a framework and everything else is set by regulation. The Liberals had promised help for the disabled. They finally introduced a bill with a framework, but it does not include a penny for the disabled and its parameters are unknown to us.That is why I have to say that, once again, the Liberal government is disrespecting parliamentarians. I believe in parliamentary work. I disagree with lots of people in the House, but I recognize that they take the time to look at the issues, read the bills, propose amendments, rise in the House and express their views on bills. I think those parliamentarians should have the right to speak. Now the Liberals are talking about the cost of living. They say we have to bypass the whole process because of the cost of living.The economic statement contained no immediate social housing measures. That is what Quebec wanted. We have permanent programs to build low-income housing and housing co-ops. The federal government has been stalling on handing money over to Quebec for years. The Bloc Québécois had to push to get the last $900 million we were owed. There is virtually nothing in the latest economic statement that acknowledges the urgency of the situation.Take the cost of living, for one. Now that there are only five major grocery chains left, we have to hustle for legislation they took decades to introduce. On housing, not only is there nothing in the statement, but, to make things worse, they are complicating matters with Quebec by creating the department of interference in Quebec's municipal affairs.(1645)It is a bad idea. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government tried it back in the day and gave up. That government had no luck doing anything with it. Now it is the son's turn. Repeating a mistake twice is never a sign of common sense. It must be an intergenerational thing. Small and medium-sized businesses and chambers of commerce in my riding are asking that we give our businesses more time to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. What is this government's contemptuous response? It says that the federal government provided $8 out of $10 of assistance during the pandemic and that it has helped businesses tremendously. However, it did so with our tax dollars, and piled up a debt that our children will have to pay interest on. This is not money that the federal government conjured out of thin air. It is money that the federal government borrowed at the expense of future generations. True, we collectively took the risk. However, the government is telling us that since it helped businesses during the first phase of the crisis, it has the moral right to abandon them during the second.Now the government is talking to us about competition. When people in my riding go out shopping, how many small businesses, suppliers and shops will be closed? How many fewer stores will people have to choose from? What effect will this have on consumer choice and prices in rural areas, where often the only place people can buy many products is from a small business? Despite all that, the government is doing absolutely nothing.Earlier, I had a phone conversation with a produce grower in my riding. He called to tell me that he had a bad season, that it was terrible. I see Conservative MPs looking at me and they know that what I am saying is true. We all get these calls. People are asking us when the government is going to pay out emergency support to get them through the year. The government's answer is that it will not do anything. It will not offer them any emergency assistance to make up for the worst season they have ever had. How will consumers be affected when produce markets close? In the world of fruit and vegetables, we need produce growers to provide us with local, environmentally friendly products that are grown nearby, that are homegrown and that revitalize our rural areas and regions. The government is doing absolutely nothing about that.I understand that the NDP wanted to shut down the debate. I do not know what they got in return, but I am very curious. Everyone in the parliamentary precinct is dying to know what the NDP is getting in return for shutting down the debate. Everyone wants to know how the movie ends. I cannot wait to find out. I do not know what the NDP got but I think it was probably pretty costly for the Liberals, although the NDP did not get anything in the economic update. What we want are measures for the middle class. We want measures for our farmers, for our businesses and for housing, but there are no such measures.Now, on the substance of the bill, it is a good bill. We have been saying for years that this kind of legislation should be introduced, specifically regarding competition.In Canada, our competition regime is archaic on every level. It is not that the commissioner of competition does not want to do his job. The Competition Bureau employs competent people, but there are fundamental flaws in their mandate. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions are allowed based on efficiency gains alone. In Canada, when two businesses merge, no one asks whether the cost reduction and efficiency gain will allow them to be more competitive with the others and in turn lower the price consumers pay. They only ask whether they are able to be more efficient and to hell with the consumer.I do not have enough time to get into the details of the bill, but I can say that it will change this particular situation. It will also prohibit other anti-competitive practices. In Canada, it is prohibited to directly come to an agreement with a competitor to reduce competition, but getting the dirty work done by another is allowed. For example, a business has the right to tell the shopping centre it is renting space from that it cannot rent space to another grocer or another hardware store. They get others to do the dirty work.This bill contains a number of good things. They include the government giving the Competition Bureau more power to conduct investigations, obtain documents and compel witnesses to testify. That will be a good thing.I will conclude my speech by saying that a bank merger is coming. HSBC is being acquired by the Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC. This file is on the Minister of Finance's desk, and the Competition Bureau only looked into the efficiencies that would be generated by the transaction.(1650)If the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is at all committed to his principles, he will require that the Minister of Finance wait for this legislation to be passed and for the Competition Bureau to conduct a new analysis before authorizing this transaction.Anti-competitive practicesBanks and bankingBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCompetitionCost of livingCOVID-19Farming and farmersGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingLoansMergers and acquisitionsPandemicParliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSocial housingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption80573598057360805736180573628057363805736480573658057366805736780573688057369805737080573718057372805737380573748057375805737680573778057378805737980573808057381MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled. On the one hand, the hon. member is attacking the NDP, and I guess the government at the same time, in terms of this motion. On the other, he is supporting the contents of the bill. Does he support the continued Conservative filibuster, or does he not want to see residents of Quebec and the rest of Canada actually benefit from the measures he supports?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057382Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1650)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first, I am not attacking anyone. I am making some factual observations. The fact is that our right and my right as a parliamentarian to express myself on this matter is being curtailed. The member across the way talks about the Conservative filibuster. It is not right that we are pushing this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance next week when this is legislation that amends the Excise Tax Act and fundamentally changes the Competition Act. It is not right that such an important bill is getting only two meetings, next Monday and Wednesday until midnight. If the Liberals thought their bill was so important and they, like me, thought that the content of this bill was so important, they would allow the Standing Committee on Finance to do its job properly, but this is absolutely not the case right now.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80573838057384ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1650)[English]Madam Speaker, first of all, I empathize with the frustration. I am frustrated too. We are in a position where we have to deal with a party that is blocking legislation after legislation from getting through at a time when people need help. People need to have access to affordable groceries and a roof over their head. We are put in this predicament where we are all impacted by the decisions being made consecutively by the Conservatives to stop anything from going through the House. What does the member propose we do in order for us to see Canadians get the help they need and deserve when there is a party blocking all the legislation Canadians need from going through?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057385Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1650)[Translation]Madam Speaker, and there was light.I understand my colleague's viewpoint and her question. It is a reasonable question. I understand how, from the NDP's perspective, voting for multiple closure motions might seem like a good thing for democracy. Let us say for argument's sake that this is a great closure motion, even though I would disagree.Not only are they muzzling us at this stage, they are also muzzling us at the committee stage. No one with an iota of intelligence in the world of economics, finance or competition would think that two evening committee meetings are enough for a bill with such potentially deep and long-term effects on our competition system. What would I have done? I might have done a better job of negotiating.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057386805738780573888057389Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithJeremyPatzerCypress Hills—Grasslands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105559JeremyPatzerJeremy-PatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PatzerJeremy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC): (1655)[English]Madam Speaker, maybe there are other measures the member would like to see the government take on that would be beneficial to his constituents in Quebec. Does he want to speak a bit more about what could be done to further enhance competition rather than just simply having a lazy government stealing other parties' bills? Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057390Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I get the same kinds of questions from both Liberals and Conservatives. We support the bill. We think its underlying principle is good and its main features will be useful. We do not think these solutions will fix everything, and especially not when it comes to housing, but there are good solutions here for competition issues. What I think we should do is take a little more time to hear from witnesses so that stakeholders can share their views and we can suggest amendments and work toward improving the bill. If things do come to a standstill at some point, we will discuss all that, but I think that holding a gun to the committee's head and making it work as fast as possible will rob us of a tool that is of vital importance to parliamentary democracy and the legislative process. I find that deeply disappointing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80573918057392JeremyPatzerCypress Hills—GrasslandsSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1655)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will no doubt pick up roughly where my colleague from Mirabel left off. He painted a good picture of the political context. He concluded by speaking to the bill. I will go a bit deeper into the bill.The government proposal grants the Standing Committee on Finance the power to expand the scope of the bill by incorporating three substantial changes.First, there is the amendment seeking to increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. The amendment changes the Competition Act and will render several of its elements obsolete once Bill C-56 is passed. The two other amendments, which deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies, although subject to the wording of amendments to come, appear to have limited scope. Their inclusion seems to be rather intended to give the New Democrats a symbolic victory in order to paper over a major concession on their part. Let us review these three amendments.The first aims to increase penalties for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for a first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. This is taken directly from Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. Currently, the maximum penalty that can be levied by the bureau and the tribunal is $5 million for an offending company, along with prison sentences of 14 years for directors who breach the act. This proposed revision is therefore significant, dispelling the idea that penalties are just an inherent cost of doing business. They could now have a deterrent effect comparable to that of European or American legislation. Again, as my colleague asked, if it is already in force elsewhere, why has it taken so long for Canada to wake up? I believe the explanations in the last speech were very powerful.The second amendment, which gives the Competition Bureau the option of conducting market study inquiries at the direction of the minister or on the recommendation of the commissioner of competition, while requiring prior consultation between these two officials, is quite significant. Currently, the bureau has strict investigative powers, but only if there is a clearly defined infringement. This adopts a quasi-criminal approach. The amendment proposed seeks to address this shortcoming when market studies are conducted in order to ensure greater effectiveness in assessing the dynamics of competition.The third amendment, which reviews the legal grounds prohibiting abuse of dominance, aims to prevent anti-competitive practices that impede or significantly decrease competition in a relevant market. Even though the current legislation prohibits various restrictive practices, it does not address predatory pricing by businesses in a dominant market position. The NDP's Bill C‑352 sought to fill this gap by specifically prohibiting the imposition of excessive prices. Despite the provision's obvious value, the government still seems resistant to passing it, offering instead a procedural amendment to the existing legislation through Bill C‑56, without really reinforcing consumers' defences against such practices.Although it makes positive changes to the Competition Act, Bill C‑56 hardly seems an appropriate response to the housing crisis and soaring food prices. An in-depth review of the national housing strategy remains essential, as does redefining abuse of dominance to prevent price increases resulting from a lack of competition. These critical areas persist, independently of whether Bill C‑56 is passed.The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion and the bill, recognizing certain positive measures and the absence of any downright harmful elements. However, we should point out that it is only a drop in the bucket in terms of current needs. With respect to housing, there is no reason to believe that Bill C‑56 will help reduce rental costs.(1700)At the briefing offered to members on September 21, officials were specifically asked to provide the studies on which the Minister of Finance based her claim that Bill C‑56 would impact rents. To give credit where credit is due, the question was asked by my colleague from Joliette. Their response to my colleague's question was evasive, suggesting they did not have these studies. That suggests an uncertain future as to the supposed effectiveness of the measures.It is not very likely that landlords will decide to lower their rents simply because they did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building. Furthermore, the increase in interest rates, affecting all real estate and leading to higher mortgage rates, is a major factor influencing future costs. With or without Bill C‑56, tenants might very well have to live with them.In the best case scenario, eliminating taxes on rental buildings could encourage some builders to choose that type of construction over condominiums, potentially providing a glimmer of hope in this growing housing crisis. However, though it will not have a direct impact on prices, Bill C‑56 could still help alleviate the housing shortage, which may get worse in the years to come.Right now, the Société québécoise des infrastructures says that only 14% of new housing units built by 2030 will be rentals, despite the fact that almost 40% of Quebec households are renting. This growing imbalance foreshadows a terrible national tragedy, and three times as many new constructions will need to be rental units if we want to resolve the housing crisis.If Bill C‑56 manages to increase the proportion of rental housing, even slightly, it would be a modest step forward, but that will not be enough to meet the crying need. However, we note the lack of specifics regarding the types of dwellings or buildings, and the absence of accessibility requirements to be eligible for reimbursement, which hands the government the power to regulate those factors.During the information sessions for parliamentarians, which my colleague from Joliette attended, we asked officials why the act contained no eligibility criteria, which is an unusual exception in tax matters. Their answer clearly conveyed a sense of urgency and poor preparation, which definitely suggests an off-the-cuff approach.We can all agree that it would be difficult to impose affordability criteria on builders. They are not the future owners of the buildings under construction. However, the GST could be imposed on buyers if the housing units were rented out at sky-high prices; this is a measure that could be examined in committee to improve the bill's effectiveness, which so far is pretty limited. That might be a good idea.While amendments to the Competition Act deserve the Bloc Québécois's support, to suggest that they will have any impact on grocery bills is wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of reality. We support the bill, but we have no pats on the back for Ottawa.Abuse of dominant positionBusiness practice and regulationC-352, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCompetition Bureau CanadaConsumers and consumer protectionCost of livingDelegation of authorityGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingPenaltiesPrice determinationRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057393805739480573958057396805739780573988057399805740080574018057402805740380574048057405805740680574078057408Jean-DenisGaronMirabelBonitaZarrilloPort Moody—Coquitlam//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105837BonitaZarrilloBonita-ZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ZarrilloBonita_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the last points the member made around rent and who is really going to benefit from the GST exemption.Of course I believe that the GST exemption is a good idea. I wish it had happened many years ago. Would the member mind just expanding on what we need to do for renters? In British Columbia, there are above-guideline rent increase papers being served to people. I know that, for one of the residents in my riding, their rent went from $1,100 to $1,400, and they were asked to sign one of these above-guideline rent increases. Could the member expand on what he thinks would be helpful to make sure renters are protected?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumers and consumer protectionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805740980574108057411Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate some of the things I said. I do not see why a landlord would say that, since he did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building, his rental prices will go down. I do not see how this measure could lead to that. I do not see any automatic or obvious correlation.Having said that, I believe that if GST were to be imposed, it should be on the buyers if homes were being purchased only to rent them at exorbitant prices. That could be one measure. How can rental housing be improved? It is often a question of supply and demand. To improve the situation, we need a major housing construction strategy. Clearly, we do not have one.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActConsumers and consumer protectionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80574128057413BonitaZarrilloPort Moody—CoquitlamChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): (1705)[English]Madam Speaker, that was an interesting answer; the member said he does not see a correlation, then specified the correlation that we need to build more housing. Reducing the cost of building, especially by reducing the GST, would make rental projects more profitable for builders to develop, increase the supply and increase competition in the rental market. Would he not acknowledge that reducing this cost is going to have an impact, which is what we want to see?Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057414Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member opposite did not listen to what I said. I said that there was no correlation with rental prices. He can listen to that again and we will talk about it again.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057415ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would just like to check something with my colleague. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-56. We support the elements of Bill C-56 amended by the motion, but we oppose the super closure motion, which limits all debate and committee study.Take, for example, the elimination of the GST on new housing construction. Once again, this government is passing laws and saying that it will decide everything in the regulations. Right now, contractors are asking us questions, since they are entitled to a GST rebate if they started their work after September 14. What if they started laying the foundation before September 14? What if the first floor will be zoned commercially and there will be housing above it? Are they entitled to this rebate or not? We do not know.I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805741680574178057418Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1705)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I think he put his finger on the problem with these super closure motions. My colleague began his question by summarizing our position, which is, of course, to oppose the super closure motion, but support the bill as amended at this stage.Entrepreneurs are asking us questions and they want to know if they have the right to do certain things. We need to do our job properly on that. Super closure motions do not allow us to do our job properly. They do not allow us to carry out studies and examine the details as we should. This is not the first time that we have rammed a bill through because of a super closure motion only to realize later that the bill is having alarming consequences because of a misplaced comma.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80574198057420GabrielSte-MarieJoliettePeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, we know very well that the Conservatives want to block this legislation. We know that they want to block it so that they can also block the anti-scab bill that the NDP has been pushing for and that is, of course, supported by Quebec's unions.My question is very simple. Do the Bloc members understand that the Conservatives are blocking this bill so that they can also block the anti-scab bill?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80574218057422Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: (1710)[Translation]Madam Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the closure motion came after the anti-scab bill issue.That being said, generally speaking, I too was stonewalled by the Conservatives on a bill I defended at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Those staunch advocates of farmers, the Conservatives, filibustered the defence of supply management. We can clearly see how consistent they are.However, it never crossed my mind to impose a super closure motion on that, either. Some practices we use can be worse than what we are trying to remedy. A super closure motion is one of them. If democratic procedures are denied, if things get mired in a procedural overload like that on a committee, fortunately, there are rules in place, there is a limited meeting time, despite everything, in case of filibustering.I understand that it is frustrating, but for something as important as a new competition law that will have a direct impact on the lives of so many people, we must give ourselves the time to do things properly and—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057423805742480574258057426PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1710)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to say what a privilege it is for me to be able to speak in what is an important debate for all parliamentarians and to again speak on behalf of the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For their benefit, I will explain that we are debating essentially two things today. Nominally, this is about Motion No. 30, the programming motion, but it is also about Bill C-56, the actual bill that the motion is seeking to get through the House to committee, where important work has to be done.I will start with Motion No. 30, because it has to be put in the context of what the NDP, with our 25 members, has been able to do in this Parliament. I want to give particular thanks to my leader, the NDP leader and member for Burnaby South. We have to make mention in this place of his private member's bill, Bill C-352, because important elements of that bill were adopted in Motion No. 30. I will highlight some of the relevant parts of Motion No. 30 for the benefit of constituents back home.Essentially, the really important part of Motion No. 30 centres on a number of things that would include some of the elements of the private member's bill from the member for Burnaby South in Bill C-56. I think this would strengthen the bill through a number of measures, such as increasing maximum penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance so that whenever we have market concentration and some corporate entities are abusing their dominance, we would have increased fines to make sure they are brought into compliance. Another measure is allowing the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and inquiries if it is either directed by the minister responsible for the act or recommended by the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau. Another is to revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged either in a practice of anti-competitive acts or in conduct other than superior competitive performance.In other words, these are three important measures in the motion that are basically lifted out of the PMB from the member for Burnaby South, showing once again that, as New Democrats, we are here to strengthen government bills, respond to the needs of our constituents and make sure we are passing laws that would address the serious issues of today.I will now move to Bill C-56, which is not a very big government bill in the scale of things but one that essentially seeks to do two things: remove the GST from construction costs on new rental units and enable the Competition Bureau to better conduct investigations, while removing efficiency exemptions during mergers to improve competition. That is the specific section of the bill we would be improving through Motion No. 30.Before I go on, I think we need to place the conversation around Bill C-56 in a larger context. I want to go back to when this Parliament started. Canadians are very familiar with the fact that in both the 2019 and the 2021 elections, Canadians, in their wisdom, decided to return minority Parliaments. I think that was the voice of the Canadian people saying that they did not trust all of the power in this place to any one party. It was a resounding message that parties had to come here and find ways to work together. At the start of this Parliament in 2021, we as New Democrats essentially had two choices. We could have chosen to stay on the sidelines, like my Conservative friends, and just complain while achieving nothing, or we could have realized that Canadians expected us to roll up our sleeves, put our heads down and get to work. We chose the latter option, and that is why, thanks to New Democrats, we are achieving some incredibly concrete things for Canadians.Dental care is a massive program that is going to really help so many Canadians. We know that millions of Canadians are unable to afford to go to the dentist. Thanks to New Democrats, we are pushing that forward so the most disadvantaged people from coast to coast to coast are going to be able to afford and get proper dental care.(1715)We forced the government to double the GST credit. Of course, something I am personally very proud of having done, both here in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, which does specifically relate to the conversation we are having today, is that we also started an investigation into food price inflation. I think it was the public and political pressure of that moment that led us to where we are today, talking about Bill C-56. Not only did I get a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, so I believe that all parties unanimously recommended that this was an issue of great concern to their constituents, but we also got a unanimous vote at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to really put the issue of food price inflation under the microscope and to do a deep dive into the real causes. I will be happy to talk about that a little bit later in my speech.We also forced the government to come up with a grocery rebate and anti-scab legislation that is going to help unions realize the collective bargaining power they have. When we are talking in this place about helping the working class, we need to make sure we are actually standing up for legislation that would do just that. For far too long in our country's history, working men and women who belong to the trade union movement have been at a disadvantage when it comes to the relationship with their employers. Employers have considerable financial resources. They have been able to wait out workers. They have been able to use replacement workers. In some cases, they have just waited for Liberal and Conservative governments to come to their rescue with back-to-work legislation. It is time, thanks to the NDP, that someone in this place truly stood up for the working class, not just with words, like the Conservatives are fond of doing, but with real action, actually changing our laws so an employer, with all of their resources, would no longer be able to undermine working-class men and women with replacement workers. One of the most powerful things the working class has at its disposal is the guaranteed freedom to withhold its labour in order to fight for a better deal.Thanks to the NDP, we are going to change federal laws so we have the backs of workers in federally regulated industries, whether they work in the train system, in shipping, in the banking industry, etc. We are going to make sure the legislation before us gets over the finish line and serves as an example right across the country for all provincial jurisdictions. I am also very proud that, thanks to the NDP, we are leading the way in developing a sustainable jobs act. It was thanks to the NDP that we got labour at the table with the government and brought in those changes to the law before it was finally introduced. Again, this demonstrates that when it comes to defending working people in Canada, the NDP is the party that is pushing the ball here, not just with words but also with sincere action.Something I am incredibly proud of, as we work toward the end of the 2023 year, is that we are actively working with the government on bringing in pharmacare legislation. Again, the cost of living crisis is something that Bill C-56 is inherently trying to deal with. We have to make sure we deal with the economic shortfall that so many working-class Canadians are experiencing. In addition to lack of dental care, one of the biggest challenges for families is their inability to pay for expensive medication because they do not have the benefit of a workplace plan. Often, I have spoken to constituents who are skipping their medications altogether or are cutting them in half, and that can lead to extremely poor health outcomes later on. Yes, it might seem like a significant investment, but we have to put it in the context of the billions of dollars of savings that would result, not only for working families' budgets as we are trying to help them get by, but also for our health care system as a whole. When we look after people and establish methods whereby they can seek preventative health measures, this is how we save our health care system money, and it is how we look after families' budgets.I am proud to be a member of a caucus that is standing up for all of those measures. I think there are days when my Conservative friends must be incredibly frustrated that they are being outworked and outdelivered by a party with a quarter of the number of their seats. I want to highlight a few examples because I listen to Conservatives talk every single day about the cost of living crisis, and I want to highlight a few of the hypocrisies we hear in this place from that particular party.(1720)Number one is the carbon tax. I do not think that the oil and gas industry actually needs to spend all of that money on lobbying the federal government, because it already has a political party that does it for free. The Conservative Party's members stand in this place and, at every single opportunity, rail on the carbon tax while completely ignoring the oil and gas profiteering that has been happening over the last three years. It is a real disservice to the substance of the debate.We only need to look at the evidence. We have seen this at committee, not only when we were dealing with food price inflation but also in a whole host of other committees. The evidence is there for everyone to see. If someone wants to see the real driver of inflation, they only need to look at some key industries and how much their profits have increased over the last three years. The most notable example is oil and gas. Since 2019, the industry's net profits have increased by over 1,000%. The Conservatives want to concoct a fairy tale that the carbon tax is the root of all evil, when we know that the wild price fluctuations we see on the cost of fuel are the result of market pressures and of corporations' gouging our constituents. However, there is not a word from my Conservative friends.I have to single out the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, because he has the temerity to stand in this place and vote against dental care for his constituents, for my constituents and for people from coast to coast to coast while having enjoyed taxpayer-funded dental benefits for the last 19 years as a member of Parliament. I guess the Conservative motto is “It is okay for me but not for thee.” That is essentially the message I am getting from him.Of course, there was a vote earlier this week on the Ukrainian free trade agreement. The Conservatives were absolutely grasping at straws to find a way to vote against it. At a time when Ukraine needs solidarity from the people of Canada, it would have sent a strong message if we could have had a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to show the Ukrainian people that we stand firmly with them. That is something President Zelenskyy wanted, yet one party decided to vote against the free trade agreement, and that was the Conservative Party. The shocking thing is that a vote at second reading is a vote for the principle of a bill. The principle of the bill is free trade with Ukraine. Someone may have problems with the bill, and that is fine, but do they agree with the principle of the bill? I do not always agree with bills that I vote for at second reading, but I do it under the condition of getting better results at committee. It is a strong message. Does one agree with the principle of the bill? Unfortunately, I think the Conservatives scored on their own net with that vote.Let us talk about the housing crisis, because a significant part of Bill C-56 would be the removal of the GST for new rental units. There is a fairy tale being concocted in this place by my Conservative friends. They want people to magically believe that the housing crisis started just in the last few years, or eight years ago in 2015. That is absolutely false. The housing crisis we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of over 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy that has been pursued with glee by both Liberals and Conservatives. It did not start just with the current government and the current Prime Minister. It was happening over Stephen Harper's time, Paul Martin's time, Jean Chrétien's time and Brian Mulroney's time. We could not get to the shortfall we have in affordable housing just overnight. It is the result of a systematic abandoning of the federal government's role in building affordable housing, and the chickens are coming home to roost right now.Again, we do need serious action, and Bill C-56 would be a small measure, removing the GST to spur on more housing development. If we look at the recent fall economic statement and at some of the spending items in the next few years for affordable housing, the Liberals have decided to delay spending on critical areas until the 2025 fiscal year. It is a totally shameful response and extremely inadequate to the crisis moment so many Canadians are facing right now.(1725)With food price inflation, I think Canadians are sick and tired of both parties taking potshots at each other when, for 20 months now, we have seen food prices rise at such a high rate, a rate far higher than the general rate of inflation. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry made that grand announcement in October, when he said he was going to summon the grocery CEOs to Ottawa for what amounted to a stern talking to. What did we learn today? We learned from Metro's CEO that discussion had zero impact on food price inflation. This is why the agriculture committee is again examining this issue. It wants to hear from the minister and the grocery CEOs. It was my motion that sent for the corporate documents, which are now under lock and key at 131 Queen Street, so we can see what the corporations have agreed to and what their plan is. We also want to hold the government to account to see exactly what promises the minister tried to extract.We are facing a situation where Canadians have been playing by the rules and doing everything right. However, there is corporate gouging in multiple sectors. In the housing market there are increased rents and renovictions and the buying-up of affordable housing stock. Grocery and fuel prices are constantly going up. It is all a result of corporate profits driving inflation, and there is only one party in this place that is daring to call it out.I think back to the old tale, Mouseland. Canadians are being asked to pick between the black cats and the white cats, but they are both cats. They are both going to pursue the same economic policies. I think, at their heart, Liberals and Conservatives believe in the same thing. They believe in market-based solutions, which is what have gotten us into the mess we are in. They like to show the differences between the two, but I fundamentally believe those two parties are but two different sides of the same coin. If we want something different, we cannot keep doing the same thing. Trading Liberals for Conservatives is simply going to continue us down the path that we have been on for the last 40 years.Canadians deserve a break. I am proud to say that through New Democrats' efforts on Bill C-56 and Government Business No. 30, we are delivering concrete results. We have rolled up our sleeves to get to work to improve this bill and insert some language that I believe is going to make the bill stronger and finally give the Competition Bureau the muscle, resources and legislative flex it needs to tackle the extreme marketplace concentration that we see in so many sectors, whether it is the grocery sector, telecommunications, oil and gas, name it, it is time.I believe, Madam Speaker, I am getting a signal from you that—Abuse of dominant positionBuilding and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-352, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCarbon taxCompetition Bureau CanadaConsumer priceCorporate incomeCost of livingDelegation of authorityDental BenefitFederally regulated employers and employeesFood and drinkGoods and services tax creditGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingInflationLabour policyMarket shareMergers and acquisitionsOil and gasOral and dental healthPenaltiesPharmacarePolitical alliancesPrescription drugsRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraine8057429805743080574318057432805743380574348057435805743680574378057438805743980574408057441805744280574438057444805744580574468057447805744880574498057450805745180574528057453AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I think it is important to also raise the issue, since we are talking about affordability, of the Canada emergency business account. For months, New Democrats have been calling for a year-long extension so that small businesses have the time to repay their loan. However, the 18-day extension announced by this Liberal government is a cruel joke. I have just heard from small businesses in my riding, and I am proud to stand in this place and defend their interests to make sure that they can continue serving. I got an email from a business representative in my riding that says, “Our data shows that only 49% of businesses are back to prepandemic sales, and our last media release indicated that business start-ups are at a historical low and 20%, one out of five, will be out of business by next year if that CEBA loan is not extended until the end of 2024.”Given that we have been talking about affordability issues, I think we also need to address the shortcomings of the CEBA. On behalf of small businesses in my riding, I urge this Liberal government to listen to them. How does it make sense to let all of these small businesses fail when a one-year extension would be so meaningful?To conclude, I think I have outlined all the reasons why the additions to Motion No. 30 are so important. I am glad to see, as a New Democrat at caucus, that all 25 of us have rolled up our sleeves, put in the work and offered some constructive amendments to the bill. We are looking forward to seeing it voted on, passed on to committee and making sure that we deliver that legislative fix to help Canadians get through the cost of living crisis and new rental housing start-ups. With that, I welcome any questions or comments from my colleagues.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30LoansPandemicReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption80575758057576805757780575788057579CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, in regards to small businesses, the government has been very supportive of small businesses in Canada and continues to work with small businesses. I think that our record will clearly demonstrate that through the pandemic, prepandemic and to where we are today.With regards to the legislation, my question to the member is with respect to the efficiency argument and how the legislation would actually ensure that there is a healthier sense of competition into the future by the amendments to the Competition Act, particularly with the Competition Bureau's ability and enhancing that ability, to ensure that Canadian consumers are taken into consideration far more than they currently are. Could the member give his thoughts on that issue?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCompetitionConsumers and consumer protectionCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30LoansPandemicReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption80575808057581AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1830)[English]Madam Speaker, I will respond to the member's first part of his intervention on small businesses. The email I read was received today. I acknowledge that, yes, during the pandemic we were there with supports, collectively, the whole House was there, but small businesses are saying that the measures announced by this government are not enough; they need a further extension, otherwise one out of five are going to go out of business. It does not make sense to be holding the line, and I think the government needs to extend it to the end of 2024.On the second part of the member's question, when I was at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we were doing an in-depth dive into food price inflation, and based on a study that I moved at committee, some of our witnesses were from the Competition Bureau of Canada. They expressed a sincere wish to have not only more human resources but I think a little bit more of a legislative flex in the Competition Act. Bill C-56 would deliver that. There was a significant improvement made to the bill, thanks to the efforts of the NDP and particularly our leader, the member forBurnaby South. New Democrats are here to work. We are delivering some constructive changes, and we are looking forward to seeing this legislation progress.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCompetitionConsumers and consumer protectionCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30LoansPandemicReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption805758280575838057584KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, because of consecutive Liberal and Conservative government inaction over the years, we are seeing the housing crisis that we are in today. Canada needs to develop 5.8 million new homes, including two million rental units by 2030, to tackle housing affordability.The member is my neighbour on Vancouver Island. I wonder if he can share what his constituents on Vancouver Island are saying is needed to be done today to move forward to have the housing that people need to keep a roof over their heads. What needs to be done in order for us to move forward?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80575858057586AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my great neighbour to the north, the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. It really is such a pleasure to serve in this House with her. I was first inspired to run back in 2015 because of the actions of the Harper government. I saw exactly how the policies and legislation enacted under that regime were affecting my constituents. I am glad that not only in 2015, but in 2019 and 2021, I have been returned to serve their interests.What I mentioned in my speech is that we did not get here overnight. This is the result of consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments pursuing neo-liberal economic policies, and that has gotten us to where we are today. There is a solution. We do not have to look very far back. We could look at the post-World War II era. The federal government was directly involved in the construction of new housing to accommodate returning veterans and to also help rural communities, like mine in Lake Cowichan, that were experiencing incredible resource booms and needed to have the workforce housed.We have had similar situations now, but we need to get the federal government more actively involved in building those units.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805758780575888057589Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, I am kind of curious. This is basically a bill to address affordability in Canada.For young families that have a mortgage right now that is coming up for renewal in the next month, and it is going to from 2% to 8%, what is in here that is going to help? What is in any type of Liberal legislation at this point in time that is actually going to help that family renew that mortgage, take the hit on the increase of the mortgage payment, and be able to heat their homes and put food on the table?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30MortgagesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80575908057591AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 has a fairly narrow focus, but that is why we were hoping, not only through the fall economic statement but in the budget next year, to start to see measures that would address this.I will remind the member that we got to the rates we are at today precisely because of the corporate profits that have been driving inflation. If Canadians want to understand why rates are so high, it is because we are trying to cool down a market that was caused by corporate greed. It was caused by oil and gas companies having net profits go up by over 1,000% in three years. It was caused by grocery CEOs digging in their greedy hands, off the backs of working families.If we want to truly calm inflation down, we have to stop the policies that are championed by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. We need to swing the pendulum back in favour of working families, and stop the corporate deference that both of these parties love to champion whenever they are in government.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCost of livingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30MortgagesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805759280575938057594RandyHobackPrince AlbertSimon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—Bagot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104944Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySimon-Pierre-Savard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SavardTremblaySimonPierre_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): (1835)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the Bloc and the NDP agree on a number of points, including that the bill does not go far enough, but there are some good things in it.I will still come back to my question. Why is the government using a closure motion, never mind a super closure motion?I am well aware that there is filibustering. Filibustering harms everything. It is detrimental to our work, to what we want to achieve. Still, it seems to me that a super closure motion should be used as a last resort.Does my colleague not get the impression that the cure is worse than the disease in this case?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057595805759680575978057598AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1835)[English]Madam Speaker, time is of the essence right now.These are powers, legislative fixes that the Competition Bureau was asking for months ago. I cannot control when the government decides to schedule Bill C-56 for debate. However, I do know that many members in this place have already had the opportunity to give their thoughts at second reading.This is a vote on the principle of the bill, and I think everyone agrees on the principle, getting the GST off new rental housing construction and making sure the Competition Bureau has the powers to go after that corporate stranglehold that we have in so many critical sectors. It is something that we should be voting on.I am proud that through Motion 30, we have taken the work that was put in the bill by the member for Burnaby South, and we are going to add those provisions to Bill C-56. I see this as an opportunity where the NDP has rolled up our sleeves, has put our heads down and are getting to work to make sure the changes are happening in this place, unlike my Conservative colleagues.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057599805760080576018057602Simon-PierreSavard-TremblaySaint-Hyacinthe—BagotPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has spoken very eloquently about the Liberals inaction up until the time that the NDP pushed them to actually do the right thing.I want to ask the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who lived through the dismal nine years, the dark years of the Harper regime, where housing prices doubled and 800,000 affordable housing units, thousands in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, were ripped away from the hands of the families that actually needed access to that affordable housing. Conservatives find that funny, the devastation that they reaped, including increasing the age of retirement, forcing seniors to work longer and harder. Could my hon. colleague talk about the devastating impacts on Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and, of course, across Vancouver Island?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805760380576048057605AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor: (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, I will tell my colleague how bad it was. It was so bad that the Conservatives fell to third place in the 2015 election. My riding is not known to be a Liberal stronghold, but they actually got second place because of how bad the Conservative government was.Do members know that the current leader of the Conservative Party really motivated me to run for office because he was Harper's spokesperson. He was there front and centre, putting in the policies that wreaked such havoc in my community, and I am glad to say that we are finally in a place, in a minority Parliament, where I have the opportunity, as my community's representative, to bring in some concrete fixes.We are only just getting started. We have a lot more to do, but I am glad to serve with a 25-member caucus that, every single day, is coming to this place to make the lives of Canadians better from coast to coast to coast.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805760680576078057608PeterJulianNew 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.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1840)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to join the debate. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Prince Albert.Bill C-56 is an interesting bill, and I must give the Liberal government some credit for taking a page directly from the leader of the official opposition's affordability plan and proposing to remove the GST from purpose-built rental housing. This is something that Conservatives support.I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the Liberal government admit that removing a tax, in this case, the GST, is a good way to increase affordability, much as I was shocked to see the Liberal government admit that removing its carbon tax on home heating oil is also a good way to increase affordability. If only it would remove its carbon tax on propane and natural gas to increase affordability for all Canadians and not just those in certain regions of the country.[Translation]Back to the bill, I also support the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, just as I supported my colleague from Bay of Quinte when he introduced his Bill C‑339.It is refreshing to see a Liberal government adopt Conservative solutions. I even have to give the Prime Minister a little credit. Removing the tax on goods and services relating to the construction of rental housing means that builders and developers will save money. It means that less money will end up here in Ottawa. We all know how much this Prime Minister likes spending other people's money. Despite reduced revenue, our perennially spendy Prime Minister did not label this an austerity bill—not yet, anyway. Maybe he will change his mind when he reads the bill and realizes he is endorsing Conservative ideas.Regardless, the Prime Minister has demonstrated remarkable restraint by introducing a bill that will reduce Ottawa's revenue and not calling it an austerity measure.(1845)[English]I pause for a moment, though, to ask this place a question. If the Liberal government is capable of understanding that removing the GST from rental housing increases affordability and that removing the carbon tax from home heating oil also increases affordability, why does it still refuse to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to increase affordability? Do Canadian families who heat their homes with natural gas and propane and who cannot pay their bills not matter?I have heard the Liberal excuses around this. Home heating oil is expensive and the carbon tax makes it more expensive, so that is why they are giving them a carbon tax break, but the same is also true for those who heat with natural gas and propane. Basically, this government is telling them that they do not matter. This is a Prime Minister who once said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, but that is no longer true if one heats one's home with natural gas or propane. Sure, one might be on the verge of bankruptcy or hitting the food bank every day, but this Liberal government just does not care.I know some members would say that I am getting a bit off track, that we should be debating what is in this bill. That is my point. The things in this bill would help, but the things we could do to most help Canadians right now, such as removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels, we are not doing solely because the government is punitive.This morning, we read about the Liberals' so-called affordability retreat, where taxpayers got stuck with a bill for $160,000, including rooms that cost anywhere from $1,200 to $3,200 apiece. The very Liberals who stayed in those rooms have the audacity to tell those who can no longer afford to heat their home at the end of the month that they will get no help. Worse, their carbon tax bill will actually be quadrupled. I would simply ask the obvious: Why not do more?[Translation]Why not offer Canadians who heat their homes with natural gas and propane the same carbon tax relief as those who heat their homes with home heating oil? Why does this Prime Minister always have to divide Canadians? This time, he is dividing them based on their heating fuel. Canadians have had enough of this.Every poll sends the message loud and clear about where the Liberals stand, yet the Liberal government ignores that message. To what end? I know there are good people on the government side, but the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his powerful group of unelected insiders is hurting many Canadians.Yes, the proposals in this bill will help. It is a start, but we seriously need to do more. That is why I talked about doing more. That is why the leader of the official opposition listens to Canadians every day. They are asking us to do more. Polls show they want relief from the carbon tax on their home heating bills.[English]Farmers want and need a break as well. Here in Canada, we introduced something called “marked gas”. The idea was that farmers could buy gasoline and diesel at lower costs, without additional taxes, because all of our predecessors from all political parties recognized that keeping farmers' costs low was in the public interest. Now the Liberal government is literally driving up the costs for farmers for ideological reasons.I will share a story of a local small business owner. This small business owner is a value-added food processor. It is very important to this small business owner that, when his goods arrive at local grocery stores, they proudly say that they are 100% Canadian. Here is the thing: When he gets his raw goods, they come from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and when he has them shipped out via transport truck, he now pays a carbon tax surcharge on the bill.He must raise his prices to offset the extra carbon tax that he pays. If he were to get the same raw goods out of the United States or overseas, he would not have that same large carbon tax surcharge from goods being shipped across Canada. He might be at that point where the only way he can lower his prices and remain competitive would be to switch because many of his competitors in the same grocery stores cannot say that they are also made in Canada. They are made in other jurisdictions where there is no carbon tax. When times are tough, as they are right now, fewer people can afford to pay extra for goods solely because they are made here in Canada.I hope the government realizes the long-term structural damage its carbon tax is creating. It would be a different story if our largest trading partners had the same carbon tax and it was a level playing field. The Liberals like to say that they are taking a leadership role with the carbon tax. However, when no one else is following, they are not leading the way.(1850)[Translation]Some may think that I was not objective in this debate, but when I go home and my constituents ask me what we are doing in Ottawa to make life more affordable for them, I would like to have more to offer than simply saying that I supported this bill. At least I can tell that small business owner and others like him that I shared their stories.Unfortunately, however, we have a Prime Minister and a Prime Minister's Office who do not care about any of them, unless they use home heating oil, of course.That said, yes, I will support this bill and I will continue to ask this Liberal government to adopt and better support our Conservative ideas. Let us put all home heating fuels on a level playing field and suspend the carbon tax.[English]Let us ensure that the carbon tax on farming is gone. Let us all read the Scotiabank report that tells of how government spending at all levels has created over 40% of the rise in basis points from the Bank of Canada. It is not austerity to think like a taxpayer and deliver value for money. What a concept. It is not an app that costs over $54 million or funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does not deliver any infrastructure?Literally every day, we read about a new spending scandal from the Liberal government and appointed insiders funnelling money to their own companies. How could someone not know that was wrong and unacceptable? How are people such as Laith Marouf on the government contract list? Why is there never any ministerial accountability?Instead of fiscal waste, we should be doing more with what is here. I urge all members of the House of Commons to consider doing more and adopting our Conservative ideas to provide Canadians a carbon tax break on home heating, and let us have a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-339, An Act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence)C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxFarming and farmersFuel oilGovernment accountabilityGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresGST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramIndoor heating systemsRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption80576098057610805761180576128057613805761480576158057616805761780576188057619805762080576218057622805762380576248057625805762680576278057628805762980576308057631AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110438ChadCollinsChad-CollinsHamilton East—Stoney CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsChad_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.): (1850)[English]Madam Speaker, there was not a lot in that on the bill in front of us on the Competition Act or removing GST from purpose-built rentals, but I will take the member up on his reference to plagiarism. We have certainly witnessed a lot of political plagiarism over the last several weeks. The Leader of the Opposition has almost taken every page out of Donald Trump's political playbook in threatening to defund the media. He has talked about firing people with our own Canadian version of The Apprentice. Of course, he has also taken on Mike Harris's common-sense revolution tag. What is the Leader of the Opposition's fascination with political plagiarism? Does he have any original ideas of his own? If he does, when will we hear them?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576338057634CarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1850)[English]Madam Speaker, I am going to ask for your patience with me because I am going to describe that particular question, not the questioner but the question, as political loser talk. If he wants to come to this place to talk about affordability, with doing things like increasing competition, which the member for Bay of Quinte originally proposed and is now incorporated in this bill, we could have that discussion. Instead, he wants to trash-talk my leader. I am going to be holding the Prime Minister to account for the actions of his government. I am going to give some credit where it is due when he takes good ideas, such as tax cuts and increased competition, from Conservative benches and incorporates them into bills. I will give Liberals credit when they do that, but when they trash-talk, I am going to call them out. That member is guilty of trash talk and should be fined by the court of public opinion in his constituency.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576358057636ChadCollinsHamilton East—Stoney CreekCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1850)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. More than that, I want to congratulate him on his French. I think he delivered about half of his speech in French, which is amazing. Seriously, kudos to him, and I am very happy to hear French in the House.At its press conference in Ottawa today, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said that, to build the millions of housing units we need, they would require $600 billion in infrastructure such as transportation, roads, public transit and sewers. I would just like to know what a future Conservative government—not that we want one—would say to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities about that.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576398057640CarolHughesAlgoma—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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, the member is one hundred per cent right. We are going through a housing crisis, and it is because municipal gatekeepers, right across the country, have held tight to old ideas such as zoning that basically keeps municipalities as they are. As our immigration grows, and as our population grows, we see there are just not enough places for everyone.In Bill C-56, the government's solution is a Conservative one, and it is to take the GST off and create more demand for something by lowering the cost of it. However, the problem is the speNDP-Liberal government's continued obsession with spending at any cost, any time, anywhere and any place, and we end up seeing much higher inflation.As I said in my speech, the Scotiabank report said that up to 40% of the basis points of the Bank of Canada have gone up. We will not see significant market investments or significant government investments go forward unless we have lower interest rates. It is the economics that are a pressure here. Maybe Bill C-56 would allow some Venn diagram where everything falls into place of some projects now being viable, but I am already seeing in my area of the Okanagan projects dropping. We are seeing, in the Statistics Canada numbers, a drop in permits. That is inevitable until the economy turns around, and it will not do that if the government keeps spending like there is no tomorrow. Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805764180576428057643DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to question my friend from British Columbia on his last point because he was referencing the Scotiabank number. Just so everyone understands, could he confirm that that number also includes all of the spending by Canada's provincial governments and that a great amount of it was approved spending during the pandemic, which, if I recall correctly, many Conservatives also supported to keep businesses afloat so people could continue working. Would he be able to confirm those figures?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057644DanAlbasCentral 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. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Dan Albas: (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, I actually wrote in my MP report to my constituents this week exactly that: All levels of government have been overspending.However, let us not forget what I called the Prime Minister earlier this week: “our deficit-maker-in-chief”. No one has the fiscal power like the current federal government. No one has the tax power like the current federal government. What were the members of the government doing this week? Instead of actually trying to show some leadership and actually reducing, they have been going through an NDP wish list, which is one of the reasons we keep referring to the fact that after eight long years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is just not worth the cost. It is Canadians who are paying that bill, and they will keep paying that bill until they kick the current government out.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576458057646AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): (1855)[English]Madam Speaker, what a great presentation that was from my colleague from of British Columbia. The common-sense ideas that he presented just reflect the common sense of a young Conservative Party that is ready to take over the reins here in Canada and bring about some new ideas to help Canadians as it progresses, goes forward and brings back the Canadian dream of home ownership.When I first read Bill C-56, I thought that it was not that bad and that there were some things in it that looked pretty good. Then I remembered: I know why they look good; it is because they are actually Conservative ideas. They are actually things the Conservatives talked about six years ago, and I am glad the Liberals copied them. I am very flattered they copied our ideas. That is great. Then I looked at it and thought, “Wait a minute, the bill is regarding GST on rental properties.” If we are really looking at this and at affordability across Canada, we are dealing with such a small part of where there are affordability problems. Let us take, for example, the young family who owns a house. Let us say they have a mortgage of $250,000. They bought their house three or four years ago. The mortgage is coming up for renewal now, and they are going from a 1.9% or 2.5% interest rate to roughly an 8.5% or 8.7% interest rate. Their monthly mortgage payment is going from $1,200 a month up to $1,800 or $1,900 a month. They have to find another $700 a month, so that is $8,400 a year of after-tax dollars just to pay the interest increase. That is an affordability problem. Is there anything in the bill that would address that? No, there is not. Is there anything in the Liberals' ideas they talked about yesterday, moving forward, that would address helping those people out? Have there been any ideas to work with the banks to say they could extend things out? Have there been any ideas to work with institutions to say that we could actually help people manoeuvre so they could actually afford to stay in their house? I can see why the Liberals talked only about rental properties in this piece of legislation, because what will happen is that people are going to give up their house because they cannot afford it, and they are going to have to have a place to rent. Let us look at the legislation again. Okay, we would build lots of apartments. When would they be done? Would it be two years or three years from now? People lose their house next month, and they have to wait three years for an apartment? Where do they go? What do they do?There has been no imagination in the government. The Liberals are out of ideas. They are old and tired, and they have no concept of what is actually going on in this country. They have done nothing to work with the municipalities and the provinces to ask how they can make things more affordable and whether there are things they can do together and leverage among themselves to make life easier for Canadians. There is nothing. We have a few examples where maybe they worked with one city here and one city there, but generally, across Canada, have they worked with anybody? No, they have not. They have picked a targeted approach based on political will and political expedience.We saw it with home heating when the Liberals removed the GST on oil. Did they apply that to propane? Did they apply it to natural gas? Did they apply it to wood or coal? I come from Saskatchewan. We still use coal; that is way worse than diesel. We still use wood; that is probably still worse than diesel. Was there any relief for that? No, there was not. We use propane and natural gas, which are better than diesel, but the cost has gone up so much because of the carbon tax that it is really hurting. People are saying to us all the time, “I cannot pay my bills.” They are going into winter now and are asking what they will do. They are saying, “My mortgage is going to go up. My heating is now going up. My property tax is going up. What do I do?” What does the government say to them? It says crickets. It tells them to pay it, and if their wallet is empty, to borrow more money at a higher interest rate and pay it. Is there any relief there? No, there is not. Has there been any compassion shown? No, there has not.That is the reality of what the government has done, and do members know why? The government is tired. It is out of ideas. It has no imagination. It does not understand economics. The reality is that this is very true, because if the Liberals understood economics, they would have realized five years ago, when they started borrowing money like drunken sailors, that it was not a good idea. When they started putting money into things that did not have any type of return on GDP or efficiencies, that was a bad idea.When we look at things now, we have to pay those interest rates. It is a tremendous amount of interest we are now paying on our debt. It is more than what we pay in health care. I was around before, when people had to wait two years to get surgery. My mother had cancer. She had to wait before she could get diagnosed, because those were the days when we were paying a higher amount in interest than we were paying for health care. It took a Liberal government, in co-operation with a Conservative government and the Reform Party in opposition, to get that tackled and under control.(1900) Did we learn from history? No, we did not. What did the Prime Minister do? He started borrowing, not just a small amount like he promised in 2015, not just $10 billion, but $40 billion, $60 billion and $100 billion. The numbers are staggering, and now, we cannot get that back. How do we get back to a balanced budget? It is going to take a tremendous amount of effort.Not only did we spend more, but we also brought in legislation that starves businesses. We brought in legislation that kicks people out of Canada so they invest everywhere else. We kept our natural resources in the ground. We did not defend our forestry sector when it was unfairly hit with tariffs out of the U.S. What has the government done? It has done nothing. It has shown no imagination. When we talk to it about this, it blames everybody else.Affordability is the basis of what is going on here. Let us look at things in a more macro and holistic sense. Let us break it down to a family that buys groceries. Groceries are more expensive. The inflation rate for groceries is tremendous. There is the war in Ukraine and a variety of things that have brought commodity prices up through the roof, no question about it, but there are things the government could do to alleviate some of the pain. I have no issues with change to the Competition Bureau. I have a few concerns, but no issues. Again, when would we get the results from the changes? Would they help us next week or next month, or a year, two years or 10 years from now? There are no deadlines. There are no time frames for allowing us to see any type of reduction in prices based on the changes. There is nothing there that would immediately help the family that needs the help today, so has the government done anything on affordability in the legislation? No, it has not. It has laid out some good targets to move forward in the future, four years or five years down the road when it is no longer in government, but what has it done today? What it has done is spend more money on things Canada cannot afford. It has put money into programs that do not help Canadians at this point in time. It has taken money out of their pockets that they need in their pockets.This is why we asked the government to just freeze the GST. Never mind the quadrupling, even just freezing it would alone at least help Canadians. If the government reduced it, it would show compassion. If it reduced it for all Canadians, it would show that it genuinely cared about this country and did not pick favourites on one side or the other based on political expediency. If you showed some consistency, we would be in better shape and in a better position in this Parliament, but you have not; you have divided Canadians by region, by different sectors—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCarbon taxCost of livingFood and drinkFuel oilGovernment billsGovernment borrowingGovernment Business No. 30HousingIndoor heating systemsInterest paymentsInterest ratesMortgagesPublic debtReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057647805764880576498057650805765180576528057653805765480576558057656805765780576588057659DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, Canadians are being divided, and when they are hurting, they get divided even more. When one starts picking winners and losers, it gets even worse.The government just spent $30 billion on two companies for electric batteries. It is probably $35 billion from what we are hearing now. It does not mean we should or should not do it, but that is $30 billion. Let us make sure that investment is going to happen, that it is done in such a way that Canadians are going to benefit from it. We do not know, as we cannot see the agreement. Canadians do not know what is in it. It is hidden. Why is it hidden? Maybe there is a reason to have foreign jobs. Maybe they are training the trainer and things like that; I could live with that, but I do not know. The government should show the agreement to us and to Canadians so they understand. It has spent a lot of money at a time when Canadians do not have a lot of money. It has tried to build the next sector of industry with huge government subsidization. Did it try to create a competitive environment here in Canada so businesses want to be here? Did it want to take advantage of the natural advantages we have in Canada: our diverse population, our multiple languages and the abilities we have? Those are the things it has to look at.If we look at the Canadian GDP per person, since 2017, it stagnated and now it has dropped. Basically, our standard of living compared to that in other parts of the world is going down. When we compare it to that of the U.S., ours has dropped 2.5%, and the Americans' has been rising 5.5% this last year. If we look at the graphs, theirs is going up and ours is going sideways and down. The government has to change that. If it continues, our families are going to get into worse problems.Canada is at a crossroads right now. Canadians are hurting. They are in pain. The government has done nothing to relieve that pain and has shown no compassion or empathy in regard to that.Automotive industryBatteriesBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment assistanceGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Gross domestic productReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057662805766380576648057665CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMichaelCoteauDon Valley East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110373MichaelCoteauMichael-CoteauDon Valley EastLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CoteauMichael_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.): (1905)[English]Madam Speaker, I think the member opposite needs a time machine, because if he goes back to the period from 2010 to 2015, he will know that the Harper Conservative government ran five straight deficits, with $55 billion in deficits in 2010 to 2011 alone. Do people know what we got with that? We got the exact same plan. Every single time the Conservatives come into power, it is like a game plan that is always put in place. They make massive cuts, which hurts people. They even raised the age of retirement. With a Conservative government, we get cuts and deficits, and people get hurt.To the member, is it true or not that the Harper government, over a five-year period from 2010 to 2015, ran deficits of almost $100 billion, yes or no?Budget deficitBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576668057667RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, yes, we ran deficits, and I know why. It is because we were in the greatest global meltdown of our banks that Canada and the world had ever seen. Where did that money go? I can tell the House where it went in my riding. It went to lift stations, to water treatment plants and to sewer lines. It went to things that Canadians actually needed. It was spent to actually create jobs and employment. It was returned to the economy and came back in taxes. That is where that money went.Tell me where the Liberal government's money went. Where did the billions of dollars go? I do not know. We got the ArriveCAN app; maybe some of it went there. Where else did it go? It is like the $40 million; nobody knows.Budget deficitBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576688057669MichaelCoteauDon Valley EastDenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-Hubert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1910)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the federal housing advocate, which is a body tasked by the federal government with ensuring that the right to housing is respected in this country, issued a report a few weeks ago stating that Canada will need a staggering 9 million housing units and 3.3 million social housing units in the next 10 years.I want to know how many social housing units would be built by a Conservative government, not that we want one.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80576708057671RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, actually, it is not up to government to build houses. It is up to the marketplace to build houses. It is up to government to actually set the stage, to put the environment in place so houses get built. It is up to government to make sure the platform is there so developers and homeowners who want to build a new house can actually do that. What have we done here? We have taxed them. We have taken away all of their disposable income. We have made it tough to actually even afford groceries, so how are they supposed to build a house? Talking about revenue properties and social housing, there is a role for government in social housing; there is no question about that for municipal, federal and provincial governments. Let us have a proper game plan to see that happen.Do members know what? It is pretty tough when the cupboard is bare because the money was spent on things we cannot find.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80576728057673DenisTrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertLindsayMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, I am at a loss in terms of the ridiculousness of the answer to the previous question, saying that the government has no place in housing. That is why we are in this crisis in the first place. It is because government has stepped away from the business of building houses and has left it to the market when, ultimately, housing is a human right. We cannot live without it, and we therefore expect that a government has to take it into account.I have heard from home builders. They are doing wonderful things in our community, but they do not do it out of the goodness of their heart. They do it for a profit, and that cannot continue when people are left homeless and dying on our streets as winter comes forward.How can the member possibly defend his position?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805767480576758057676RandyHobackPrince AlbertRandyHobackPrince Albert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, the NDP have a philosophy that they should own and be involved in everything. They think that the government can actually do things better than the marketplace; that is their philosophy. The reality is that we have seen that when the government is involved in things—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80576778057678LindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/59148RandyHobackRandy-HobackPrince AlbertConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HobackRandy_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Randy Hoback: (1910)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate your defending me there, because there is a lot of battering coming from that side.To get back to what I was trying to say, I think there is a role for government to be involved in social housing; there is no question about it. When it comes to homelessness, government can help people up from poverty and give them a hand up. We have seen that in the past with Conservative governments, and we will see it in the future with Conservative governments. This is done properly in partnership with municipalities, NGOs and the provinces.When it comes to private housing, there is a place for the marketplace to be involved. When the government spends $1 billion to build houses, the marketplace could probably spend $100 billion. The reality of leveraging in the marketplace is a lot better than the government trying to do it by itself. We are never going to build all these houses through government. We have to get the private sector involved, and if we do not, it will never happen.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805768180576828057683CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services, Lib.): (1915)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.Today I had the honour of participating in the discussion on Motion No. 30 and listening to remarks from our Conservative friends, which sort of made my hair stand on end. Our goal is to put an end to Conservative obstruction of this bill. That is what we are working on.Bill C-56 is about affordable housing and groceries. It is most unfortunate that the Conservatives have resorted to filibustering and delay tactics to stop such a critical bill. This has led to over 20 hours of debate in five days in this chamber. I confess that I would rather be with my family tonight than here in the House debating this with the Conservatives.They obviously have no intention of letting this bill to get to a vote even though some of their own members support it. For example, the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon told the House he would vote in favour of the bill over a month ago. On October 5, he said, “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”.That sounds great, but 49 days have passed since then, which is why I am looking forward to hearing where my Conservative colleagues stand now. Before they share that with us, though, I want to emphasize the importance of this bill and why passing it is crucial for Quebec, for Canada, and for the people of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.We are all well aware of the toll that rising food prices and the lack of affordable housing are taking on Canadian families. I am very pleased to clarify the measures set out in Bill C‑56 to address these urgent problems.As far as affordable housing goes, home ownership is clearly slipping beyond the reach of many Canadians, especially young people and newcomers. I have two daughters who are about to buy their first home, and even buying a small house under the current conditions is very difficult for them. I have never been so proud of our government, which is trying to introduce these measures to help young people buy their first home.Bill C‑56 proposes improvements to the rebate on the goods and services tax, or GST, for new purpose-built rental housing. This improvement encourages the construction of more rental housing, including apartments, student housing and seniors' residences. The bill will also facilitate tax relief. For example, a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000 will deliver $25,000 in tax relief.These measures seek to create conditions that are conducive to building housing tailored to the needs of families, which is sorely lacking. What is more, the bill removes restrictions on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations, can claim the GST rental rebate, which has increased to 100%. We are also asking the provinces and local governments to buy in to our new rental housing rebate and to make it easier to have housing built near public transit and services.At the same time, the rising cost of food is cause for concern. We have already provided targeted inflation relief to millions of modest- or low-income Canadians through a one-time grocery rebate in July. (1920)To further stabilize the cost of groceries, Bill C‑56 amends the Competition Act. These amendments allow the Competition Bureau to conduct in-depth market studies, eliminate the efficiencies argument to stop anti-competitive mergers and take measures to block collaboration efforts that undermine competition and consumer choice, especially those that put small competitors at a disadvantage compared to large grocery chains.What is the next step in our government's economic plan? It is very simple. We will continue the government's work to support Canadians. The 2023 fall economic statement presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week is directly connected to the initiatives outlined in this bill.My colleague opposite just clearly stated in his speech that all responsibilities should fall to the private sector. I would like to remind him that, during the pandemic, we were there for businesses, for citizens, for workers and for organizations. We were there for the arts, for culture and for seniors. He voted in favour of our measures every time. Now he is saying that we should not have taken on all those responsibilities. Once again, we support our communities. My colleague's main argument seems to be that we should not be doing what we are doing for Canadians. He believes that we should make cuts to affordability and housing measures.The foundations of our economic plan have produced encouraging results. We have seen that over one million additional Canadians have jobs today. We have recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic, and more. Inflation is down, and wage increases are outpacing inflation, which is a testament to our resilient economic policies. This year, the fall economic statement focused on two key challenges: strengthening support for the middle class and accelerating the construction of new housing. When new housing is built, it directly helps families in need. It stimulates the economy, helps families and helps send young people to school to support them in their everyday lives.We recognize the need to stabilize prices and ease the burden of imminent mortgage renewals for Canadians. Our government responded with targeted measures in the fall economic statement.These strategic measures seek to stabilize prices, help Canadians overcome mortgage difficulties and make life more affordable for everyone. Similarly, we are injecting billions of dollars in new funding to support our commitment to accelerate the pace of housing construction. What is more, we are cracking down on disruptive short-term rentals in order to make housing more accessible and affordable across Canada. The fall economic statement is fully in keeping with our ongoing efforts to improve the lives of Canadians. We have a strong record when it comes to providing benefits, as demonstrated by our historic investments in affordable child care, the quarterly carbon tax rebates, the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit and the increase in Canada child benefit payments.Our government is also proposing crucial amendments to the Competition Act to make groceries more affordable by eliminating junk fees and to remove the GST on essential services, such as psychotherapy and counselling.This statement is not just a plan for economic growth. It is something we are genuinely excited about. It is a testament to our commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future. The key measures it outlines, such as tax credits for investing in Canada's clean economy, the Canada growth fund's carbon contracts for difference, and advancing the indigenous loan guarantee program, demonstrate our commitment to supporting a robust economy that can stand up to global changes.Crucially, the fall economic statement builds on our ongoing commitment to making housing more affordable.(1925)In conclusion, we believe that passing Bill C‑56 is essential. I hope all members of the House will vote in favour of it.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceCost of livingCounselling servicesEconomic conditionsFood and drinkGoods and services taxGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingInflationMarket researchMiddle classMortgagesPsychotherapy and psychotherapistsRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeSupermarketsSustainable developmentThird reading and adoption805768480576858057686805768780576888057689805769080576918057692805769380576948057695805769680576978057698805769980577008057701805770280577038057704RandyHobackPrince AlbertMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1925)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is great that the Liberals stole our ideas to bring down the price of housing, especially units built for the rental market. We support that.However, does the member not see that out-of-control government spending has resulted in rampant inflation and interest rates that are hitting Canadians hard? Does he not see that?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresInflationReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80577058057706StéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon: (1925)[Translation]Madam Speaker, earlier on, we were accused of wanting to manage affordability and housing. We are not to blame for the pandemic or climate change. We know that the Conservatives do not believe in climate change, which has caused tornadoes and flooding across the country, perhaps even in the member's own riding. I know that there have been some in my riding.Today, the cost of inflation is due to the war in Ukraine and the whole global economic situation. Today, we still have an AAA credit rating. Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7. Today, we can affirm that our financial position is good, despite the debt-to-GDP ratio.Today, we are proud that we helped Canadians during the pandemic. I am pleased that my colleague voted in favour of all the measures we put in place during the pandemic to help his constituents and the businesses and workers in his riding.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expendituresInflationReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805770780577088057709MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgePeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1925)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the housing crisis is affecting the entire country. As we know, in New Westminster—Burnaby, a one-bedroom apartment costs $2,500 a month. Becauase of this crisis, people simply cannot afford to put a roof over their heads. It is not an exaggeration to say that.This crisis has been brewing for 17 years. We saw it first under the Conservatives, and after that the Liberals did virtually nothing for many years. Now, with pressure from the NDP, they are just starting to take action. However, the reality is that we are still far behind where we should be in terms of building houses.I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Why is the government waiting two years before making the investments that would allow the construction of social, co-operative and affordable housing to begin right away?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805771080577118057712StéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationStéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-Nation//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon: (1925)[Translation]Madam Speaker, in politics, it is never too late to take positive action.We have adopted several good measures, including the family benefit for children and families. We have also helped Canadians with housing through other programs.What we are putting in place today is aimed precisely at responding to the housing crisis. We know that when there is a housing crisis, investing in affordable housing has a domino effect. When we invest in affordable housing, other units become available. People who are a little better off will be able to afford slightly larger homes for their family. There are going to be more homeowners. The wheel keeps turning. We need to act quickly, now.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption805771380577148057715PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88530DenisTrudelDenis-TrudelLongueuil—Saint-HubertBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/TrudelDenis_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ): (1925)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am wondering what country my colleague actually lives in. I listened to him brag about what his government has done to deal with the housing crisis. The Liberals have been in power for eight years.I did a tour of Quebec. I travelled all around the province. Homelessness has increased by 40%. Right now, 10,000 people in Quebec are homeless. There are homeless people everywhere: Saint‑Jérôme, Val‑d'Or, Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Rimouski, Gaspé, Sherbrooke and likely in my colleague's riding too. I heard what the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said earlier. There are also homeless people in Shawinigan. It is a problem everywhere.We asked for an emergency fund so that people are not dying on Quebec's riverbanks. There was nothing about that in the economic update. As my colleague—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Homelessness and homelessReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805771780577188057719CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88394StéphaneLauzonStéphane-LauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LauzonStéphane_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Stéphane Lauzon: (1930)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will answer his first question. I am in Quebec, in Canada, in my riding, and I am proud to be here.As for homelessness, my colleague has been shouting at us since the beginning of this session about respecting our jurisdictions and not meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions. We take the issue of homelessness to heart. Even though we are the federal government, we care about people in need. We are investing in mental health. We are investing in housing. We want to get people off the streets, and we want to work with the Bloc Québécois to help the homeless.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Homelessness and homelessReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80577228057723CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—Vanier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionHon. Mona Fortier (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): (1930)[English]Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 30, which is designed to unlock the support for Canadians laid out in Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I feel compelled to share that I met with many constituents from Ottawa—Vanier who asked me to support this bill, and I will explain why in the next few minutes.It is unfortunate that the urgency of delivering on these priorities for Canadians has been pushed aside by the delay tactics employed by members of the Conservative Party. Despite members of their own party saying they support the measures, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has done, they have spent over 20 hours of debate across five days filibustering this important legislation. While the opposition is focused on delays, our government is focused on pushing for results.We know that the challenges of securing affordable housing persist. That is why, in addition to Bill C-56, the fall economic statement unveiled by the Minister of Finance earlier this week underscores our commitment to the middle class by introducing measures to mitigate the impact of high prices and impending mortgage renewals, offering targeted relief to make life more affordable for Canadians. In addition, the fall economic statement focuses on accelerating home construction as a critical solution to the housing crisis. The need for more homes across Canada is acute, especially with young individuals and newcomers finding home ownership increasingly out of reach and the rising cost of rent straining household budgets. This is a priority that Ottawa—Vanier residents have compelled me to work on. One of my focuses is to make sure that this measure, along with all the other measures we have been bringing forward in the national housing strategy, works to accelerate home construction.Moreover, the fall economic statement proposes significant funding increases to bolster home construction efforts. The infusion of $15 billion in new loan funding is expected to support the creation of over 30,000 additional homes throughout the country. These initiatives, combined with removing the GST on new co-op rental housing and tightening regulations on non-compliant short-term rentals, signify our dedication to fostering a more accessible housing market for Canadians.It is important to note the stark contrast between our government's proactive stance on housing and the lack of substantive proposals from the opposition. While Conservatives offer slogans and rhetoric, we remain steadfast in our commitment to building a fair and accessible housing market for all Canadians. This year, federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared with that of the previous government.Bill C-56 plays a pivotal role in these ongoing efforts. It introduces enhancements to the goods and services tax, the GST and the rental rebate, encouraging the construction of purpose-built rental housing. This measure aims to alleviate the housing shortage by incentivizing the development of rental properties, including apartments, student housing and residences for seniors. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition actually described our plan to deliver more homes for Canadians as “disgusting”. What is disgusting is Conservatives delaying this important bill. While Conservatives provide nothing but slogans, the bedrock of our economic blueprint is yielding results. With over a million more Canadians gainfully employed today compared with the prepandemic era, coupled with a downward trend in inflation, as we witness wage increases outpacing inflation rates, the resilience of our economic policies is unmistakable.(1935)This year's fall economic statement zeroes in on two paramount challenges: supporting the middle class and expediting the construction of more homes. These pivotal actions are aimed at stabilizing housing prices, extending support to Canadians, navigating mortgage challenges and rendering life more affordable for all. In parallel, our commitment to accelerating home construction is underscored by the injection of billions in new financing. Furthermore, we are taking resolute steps to curb the disruptions caused by short-term rentals, ensuring greater accessibility and affordability in housing across Canada.Building on the measures outlined in Bill C-56, the fall economic statement seamlessly aligns with our sustained effort to elevate the lives of Canadians with an intensified focus on housing. Our unwavering commitment to affordable housing is emphasized by the substantial increase in federal investment, paving the way for the creation of more than 30,000 additional homes across Canada through new funding. Notably, the removal of GST from new co-op rental housing and protective measures introduced via the Canadian mortgage charter serve as a crucial step in our ongoing mission to make housing more accessible and affordable.While the federal government is leading the national effort to build more homes by bringing together provincial, territorial and municipal governments in partnership with home builders, financiers, community housing providers, post-secondary institutions and indigenous organizations and governments, we are also doing more work to stabilize prices. A point of critical importance about Bill C-56 is that it would make changes to the Competition Act to ensure more effective and modern competition law. This would promote affordability for Canadians and help our economic growth. That is why we are introducing amendments that would stop big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enabling the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small grocers.Our government recognizes the fundamental role that housing plays in fostering economic stability and societal well-being. The efforts outlined in Bill C-56, supported by the fall economic statement, reflect our dedication to both ensuring that all individuals and families have a place to call home and stabilizing prices for Canadians. Again, I have been knocking on doors and talking with residents of Ottawa—Vanier, and they have told me time and time again that we need to continue to bring those measures for housing.In closing, I urge all members to support Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, as a crucial step forward in our mission to create an economy that works for everyone.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCost of livingFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingMarket researchMortgagesRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80577248057725805772680577278057728805772980577308057731805773280577338057734805773580577368057737StéphaneLauzonArgenteuil—La Petite-NationMarcDaltonPitt 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 OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC): (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberals are patting themselves on the back for introducing the bill. Actually, what they should be doing is congratulating the member for Carleton, the Conservative Party leader, for bringing forth the building homes not bureaucracy private member's bill. They have taken pieces of it and highlighted it in their plan. Well, they have only taken half measures; there is a lot more to it.I want to bring up one point. I met with the CEO of a company that does purpose-built rentals here in Ottawa, and he says that the biggest issue they are facing is bureaucracy. It takes him a lot longer to get through some of the bureaucracy than to actually get things built. According to the member, does the bill address bureaucracy?Building and construction industryBureaucracyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption805773880577398057740MonaFortierHon.Ottawa—VanierMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—Vanier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionHon. Mona Fortier: (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for sharing his thoughts on this bill. It would be great if he could support this measure, which has been brought forward by developers for the last many years, who say that the GST removal would give them a break and help them move forward in building. This is one of the many measures we have been bringing forward.The other one that I know is big talk in Ottawa right now is about how we are going to bring forward the accelerator fund. The housing accelerator fund is another measure that will help everyone, such as the builders, the community housing associations or organizations and also the federal government, to support the city to move forward. I believe we are on a path where we have many measures that will accelerate access to safe homes for Canadians, especially in Ottawa—Vanier.Building and construction industryBureaucracyBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80577418057742MarcDaltonPitt Meadows—Maple RidgeJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1940)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa—Vanier talked a lot about housing and affordable housing. No doubt here in Ottawa there is a desperate need for housing. If the member really supports her community and her constituents in getting access to safe, secure and affordable housing, why then would she not raise the issue with her own government slow-walking the delivery of housing in the fall economic statement? There are two major initiatives the government is going to delay the funding for until 2025. Just as an FYI, the average time to get a project off the ground is five years. Add another two years to wait for the funding to come in and that is seven years. It will not be until at least 2030 before real housing gets built for people to access. How is that supporting her constituents? Will she actually do what is right and tell her own government to fix that problem and roll out the money now?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8057743MonaFortierHon.Ottawa—VanierMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—Vanier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionHon. Mona Fortier: (1940)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am going to respond in French because I want to make it clear to the residents of Ottawa—Vanier, and to all Canadians, that since we took office in 2015, the Government of Canada, the Liberal government, has been focused on a housing strategy across the country, and that includes affordable housing. I can say that there is a big difference in the riding of Ottawa—Vanier and in the national capital region. I have seen a number of construction projects that suggest we are taking advantage of different levers, different tools to make progress on housing affordability.We know we need many more such tools. That is why the federal government is putting measures in place today and will continue to do so in the coming years.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption80577448057745JennyKwanVancouver EastChadCollinsHamilton East—Stoney Creek//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110438ChadCollinsChad-CollinsHamilton East—Stoney CreekLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CollinsChad_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Chad Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, Lib.): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague highlighted the difference between our housing platform and the opposition's. While the Leader of the Opposition seems to be applying for the position of the Canadian The Apprentice host, we are busy working with stakeholders. Instead of threatening to fire people, we have used the carrot approach in incentivizing the private sector and not-for-profit sector. I ask my friend and colleague to comment on why it is important to work with stakeholders in this space in order to see new affordable supply across all of Canada. Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8057746MonaFortierHon.Ottawa—VanierMonaFortierHon.Ottawa—Vanier//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96356MonaFortierHon.Mona-FortierOttawa—VanierLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FortierMona_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionHon. Mona Fortier: (1945)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes it easy to see why this is the only way forward and the only way to create more housing across the country. We have to work with partners, including cities, the provinces, co‑operatives and organizations. This affects everyone, and that is why partnerships at the federal level and investment in our communities make things better. Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8057747ChadCollinsHamilton East—Stoney CreekPeterJulianNew Westminster—Burnaby//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP): (1945)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on Bill C-56 and on Motion No. 30. I think that these are important initiatives that the NDP has brought forward.I want to start off my speech by expressing my disappointment in the fall economic statement. There are two things that I believe need to be highlighted.First off, and this is something that the NDP will continue to fight for, the fact that in the fall economic statement, there was no money allocated to the Canada disability benefit, to provide supports for people with disabilities, is a profound disappointment. It is disrespectful to people with disabilities.We know that half of the people who go to food banks to make ends meet and half of the people who are homeless are Canadians with disabilities. The government has a responsibility to put the Canada disability benefit in place immediately. That is something that the member for Burnaby South, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and the entire NDP caucus is not going to stop fighting for.Second, we have all, across the country, heard from small businesses that are concerned about the fact that there is not an extension of the CEBA loans. Small businesses are struggling. I know that in New Westminster—Burnaby, many small businesses have been approaching us, needing that extension for that repayment.I am reminded by my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, that businesses in her riding as well are raising those concerns, including Dan Osborne from Gore Bay, who has said that the NDP needs to keep fighting to have that CEBA loan extension. New Democrats are committing to continue to fight for the CEBA loan extension for Dan Osborne, for businesses in New Westminster—Burnaby and right across the country, to ensure that this is in place. There is no doubt that we are going to keep fighting.When we talk about this bill, I think it is important to talk about the last 17 years and what we saw first under the corporate Conservatives and now under the Liberals, in terms of what has actually happened in housing. Housing costs doubled under the Conservatives. We saw this during the dismal years of the Harper regime. They doubled again under the Liberals. Between the two of them, both the Liberal government and the Conservative government lost over a million homes that were affordable, homes that people could live in, homes that were based on 30% of income or a little bit more, homes that Canadians could afford. I had a press conference last week with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, where we talked about rents in our area.In New Westminster, it is $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom, on average. In Coquitlam, it is $2,600. In Burnaby, it is $2,500. These are all costs that are simply too heavy for Canadians to pay. The idea that we would put into place immediate measures to help housing is why we are supportive of some of the measures that we forced to be in Bill C-56.Motion No. 30 helps to improve that and includes, as well, important issues that help to support the Competition Bureau and the fact that, as a federal government, there is a responsibility to crack down on food price gouging, as my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has been so outspoken on, as well as the member for Burnaby South.As for the food price gouging and the fact that the Competition Bureau does not have the powers that it needs, this is absolutely essential. That is why we are very supportive of this bill and of the motion as well. It is NDP-inspired, because New Democrats stand up for their constituents.When we talk about the years of the Harper Conservatives and what they did to housing, losing over 800,000 units across the country, we have to really think about what planet the member for Carleton is on when he talks about the golden age of the Harper regime. I remember something quite different. I remember the erosion of affordable housing units.The average Conservative MP, of course, is a proud owner of having lost over 2,400, on average, affordable housing units in their constituencies, as housing costs rose under the Harper regime and as affordable housing units disappeared, were either sold or converted to corporate landlords.(1950)We think of the member for Carleton now in Stornoway. He lives a gilded-age life, with the French cravat and everything. It is so clear to me that he is out of touch with Canadians when he pretends that somehow the housing crisis is going to magically be solved just by giving more leeway to corporate landlords. That is the way it was under the Harper Conservatives. It certainly did not, in any way, make a difference.In fact, it was the contrary. We saw a deterioration right across the country of housing stability and housing affordability. When the Conservatives say we do not have to do anything and we just have to give corporate landlords more leeway, we see what Doug Ford in Ontario has brought. He has brought the destruction of the Greenbelt, the unbelievable selling out of the public good for private profit. It is simply not a solution.If we want to bring it home for people in this country, we need to make the kinds of investments the NDP is calling for, some of which are reflected in Bill C-56. Some are reflected in the improvements that we have made, that we forced the government to put into place.The reality is, on this side of the House, the NDP absolutely believes that every Canadian has a right to have a roof over their head each night and that they should have the ability to put food on their table every day. It is more than that. We actually believe that Canadians have the right to a universal health care system and that they have a right to universal pharma care.We should not have constituents struggling, as some of mine are a few blocks from my home. It is a thousand dollars a month for heart medication and families have to make that tough choice between whether they keep a roof over their head by paying their rent, or whether they pay for that life-saving heart medication. In a country as wealthy as this, there should be no Canadian who has to make the choice between life-sustaining medication, putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head. Not a single Canadian should have to face that choice every day, and that is the reality.That is why we are here in this House. There are 25 New Democrats who are fighting, along with our leader, the member for Burnaby South, to change that situation and to make a difference for people so that we actually take that enormous wealth that we have in this country and ensure that we are actually providing essential needs for every single Canadian across the length and breadth of this land.Conservatives and Liberals, as they are wont to do, usually ask at this point who is going to pay for it. If people heard the response of our finance critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, to the fall economic statement, he raised the issue that we have the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD. We should actually be thinking potentially of raising business taxes by 1% or 2%. It used to be 28% and now it is 15%. For every percentage point rise, there is $3 billion available for essential needs for, for example, affordable housing in this country.Let us talk more about the Harper record because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent, non-partisan officer of Parliament, who does objective work, evaluated the total cost of the Harper tax haven treaties just a few years ago. How much did we give away in Harper tax haven treaties, these sweetheart deals that the Harper government signed in order to allow billionaires and wealthy corporations to take their money offshore?Members know how it works, or they may not, so let me explain it. If someone takes their money offshore to a tax haven treaty holder, like the Bahamas that has a 0% taxation rate, and declares income there, then they do not have to pay taxes in Canada.The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at all of that and made the conservative estimate that the Harper tax haven treaties, and the fact that the Liberal government sadly signed more of those treaties after it came into power, costs Canadians over $30 billion each year in taxpayers' money. This figure is profoundly disturbing.(1955)What is the cumulative impact of that over the eight years the Liberals have been in power? Members can do the math. A quarter of a trillion dollars was handed over to billionaires and wealthy corporations and then to overseas tax havens. Now let us look at what the Conservatives did over the same period. This is a conservative estimate. The PBO was very clear that the estimate could go well beyond the figures in its landmark study on the impact of the Harper tax haven treaties, back in 2019. Over a nearly 10-year period, it was $300 billion.If we put the two figures together, we are talking about over half a trillion dollars that has been spent not on housing, not on pensions, not on health care, not on pharmacare, not on providing clean water for indigenous communities and not on providing for reconciliation or indigenous-led housing developments. No. It has gone to the wealthy. It has gone to billionaires. It has gone to corporations that are extraordinarily profitable and not paying their fair share of taxes.When Conservatives and Liberals ask how to pay for it, our response to them is to ask how they have paid for the massive tax breaks they have given to wealthy Canadians and profitable corporations over the course of the last 17 years. How did they pay for that? They paid for it by depriving seniors of their pensions. They paid for it by forcing students to go into debt. They paid for it by not putting in place a Canada disability benefit. They paid for it by not having affordable housing in place. They paid for it by undermining our health care system.It is time that wealthy corporations pay their fair share, that wealthy Canadians pay their fair share and that Canadians stop paying for the incredible largesse of Conservatives and Liberals. It is profoundly disappointing to me that the resources of our country are mobilized for the very rich when they should be mobilized to pay for the needs of Canadians right across the length and breadth of this land.I only have a few minutes left, so I want to come back to the vote that took place on the Day of Dignity and Freedom, on Tuesday, to be in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, commemorated in Ukraine, of course, and around the world in the Ukrainian diaspora. Tuesday was the 10-year anniversary of the fight for freedom and democracy in Ukraine.This is an important symbolic date because of the force of the violence of the Putin regime. The Putin regime is violent, of course, domestically. There are human rights' violations, as we have seen, and hatred. We have seen the defenestration of political opponents. However, the violence that has been reaped on Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian democracy is profoundly sad to freedom-loving people, the people who stand for democracy and human rights.That day, the Day of Dignity and Freedom, was being commemorated around the world because Ukrainians could not celebrate. They are defending their homes. They are defending their farms. They are defending their communities. They are trying to keep their hospitals open. They are trying to avoid their schools from being attacked by missiles and bombs. They could not commemorate it, but it was that day that every single Conservative MP chose to vote against Ukraine and vote against the principle of having a trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Not a single Conservative member stood up and said to the member for Carleton that this was wrong, that his obsession with the price on carbon is unhealthy, that this unhealthy obsession doesn't make any sense when we're talking about supporting people who are fighting for their liberty. However, every single Conservative MP stood in their place and voted down the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.(2000)That was profoundly sad to me. It was shocking, I think, to Canadians of Ukrainian origin, one and a half million strong, who were calling on Conservatives to do the right thing and support Ukraine. Not a single Conservative was willing to do that.It was shocking to the Zelenskyy regime, his government. President Zelenskyy was here in this House asking Conservatives to vote for the deal, to vote for that agreement, that symbolic and important support for the Ukrainian people, yet every single Conservative MP said no.This is tragic. I want to say how profoundly disappointing it was to all the other members of Parliament in this House who heard President Zelenskyy's call and who responded appropriately. All the other parties, all the other members of Parliament, voted in favour of the principle of a trade agreement with a people who are fighting for their democracy, their lands, their cities and their freedom. However, because of the extremism of the member for Carleton, the Conservatives were all forced to vote against it.I know they are hearing from constituents—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada disability benefitCanada Emergency Business AccountCanada-Ukraine Free Trade AgreementCanadian companiesCompetitionConsumer priceCorporate income taxCost of livingCOVID-19Food and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Health care systemHousingLoansPandemicPersons with disabilitiesRental housingReport stageRules of debateRussiaSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSocial housingSupermarketsTax avoidanceTax reliefThird reading and adoptionTrade agreementsUkraineWar8057748805774980577508057751805775280577538057754805775580577568057757805775880577598057760805776180577628057763805776480577658057766805776780577688057769805777080577718057772805777380577748057775805777680577778057778805777980577808057781MonaFortierHon.Ottawa—VanierCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think it is time for the member to move on to the topic of debate tonight. I know it is late and there are very few people in this room and that he can go on and on with his misrepresentation of the facts. I am a proud Ukrainian person from Canada, and I am tired of hearing this in our House. It is time to move on.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057782PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member being embarrassed by her vote, but she should not have voted the way she did.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057786Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaLucBertholdMégantic—L'Érable//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2000)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my colleague's message was very clear, yet the first thing my NDP colleague did was carry on with his insinuations and disinformation about the deeper reasons why the Conservative Party voted against an agreement imposed on Ukraine when it was in a position of weakness.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057787PeterJulianNew Westminster—BurnabyChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2000)[English]Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect by remaining standing. Unfortunately I toppled over my water glass, so my seat is wet. That is why I am not sitting down.I do want to respond to my colleague. Disinformation is the Leader of the Opposition standing in this House and announcing a terrorist attack because he saw on the Fox propaganda network that—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80577918057792Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I would urge my colleague to ensure his comments are germane. He is currently using his right to speak to spread more disinformation. I urge him to keep things relevant.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057794Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2005)[Translation]Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think that the member for Carleton should apologize for making comments that fuelled disinformation—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057797Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I make a plea for relevance.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057799Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2005)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are in an awkward position. It is up to them to manage that—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057802Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby seems to have trouble with relevance and is acting like a Russian disinformation officer, which he generally is in the House. I would urge him to stick somewhere close to the truth.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderRelevancyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057804Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/16399PeterJulianPeter-JulianNew Westminster—BurnabyNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/JulianPeter_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Peter Julian: (2005)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have just three words to conclude: He should know.In terms of Bill C-56 and Motion No. 30, the important thing for Conservatives to remember is that, rather than blocking this bill, which is what they have been trying to do, they should be looking to support it. They say they are concerned about affordable housing. Their record shows the contrary; they have a deplorable record on affordable housing. However, if they really believe in ensuring there is more construction in this country of affordable housing, they should be supporting this bill, which, of course, has been inspired and pushed by the NDP. Like many of the other good things that have happened in this Parliament, it is because of the member for Burnaby South and a very dedicated NDP caucus that this is happening. Canadians should have more consumer protection, and more weight should be given to the Competition Bureau to crack down on the food price gouging we have seen from corporate CEOs, the gas price gouging we have seen from the very profitable oil and gas sector, with profits of over $38 billion last year, and all of the other ways that Canadians are being gouged, like through cellphones and Internet, which Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world for. If the Conservatives truly believe in that, they should be supporting this motion, which would enhance the Competition Bureau and would ensure that Canadians finally get some protection.For 17 years, Conservatives and Liberals have not protected consumers at all in this country, and the NDP and the member for Burnaby South are standing up and saying that enough is enough. They need to make sure we have protection for consumers in this country. That is what the NDP is fighting for. If Conservatives really believe in all the things they have been saying, they can make up for their past track record, which is absolutely deplorable, and vote for the motion and the bill. We are not going to stop fighting for Canadians. The 25 members of the NDP caucus have had a huge weight in pushing the government to do the right thing. We are very proud of our record. We expect all members of Parliament to adopt the bill and adopt the motion. Then, of course, we will move on to anti-scab legislation that all members of Parliament should be supporting as well.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumers and consumer protectionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSupermarketsThird reading and adoption80578078057808805780980578108057811Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88541LucBertholdLuc-BertholdMégantic—L'ÉrableConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BertholdLuc_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 InterventionMr. Luc Berthold: (2040)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all learned a few minutes ago that there have been problems with the voting application for members participating remotely. As we can see, many members are participating remotely.I would therefore like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt on division the amendment moved by the Conservatives and, subsequently, to adopt on division the motion as amended by the Conservative amendment.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActDivisionsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80578188057819Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2055)[English]I declare the amendment defeated.Amendment negativedThe next question is on the main motion.If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.Amendments and subamendmentsBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 454Government billsGovernment Business No. 30Recorded divisionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057823Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (2110)[Translation]I declare the motion carried.Motion agreed toBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 455Government billsGovernment Business No. 30Recorded divisionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8057828MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/107097MarciIenHon.Marci-IenToronto CentreLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IenMarci_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersGovernment Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56 [Notice of Closure Motion]InterventionHon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 30, at the next sitting of the House, a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate not be further adjourned.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClosureGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Notice of motionReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8054086SeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/71270SeanCaseySean-CaseyCharlottetownLiberal CaucusPrince Edward Island//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaseySean_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): (1740)[English]Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill C-275 and, specifically, to the support it would provide our farmers.We know that Canadian farmers face hardships. These include issues with supply chains and the rising costs of production; the threat of environmental hardships, such as natural disasters caused by climate change; and the risk of harmful and deadly animal disease. These are compounding everyday struggles. The possibility of someone illegally entering farmers' property amplifies these hardships, causing stress to the farmer, their family and their animals.Bill C-275 would protect Canadian farmers and their animals by making it illegal to enter a place where animals are kept if, in doing so, a person could reasonably expose the animals to a disease or toxic substance. The bill would provide Canadian farmers with the reassurance that they no longer have to worry about potential biosecurity breaches from individuals entering their property illegally. They could instead focus on their daily work to maintain the health of their animals and to help feed the country.The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food studied this bill. The committee heard from a number of stakeholders, including farmers and industry associations representing the agriculture and agri-food sector. It was clear from their testimony that farmers are committed to protecting the health of their animals. Their livelihood depends on it. Indeed, that would characterize the vast majority of farmers.However, I would be remiss if I did not point out some of the criticisms of the bill raised by those who are concerned about animal cruelty. There are people who have expressed concerns in that regard. They point out that, in Canada, it is rare to see cameras in slaughterhouses, something that is commonplace in Europe, for example. They also point out that whistle-blowers in an operation, where they see something untoward, would be exposed to potential risk by measures such as these.I am from Prince Edward Island, and probably the most serious biosecurity case encountered in P.E.I. did not relate to animals but, as one might predict, to potatoes. In 2014, there were sewing needles found in potatoes and in french fries in various locations throughout Prince Edward Island. The angst this caused the agricultural community was absolutely incredible. It also necessitated some very substantial investments by farmers to essentially X-ray potatoes going through the processing line in order to combat this and reassure the public their food was safe.Our government recognizes the importance of farmers and has demonstrated its ongoing commitment to them and the agriculture and agri-food sector. I want to take a moment to describe some of the ways we have supported the Canadian agriculture sector over the past year, beginning with budget 2023. The Canadian agriculture industry is world class and the backbone of our economy. In fact, Canada exported nearly $92.8 billion in agriculture and food products in 2022. The government has made a number of significant investments to continue expanding the sector's reach. For instance, through budget 2023, our government created the dairy innovation and investment fund, providing up to $333 million over the next 10 years. The fund is intended to help the Canadian dairy sector increase its competitiveness and adapt to new market realities. We know the dairy sector is a vital pillar of rural communities and a key driver of the economy. There are 9,739 farms and 507 dairy processing plants across Canada, employing more than 70,000 Canadians. In 2022, the dairy sector generated $17.4 billion in sales. Even though I am from Prince Edward Island, I represent an urban riding. I can remember, when I was first elected, being summoned to a meeting with dairy farmers with a couple of my rural colleagues. My immediate reaction was to ask why I needed to be at the meeting, because there were no dairy farmers in my riding. (1745)It was very quickly pointed out to me that ADL, which is a milk and cheese processor, employs many of my constituents. That was a good lesson for a young member of Parliament: While much of the wealth is generated in rural areas, it often emanates from rural into urban areas. We are all interconnected. That needs to be borne in mind.I would like to offer a tip of the hat to Chad Mann and the good people at Amalgamated Dairies Limited, who are truly national and international leaders in the production of milk and cheese. We are immensely proud of them. They are actually owned by producers. It is a business that we need to promote as a key element of the economy in Prince Edward Island and that the Government of Canada can, must and should continue to support.The sustainable Canadian agriculture partnership was launched this past April. It is a five-year agreement between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. It includes $1 billion in federal programs and activities. For instance, the federal AgriMarketing program provides approximately $130 million to the agriculture sector to increase and diversify exports to international markets and seize domestic market opportunities.The SCAP includes an additional $2.5 billion in cost-shared programs and initiatives that are funded among all orders of government. This includes, for example, support for AgriRecovery in cases of emergencies.Speaking of AgriRecovery in support of emergencies, natural disasters can have a devastating impact on our agriculture industry. We have seen it up close in Prince Edward Island, more often than we would like in recent years, including, most recently, hurricane Fiona. There have been a number of catastrophic floods, droughts and hurricanes that have resulted in millions of dollars in losses.Our government recognizes the hardships that farmers face from these natural disasters, and we are here to support them. The AgriRecovery framework is designed to support producers with the extraordinary costs they incur because of an emergency and to get them back into production. That is why, in October 2023, we announced $365 million in federal-provincial funding to provide relief to farmers and ranchers in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan as a result of the extraordinary costs they have incurred because of this year's extreme weather conditions. This funding covers up to 70% of costs incurred during these disasters. This includes moving livestock, so they can be fed and watered, replacing and repairing damaged fencing, and unforeseen veterinary costs.I would like to close by indicating that our government recognizes the importance of supporting farmers. We are investing significant funding to support our farmers and producers. This would enable Canadian farmers to maintain their world-class reputation and continue to provide Canadians with the first-rate products we have come to expect.Our government is always hard at work to promote the work of our farmers in the agriculture sector through a wide range of activities, initiatives and funding opportunities. We have demonstrated that we are consistently here for our farmers, in good times and in bad.Bill C-275 is another tool to provide further support for farmers and to ensure the safety of their animals, a subject that preoccupies the vast majority of them. This is a commendable objective that deserves our backing.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Cruelty to animalsDairy farmingFarming and farmersFarmsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsNatural disastersPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption80542848054285805428680542878054288805428980542908054291805429280542938054294805429580542968054297805429880542998054300805430180543028054303AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieCarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104715CarolineDesbiensCaroline-DesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DesbiensCaroline_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMrs. Caroline Desbiens (Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, BQ): (1750)[Translation]Madam Speaker, first I would like to say that I am aware we still have a long way to go to improve how livestock are often treated. We must speak out against intensive livestock farming done without any concern for animal welfare. We have to implement practices worthy of a modern world. Our ancestors showed us how to be kind and have respect for the lives of farm animals. We must monitor any misconduct and punish people accordingly. Animal rights groups are right to be concerned. However, we must not defend animal rights by demonstrating illegally, which only makes things worse. Before I get into it, I would like to say that we all make life choices. Food is part of that, based on our values and food traditions. Generally speaking, we should be eating local food that comes from ethical and sustainable agriculture, and we should show moderation in how much we eat, especially when it comes to food of animal origin. That is a rule we should live by at all times.In the same vein, a society that treats its animals badly and disrespectfully does not take much better care of its humans. That idea is going to form the foundation of the rest of my speech. I would like to take advantage of the fact that we are indirectly talking about animal welfare to say thank you to all the pets that have been part of my life or still are. I am sure many of my colleagues here will agree that the relationship we have with our pets is unique; it is like no other feeling.Although they go by many names, I am convinced that pets make families happy, just as Copain, Patof, Flocon, Hiver, Roxy once did for me, and as Abricot, Capi, Dalida, our little newcomer, Ma Dalton, Luna, Marjolie, Berlioz and Iba still do. I want to take this opportunity to thank pets for the affection and unconditional loyalty they give to their respective families. Pets bring happiness to families and single people alike, and there are the positive effects that pet therapy has on people with psychological difficulties.Although not directly related to the subject of this bill, I wanted to highlight my love for animals and also my concern for all aspects of animal welfare in our society. I am very concerned about respect for animal life and welfare at home and on livestock farms. Legal protection of the animal world is a fundamental principle.In that regard, this bill engages the same willingness to do better, despite any perceptions that its wording may elicit. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑275 in principle, particularly to curb a growing phenomenon across North America and the rest of the world. I am referring to break-ins at farm buildings to protest livestock conditions. As unhealthy as they may sometimes be, there is no excuse for committing offences that often endanger the very animals we seek to protect. This bill is a step in the right direction, although a number of points will have to be clarified to determine whether this addition is consistent with Canada's federal animal health legislation and Quebec's existing animal welfare legislation.We firmly believe that it is not up to the federal government to impose its laws on Quebec, even in an area of shared jurisdiction, when the division is relatively clear. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that demonstrations with dramatic gestures are a growing problem, that they should not be trivialized and that they must be better regulated. This is not a debate about freedom of expression. No one is questioning this right to demonstrate against abuse, which must be denounced. However, when the act of protest itself leads to mischief, that may not be the best way to express one's opposition.I do not think this bill is meant to condone animal abuse. We all have a responsibility to speak out against such situations. Extremes often lead to excesses, which is when laws like these are really necessary. It is more a question of recognizing that property-owning families have suffered and continue to suffer from these crimes, and that they live in fear of new offences being committed. It is also about making people aware that biosecurity standards must be met on farms in order to protect the safety of animals and herds.It makes it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in the exposure of the animals to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of affecting or contaminating them. There is nothing offensive or upsetting about that.(1755)The Bloc Québécois's concern over this bill is that the penalties for contravening the new offence are enforced under the Health of Animals Act and not under the Criminal Code, which is a federal responsibility. Then, the enabling legislation, the Health of Animals Act, was not directly designed to support animal welfare, despite its title. It was instead drafted to protect animals in a perspective of human consumption and to try to contain the chance of zoonotic diseases, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans.The federal government has limited power with respect to the scope of application of such a bill. That is why it would be interesting to have more information in committee on the bill's functionality and application. Protecting animal welfare, including that of livestock, is primarily a provincial jurisdiction. Every province and every territory in Canada has legislation on animal welfare. Provincial and territorial legislation often have a broader scope; they focus on a series of interests related to animal protection.Some provinces and territories have laws or regulations that govern specific aspects of animal welfare or target certain species. All of the provinces have animal welfare legislation, but they do not all have legislation dealing specifically with this offence. In recent years, several provinces, including British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, have created or strengthened laws to punish people who break into a slaughterhouse or farm. Quebec does not yet have such legislation, and instead court action is taken under the Criminal Code or the Civil Code. We must therefore avoid getting involved in a situation that might be construed as us telling Quebec what it should do. It is not up the federal government to impose its laws on the provinces.When strangers come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. Every such contact is a risk and requires the application of biosecurity measures. Intrusions that cause a disease outbreak in a farmer's herd jeopardize their livelihood because sick animals cannot be consumed and must be isolated. If the disease spreads outside the farm, the consequences can be catastrophic. The best example of this is the avian flu, which is often transmitted through contact with migratory birds. It should be noted that pigs are very sensitive to stress and, when they are in captivity, their environment needs to be controlled both in terms of temperature and noise. For example, noise and stress can cause sows to get up abruptly and then kill the piglets when they lay back down. How can a person think that holding these animals hostage, as it were, will serve a cause? One has to wonder.If we want to change mindsets and get people to eat less meat, because limiting meat consumption is also beneficial for the environment and reduces greenhouse gases, we need to find other ways to do it. Balancing supply and demand, adding these variables to education programs and improving information and awareness are just some of the ways we can profoundly change the course of history.Some members in this House may not agree because they deny the concept of ecosystem imbalance and the role of human neglect in animal welfare and they believe that climate change is made up. As we all know, freedom of expression is a precious value for the Bloc Québécois, and people have every right to protest and make their views known. However, we cannot condone protests involving illegal acts that may cause harm to both producers and animals. Breaking and entering is simply not the way to go about it.Asking questions about best practices and the best ways to change consumer mindsets is also a good way to protect animals. I would like to point out that in Quebec is once again well ahead of the game. It is home to a number of livestock farms that are winning awards of excellence in animal welfare. For example, Ferme Karona in Plessisville, central Quebec, won Agropur's 2021-22 animal welfare award. The farm is a true wonder. I commend the owners, Pierre, Odrey and Pierre-Olivier Caron, who breed Holstein cows and are recognized as master breeders, the most highly prized honour in the livestock industry. The title is conferred by Holstein Canada on livestock producers who breed and raise animals under the most comfortable conditions and in compliance with good breeding habits and practices based on health and longevity. The cows are free ranging and live on a fine sand surface more comfortable than a living room sofa. All this is happening right here in our own backyard. Obviously, when breeders improve their behaviour, the number of offences committed to protest animal abuse drops. I encourage people to follow their example.(1800)There is probably room for a constructive discussion on this issue. The debates between the parties were all about the details. I hope there will be more reflection to find better solutions. I would especially like to see Quebec used as a model, once again, in order to improve the health and the lives of animals.Animal healthAnimal rights and welfareC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)MeatMeat processing industryPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption80543048054305805430680543078054308805430980543108054311805431280543138054314805431580543168054317805431880543198054320SeanCaseyCharlottetownBrandenLesliePortage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/108395BrandenLeslieBranden-LesliePortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeslieBranden_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1800)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act, biosecurity on farms, which was introduced by my friend and colleague, the member for Foothills.Like my Conservative colleagues who have spoken to this piece of legislation already, I am also an extremely strong supporter of our agricultural sector. I actually grew up on a family farm near Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. I wear it on my sleeve that I am just a regular farm kid who happened to find his way into the House of Commons.I understand that many members of Parliament, and many Canadians, have not had the chance to visit a farm for a variety of reasons related to how they live their lives or where they live. I appreciate my hon. colleague from Charlottetown previously stating that, as a new MP, he had to recognize that urban MPs need to understand the interconnectivity between where production may take place and the processing done often in urban areas. At the end of the day, all Canadians eat. I applaud him for that and I encourage all my urban colleagues to try to understand by visiting a farm somewhere near their area.Many others, who may be animal rights activists or vegans, may not want to experience a farm. For those who probably never will visit a farm, I would like to explain what it is like to visit a livestock operation. I have had the chance, prior to being elected and since being elected, to visit many farms.The first question someone will be asked is if they have been to another farm recently because the transfer of diseases between farms is potentially a terrible challenge. Beyond that, someone is immediately asked to put on a suite of biosecurity measures like gowns, foot covers, hats, goggles and gloves, to make sure they are not endangering any of the flock or herd of animals on the farm. Livestock producers and all farmers care about the health of their animals. Animal welfare is critical. If we ask any producer, they will say the health and well-being of their animals is of utmost importance to them.Relating to the bill specifically, its central provision is that it makes it an offence for a person, without permission, to enter a place where animals are kept, if their doing so could reasonably be expected to result in the animals being exposed to a disease or a dangerous substance. This is so that individuals and organizations will be deterred from entering farms without permission. It also changes the financial and non-financial penalties associated with doing so.Some outside the agricultural sector may ask why these changes are necessary. Let me tell everyone why. Radical animal rights activists have been staging protests on private property, such as farms and processing plants, for far too long. I can assure people they are not putting on all that protective gear to protect the welfare of those animals. The groups that do not want to see this bill pass might deny this claim, so I will give a few examples. On March 9, 2019, 15 activists trespassed on Webstone Holstein Farm, a dairy farm near Elmira, Ontario, even removing a deceased calf in the process. On April 28, 2019, 65 individuals staged an occupation of the Excelsior Hog Farm in Abbotsford, British Columbia. On September 2 of the same year, dozens of protesters, without permission, planted themselves inside a barn at the Jumbo Valley Hutterite Turkey Farm near Fort Macleod, Alberta. On December 7 of the same year, 11 activists occupied Porgreg farm, a pig-breeding facility in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec.The disruptive nature of these protests is the reason that many provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and P.E.I, have passed bills that strengthen provincial laws as they relate to trespassing on farms. However, in provinces where these laws are not present, farmers are largely left to fend for themselves when it comes to creating a playbook for protecting biodiversity and handling trespassers on their property. This legislation aims to fix that.The fact of the matter is that individuals and groups staging protests are far from being animal saviours. They are more than likely exposing animals to dangerous diseases and substances. According to Statistics Canada, in 2022, the agriculture and agri-food system employed 2.3 million people, or one in nine jobs in Canada, and generated $143.8 billion, roughly 7% of Canada’s GDP.(1805)An activist who, even accidentally, introduces a disease at a farm could have a staggering effect on these numbers, in addition to the fact that it would threaten our food security here in Canada and around the globe. Let us take, for example, African swine fever, ASF. It has yet to be detected in Canada, thank goodness. It was first found in China in August 2018, leading to the death of about half of that country’s pigs and a quarter of the entire world’s pig population between 2018 and 2019. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, notes that in 2022, Canada exported just over $4.8 billion in pork to 77 different countries, as well as the fact that the industry contributes 88,000 jobs and generates $24 billion for our economy. For my province and my home riding, this is a very important issue as it relates to the hog sector. We have 138 sites producing pigs in my riding alone.Manitoba is the second-largest producer and exporter of Canadian pork, employing 22,000 Manitobans across the various sectors involved with the industry. It is interconnectedness that matters here, in the sense that two million tonnes of feed is purchased by this sector from local grain growers, representing about half a billion dollars. Over 40 new barns have been expanded to enhance their environmental sustainability and animal care since 2017. This is a $2.3-billion industry for Manitoba that must be protected. The threat of radical animal rights activists putting that economic impact in jeopardy is worth tackling.If ASF were to be detected in Canada, and to reach the same scale it had in China, the pork industry would simply be decimated, just like the numbers we saw in China. I cannot stress enough how devastating these losses would be, not just for those in the agricultural sector, but that interconnectedness. For the rest of the processing industry and those involved in shipping these processed products, it would have a major impact.Protecting our economy and the global food supply is the main reason why this bill is so important, although another, and somewhat understated, goal of this legislation is to protect the mental health of farmers. Farmers have a very stressful life. They work long hours in sometimes very extreme conditions. They have an increasingly extremely high debt burden and are price takers, not price makers. In fact, the Canadian Mental Health Association states that “stress, mental health issues, and suicide are higher among farmers as compared to the general population.” When radical animal rights activists illegally enter farms on the private property that they are located on, they unnecessarily threaten farmers' physical and mental well-being by adding to the long list of stressors that our Canadian farmers already face. This is unfair, especially considering that farmers are, quite literally, the people who feed our country and the world.I have taken a few minutes to talk about what this bill does, but I would also like to focus on what it does not do. I know there are some criticisms out there that are unwarranted. The first thing it does not do is limit a person’s ability to protest peacefully. Second, it does not prevent whistle-blowers in any way. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(c), protects an individual's right to peaceful assembly. If people take issue with the way farmers raise their livestock, they are free to protest in accordance with all applicable laws on public property instead of private agricultural land. To the second point, this bill does not, as some might lead people to believe, prevent whistle-blowers from speaking out. Whistle-blowers are the employees. They are the family members. They are professionals who work and are legally permitted to be on the private property where these animals are being housed. Simply put, trespassing activists are not whistle-blowers. They are more like trouble-makers.At the end of the day, this is a good piece of legislation that will protect biodiversity on farms and farmers' mental health. It has support from a vast number of organizations from the agricultural sector, including the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Pork Council and Dairy Farmers of Canada. While I could give quotations about their support and stand here all day expressing why they think this is important, I would just like to thank them for all the work they have done in supporting this legislation, as well as all the good work they do to represent our Canadian farmers. Like those stakeholder groups, I hope that we are able to turn this common-sense bill into law as soon as possible.I will just conclude by saying that for the well-being of our farmers, our economy and our food supply, I hope members of this chamber will join me in voting in favour of Bill C-275. Animal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Farming and farmersMeat processing industryMental healthPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionTrespassing8054321805432280543238054324805432580543268054327805432880543298054330805433180543328054333805433480543358054336805433780543388054339805434080543418054342CarolineDesbiensBeauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—CharlevoixKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to start off by reflecting on a tour that the Minister of Agriculture and I had last week. We had the opportunity to tour the Maple Leaf Foods processing centre on Lagimodiere Boulevard. It is such an impressive facility, and members will understand why I use it as an example.With respect to Manitoba's pork industry, one only needs to take a tour of a facility of that nature to see literally hundreds of people hard at work providing a quality product. In this case, it is bacon. Do members realize that half of all the bacon produced and eaten here in Canada comes from that particular factory? I very much appreciated that the Minister of Agriculture came to visit Winnipeg and toured the facility. Fantastic hospitality was provided to the two of us, recognizing how important the hog industry and the pork industry are to the province of Manitoba. With respect to the legislation we are talking about, let me bring a direct link to it. Some individuals are very concerned, specifically farmers, producers, manufacturers and processors. There are a litany of opportunities for people to be engaged within the pork industry. Let me give some examples of that.I had the opportunity to tour a hog barn, and the first thing I thought of when going into the hog barn was that I would be seeing lots of hogs. I was not disappointed; I saw lots of hogs. There were over 10,000 hogs in one barn. However, what surprised me was that when someone walks into the barn, the very first thing they do is put on a smock, take a shower and use all sorts of cleansing materials to make sure they are all washed up and in a state to take a tour of the facility. The second thing they see is the computers and technology used to make sure of the quality of the product, from the day a piglet is born to the day it is hauled out of the barn. It is a very impressive sight to witness. In this case, we heard about the age of the pig from the time it enters the barn and the type of food being processed.It was interesting that earlier that week, I had a tour with the Minister of Agriculture in Portage la Prairie. In Portage la Prairie, just north, is Roquette, which is the largest pea manufacturer in the world. Parts of crushed yellow peas are used for feed, so we can get a sense of how that particular product is used as feed where I had taken a tour. Imagine the jobs there, the jobs on the hog farm and the jobs at Maple Leaf, not to mention the indirect jobs.In Manitoba, thousands of Manitobans are employed in the hog industry. There are even more indirect jobs. We can drive out to the plant in Brandon, where there is a workforce of over 1,200, or to the Lagimodiere plant I visited, where there are over 1,500 workers. There are other plants, and they are not just in Manitoba. Whether looking at parking lots or visiting homes, we see consumers. They go to restaurants, they buy furniture and they buy vehicles, all of which are the residuals of jobs. As I indicated, the pork from this plant is ham and bacon, the best bacon in the world. That bacon is circulated throughout the country and plays a very important role in our food chain. If we bring it all the way back to this particular piece of legislation, what farmers are asking for is that the legislation protect not only their interests but the interests of the food we produce.(1815)As I pointed out, when I took the tour, it was critically important that anyone going into these facilities had taken the appropriate means to be there. Unfortunately, there are some in society who might not understand how important that is. When they enter a facility or even get close to a facility, which is private property, that puts it into jeopardy, potentially, and causes a great deal of harm, whether it is to the farmer, the animals themselves or our food chain.When I look at the legislation being proposed today, I know the government is going to be supporting it, because the government understands, as we have witnessed, the importance of the food supply, which is not just for the province or even the country. Canada has now entered into more trade agreements than any other G7 or G20 country in all the different regions of the world. That in itself is one of the ways to ensure that we continue to supply food products.If I were to stay with the hog industry and use it as an example, I could go to Neepawa, which employs close to 1,000 employees at the plant. It might be over 1,000. Over 95% of its product is exported to Asia. Again, if we follow the line, it goes right back to the hog producer and those barns. That is why, whether it is hogs, cattle or chickens, these farm products and animals play a very important role in our critical food supply system. They are not just for Manitoba and Canada but indeed the world.It is those comments that I wanted to get on the record this evening. I give a special shout-out to Maple Leaf, but necessarily limited to it. Whether it is the communities of Winkler, Neepawa, Brandon or Winnipeg, not to mention the rural communities raising hogs, I know all contribute to a hog industry in Manitoba that all of us can be proud of, one that creates literally thousands and thousands of jobs and that provides good-quality food around the world.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Meat processing industryPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption80543438054344805434580543468054347805434880543498054350805435180543528054353BrandenLesliePortage—LisgarAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow (Foothills, CPC): (1820)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to thank all colleagues who took the opportunity not only tonight but throughout this process to speak in support of this very important legislation, which is an amendment to the Health of Animals Act, Bill C-275.There has been overwhelming support for this bill from Canadians across this country, and certainly from farmers, producers and the entire agriculture sector. I cannot thank them enough for helping me craft this legislation, for improving it at committee and for championing it through the legislative process. To farmers, ranchers and producers across the country for their encouraging phone calls and letters, I give a heartfelt thanks.Perhaps it is fitting if I take a few minutes to read an excerpt from an open letter by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which represents more than 200,000 families across Canada. It states: The amendments proposed under Bill C-275, would provide targeted intervention against the on-farm food safety and biosecurity risk by limiting the access of unauthorized entrants to animals and farms. The proposed amendments to the Health of Animals Act offer an avenue to further strengthen our overall food system by enhancing the measures in place to protect the health of farm animals across our country.At the same time, Bill C-275 strikes a balance between producers’ safety and protection and the right to lawful and peaceful protest. Our members’ operations often host visitors to demonstrate how the land is managed or their animals are cared for, but there is a key distinction between those who willingly follow prescribed, strict biosecurity and sanitation practices and those who willfully endanger animal health, welfare, and food safety.The letter goes on to quote Megz Reynolds, an executive director of the Do More Agriculture Foundation, a group that is the national voice and champion for mental health in agriculture. She said: Agriculture is an industry with a foundation in deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength, and community. On a daily [basis] farmers deal with numerous factors outside of their control, that directly influence their mental wellbeing. Farmers should not have to add living with the fear of protestors trespassing into enclosed areas and endangering their animals, livelihoods, and food security on top of everything else that weighs on them day in and day out. Farmers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges like stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, and burnout. In 2021 the University of Guelph found that 1 in 4 Canadian farmers felt like their life was not worth living, wished that they were dead, or had thought about taking their own life in the last 12 months.The letter concludes by saying, “We urge you to support Bill C-275 and its proposed amendments, which will provide increased safety to producers, the animals they raise, and the food they produce.”I, of course, echo these sentiments. I want to encourage my colleagues to support Bill C-275 and send a message to our farmers, our livestock producers and their families. The message from the House of Commons would be that their animals matter, Canadian agriculture matters, our food security matters and, most importantly for farm families across the country, their livelihoods matter. We care about their mental health. We recognize the unwavering dedication our farmers and farm families have for the well-being of the animals in their care.I again thank all colleagues who spoke so well and shared many of their personal sentiments on farmers and operations in their ridings across Canada and who echoed the concerns and viewpoints of their constituents in the House today. For colleagues who do not necessarily come from an agricultural or rural riding, it is important that we share this message not only with our rural communities but certainly with urban Canadians, who may not have a wealth of knowledge or experience regarding what Canadian agriculture is, how we do it, why we do it and the very strict regulations and protocols in biosecurity we must follow to ensure the security of our food supply.I thank my colleagues for their support and hope they will continue to support Bill C-275. I also thank farmers and farm families across Canada so much for their support.Animal healthAnimal rights and welfareBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Farming and farmersMental healthPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption80543558054356805435780543588054359805436080543618054362805436380543648054365AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58621AlexandraMendèsAlexandra-MendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MendèsAlexandra_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): (1825)[English]Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 29, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.Division on motion deferredAnimal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Private Members' BillsThird reading and adoption8054369ArnoldViersenPeace River—WestlockJamesBezanSelkirk—Interlake—Eastman//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/96352MaryNgHon.Mary-NgMarkham—ThornhillLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/NgMary_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionHon. Mary Ng (for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) (1200)[Translation]Motionmoved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, shall be disposed of as follows:(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;(b) when the House resumes debate at the second reading stage of the bill,(i) not more than one additional member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member,(ii) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred, and once proceedings at the said stage have concluded the House shall thereafter adjourn to the next sitting day;(c) if the bill has been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance,(i) it be an instruction to the committee, that during its consideration of the bill, it be granted the power to expand its scope to,(A) increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum),(B) allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced,(C) revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market,(ii) during consideration of the bill by the committee,(A) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,(B) the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. up until 11:59 p.m. on the second sitting day following the adoption of the bill at second reading to gather evidence from witnesses,(C) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon on the sitting day following the first meeting of the committee,(D) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,(E) the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m., on the second sitting day following the first meeting to consider the bill at clause-by-clause, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,(F) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);(d) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage, and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, 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, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred; and(e) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage and 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders that day, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, 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, and, if a recorded division is requested, the vote shall not be deferred.AdjournmentBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActClause-by-clause studyCommittee amendmentsCommittee meetingsConsideration in committeeGould, KarinaGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Leader of the Government in the House of CommonsMembers of unrecognized partiesMotion of instructionPresenting reports from CommitteesPutting the questionRecognition to speakRecorded divisionsReferred to Committee after second readingReport stageRules of debateScope of a billSecond readingSplitting speaking timeStanding Committee on FinanceThird reading and adoption8048660CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will be seeking unanimous consent. I want to remind members on the other side that if they deny it, the other member will get a full 20-minute slot. I seek unanimous consent to split my time, for a 10-minute speech each, with the member for Winnipeg North.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption8048661MaryNgHon.Markham—ThornhillCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1200)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad I could help bring the House together on that potentially controversial point about the member for Winnipeg North.The Conservative member who just spoke was concerned that we are not addressing the housing crisis. I have great news for the member and for the House. We are debating this motion on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I am sure he will be thrilled to vote in favour of it.After months of Conservative filibuster and delay and over 20 hours of debate over five days, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of allowing Bill C-56 to get to a vote. During question period, for 45 minutes of the day, the Conservatives pretend to care about affordability issues for Canadians, but when the rubber meets the road, they are nowhere to be found. They delay, delay, delay.It was surprising to hear the member who spoke just before me say the Liberals are not prioritizing this. He does not look back to this own members and his own leader to ask why they are not getting Bill C-56 through fast enough to help provide relief to Canadians. This is despite the fact that many of his own members support Bill C-56, such as the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who more than a month ago committed in this House to voting in favour of the bill. Here is what he said on October 5: “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”. That was 46 days ago.Given all this, I look forward to hearing what is going to be said today. Before my Conservative colleagues rise, I would like to remind them of what this bill does, because I think some of them may have forgotten.We know that the rising cost of groceries and lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing these important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach and paying rent has become more expensive across the country. The housing crisis has an impact on our economy. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for businesses to attract the workers they need to grow and succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means less money is being spent in our communities for necessities like groceries.Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that began construction on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, and that complete construction before 2036. For a two-bedroom rental unit that is valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing we need for families to live in.The measure would also remove restrictions in existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profits, that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply the provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching the rebate for new rental housing.We are also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. Launched in March 2023, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, with about 100,000 units total, by speeding up development and approvals through fixing out of date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development close to public transit. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone.(1205)We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. With the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew more needed to be done to address the cost of groceries.This is why we are taking immediate steps to enhance competition across the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians. Through Bill C-56, the government is introducing a first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act to provide the Competition Bureau with the powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; remove the efficiencies defence, which currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay a higher price and have fewer choices; and empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians, including delivering automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, starting in July 2023, to provide up to $1,518 for eligible single workers and $2,616 for an eligible family, split between three advance payments and a final payment after filing their 2023 tax return; supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child up to the age of six and up to $6,275 per child aged six through 17; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.This government is taking action, and again, more often than not it is the Conservatives voting against, holding things up and delaying committees with filibuster after filibuster. It is shocking to see, especially because it is blatant hypocrisy. I am sure we will hear speeches about how important it is to provide relief to Canadians, but when will members opposite speak to the Leader of the Opposition and their House leader to say that we need to get this legislation through?I will not hold my breath that they are going to do that. We have been seeing for a lengthy period of time delay after delay. When will the actions of the Conservative Party match the rhetoric that occurs during question period? Granted, its members love a good slogan, but let us take a look at their voting record. All of the things I mentioned, they have either held up or voted against. They do not care. They only care about chaos in this place. It is unfortunate, because I believe some of them truly do care about their constituents and want to see these benefits flow to them.Some have said they are going to vote in favour of this legislation, but they remain silent when their leader holds it up in this place. This legislation has been debated quite a bit. The filibuster needs to end. It is time to move forward.The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier for Canadians to build more homes and would help them thrive. It would help families with the growing cost of putting food on their table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us provide a brighter future for Canadians.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionFilibusterFood and drinkGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousing Accelerator FundRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSupermarketsThird reading and adoption80486648048665804866680486678048668804866980486708048671804867280486738048674804867580486768048677804867880486798048680CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, New Democrats will be supporting this bill to get work done in the chamber, because we are late on getting to some of the things that are important to Canadians. Some of the amendments to the Competition Bureau are very important. My leader has put forth some of those elements, and they will get a quicker result for Canadians.The member talked about the importance of this for constituents. Today, my constituents are learning in horror that the government is allowing foreign workers to come in for the NextStar battery assembly plant. I would like to know what the member thinks about that, because he comes from the auto sector, and whether he feels there are not enough Ontarians to fill these jobs, especially given that we are paying $15 billion. The provincial Conservatives and the federal Liberals are turning their backs on Ontario workers and allowing foreign temporary workers to come in.Automotive industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActForeign workersGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80486818048682ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I am happy to learn more information, but I was prepared to debate this legislation. The member always passionately brings up issues related to him. I am happy to look into it when I have more time. I wish it were a question on the piece of legislation before us, but I look forward to getting back to him later on that.Automotive industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActForeign workersGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048685CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1210)[English]Madam Speaker, I found it interesting that the member seems to do backflips to somehow blame Conservatives for the fact that the government, even though it has a coalition and a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, is unable to get legislation passed through this place.I am not sure if the member has forgotten, but he is actually part of the governing party. He is a parliamentary secretary in the governing party, and the Liberals cannot even pass their own legislation. The level of incompetence in their ability to pass their own legislation is astounding, and it speaks to why our country feels like everything is broken.I have a specific question for the member that relates directly to competition. We are hearing that, since the year 1995 I believe, there are the fewest number of start-ups in Canada. There is a lack of confidence for entrepreneurs and business owners to start, to invest capital and to bring forward those ideas that eventually become the successful companies we have today.How can the member reconcile the rhetoric we heard for the last 10 minutes with the fact that there are fewer start-ups in Canada willing to take the risk today than there were when the government took office?Business developmentBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048686804868780486888048689ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, that was a very lengthy question. I would like to thank the hon. member for suggesting that I would be able to do a backflip. On the figurative backflips the hon. member was doing, I guess he is defending his party's filibuster of this legislation. It is dripping in hypocrisy to say that he stands up for Canadians, but will speak to delay everything about this legislation. It is nice for him to suggest that he would vote in favour of ending this filibuster. I hope to see that when this motion comes to pass.Business developmentBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80486908048691DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, we believe in free market and free trade, but the concept of free market and competition goes hand in hand. Monopolies and oligopolies create a burden for consumers through their dominance.What is the hon. member's view on how the Competition Bureau would be strengthened so that it could go after the monopolies and take out the big corporate players that try to squeeze out the small players? How would competition actually help Canadians?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30MonopoliesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80486928048693ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, there is not enough competition in this country, especially when it comes to groceries. Canadians can see that. Everyone here goes to the grocery store. Canadians go to the grocery store. We hear it from our constituents.This bill is about strengthening powers I outlined in detail in my speech. It is important to get this passed, which is why we need to stop this filibuster to get it to committee, despite what the Conservatives will say and despite their delays. We are going to get it done, and we are going to provide help to Canadians, despite what the Conservatives are doing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30MonopoliesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80486948048695ChandraAryaNepeanKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1215)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the types of things the government can do to support Canadians in all regions of the country. We are witnessing that Bill C-56 is a substantial piece of legislation with an intent to support Canadians.Unfortunately, as my colleague has pointed out, the Conservative Party has chosen, once again, to use this legislation as a way to slow down the process of proceeding and prevent the government, wherever it can, to allow legislation from ultimately passing. I will hold my breath in the hope that the Conservatives will wake up and understand the reality Canadians are facing.We often talk about the issue of inflation. There is no doubt that inflation is hurting people. Yes, it has improved. If we look at the bigger picture and compare Canada to the United States, France, the G7 or even the G20 countries, we are doing relatively well regarding our inflation rate on a worldwide basis. Since June of 2022, we have had an inflation rate of just over 8%. If we look at the last number of months, we have made significant gains in bringing down that inflation rate. We are focused on doing that because we recognize the harm it causes to our economy and, most importantly, to Canadians. That is one of the reasons we have been very targeted, whether with legislation or budgetary measures, to give those breaks to Canadians. We want a government and an economy that works for all people.Unlike the Conservative Party, we believe in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We understand and appreciate the importance of lifting people out of poverty. We have demonstrated that with hundreds of thousands of children and seniors. We recognize the harm it does. That is why I look forward to the fall economic statement that will be coming out tomorrow from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has been out in the communities to get a better understanding and a better sense of the types of actions we can take as a national government to provide relief wherever we can to support Canadians.The fall economic statement we will see tomorrow will be a reflection of what we have been hearing, whether from individual members of Parliament bringing back their concerns to Ottawa or the consultation work that the different ministers, in particular the Minister of Finance, have been doing. We are doing this because we understand the pressures that are on Canadian families. It is the reason why we have developed programs of a national nature, such as the affordable $10-a-day child care. It is the reason why we have brought in programs such as the grocery rebate program.When we think of Bill C-56, we should think of two aspects: housing and groceries. Fighting to stabilize the price of groceries is important to the government. We often hear about how we need to improve the Competition Act. Bill C-56 is an attempt to not only improve it today, but also to continue to look at ways we could modernize it.One of the significant improvements we are seeing today in this legislation is the use of the efficiency argument so that the Competition Bureau does not have to listen to companies saying that, for efficiency purposes, they need to buy up a company. If members think about it, at one time we had six major grocery suppliers, and we are now down to five. Why are we down to five? It is because, when Stephen Harper was prime minister and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around that cabinet, Shoppers was bought out for billions of dollars, so we went from six to five.(1220)Even today, we hear Conservatives say that the way to ensure lower prices is to ensure that there is more competition. This legislation would go a long way in getting rid of the efficiency argument, so we would be better able to ensure there would be more competition.I would like to think that most people in the chamber would recognize that as a positive thing. It is one of the reasons we should not have to wait endlessly and accept the ongoing filibustering of the Conservative Party. If they are serious about the cost of groceries, and if they are serious about wanting to stabilize grocery prices, Conservatives should be supporting the amendments to the Competition Act that are being brought forward, amendments that would enhance the Competition Bureau's ability to protect the interests of Canadians and of consumers. Actions speak louder than words. We look to the Conservative Party to start taking action.On the other part of the legislation, we often hear Conservatives talk about the issue of housing. We often hear them raise the issue. However, when it comes to taking action, again, they sit on their backside and do nothing but filibuster. This legislation is good, sound, solid legislation. The proof is in the pudding. Let us think about it. The federal government, through this legislation, is saying that for purpose-built rentals, there would be no GST. It is a sound idea. I can say that because we have provincial entities in Canada today that are copying what Ottawa is doing, but with the PST. In part, we need to recognize that, when it comes to the issue of housing, it is not just the federal Government of Canada that has to deal with the issue. The federal Government of Canada has a role to play. No government in the last 30, 40 or 50 years has played a stronger role in housing than the Prime Minister and this Liberal government. No government has.If we are talking about a disaster, we could look at the previous Harper government and the lack of attention the Harper government gave to housing. We could contrast that to today's government, which has brought in a national housing strategy, the first of its kind, with billions of dollars of investments.We could talk about what the government has done to support housing co-ops and other non-profit organizations in building non-profit housing, as well as our investment in tens of thousands of housing units. When I say “tens of thousands”, it is well over 150,000, so it is a bit of a guesstimate. I would say it is probably closer to 250,000 units the federal government continues to support, based on income, at least in good part, by working with provinces.We talk about the housing crisis, and the Liberal government's approach is to work with the stakeholders and with provinces and municipalities. The Conservative approach is to hit them with a stick. The Liberal government plays an important role, which I believe we have been fulfilling, not only with legislation but also from a budgetary perspective. We are actually materializing and demonstrating that leadership.However, cities also need to play a role with things such as zoning. Provinces also have to play a role. We are working with other jurisdictions. We have brought in programs through the housing accelerator program that ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation on the housing file. I can assure the House that our government, whether it is the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers or the Liberal caucus as a whole, will continue to deal with the issues of inflation, the price of groceries and affordable homes the best way we can. As a government, we are concerned and care about Canadians and their well-being. That is why we work every day to try to make a difference, working with different levels of government at the same time.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCities and townsCompetitionFederal-provincial-territorial relationsGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramHousingInflationMergers and acquisitionsRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048696804869780486988048699804870080487018048702804870380487048048705804870680487078048708804870980487108048711ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about how Liberals believe in the middle class. I would like to believe in Santa Claus too, but at the end of the day, it is the workers who make the presents for the kids. If Liberals believed in the middle class like he says they did, why is it that, as members will recall, they abolished the ministry of the middle class and those working hard to join it? How insulting is it to the working class to suggest that its members are not working hard enough to make ends meet? My question to the hon. member is this: Is it his assertion that working-class people are just not working hard enough to make it to the middle class?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Middle classReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487128048713KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1225)[English]Madam Speaker, if the member were to go over Hansard, he would find that the terminology of Canada's middle class was brought to a new level when the current Prime Minister was elected leader of the Liberal Party. No government has been more focused on dealing with Canada's middle class than the current Prime Minister and government. We have seen that from the very first action we took in terms of reducing the taxes for Canada's middle class, which, I will remind the member opposite, the NDP voted against. At the same time as we brought in that measure, we helped finance it by putting a special tax on Canada's wealthiest 1%, and I will remind my colleague across the way that the NDP voted against that too.From the first few months of government in 2015-16 to today, we have continued to support Canada's middle class by bringing in social programs such as the universal child care program, $10-a-day day care and the dental program. There is so much we have done and so much more we can do, and that is why we continue to work every day of the week.Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Middle classReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804871480487158048716MatthewGreenHamilton CentreCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111007FrankCaputoFrank-CaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaputoFrank_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.I listened to my colleague's speech, and I am absolutely puzzled as to what he said. I am puzzled not only as to what he said but also by the audacity to imply that Canadians have never had it so good, because of the Liberal government. I will remind the member and the Liberal government that he is so loyal to that interest rates have risen 2% as a result of the government's inflationary spending. That means that on a $500,000 mortgage, the average family will be paying $10,000 more per year in interest alone. How can the member stand there and defend the government's record and put us Conservatives down, when we have been calling for an end to the inflationary spending and when it is that side of the House that is the problem?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expenditure restraintInflationReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804871980487208048721CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I look across the way and I see a cloud of darkness and depression—An hon member: Oh, oh!Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487228048723FrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, what I am talking about is that the Conservative members of Canada today tour the country to spread misinformation. They try to give the impression to all Canadians that Canada is broken. I would welcome the member or any member of the Conservative caucus at any point in time to come to Winnipeg North and have that debate in my constituency. I would welcome that opportunity.There are many things we can continue to work on to improve the conditions of Canadians, but to try to give a false impression that Canada is broken or that Canada is far worse than other countries in the world is misleading at best.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Government expenditure restraintInflationReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487268048727CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingFrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111007FrankCaputoFrank-CaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaputoFrank_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Frank Caputo: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member just invited me to his riding. I would like to invite him to Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Points of orderReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048728KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, globalization collapsing and constraints in the supply chains have raised the prices of many goods in Canada. Also in Canada, several sectors are being controlled by a few corporate players, curbing competition. Competition is required so Canadians can get goods at very affordable prices.I would ask the hon. member for his opinion on how we would strengthen the Competition Bureau through the bill before us.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487318048732CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, the most significant thing within the legislation is that it would get rid of the efficiency argument. For example, a company that wants to acquire another company is not going to be able to say that, for efficiency purposes, it is in its best interest to acquire that company and that it will deliver goods to Canadians.It is a different way in which the Competition Bureau would be able to assess and, I would argue, get a better overall review of the marketplace and make better decisions that are in the best interests of consumers in Canada. That is a good thing. The more competition there is, the better.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487338048734ChandraAryaNepeanRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC): (1230)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to see that marriage counselling is working, as we have a motion being debated today that brings one bill from the Liberals and another bill from the NDP. They are literally coming together on paper, but I hate to break it to them that the motion, the bill, is weak.In short, of course, we have agreed to some of the changes being brought through: the market powers, that the maximum of fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance be increased, and that we ensure that the legal test for abuse of dominant prohibition orders be significantly met. We have agreed to those, but none of this is going to lower grocery prices today.Government members sitting across us argue, for some reason, that we are holding this up, when we have been emphatic in trying to push it forward. The main part of this that a member brought up, the efficiencies defence, was actually my idea that I brought to the House at first reading in June. Conservatives have been trying to change competition and the Competition Act. We are here today debating the merits of competition as a whole, but certainly the bill is weak; it would not change competition. We want to see courage. Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world right now for groceries, airlines, cellphones and bank fees. It is only courage to change the entire Competition Act that would actually change the way the country views and approaches competition.For the benefit of Canadians listening at home, when we look at the Competition Bureau, we must think of it as the police force, as a law enforcement agency. It is tasked under the laws given by this place to go out and enforce the rules in order to do two things only: to stop the abusive nature of big, bossy, dominant companies and to ensure that small, competitive players that want to enter the market can do so in a fair and equitable way. The price that Canadians pay for goods and services is through a strong, competitive market. Canadians are paying the highest prices in the world for some of the most dominant markets in the world. If we look at the main difference between American and Canadian competition laws, the competition laws in the U.S. ask whether the consumer is better off. In Canada, they ask only one thing: Is the company better off?After eight years, Canadians are paying some of the highest fees in the world for airlines, credit card fees, bank fees and groceries. It is only now, after eight years and after we have seen some of the highest inflation rates in the last 40 years, that Canadians are seeing that all of these prices are too much and that competition is, of course, laying down its head in front of Canadians and in front of this place. If Canadian companies were part of a board game, that game would be the Canadian game of Monopoly. Kids hate this game. They take their dice, roll them and land on RBC, Scotiabank, Rogers, Telus, Air Canada and WestJet. They roll it and land on Ambev or Molson Coors brewery. Every time they pass “GO”, they lose $200. When it comes to kids playing this game, they go bankrupt very easily. It is because the game of Monopoly is flawed, and the game of Monopoly results in Canadians' losing every single time.After eight years of the government, the competition laws it is trying to make are not going to be the ones we need. They are not brave enough and they are not strong enough. Canadians would be still paying the highest fees for almost everything in their lives.Before I finish, I want to move an amendment. I move:AmendmentThat the motion be amended by inserting after (c)(ii)(B) the following:"and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each."Amendments and subamendmentsBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionConsumer priceGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30MonopoliesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804873580487368048737804873880487398048740804874180487428048743KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/31289CarolHughesCarol-HughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/HughesCarol_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionThe Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): (1235)[English]The amendment is in order.Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.Admissibility of an amendmentAmendments and subamendmentsBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActDecisions of the SpeakerGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487448048745RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1235)[English]Madam Speaker, I must admit I am a little surprised that the Conservatives are, again, bringing in a motion in an attempt to cause an additional delay in passing the bill. However, when we look at the fundamentals of the bill, the member has said that he kind of agrees with one part. We have provinces that are agreeing with the other part because they are invoking an exemption for the PST. Why are the Conservatives so reckless when coming up with smart things to say and taking good action in the best interest of Canadians? Why are they found to be so lacking in good intent?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487468048747CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the member talking about competition again. At the end of the day, there are a lot of different problems with our Competition Act. Number one is abuse of dominance by large, bossy monopolies and corporations. Number two is that we just cannot get companies to start up. The changes that the government has proposed will not do the things that need to be done to change the Competition Act for good, which is to stop the dominance and to ensure that start-ups can start up. We need to start starting instead of start stopping. At the end of the day, we need to ensure that there is a brave new face and that there are changes to the Competition Act. Of course, we want the ministers at committee. We want to look at a lot of good amendments from our side of the House to make the Competition Act stronger. The act will not be stronger after this bill goes through.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487488048749KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I have to hand it to the hon. member. I rather enjoy his analysis on monopoly capitalism. He has spoken at length about the ways in which the dominance of corporations have concentrated their power in this stage of capitalism. I wonder if the hon. member would find common ground with me and agree that the battle of competition is fought by cheapening of commodities. “The cheapness of commodities depends, ceteris paribus, on the productiveness of labor, and this again on the scale of production. Therefore, the larger capitals [defeat] smaller.” Further, “the credit system, which begins as a [modest helper] of accumulation,” soon “becomes a new and [formidable] weapon in the [competitive struggle], and is finally transformed into an enormous social mechanism for the centralization of capitals.”Would the hon. member agree with that economic theory? It could have been Adam Smith.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804875080487518048752RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, even Adam Smith believed in regulations.I want to talk about one thing to respond to that, and that will be the banking sector. We have a bill coming forward to open up banking as a whole for competition, and I hope the member across can support it. It is open banking, which would allow a provision that allows any major small competitor to enter the market, which is right now dominated by six oligopolies in the banking sector, controlling 93% of the banking aspects and 87% of mortgages. Open banking just changes the rules to allow that capital to be spread around. The capital is, of course, people's data and ensuring that other people can get their financial data and then bank them. I am hoping the member can support that. We have a bill going forward to push through open banking and that would open up this monopolistic system in the banking sector.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804875380487548048755MatthewGreenHamilton CentreChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member agrees that competition is a good thing. In several sectors, from banking to telecom to consumer staples, we have a few companies dominating the market, curbing competition and thus driving up the prices.The member mentioned efficiency, which is a factor that has been used in the past to join companies together and bring down competition. Could he elaborate on that, please? Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Mergers and acquisitionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487568048757RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1240)[English]Madam Speaker, the efficiencies defence, which currently sits in the Competition Act, allows one company to merge with another, not because of dominance in market power. They look at it specifically, if one company is able to save money by merging with the other. Most times, that is job losses. The number one case that examined this was Superior Propane. It was the number one market share for propane and it merged with the number two market share. In the efficiencies defence, this anomaly that we had in the Canadian competition law, allowed those two companies to merge, even though they held over 85% of the market share. Of course, this was something that, when I introduced it in June, was low-hanging fruit. This needs to go and I think all parties in the House agree on that.We can look at how we heat homes across the country right now. Of course, heating oil has had the carbon tax shaved off of it. Propane is what a lot of communities use to heat. That is something we should also see as not only the abuse of dominance of one company for the efficiencies defence, but we should also ensure that the carbon tax comes off propane as well.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Mergers and acquisitionsReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487588048759ChandraAryaNepeanDamienKurekBattle River—Crowfoot//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work my colleague has done on this matter, specifically on one of the bills that was co-opted by the Liberals to ensure there would be increased competition in Canada. Certainly, this could cover a whole range of subjects.I have two comments for my colleague from Bay of Quinte. The first is about the process we are debating here today. To me, this appears like an attack on our democratic institutions. The Liberals are incapable and incompetent when it comes to pursuing their agenda or programming the work that this place and its committee do. It is certainly troubling.Ironically, when we are talking about something like competition, it seems antithetical that we would have the Liberals shutting down the ability for discourse to take place, highlighting that they are incapable at accomplishing their legislative agenda. The first point is about the process and what I would suggest is an attack on our democratic institutions.The second is about one of the increasing concerns that we hear from across Canada, which is the fact that we have fewer start ups than ever before. In the last three or so decades, fewer companies are starting up.My first point is on the attack on our democratic institutions through a programming motion. Second is the fact that people are simply not able to or willing to take risks to create businesses and be those entrepreneurs that Canadians are known to be.Business developmentBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Parliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487608048761804876280487638048764RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, when it comes to promoting our democracy, the competition law has been around since the sixties, maybe even since 1911. We have not changed the Competition Act much since 1986. When it comes to looking at and debating competition, which is probably one of the top concerns, affordability for Canadians, we should be taking all the time we can in the House and in committee to ensure it is done right. Paragraph (b) in the programming motion gives more power to the minister, which is not right. When we look at an arm's length institution, the Competition Bureau, which is supposed to act impartial from the government or free of political interference, the bill right now gives more power to the minister to have the power to interfere, and that is not right.When it comes to start ups, Canada has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs compared to 20 years ago. When we look at trying to ensure there is more competition in Canada and more entrance, we need more start ups. We need to start starting?Business developmentBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Parliamentary democracyReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804876580487668048767DamienKurekBattle River—CrowfootMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Matthew Green: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, when I asked the hon. member about the commodification of the production of labour, we were clearly talking about the commodification of wages. I would love for him to answer that question. It was a good, fair question, one that underscores much of his argument. I would like him to determine whether he agrees with that statement.Second, does he agrees with the analysis that “the long cherished freedom of competition has reached the end of its tether and is compelled to announce its own palpable bankruptcy.”Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Income and wagesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487688048769RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteRyanWilliamsBay of Quinte//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110330RyanWilliamsRyan-WilliamsBay of QuinteConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WilliamsRyan_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Ryan Williams: (1245)[English]Madam Speaker, to answer the member's first question, when we are looking at the success of Canadians and the success of Canadian families, we are looking at the GDP per capita. I think we can all agree on that. That means, what are we bringing home to create powerful paycheques for workers and Canadian families to ensure that, when we look at the highest inflation after eight years, Canadians are bringing more wealth home? I think we can agree that when we have competitors, small start ups or companies that are creating a value or a system of wealth for Canadians to buy and be competitive about, we are creating powerful paycheques. That is good for all those people.When we look at competition as a whole, we need to ensure that we change the laws to ensure that big bossy conglomerates are not stopping the small competitors or small entrepreneurs from being able to start up in Canada and create those powerful paycheques. Of course, when they get bigger, a lot of times there are unions involved and great things for workers. We want to do all those things, but we have to change the Competition Act. We have to be brave in doing that. I hope the member can join me in ensuring we make real changes that change competition in Canada.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Income and wagesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80487708048771MatthewGreenHamilton CentreXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1245)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is a rather long riding name. Many riding names are quite long. Mine certainly is, and so is hers.Today we are debating Government Business No. 30. It is a government motion to shorten the debates on Bill C‑56, which seeks to implement a rebate of the GST on the construction of residential rental properties. The bill also seeks to give the Competition Bureau more power to conduct an inquiry. Notably, it could force the procurement of documents, which was not previously the case. Unfortunately, we are debating government business instead of the bill because the government decided to impose closure yet again. We are faced with another gag order. Sadly, the current government seems to want to govern by gag order. It is one gag order after another. Obviously, the government will argue that it was meant to stop the Conservatives' filibustering. I am not saying that the Conservatives never filibuster, but we get a sense that this procedural device is being abused.In the current case, we in the Bloc Québécois were open to speeding up debate. The government said that doing so might help build housing faster. It said that the measures in Bill C‑56 to strengthen the Competition Bureau's powers could make a difference. We were sensitive to all these things. We are very open to studying Bill C‑56, but we had other concerns too.One of our concerns, and we have been repeating this for weeks, has to do with the emergency business account that was launched during the pandemic. It was meant to support small businesses by offering them a $40,000 loan. Twenty-five percent of that amount, or $10,000, was forgiven if the loans were paid back within three years. The problem was that, following the pandemic, there was a supply crisis and an inflation crisis, not to mention the fact that interest rates have gone up considerably. The economy is struggling even more now. Those businesses were already struggling during the pandemic, because many of them could no longer operate for health reasons. We must stand together as a society, which is why that program was put in place at the time, and we agreed on it.However, the government did say that these businesses would have to pay back their loans. We agree that businesses should pay them back. A loan is meant to be repaid at some point, but it is important not to put Quebec businesses at risk. We have to use our brains a little and be somewhat flexible in how we do things.I mention this while we are debating Government Business No. 30 regarding Bill C‑56, because we told the government that it should be giving Quebec businesses more flexibility. In return, we would have been prepared to fast-track the passage of Bill C‑56. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the Bloc Québécois. It decided to let Quebec businesses fail. It will continue to leave them in jeopardy, even though people from my riding talk to me about this every week. When I am out and about in my riding, people tell me that things are not going well, that their sales are lower than expected, that things did not return to normal like they thought they would and that money does not grow on trees.Unfortunately, the government has not been sensitive to that. We have been asking questions in the House about this for weeks. Members on the other side have responded by saying that they extended the deadline, but they extended the deadline by only 18 days.(1250)I doubt that 18 days is enough time for a small or medium-sized business to rake in $40,000 in profit. There is no way. Unfortunately, that is what we are looking at with the Liberals.Instead, the government decided to turn to the NDP. As we all know, the NDP can be bought quite easily. They give the government everything it wants. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the reality that Quebec businesses are going to pay because of the Liberals and the NDP.The Bloc Québécois will continue to push for our companies to have more flexibility in repaying the Canada emergency business account so that, come January 18, the banks are not waiting for them. I can just picture them, big smiles on their faces, telling companies that they can get their $10,000 back by simply taking out a high-interest loan. Considering the significant jump in interest rates, we know full well that there are plenty of companies that will not make it through.To come back more specifically to Bill C‑56, earlier I talked about getting rid of the tax on new rental housing construction. The government claims this is going to fix the housing crisis. Maybe not exactly, but it claims that it will make a big difference.The Bloc Québécois has a few concerns. Will this make a difference? It may make a difference in making some projects more profitable than they were as a result of interest rate increases. It may help, but we would have liked to see a study done on this. Did the government do a study on the impact that this bill might have on the price of housing and on its availability? No, it pulled this bill out of its hat. Since we are in a housing crisis, it decided to make a quick announcement and that is what it did.This will likely have a positive impact on housing construction, but we do not really know because we have no baseline data to confirm the result.I have another point. In a supply and demand market, there is typically a going price for housing. Right now, that price is very high. Homes are being sold at a high price, but unfortunately, some people would benefit from lower prices. I say unfortunately, but that might be an exaggeration. What I mean is that this could have an unfortunate impact. There is absolutely no guarantee that this much-touted 5% cut to the GST on new housing construction will impact social or affordable housing. In fact, there is zero chance that it would be used for social housing because that type of housing does not qualify.For example, if a city decides to build social housing, it is already exempt. The proposed measure will not work. The same thing applies to co-ops or non-profit organizations. There is already a type of exemption in place. This will not benefit them. Therefore, it will not result in social housing or low-cost housing. On the other hand, it will certainly help the construction of expensive housing.The government says that it may take care of the specifics through regulations. We look forward to seeing those, but there is no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the exemptions that will be granted will be used to build reasonably priced new housing. They could be used to build units that rent for $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a month. I cannot even say $2,000 a month anymore because that is practically considered affordable housing nowadays. Unfortunately, the government thinks that it is going to fix the housing crisis, but this bill is no silver bullet. I find that unfortunate.I also want to talk about the Competition Bureau. Not so long ago, the minister said in the House that he would fix the problem. He said that he had spoken with the grocers and that there would not be an issue anymore, that grocery prices would drop. The week after, he said that he had checked the flyers and seen some great discounts. He claimed to have fixed the inflation crisis by checking the flyers one week and speaking with grocery CEOs. He should have spoken with families instead. The inflation crisis is not over.Some elements of this bill will give the Competition Bureau more oversight over large companies. This change will not necessarily happen overnight, however.(1255)The same goes for this much-vaunted 5% rebate. It is not going to solve the problem in the short term. The effects of this measure will be felt more in the very long term. We therefore expect—Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCompetitionCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramLoansPandemicParliamentary democracyRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesSocial housingSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption80487728048773804877480487758048776804877780487788048779804878080487818048782804878380487848048785804878680487878048788804878980487908048791RyanWilliamsBay of QuinteCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member his views on the competition levels that are in existence in several sectors of the Canadian economy, from the banking sector to the telecom sector and to consumer staples and so many other sectors. Competition actually brings down prices and helps consumers. When just a few corporate players dominate any market, through their profiteering objectives, it creates an undue burden on consumers, so I would like to ask the hon. member about his views on competition.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048794CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague is asking me whether I think there are any good measures in this bill that concern competition. The answer is yes, and I think I already said that.Companies used to be barred from making arrangements with one of their competitors to eliminate another competitor. Now, the notion of a competitor is being eliminated. Companies will now be barred from making arrangements with a supplier, a tenant or anyone else to eliminate another competitor. This might help a little in terms of competition.Still, will that fundamentally change the dynamic in the short term? Inflation and grocery affordability are short-term crises. Unfortunately, this bill will not make any difference to people's pocketbooks in the short term. It will take a long time to see any impact from measures like these.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804879580487968048797ChandraAryaNepeanAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on the issue of housing prices in his speech.Quebec does not define affordable housing the same way Canada does. Canada does not seem to realize what a difference affordable housing could make for families. What is considered affordable in Canada is not necessarily affordable in Quebec.I would like to hear again from my colleague about the model that Quebec has developed in partnership with its community groups and the exciting initiatives it has implemented in community and social housing.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Province of QuebecReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption804879880487998048800XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a great question. A budget of $900 million was supposed to be available for housing in Quebec. Unfortunately, it took a very long time before the cities and Quebec could use these funds to build new affordable housing.One sticking point in the negotiations was the federal government's belief that affordable housing costs around $2,000 or $2,500 a month, if I am not mistaken. That amount would ruin most people, but people in Ottawa consider that affordable housing.Quebec disagreed, so I can understand why the Government of Quebec did not want to sign that kind of agreement. Then we had to defend Quebec's point of view and explain that affordable housing in Quebec costs a lot less than $2,000 a month.If we ask the average working person in Quebec, they would say that the idea of working a minimum-wage job and spending $2,000 a month on rent is unthinkable. It would simply be impossible to make ends meet.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Province of QuebecReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8048801804880280488038048804AndréanneLaroucheSheffordChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya: (1300)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he agrees that, as legislators, at every given opportunity we need to consider a legislation's immediate impact, its medium-term impact and long-term impacts. Is that not part of this particular legislation?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048805XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval: (1300)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand my colleague's question. I was not listening to the interpretation and it was hard to hear him. I will just mention something that I meant to address in my speech on Government Business No. 30 concerning Bill C-56.We spoke about supply and demand, but the problem is that when it comes to the housing crisis, the government never talks about demand. It always talks about increasing the supply. Increasing the housing supply will take a long time, but the demand may increase rapidly as a result of the actions the government is taking.The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It wants to increase the demand by significantly increasing the number of people coming to Canada from abroad, but it cannot claim that adding more people will cost less money. If more people are added to a saturated market, then that is going to create more pressure. The government needs to take that into account.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804880680488078048808ChandraAryaNepeanSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ): (1305)[Translation]Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and paying my respects to the Cree nation following the death of Charly Washipabano, who was a member of Hockey Abitibi‑Témiscamingue's board of directors and a program coordinator with the Eeyou Istchee Sports and Recreation Association.I am rising in connection with the debate on Government Business No. 30, which seeks to impose a gag order and make amendments to Bill C‑56. This bill, which aims to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing and amend the Competition Act, was introduced in the House in September by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.The government's motion authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend it in three ways. The first amendment would increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, which amends the Competition Act and contains several elements that would become obsolete with the passing of Bill C‑56. The motion proposes to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.The second and third amendments deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies. As currently worded, the amendments being submitted to the committee have no real effect. The goal is to “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”.The Competition Bureau has significant powers. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal. However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions.Government Business No. 30 includes a proposed technical amendment to the way the Competition Bureau can conduct a market study, although it does not change much from current practice.The third amendment will “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.Everyone knows that there is a serious housing crisis in Quebec and across Canada. We often hear about rising prices and housing shortages in major urban centres, in big cities, but it is also an issue in rural regions and smaller towns. The housing crisis is in its 18th straight year, and its impact is being felt more and more in the towns, villages and communities of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. In Val‑d'Or, for example, the vacancy rate is now around 1.4%, adding pressure to the average cost of rent, which has jumped by 5.4%.The housing shortage, combined with higher rent, is directly impacting the most vulnerable, by which I mean people living alone, single-parent families, women, young people, seniors, first nations and Inuit people, immigrant families, and persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, some of these people often end up having to stay in shelters longer or live in apartments that do not meet their needs, and that is unacceptable. We also need to consider the growing number of people left homeless by this crisis. It is important to find real solutions to this problem. The ongoing housing crisis is adding to the already pressing needs, and the homelessness problem is only getting worse.The social housing stock is also aging. The government needs to upgrade and renovate it as quickly as possible, while ensuring that rent remains completely affordable for the low-income families living there now or in the future.(1310)The government's national housing strategy, which was launched in 2017, falls far short. The funding allocated for social housing, both to maintain existing units and to build new ones, is not enough to meet the needs of all the nations.When it comes to housing, there is nothing to indicate that Government Business No. 30 will add any value to Bill C-56 in terms of lowering rents.It would be surprising if a property owner decided to lower rents just because they did not have to pay GST on the new building they bought. What is more, it is important to remember that the cost of higher mortgage payments will likely be passed on to renters.I understand the minister's intention in moving this motion, but the measure to provide a GST rebate on the cost of labour and materials will apply to future rental properties, regardless of the market value and rental prices. I represent Nunavik, where residents experience the impact of the housing shortage in many persistent ways. In Nunavik, 47% of Inuit live in overcrowded housing, compared to 7% for Quebec as a whole. This means their situation is seven times worse. The housing problem in the Far North is nothing new. Nunavik has been short on housing since the 1990s, when Ottawa stopped funding housing construction for five years. We have never caught up since, and now that has to change.We have a moral responsibility, from one nation to another, to ensure that Inuit communities have decent housing. Housing is definitely one of the most important social issues in Nunavik. It is not uncommon for five, six, seven, eight or even more people to live together in a two-bedroom dwelling. If one of these people has social problems, the entire family is affected. The situation is far from ideal for raising children and supporting their education.There can be up to three generations living in one house without much privacy. This has numerous consequences for their quality of life. Some 98% of Nunavik's Inuit residents live in social housing provided by the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau. Approximately 1,000 families are hoping for housing, yet only about 100 units are built each year. Construction costs are astronomical, at least three times higher than in southern Quebec. Materials arrive by boat, and it is difficult to build more than 100 homes a year. Even at that rate, we cannot keep up with population growth.It is important to note that, in my community, the housing shortage is also affecting the economy. Large mining and forestry companies would like to bring workers to the region. However, they hit a brick wall when it comes to housing. Companies have no choice but to reserve homes and rent housing for fly-in, fly-out workers, which reduces housing availability for the rest of the population.As the families, children and social development critic, I feel it is important to address the impact that the housing shortage is having on families and children.In its eighth report on housing and poverty in Quebec, the social housing group Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain states that three out of five renter families have had to cut back on activities, clothing and even groceries in order to pay their rent. According to the same report, no less than 30% of parents with children aged five and under live in a home that does not meet their needs, often in terms of space, because of the lack of housing in their price range.What is the government waiting for? Why does it not take action now? The situation is urgent.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCompetition Bureau CanadaConsideration in committeeConsumer priceGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramMarket researchPenaltiesRental housingReport stageRules of debateScope of a billSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8048809804881080488118048812804881380488148048815804881680488178048818804881980488208048821804882280488238048824804882580488268048827804882880488298048830XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresChandraAryaNepean//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88860ChandraAryaChandra-AryaNepeanLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AryaChandra_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): (1310)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member agrees that competition is good for Canadian consumers. A previous speaker in the House mentioned the sort of monopolistic tendencies that some big corporate players are displaying in several sectors in the economy are hurting consumers. The hon. member mentioned the penalties that are proposed in the legislation. I would ask the member to clarify whether she is happy with the penalties that are being proposed or if she would propose any changes to them.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488318048832SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (1310)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the national housing strategy is not working, and we are headed for a real national tragedy. We know that there is a housing shortage and a labour shortage. It is a vicious cycle. This is an economic disaster.We are therefore asking the government to take action as quickly as possible to support the people of Quebec and Canada.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488338048834ChandraAryaNepeanMatthewGreenHamilton Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/93023MatthewGreenMatthew-GreenHamilton CentreNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GreenMatthew_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, the hon. member would know quite well, perhaps better than most in this House, that people living in northern, rural and remote communities, for decades have seen the high prices of groceries rise due to the lack of competition and the high costs associated with bringing goods to their communities.Does the hon. member agree that programs like Nutrition North must be made into social programs, so people could afford food, not subsidy programs for companies to continue to make massive profits?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Nutrition North Canada programReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488358048836SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, as I explained earlier, the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Inuit in northern Quebec need federal support. We do not have enough food banks. All of the food that arrives in northern Quebec is already going bad. It sits for days on a boat or a plane. We need to help these people, especially in the winter. Right now, this is even resulting in more suicides in northern Quebec, where I live.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFood supplyGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Nutrition North Canada programReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488378048838MatthewGreenHamilton CentreMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, today we are seeing another phenomenon that keeps happening fairly regularly. We can no longer call it a phenomenon really. I would say it has become routine: another Liberal time allocation motion supported by the New Democratic Party. As we know, imposing time allocation is very democratic. I invite them to consider changing the name of their party.Bill C‑56 was supposed to be the magic solution to the cost of living crisis we are dealing with. That is what the government said. The government introduced this bill two months ago and failed to convince the opposition parties to adopt it quickly. That must be because the bill is not that good.I would like my colleague's opinion on the fact that the government, who claims to have a miracle bill to address the housing crisis and the cost of living crisis, is telling us that it needs time allocation and two months to be able to take action.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804883980488408048841SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, what is the point of Government Business No. 30 when Bill C‑56 could partly address public support and economic and social assistance? We have some serious concerns.Once again, this government is dragging its feet. Nothing is happening. We are calling on the government to take action as soon as possible. The public needs this support.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488428048843MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, could the member provide her thoughts in regard to the importance of the legislation having a positive impact on Canadian consumers and future purpose-built housing?Does the member believe that it would really contribute in a positive fashion?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488448048845SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouSylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104622SylvieBérubéSylvie-BérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BérubéSylvie_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Sylvie Bérubé: (1315)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I do not think that this fully addresses the current need for rental housing. I think that amendments will be made in committee. That is when we will get more details. Right now, things are not entirely clear.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Rental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048846KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to today's motion. As will come as a surprise to nobody in this place, Canada is facing a housing crisis. It is not a recent housing crisis but, as time passes, it gets worse and worse.My father used to offer an anecdote regularly, particularly when talking about the environmental crisis we are facing. He would talk about lily ponds. One of the features of the growth of lily pads is that they grow exponentially.It starts with one and then, the next day, there are two and, the next day, there are four. The lesson, both for the environmental crisis, and I do not want to diminish that in any way, and also for the housing crisis and where we find ourselves in the housing crisis, is that the day before the entire pond is full of lily pads, it is only half full.To a spectator who does not know anything about exponential rates of growth for lily pads on the lake, they might come by the lake and say, “There is a lot of lake there. There is lots of time. Certainly, the lily pads are coming in but it is not that bad. We still have half the lake.”As I say, there is an important lesson when it comes to the environment and the climate crisis we are facing and the accelerating rate of change. It is also important to understand the housing crisis. We are now at the point where the lake is full. We do not have any more time to act. We have to start repairing the situation right away.There is the sense of urgency. It is why, when we came back to the House after summer, we were pleased to see the government had an idea that it wanted to move forward with respect to housing, something new and tangible that New Democrats and many stakeholders have been calling for for a long time, which was to eliminate the GST on purpose-built rentals.For our side, we wanted to see that done as part of a comprehensive housing strategy. We certainly do not agree that what the Liberals have called a national housing strategy since 2015 is that. It is clear that it is missing many components and that even the components that are there have not been effective in meeting the challenge that we face in Canada.We were glad to see the government taking some good ideas from stakeholders and, indeed, from the NDP, saying that it is something that it wants to move forward on.Our problem was that we knew, with respect to the changes to the Competition Act, that they were inadequate. We know this because our own leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done a lot of work on the Competition Act and proposed a suite of changes to the Competition Act right around the same time.We wanted to see the changes proposed to the Competition Act and Bill C-56 take the stronger tone that our leader has taken. Our leader does not shy away from taking that tone when it comes to talking back to corporate Canada and letting it know that we see the role of government as requiring it to do right by Canadians, not exploiting its market position to gouge Canadians.That is something we are not shy about and we believe the government should not be shy about it. It is why we run to form a government that is not shy about taking corporate greed to task.In the meantime, we want to get as much done in that regard as we can, working with the Parliament that Canadians elected.There was work to do on strengthening the Competition Act provision. When it came to housing, we wanted to see a more comprehensive strategy and more initiatives, particularly to focus on building more non-market units in Canada.No matter how many market units are created, there are going to be a lot of people who cannot afford or cannot access those market units. When we build non-market units, whether that is in co-op housing or whether that is social housing, where rent is geared to income, or whether it is investing in projects alongside the private market, to ensure that there are at least some suites that have a below-market value, whatever the combination of those things is, we know that this also helps relieve pressure on the housing market.There are people who are sacrificing their prescription drugs and food in order to pay market rent. When they get an option to be able to rent a home that meets the needs of their family and allows them to have money left over for essentials like food and medicine, that frees up market units for those who can afford them but may, nevertheless, be struggling to access them.(1320)One glaring oversight in Bill C-56 was that it excluded, without any good reason, co-operative housing from getting a break on the GST for purpose-built rentals. That was something we definitely needed to fix, and we have received a commitment from the government to fix it at committee, along with some changes to strengthen the Competition Act.All we have to do is look at the latest case of the Rogers-Shaw merger to know how frustrating it is for our Competition Bureau to do its job. It could not compel evidence from Rogers or Shaw, which would change here, as the Competition Bureau would be empowered to require certain kinds of evidence from the folks they are investigating. This would also mean that when the commissioner of competition believes a market study is required, the bureau would be able to embark upon it on its own initiative, something we think is very important. We also argued for tougher fines for companies that break the rules, and tougher fines not just generally but also for recidivist corporations that do not learn the lesson the first time. Those penalties would increase to deter companies from continuing to do things they know full well they should not be doing. The government has agreed to this suite of changes, and we will continue to press.Another thing we think ought to have been included here in respect of the GST exemption were projects that had already received a commitment of some kind of funding through the various programs of the national housing strategy. We know that not enough projects are getting funded under that strategy as it is, but some of the ones that have been funded have been put on hold. Why? It is because of rising interest rates. That means for a project to proceed, people have to find more money. They either have to do that through private fundraising, which is very challenging to do at the best of times, or have to increase the amount from government grants in a project. They could benefit from the GST exemption as well, and we do not think they should be excluded just because a project started before September 14 of this year.We think extending the GST rebate to non-profit housing projects that the government has already agreed to fund to make projects work, after a year of punishing interest rate increases, is a small thing the government can do to ensure that people out there in our communities, who are already doing great work to build housing that Canadians can afford, do not have work stymied by rising interest rates and can see something in their budget that makes it work. Removing the GST is the simplest way to do that.The government will collect no GST from these projects if they do not move forward, because the business case is being ruined by rising interest rates. We think waiving the GST for projects that are otherwise not going ahead is a very low-cost way to ensure that the government delivers on promises it has already made by allocating funding to the projects that have stopped because of circumstances beyond their control. That is not a fight we are prepared to give up on. It is something we think should be happening, and we are going to continue to argue for it.However, we are not insensitive to the fact that a lot of folks have announced that they want to move forward with new purpose-built rentals as a result of the GST rebate the government is offering in Bill C-56. We know that we are already well past the time to contemplate how to act. We know this is a demand that stakeholders in the housing industry, whether they advocate for market-based housing or non-market-based housing, have talked about as a way to pencil out projects, so it is something we need to move forward with.There was an opportunity to move forward quicker if debate on the bill had collapsed, but of course it is not collapsing because no debate on bills is collapsing in this place. The official opposition sees to that daily, whether it is by moving motions to take time away from dealing with government business or by putting up speakers ad infinitum. It ensures that we need some kind of time allocation or closure just to get to the point of having a vote on a bill.When we are talking about a crisis that is in full swing and the need to build more market housing and non-market housing, New Democrats are prepared to work with the government to move the bill through far more quickly than it has been. We will use the opportunity here to improve the bill, as we believe it is our duty to do.(1325)We would go further if we could, but there is only so far we can go with the Liberal government, apparently. However, we are willing to test how far we can go every day of the week and are going to keep fighting for the things we think are very important, including fighting for new announcements in the fall economic statement around housing that make more funding available for organizations that want to pursue non-market housing, and offering financing on better terms for those who want to build more rental housing in the market but are struggling to make projects work from a financial point of view because of rising interest rates.That is a bit about why we think Bill C-56 is important, how New Democrats have worked hard in this place over the last couple of months to improve the bill, what we are going to continue to fight for and why we think, now that we have reached some agreement on improving the bill, it is important to move it forward. The contractors out there waiting to pick up the shovel and put it in the ground need the deal done on the GST and want to see it move ahead. We think it is important that it move ahead. We think it is important those units come to market and Canadians have the opportunity to rent them. We want to see them come to market in sufficient volume so there is a lowering of their price.We know that is going to take time, but delay will not help. We have been delaying already for too long, certainly for eight years under the current government, which is after 10 years of delay and no meaningful action in the housing market from the previous government, and even longer before then, going back to the mid-nineties, when the national housing strategy was cancelled and we saw the federal government completely walk away from building social housing units in Canada. That is when the first lily pad started hitting the pond, so to speak, and it has taken us 30 years to see the pond fill, with really no more time to wait to enact important solutions.Is there more the government can do? Absolutely. We want to see it get rid of the special tax treatment that real estate investment trusts enjoy. We want to see it take action to make sure that non-profits with experience and a great track record of delivering non-market housing in our communities have access to capital so that when buildings with low rents come on the market, they have an opportunity to bid on those buildings and have the money to close a deal successfully to make that happen. The term of art for that is a non-profit acquisition fund. It is a fancy term, but all it means is making sure the non-profit housing providers in our communities, which are already doing a great job, have the opportunity to run low-rent apartment blocks when the current owners do not want to do it anymore, instead of having a corporate landlord come in, superficially renovate the building, kick everyone else out and invite tenants with higher incomes to rent suites that were formerly homes for Canadians who cannot afford luxury rent prices.Those are some of the things we think the government ought to be doing. We are not going to get them all done in one bill, but we managed to improve what is in this bill, and we think it should hurry along so we can bring more units to market.Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionCompetition Bureau CanadaCooperative housingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramMarket researchPenaltiesRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSocial housingThird reading and adoption8048847804884880488498048850804885180488528048853804885480488558048856804885780488588048859804886080488618048862804886380488648048865804886680488678048868804886980488708048871804887280488738048874SylvieBérubéAbitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—EeyouKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's thoughts when he commented with regard to the passing of legislation. He gave a very clear indication that the Conservative Party does not appear to want to see this legislation ultimately pass without some form of closure or time allocation. I believe that takes away from the process of enabling other legislation to be debated, because there is a finite amount of time to debate government legislation.Could the member expand on how dysfunctional the chamber can be when we have an opposition party that persists in wanting to prevent legislation from passing?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Opposition partiesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488758048876DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, we get elected to this place to deliberate, but we also get elected to make decisions. The process does not work if we can never get to the moment of decision. That is what we call a vote around this place.It is appropriate for us to have a discussion and debate, but it is also appropriate and necessary for us to come to a decision point. It is fair for opposition parties to stand up against particular initiatives of the government and to use procedure to delay votes, but when it is happening on everything all the time, the whole place starts to break down. It does not make any sense to come to a place of infinite debate without any possibility of making a decision.We know Canadians are relying on this place to make decisions to help with the problems in the housing market, as just one example, and there are many others. That is why it is important that we get the opportunity to vote in this place. If members of this place will not let that occur naturally, then sometimes this type of motion will be required.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Opposition partiesReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804887780488788048879KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthEricMelilloKenora//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105186EricMelilloEric-MelilloKenoraConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MelilloEric_CPC.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Eric Melillo (Kenora, CPC): (1330)[English]Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about housing, and it is definitely clear that we are in a housing crisis right across the country. When I think about how it is playing out in northern Ontario, I know we need to see affordable housing. We also need to see market housing addressed across the Kenora district and northern Ontario. We are not able to fill labour needs as a result of people being unable to find adequate housing to live in so they can either stay in our communities or move to our communities.The Leader of the Opposition, the leader of Canada's Conservatives, brought forward an important bill that would tie infrastructure dollars to the number of homes that are allowed to be built, as well as a GST rebate specifically where rental prices are below market value. That is part of our plan to address this housing crisis. Will the member support moving that legislation forward?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488808048881DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I will take the opportunity to highlight two problems I see with the member for Carleton's bill. One is that when we talk about using public lands to create housing, there are no conditions on what kind of housing would be built. There are no conditions asserting a return on investment for the taxpayer, whose land is going to be used to develop housing. We do not need to look very far out of this place to see what happens when Conservative governments that are cozy with developers decide they are going to start auctioning off land or opening up land for private development without a very clear set of rules at the forefront. That is a major failing of the bill.I would gladly speak to the other failing, but I see I am out of time. Perhaps I will get a question about the other failings of that bill. I would be happy to answer it.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488828048883EricMelilloKenoraXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1335)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I find it hard to understand. I hear my NDP colleague boasting about the amendments obtained in Government Business No. 30 pertaining to Bill C‑56. These are amendments that are going to be made to the bill and are elements that are important to the NDP. However, the points contained in this motion could very well have been brought as amendments at committee stage.The Bloc Québécois was calling for something important, namely financial flexibility, particularly for small businesses, with respect to the Canada emergency business account that was provided during the pandemic. A lot of businesses are asking us for this, and a lot of SMEs are telling us they need it to survive.Why did the NDP not want to defend that?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30LoansPandemicReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption804888480488858048886DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1335)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we are defending small businesses. We wrote the minister. We raised the issue. There are many things that we would like the government to do but that it will not do.When we negotiate, we are not sitting in front of a mirror. We negotiate with a government that has its own priorities. Naturally, we propose things that it is opposed to.I do not understand why the government wants to go after the small businesses that needed a loan during the pandemic. I do not understand why the government believes that it will get more money by causing bankruptcies. The government is clearly headed down that road even if it makes no sense.We negotiated with the government to obtain what could be obtained. Regarding the loans, we do not think that it is something the government is prepared to do. I believe that the government is on the wrong side of this issue. I do not think we could have come to an agreement about this in Bill C‑56.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCanada Emergency Business AccountCOVID-19Government billsGovernment Business No. 30LoansPandemicReport stageRules of debateSecond readingSmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption8048887804888880488898048890XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresRachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell River//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89354RachelBlaneyRachel-BlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaneyRachel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, the member's speech was very relevant to the issues. I thought I would give him this opportunity to outline some of the concerns he has about the opposition leader's bill on housing, what the other challenges might be and how it would not meet the needs of many Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048891DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1335)[English]Madam Speaker, I certainly very much appreciate that unprompted question. I spoke a bit already about the lack of criteria around the use of public lands in the opposition leader's bill. However, I wanted to come back to this notion he has that he is going to punish municipalities. We have had the opportunity to hear from a lot of representatives of municipalities presenting at the finance committee. They talk about the challenges that they are trying to overcome in order to facilitate building more housing in their own communities. I do not believe that they need to be browbeaten or punished financially in order to get that done. I would remind the Conservative leader that, when he talks about financially punishing municipalities that are not meeting his Ottawa-set target for housing starts, what he is really talking about doing is punishing the people in those municipalities. In a municipality where the leadership is acting in good faith to try to get more housing built, it has no interest in not getting that housing built in the community. There can be problems, and a lot of municipalities are trying to work through them. The Conservative leader is saying that, if they are already under-resourced and do not meet his benchmark, he is going to deprive them of even more resources, expecting them to meet the target with fewer resources when they are already clearly under-resourced to meet that challenge. That is not a strategy that would set municipalities up for success. All it would do is punish the people who live in the municipality when their government is struggling to figure out a convoluted permitting process and a bunch of other stuff. In some cases we have heard at the finance committee, it is about the underlying infrastructure, such as sewer pipes and other things like that, which have to be in place in order to increase density. For a municipality that already does not have the resources to do that, getting dinged because it did not meet the Conservative leader's Ottawa-set housing target is not something that is going to help it to do that into the future. Therefore, yes, we need to put an emphasis on outcomes; yes, there should be consequences for outcomes. However, just depriving municipalities of resources when they are already cash-strapped is not going to get the job done for Canadians.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30HousingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80488928048893804889480488958048896RachelBlaneyNorth Island—Powell RiverLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all the information, and specifically, for talking about the importance of housing. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, so many people are struggling to make ends meet, and housing is largely unaffordable. I am hearing from many residents that they want to see an increase of co-op housing, which, I know, is something that was brought up. Could the member expand a bit on the importance of a strategy that takes into account the non-market housing that he is speaking about and of our being able to have this legislation move forward and not see the Conservatives continue to block at committee?Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCooperative housingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048897DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie: (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader has called housing co-ops a Soviet-style takeover of housing. Actually, it is quite the opposite; co-op housing is a great way to build non-market housing that is not government-owned and controlled but is actually owned and controlled by the people who live there in a way that makes access to that housing more affordable now and into the future. That is why we fought hard to ensure that the GST exemption applies to co-op housing, so that co-ops can get those benefits as well.Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCooperative housingGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption8048898Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1340)[English]Madam Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have been afforded to address this very important legislation. I want to start by commenting on when the legislation was introduced for debate earlier this morning, at which time the member for St. Catharines stood in his place and indicated that he would be happy to share his time with me.I expected and hoped that, at least in part, there would be a general feeling that this is a substantive piece of legislation, which will have a very positive impact for Canadians. One would think that there would be support on all sides in favour of the legislation.The member for St. Catharines, who is a little wiser than I am, pointed out in his comments that the Conservatives are filibustering, preventing legislation from passing. It was interesting that, when he pointed that out, he also referred to the fact that there are Conservative members who support the legislation and will be voting in favour of it. He then cited a specific member who indicated he would be voting in favour of the legislation.After the member for St. Catharines spoke, I had the opportunity to speak. Based on previous experience, I also referred to the fact that the Conservatives have this natural inclination to prevent legislation from passing, even when they support it. A Conservative member across the way, speaking during Private Members' Business, made his perspective very clear in his opening comments. At the time, we were debating a private member's bill on a different issue, which is not government legislation, but he was critical of the government for not debating important issues.I agree in the sense that the issues he referred to at the time, during Private Members' Business, were housing affordability and inflation. He may even have mentioned groceries. Within five minutes after the Conservative member sat down, we brought forward this piece of legislation, Bill C-56. If we read the title, it is about affordable housing and groceries. If we listen to what members opposite are saying, we would think they would be a little more sympathetic in terms of seeing the legislation passed. Here is the catch: What did the very first speaker on Bill C-56, the member for Bay of Quinte, choose to do? He stood in his place, said a few words and referred to my speech, in which I referred to the efficiency argument in the legislation, which I will get back to. He referred to my saying that and said that is a very good part of the legislation. He acknowledged that. Then, toward the end of his speech, what did he do? He moved an amendment, with the real purpose of ensuring that there would be additional debate on this legislation.Someone might ask what is wrong with a little more debate. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it. However, people who follow not only this legislation but also many pieces of legislation that the government brings forward will know that the Conservative agenda has nothing at all to do with what is in the best interests of Canadians. For the Conservative Party of Canada today, it is all about putting roadblocks in place and the members doing whatever they can to assassinate the characters of government members and prevent legislation from passing. It is as simple as that.(1345) That is why the Conservatives brought forward an amendment. What does the amendment actually say? It says:...and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each....Every member of this House is very much aware of their opinions and thoughts on the economy, inflation and housing, as the ministers themselves have commented on the issue in different forms. The purpose of the amendment is, again, just to prevent or slow down the legislation's passing.The Conservatives have no reservations in doing this. I appreciate that it gives me another opportunity to address the legislation. I look to the member for Bay of Quinte and thank him for allowing me to express myself a little more on the legislation.At the end of the day, some members have said they support the legislation and other members have said there is good stuff in it. There is no reason why the Conservative Party should be attempting to prevent this legislation from passing.Let us look at what is happening around us. If we want to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and if we want to look at how we could support low-income Canadians, in terms of getting into non-profit housing or even, in this situation, purpose-built homes, there is good stuff in here. Increasing competition is a good thing. Conservatives talk about that, but their actions are very different.We introduced the legislation this morning, with the idea of having three hours of debate; maybe the Conservatives would see the light and the advantage of helping Canadians and would allow the legislation to pass. However, that is not the case.It is just like one of the other pieces of legislation that really surprises me: the Canada-Ukraine agreement. We are going to be debating that legislation. It is scheduled for this afternoon. What is the Conservative Party of Canada going to do to prevent that legislation from passing? Will it bring in another concurrence report? We have even had members in the chamber accuse the Canada-Ukraine agreement of being woke legislation. They have portrayed Canada as taking advantage of Ukraine, even though the President of Ukraine came to Canada and had a ceremony with the Prime Minister to sign this agreement.There is no one steering the Conservative Party today on policy, ideas or things that would help Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Conservatives are more concerned about bumper stickers than they are about good, sound policy. A good example of that would be in trying to figure out what the Conservative Party of Canada stands for on the issue of the environment. I said, “What is the policy on the environment?” Members across the way just heckled, “Axe the tax.” That is what I mean about bumper stickers.(1350)The reality is that the leader of the Conservative Party and his entire group are more concerned with social media posts, which are often very misleading, if I am being kind, and the bumper stickers they could use in the next election, as opposed to being concerned with what is in the best interest of Canadians. This legislation, Bill C-56, is good legislation. We finally have a government that is trying to address the issue of affordability and stability of grocery prices, and the Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass.Earlier, I brought up the issue of competition and how Canadians benefit through competition, and this legislation would provide the opportunity to take away efficiency as an argument that could be made by companies to acquire other companies. The example I used earlier was grocery stores. In Canada, as I am sure members know, we have five major grocery stores: Metro, Loblaws, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco. Those are the big five. We used to have Shoppers as a separate entity until Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party thought there was nothing wrong with Shoppers being acquired by another company. That reduced competition.On the one hand, we hear the Conservatives talk about the benefits of competition, but on the other hand, when it comes to voting for legislation that would help with competition pass, what do they choose to do? They choose to filibuster the legislation. They do not want to pass the legislation. That is why the member for Bay of Quinte moved an amendment. It is to prevent the legislation from passing. It is so they can continue to debate endlessly. As a government, we will have to go to the New Democrats or the Bloc to negotiate bringing in time allocation to pass this legislation, or it is not going to pass.On the one hand, the Conservative Party will be critical of the government because it wants to see more competition, yet when it was in government, it allowed Shoppers to be acquired, with no questions asked. It was an acquisition worth billions of dollars, and its members allowed it. Then, when it has come time for us to be able to deal with those kinds of acquisitions, they are now preventing the legislation from passing. Many would suggest that is somewhat hypocritical, myself included, but it does not meet their agenda.I ask members to take a look at what the legislation actually does. It would provide a GST exemption for purpose-built homes over the next number of years. That initiative is expected to see tens of thousands of homes being built, and that would be a direct result of this legislation. As I indicated earlier, the idea is sound and it is good. The Conservative Party of Canada should support it.We are seeing provincial governments recognizing that this initiative is good, and they are applying it to the PST too, the provincial sales tax. We have provinces of different political stripes, and we have the Liberal government, the NDP and the Bloc all supporting that initiative. On the other hand, we have the reckless Conservatives, who feel that their job is to prevent legislation of all forms from passing in the House. I would argue that it is at a great expense to Canadians.(1355) When we think of the housing issue, it is of critical importance. I have heard about it being of critical importance from all sides of the House, but when there are initiatives, whether legislation like this, budgetary measures that support housing co-ops and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the transfer of billions of dollars to provinces and non-profit groups to assist in subsidizing units, or the housing accelerator fund and the monies allocated for that, the consistent thing we get from the Conservative Party is that they vote against them, or they filibuster. In the meantime, Conservatives have the tenacity to suggest we are not doing enough on the housing file.The reality is that no government in the last 60-plus years has been more proactive on the housing file than this government has been. No government has, and the numbers will clearly show—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Building and construction industryBusiness practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActCompetitionFilibusterGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30GST/HST New Housing Rebate ProgramMergers and acquisitionsRental housingReport stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption804889980489008048901804890280489038048904804890580489068048907804890880489098048910804891180489128048913804891480489158048916804891780489188048919804892080489218048922804892380489248048925DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment Orders Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1355)[English]Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada could do a huge favour for Canadians today. Conservatives could recognize that there are two very important pieces of legislation that we are debating and allow both pieces of legislation to ultimately pass.Bill C-56 is there to deal, in good part, with the housing crisis and price stabilization. These are things that are in the best interests of Canadians. Later this afternoon, we will be debating the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It is the same thing. These are—Business practice and regulationC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActGovernment billsGovernment Business No. 30Report stageRules of debateSecond readingThird reading and adoption80489288048929CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88478GregFergusHon.Greg-FergusHull—AylmerLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/FergusGreg_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Speaker: (1535)[Translation]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.(Bill read the third time and passed)C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 449Foreign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRecorded divisionsThird reading and adoption8049212GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerGregFergusHon.Hull—Aylmer//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89045DanVandalHon.Dan-VandalSaint Boniface—Saint VitalLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/VandalDan_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionHon. Dan Vandal (for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry) (1035)[English] moved that Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, be read the third time and passed.Bill C-34. Third readingC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020352KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.): (1035)[English]Madam Speaker, it is great to take the floor in the most honourable House to speak to a very important topic, Bill C-34, the Investment Canada Act modernization.Before I get into my formal remarks, perhaps it is a coincidence, although I do not think so, that this morning the OECD released its foreign direct investment numbers, and Bill C-34 deals with foreign entities investing in Canada, Canadians and our communities. Canada came third in the OECD ranking for the first half of 2023. First is the United States, then Brazil, ourselves and Mexico. I think that speaks not only to the confidence of foreign entities, companies and corporations investing in Canada, creating jobs, wealth and great futures for Canadians, but also to what I would say is the idea that confident governments invest in their people and their communities. That is something we, as a government, have done since 2015 with respect to the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, the implementation of an early learning and national day care plan, the support for students by eliminating interest on student debt, and the two middle-income tax cuts: the first in 2015 from 22% to 20.5%, with roughly $3 billion to $4 billion a year, depending on tax filings, in savings for Canadians, and raising the basic personal expenditure amount to $15,000, which in the fiscal year 2024-25 will deliver over $6 billion in savings for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Confident governments invest in Canadians and Canadian communities.(1040)[Translation]I am grateful to hon. members, my esteemed colleagues, for giving me the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.So far, the House of Commons has voted unanimously in favour of these objectives. The bill has been thoroughly studied by the members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. We encourage the House to send this bill to the Senate for consideration. Everyone already knows that this legislation plays an important role in our economy and helps make Canada a destination of choice for foreign investment.[English]Foreign investment in Canada is booming. We have seen it in the auto sector, the mining sector, the food processing sector, the agriculture sector and so many sectors across this country, because Canada is a destination of choice for foreign investment. It creates jobs. It creates futures.[Translation]The act helps create business-friendly conditions based on a stable and clear set of regulations.[English]We need a stable and clear system in place to attract foreign investment, and Bill C-34 would do exactly that.[Translation]The act encourages economic growth and employment. It provides for intervention only if an investment is potentially harmful to Canada's national security, but it also permits quick action and judgments as circumstances warrant. That is what we intend to accomplish through the amendments made by Bill C‑34.The time has clearly come to modernize the Investment Canada Act and bring it in line with the times. Our industries are still some of the most dynamic in the world. However, Canada is confronting unprecedented geostrategic and national security challenges.[English]Indeed, Canada remains a destination of choice for foreign investment. It continues to grow and to create good middle-class jobs from coast to coast to coast. This investment helps businesses prosper and grow, creates good-paying jobs and ensures strong economic growth that benefits all Canadians. Canada has a long-standing reputation for welcoming foreign investment and a strong framework to promote trade while advancing Canadian interests. In fact, Canada has one of the earliest and most robust screening processes for foreign direct investments. The Investment Canada Act, the ICA, was enacted 38 years ago, in 1985. The act allowed the government to review significant foreign investments to ensure that these benefits exist. It was updated in 2009 to include a framework for a national security review of foreign direct investments.The world in which Canada now operates is increasingly characterized by the complexity of linkages between economic competition and the geostrategic clashes. We see it on a daily basis. Globalization has brought new threats to Canada's national and economic security, but of course many benefits also. Canada must have the tools and resources to protect its assets from economic threats to national security when those are deemed so. The Investment Canada Act must, therefore, also continually adapt to these considerations. The complexity of these dynamics can be seen in the increased volume of activity under the act in recent years. Indeed, there have been more national security reviews since 2020 than in the entire previous decade. The review process is also increasingly complex as international transactions and ownership structures are increasingly becoming more complicated and, in some locations, more opaque.The proposed modernization of the Investment Canada Act is designed to make the review process more efficient and transparent. Bill C-34 sets out a series of amendments to improve the national security review process of foreign investments and to modernize the Investment Canada Act. Collectively, these amendments would be the most significant legislative update of the act since 2019. These amendments also represent one of the multiple steps the government has taken to ensure that we can defend our economic interests, contribute to global supply chain resiliency and protect our national security. This, in turn, would help us to attract stronger partnerships with our allies to foster economic growth. A stronger foreign investment regime attracts good, beneficial investments into Canada, ones that would create high-quality jobs and opportunities for all Canadians. We have seen this with the $7-billion investment by Volkswagen and the multi-billion dollar investment by Stellantis. We see it with Honda and Toyota, in Alliston and Cambridge, where they continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars initially, in creating quality good-paying jobs for Canadians here in the province of Ontario, with a supply chain that stretches from coast to coast.Defending our economic interests and protecting our national security interests are of critical importance, especially in the current climate of rapidly shifting geopolitical threats. This issue is a non-partisan one. During the six sitting days that Bill C-34 was debated, the House has repeatedly stressed the need to modern the ICA to achieve those objectives. The House ultimately decided, in a unanimous vote, to refer the bill for study, because we all recognized how important it was to get these amendments right so we can protect national security while ensuring that we are not chilling useful, good investment.Canada's foreign investment regime must adapt to the speed of innovation, which we know moves very quickly these days. In recent years, intangible assets in the knowledge economy, like intellectual property and data, have grown in importance in defining Canada's economic strengths and, at the same time, pose new challenges in terms of how these are to be managed in order to ensure that the benefits occur to Canada and Canadians. The government recognizes the value of the intangible economy, its growth and the relevant opportunities for all Canadians, particularly in artificial intelligence and intellectual property. These new innovations are driving new ways of doing business, with huge opportunities for Canadians. The government will support this growth as it helps drive Canada's economy and supports highly skilled, good-paying jobs.It is great to see the city of Montreal become a cluster for artificial intelligence, with a number of companies investing in that city. It is great to see the Kitchener-Waterloo corridor here in Ontario continue to be the leader in the tech sector. It is great to see the city of Toronto continue to see the investments from domestic and foreign firms in fintech, and so many other types of businesses in this knowledge economy, but to do so—Artificial intelligenceC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInnovationNational securityThird reading and adoption802035380203548020355802035680203578020358802035980203608020361802036280203638020364802036580203668020367DanVandalHon.Saint Boniface—Saint VitalRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just wondering about relevance. We are talking about foreign investment into Canada and about Bill C-34. The hon. member is talking about artificial intelligence and investment in Montreal, which has absolutely nothing to do with the bill.Foreign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityPoints of orderRelevancyThird reading and adoption8020368FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1045)[English]Madam Speaker, I sit on the industry committee with the hon. member, and I appreciate his intervention. We will always talk about the Investment Canada Act and how foreign companies are investing into Canada and creating good-paying, middle-class jobs for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what I am doing in my speech this morning. Tools such as the Investment Canada Act must also be modernized to offer additional protections in light of changing geopolitical and technological advancements and to prevent hostile actors from exploiting Canada's expertise and capacity for innovation. We must all be aware of geopolitical risks, and that they and instability are now fixtures in our operating environment, especially for businesses. Hostile state and non-state actors pursue deliberate strategies to acquire goods, technologies and intellectual property. They do so in ways that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada's interests and principles. We also know that foreign investments can be used as a conduit for foreign influence activities that seek to weaken our norms, values and institutions.Members will recall that the Investment Canada Act played an important role in Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As early as March 2022, we issued a policy statement saying that any investment, controls or influence by the Russian State will also support a determination by the minister that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such an investment could be injurious to Canada's national security, regardless of its value. The statement sends a clear message about our commitment to protecting Canada's economic security from unwanted investment. Moreover, Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy is clear that the region will play a critical role in Canada's future over the next half-century. The significant opportunities for economic growth in the region are also accompanied by challenges related to the objectives of certain world powers that do not share our democratic and liberal principles.We must respond to this reality in a number of ways, including in the way foreign investment is assessed and examined. In short, the Investment Canada Act plays a key role in protecting Canada's economic interests from hostile foreign actors. It is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment, while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment.Again, I would like to say that this morning, the OECD stated its numbers for foreign direct investment in Canada, which OSFI operates through the Investment Canada Act to a large degree. Canada, for the first half of this year, came in third place behind the United States and Brazil. That is all the OECD rankings of over 30 countries. We are on the right path of continuing to grow the economy, attracting foreign investment from all over the world, along with our domestic companies investing. The act is broad in scope and allows Canada to respond to changing threats that may arise from foreign investment, while protecting Canada's openness to beneficial international investment.The package of amendments proposed in this bill is designed to assure businesses and investors that Canada has a clear, predictable and stable regulatory regime. The nexus between technology and national security is clear and is here to stay. Rapid technological innovation has provided Canada with new opportunities for economic growth, but it has also given rise to new and difficult policy challenges.(1050)[Translation]More and more, Canada is being targeted by hostile actors. That threatens both our national security and our prosperity. Our government must therefore adapt our tools to more effectively defend us against current and future threats.All around the world, foreign investments are now coming under much closer scrutiny from a national security standpoint, also considering various factors such as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the repercussions of climate change on security, global supply chain disruptions and changing geopolitical considerations.We are equipping ourselves today to face the threats of tomorrow. Canada will remain a destination of choice for foreign investment.[English]Now, more than ever, we need to make sure we are doing everything we can to foster an innovative, healthy and growing economy. The guidance and decisions issued over the past several years make clear that some transactions, particularly those by state-owned or state-influenced investors, may be motivated by non-commercial interests and imperatives that could harm Canada's national security.I will repeat that these types of investments in sectors deemed sensitive currently face enhanced scrutiny under the Investment Canada Act. Our government believes that an effective review regime must be robust, transparent and flexible to adapt to a changing world and now is the time to make these changes. I believe the last changes were made in 2009. That is why we stand today to vote in favour of this bill, which represents the most significant amendments to the ICA since 2009. We are making important moves now to review and modernize key aspects of the act while ensuring that the overreaching framework to support foreign investment to grow our economy remains strong, open and, I would add, flexible. Our record as a government makes it abundantly clear that where national security is concerned, we will not shy away from decisive action. Our assessment of risk keeps pace with evolving economic and geopolitical circumstances. The ICA already gives us much of the authority we need to intercede and address national security risks that can arise from foreign investments. These amendments build on a strong foundation and will improve the mechanics around national security review of investment. Now is the time to act decisively so that we can make sure that Canada will continue to gain the economic benefits of investment while strengthening our ability to address threats to our country and ensure its future prosperity.We recognize that Bill C-34 has undergone a rigorous, robust study spanning across 11 meetings. I applaud the members of the industry committee on this process. During those meetings, we heard from a variety of legal and subject-matter experts, who testified about the benefits that foreign direct investment has on Canadian businesses, the importance of protecting Canada's intellectual property and the need to ensure a regime that is capable of tackling the emerging national security challenges that Canada and our security partners are facing in the liberal democracies of the world. We have engaged meaningfully with opposition members to discuss their perspectives and concerns and have worked collaboratively to bring new amendments that will further strengthen the bill. We have worked together to ensure that Canada's foreign investment regime continues to be the gold standard. Bill C-34 will provide us with better tools to protect our national security. It will also help to bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies. My colleagues heard from witnesses at INDU about how important it is for Canada to have a regime comparable to its allies. Having a comparable regime helps to address common threats and maximize our collective effectiveness. (1055)[Translation]We all know that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑34 will contribute to that important balance. We have to protect Canadians and Canadian businesses while ensuring that investors continue to see Canada as a destination of choice.[English]Yes, Canada is the first destination of choice for foreign investment. We know that Canada and our allies share similar national and economic security concerns. Our allies are concerned with threat actors operating in multiple jurisdictions to secure a monopoly in critical access in technology. We see that with critical minerals. It is becoming increasingly more important to share information with allies to support national security assessments to prevent these threats from happening. This new information-sharing authority strengthens co-operation between Canada and other like-minded countries to defend against an investor that may be active in several jurisdictions seeking the same technology, for example, and having motives ill toward. That said, Canada would not be obligated to share such information where there are confidentiality or other concerns.I want to thank my esteemed colleagues for their attention today. I can assure members that our approach is pragmatic, principled and collaborative. It provides a solid framework to address evolving geopolitical threats while allowing Canada's review regime to be more aligned with our international allies and in the interests of Canadians. The collaborative efforts during the INDU committee ensure that we meet these goals, which is why I believe that this bill, as amended, should be adopted and referred to the Senate. We are confident that with Bill C-34, Canada will continue to encourage positive investment that will grow our economy and create good jobs in all ridings across Canada. I do not think there is a riding in Canada that does not have some form of foreign direct investment in it or that is not affected by foreign direct investment. It should always be done in a positive, long-term and sustainable manner without having to compromise on national security. We know that in today's world there are actors, foreign-state actors and non-state actors, who have ill intentions towards the liberal democracies of the world, including our blessed home here in Canada, and so we need the best of both worlds.I hope all of us can work together to stand for Bill C-34 to get it to the Senate for further study and make this bill law to strengthen Canada's economic and national security.It has been a pleasure to speak to this bill this morning. It was great to see the OECD comment with respect to Canada's reputation for foreign direct investment and coming into third place for the first half of the year. We have seen flows in foreign direct investment via countries across the world, with Canada being increasingly the destination of choice. There are the Volkswagen investment and the Stellantis investment, as well as Honda, Toyota and other entities. There are investments in Kingston, investments in Northvolt in Quebec and investments in B.C. that are happening. Across the board, we see foreign companies choosing Canada to invest their dollars for their shareholders to create wealth here in Canada. It is something that is great to see. We need to encourage it from all sides of the House. I thank hon. members for their attention this morning. I look forward to hearing their questions and comments. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInformation disseminationNational securityState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption8020371802037280203738020374802037580203768020377802037880203798020380802038180203828020383802038480203858020386802038780203888020389802039080203918020392802039380203948020395AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1055)[English]Madam Speaker, in general, Conservatives like elements in Bill C-34. However, we believe that the bill does not go far enough. In the spirit of collaboration, Conservatives put forth 14 amendments and only four were agreed to by our colleagues across the way. It is funny, because the Liberals always say not to worry, that they will work collaboratively across the aisle in committee and will get things done.There is one thing this bill does not do. It took away the requirement for cabinet oversight in determining whether an investment is a threat to Canada's national security. It gives sole responsibility to the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety.Why does the government always preach collaboration, but in the spirit of fairness, did not work with Conservatives and other opposition parties to agree to the other 10 of the 14 amendments?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020396802039780203988020399FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, Cariboo—Prince George is a beautiful part of British Columbia in our blessed nation. It was great to see that in total, eight amendments were adopted during the committee study of the bill, with four of them being from the official opposition. That is something we can all applaud with respect to where there was collaboration.In terms of how far the bill goes and does not go, I do want to put on the record this morning that independent of where the investment is coming from, whether it is from Russia, China or any other state actor or non-state actor, all investments will be reviewed if they need to be. In terms of the minister, there will be more added flexibility because the minister would take a look at it rather than it being a Governor in Council decision. That also would provide flexibility.There are a number of improvements in this bill. It is a vast update from the 2009 iteration. It is great to see that this has happened. I would say, in my humble view, to the member for Cariboo—Prince George that there was a lot of collaboration. I see that now, sitting on the industry committee with my colleagues from all parties, and it is great to see that we continue to go forward in the same manner on other pieces of legislation.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020400802040180204028020403ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeLoriIdloutNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111116LoriIdloutLori-IdloutNunavutNew Democratic Party CaucusNunavut//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/IdloutLori_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP): (1100)[English]Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if the member can speak to the importance of the NDP amendment to clause 8, which would allow for the review of foreign investments or takeovers to consider intellectual property and remedies to retain benefits in Canada.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIntellectual propertyNational securityThird reading and adoption8020404FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very pertinent and direct question. I believe that amendment was adopted and it has relevance to what the hon. member was referring to in order to ensure that we examine any effects of any rights related to intellectual property where their development was funded by the Government of Canada. I believe that is one of the tangents that the hon. member is asking for.Intellectual property in itself is something very important in today's world. Intellectual property, in terms of patents being put in place in different jurisdictions, has different effects. We know that intellectual property is something that we always need to examine. It is changing rapidly, and we need to have a regime in place here. One process is with the Investment Canada Act which directly examines this, because it is very important for our national and economic security.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIntellectual propertyNational securityThird reading and adoption802040580204068020407LoriIdloutNunavutCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke to the importance of working together with our security partners and our allies. Certainly, over the past eight years, we have watched that relationship crumble to some degree with a lack of interest of even including us in conversations. I am a little confused as to why the government did not respond to our recommendation to provide exemptions to the Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises. They are our allies, people whom we could potentially have a good relationship with and trust each other.The Conservatives proposed an exemption to prevent an overly broad review process. It was rejected by the government. Rather than focusing on real and serious threats to safety, the government would seem to rather utilize its time and resources on scrutinizing our most trusted security partners.What is the rationale for not moving forward with that recommendation?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption802040880204098020410FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1100)[English]Madam Speaker, in terms of Canada's relationship with our Five Eyes partners or groups, we have a very robust relationship. It is a very strong relationship. It is a relationship that has existed for many years, and I would say decades. It is a relationship where day to day, people working for the Government of Canada, our security and defence apparatus, are in contact with their pertinent peers. It is something that all governments need to value and respect. We know that. Canada is at the table on a multilateral basis in many organizations throughout the world.In terms of the question that the hon. member had about a review of investments, when we examine foreign direct investments we must have the mindset where we do not put in place exemptions. We obviously understand who our allies are in the liberal democracies of the world, whether it be the United States, Australia, the U.K., or other countries, but putting in place exemptions, I personally feel, is not the right way to pursue the legislative process in the Investment Canada Act. It must be broad enough to handle certain unique situations, but it must be focused in a place so that if investments are coming from state and non-state actors, the process is robust, with the capacity to review them for national security and economic considerations.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption80204118020412CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech very optimistic. He said that he sees foreign investment in Canada as a good thing. I agree with him. Everyone wants foreign investment. We are always happy when people want to invest money here. That means our country is an attractive place and there will be job creation and economic spinoffs and so on. I have nothing against that.There is just one small problem. We need to know what the investment is. We need to be able to look at it, at least. From 2021 to 2022, only 2% of the 1,255 proposed investments were reviewed. I see that as a bit of a problem.I feel that, sometimes, these investments are serving interests that may not align with ours. We should at least have a way to review these proposals to determine whether they are in our interest or not. Does my colleague not feel his government is a bit too naively optimistic about this?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption802041380204148020415FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1105)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important question. Foreign investment is vital to our economy, our national security and our future. We are talking about the future of our constituents.[English]When we examine foreign direct investment in Canada, it is very important that this modernized bill, Bill C-34, come through. The last time the ICA was reviewed was in 2009. The economic world and the technological world have changed greatly since 2009. We need this bill to move forward.The collaboration that was seen at the industry committee was very important. It was great to see. We continue to move forward on this bill, which is in the interests of all Canadians and our economic future.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption802041680204178020418XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech and his answers to questions. What I did not hear from him was an explanation about why he and his colleagues voted against the amendment at committee that would have sent every acquisition by a company headquartered in a hostile state like China or Russia to an automatic national security review. That was a legitimate national security power that we wanted to give the minister, yet the Liberals refused it.Can the member tell us, please, why his party continues to be soft on China and Russia?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption80204198020420FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeFrancescoSorbaraVaughan—Woodbridge//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88999FrancescoSorbaraFrancesco-SorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorbaraFrancesco_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Francesco Sorbara: (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, we are not soft on Russia in any manner. Investments that come from China, Russia or any other state or non-state actors are all reviewed very judiciously and diligently by the folks covered under the Investment Canada Act, and they will continue to do so. We need to ensure that the intentions of people investing in Canada are in our national security interest and that they will help their shareholders in their creation of wealth and so forth.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption8020421RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC): (1105)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to a bill that Conservatives believe is critical to the safety and security of Canadians. At face value, Bill C-34 would amend the Investment Canada Act with the intent to bolster Canada’s foreign investment review process and increase penalties for certain instances of malpractice or contraventions of the act. Canadians could consider this bill an attempt by the Liberals to take threats posed by some cases of foreign investment seriously. However, we live in an increasingly volatile world and, as we have seen over these past few months, Canada is not immune to infiltration and manipulation from abroad. In the past, Liberals have failed to thoroughly review transactions involving Chinese state-owned enterprises. This pattern is repeating itself through Bill C-34. Namely, clause 15 would remove the obligation for any foreign investment to be subject to a mandatory consultation with cabinet. On this side of the floor, we believe that Canada’s economic and security interests are paramount and this bill would not go far enough to protect them. That is why we put forward 14 very reasonable amendments at committee that would have intensified the review process of business acquisitions from foreign state-owned entities. Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP rejected all but four of them. They are nonetheless critical to improving the bill, so I will touch on each of them.First, the government was prepared to pass a bill that would have given carte blanche access to investment from state-owned enterprises, no matter their relationship with Canada. There were no provisions that would require any investment by a state-owned enterprise to be subject to an automatic national security review when the government introduced this bill. Our amendment reduced the threshold to trigger a review from $512 million to zero dollars, meaning that all state-owned enterprise investments in Canada must undergo a national security review. Second, Conservatives introduced an amendment which would ensure that the acquisition of any assets by a state-owned enterprise would be subject to review under the national security review process. It would guarantee that not only new business establishments, acquisitions and share purchases would be considered under the review but also that all assets are included in this process, which is another very good amendment to the bill.Third, when the government introduced the bill, it failed to address concerns regarding companies that have previously been convicted of corruption charges. This makes no sense to me at all. The Conservative amendment now, fortunately, would require an automatic national security review to be conducted whenever a company with a past conviction is involved. Finally, the government would have been happy to pass a bill that gives more authority and discretion to the minister, despite multiple blunders over the past eight years to take seriously the real threats posed by some foreign investments. The original bill would have left it to the minister to decide whether to trigger a national security review when the threshold was met. The Conservative amendment addresses this oversight and would make a review mandatory, rather than optional, when the $1.9-billion threshold is met.I do not understand why the government would not have automatically included this in the bill. It concerns me that so many pieces of legislation from the government are giving more and more authority to individual ministers and not to those beyond them to make sure that, within cabinet and the oversight of the House, those things are truly transparent and that sober thought has been applied. These amendments, the four that I mentioned, are crucial elements to strengthening this bill, but the Liberal-NDP government also denied Canadians further protections by rejecting some other key improvements that Conservatives really do feel should have been there.Witnesses at the committee stressed that many Chinese enterprises operating internationally are indentured to requests from the CCP, even if they are privately owned. That almost seems like an oxymoron, does it not? Instead of taking sensitive transactions seriously, the Liberals and the NDP rejected our amendment to modify the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include companies headquartered in an authoritarian state, such as China. In addition, the coalition chose to not provide exemptions to Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises. Conservatives proposed an exemption to prevent an overly broad review process, which the Liberals and NDP rejected. Rather than focusing on real and serious threats to safety, the government would rather utilize its time and resources on scrutinizing our most trusted security partners. (1110)This makes no sense. Clearly, the government has struggled to get things done in a timely manner, and this would have been an opportunity for it to be far more efficient and to also show an improving relationship with our Five Eyes partners and allies.Lastly, rather than supporting our amendment to create a list of sectors considered strategic to national security, the Liberals and the NDP chose to leave the process up to regulation and put it at risk of becoming a political exercise, which Canadians are very concerned about when it comes to the government, where stakeholders may invoke national security concerns to protect their own economic interests. Clearly the government has failed over and over again to show it is truly operating in the best interests of Canadians.I am glad to say that the amendments we were able to pass turned a minor process bill into a major shift in our nation’s approach to foreign takeovers of Canadian companies, but there is still more that could be done to improve it. As it currently written, the bill would give the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Public Safety near sole authority to bypass cabinet and approve projects coming into Canada. Given past precedent, Conservatives have been sounding the alarm for years on why this would be a critical mistake. I am reminded of when the former minister neglected to conduct a full national security review of partially China-owned Hytera Communications’ purchase of B.C.’s Norsat International in 2017. Twenty-one counts of espionage later, the United States Federal Communications Commission blacklisted Hytera in 2021 due to “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States”. However, it was not until 2022 that the then minister was left scrambling when the RCMP suspended its contract with Norsat for radio frequency equipment. Shockingly, Public Services and Procurement Canada confirmed that security concerns were not taken into consideration during the bidding process for the equipment. This, of course, raises alarms. The Liberals also failed to consult Canada’s own Communications Security Establishment on the contract. Instead, the contract was merely awarded to the lowest bidder. This is also interesting because, quite often, it seems we are hearing of funds being shared by the government with organizations that simply do not do anything for Canadians with the money they are given. Why was this allowed to happen? Why was a piece of technology meant to ensure secure communications within Canada’s national police force contracted out to a company accused of compromising national security around the world, as well as serving as a major supplier to China’s Ministry of Public Security?Let us go back to 2020, when the government was prepared to award Nuctech with a $6.8-million deal to provide Canada’s embassies and consulates with X-ray equipment. Nuctech is, again, Chinese-based and founded by the son of a former secretary general of the CCP.Deloitte Canada reviewed the offer and made a staggering recommendation to the government that it should only install security equipment in Canadian embassies if it originates from companies with national security clearances. Deloitte found that Nuctech’s hardware and software had advanced beyond the government’s existing security requirements to the point that its X-ray machines are capable of gathering information and accessing information networks. This raises huge alarm bells. Global Affairs Canada did not review Nuctech for risks to national security during its procurement process, nor was the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security asked to conduct its own review. The government often says it will do better and can do better, but these things are happening over and over again. However, all this might have been too little too late, as the government has awarded four additional CBSA contracts to Nuctech since 2017. The government’s laissez-faire attitude to national security is simply beyond comprehension. It does not end there. The government also cannot be trusted to safeguard the security of Canadians because it cannot even follow its own rules. In March of 2021, the minister updated guidelines for national security reviews for transactions involving state-owned enterprises and Canada’s critical minerals. Less than a year later, the same minister violated his own rules by expediting the takeover of the Canadian Neo Lithium Corporation by Chinese state-owned Zijin Mining. Once again, this was done without a national security review.(1115)To make matters worse, the minister defended his decision by refusing to order them to divest from Neo Lithium while ordering three other Chinese companies to divest their ownership of three other critical minerals firms. It is confusing to me that the government would be so inconsistent. The hypocrisy is astounding. The government is once again picking winners and losers, and it is disconcerting who they are choosing to be winners. This time, national security is on the table. This cannot be allowed to continue.We have seen a pattern of missteps by the government on how programs and projects are approved. Over the last eight years, there has been an unacceptable shift toward putting more power within the hands of ministers and outside advisory councils, with little to no accountability to this place. We certainly see that, and Canadians see it, too. There is less and less of a sense of responsibility in this place to Canadians. It is as though the government can simply go ahead and provide its ministers with legislation that gives them a carte blanche ability to do things, along with organizations and advisory councils that are outside of this place and do not have the proper oversight that the House of Commons, which reflects Canadians, certainly should have.Often, we find that appointed advisory councils are established at the minister’s discretion prior to a bill even being signed into law. That just shows the incredible lack of respect of the Liberal government to due process in this place.Other times, we see that the Liberals just cannot seem to pick a lane. With Bill C-27, for instance, the Privacy Commissioner’s new powers to investigate contraventions of the Consumer Privacy Protection Act were diminished by a personal information and data tribunal. In this tribunal, only three of its six members were required to have experience in information and privacy law—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActCorruptionCritical mineralsEspionageForeign companiesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption802042280204238020424802042580204268020427802042880204298020430802043180204328020433802043480204358020436802043780204388020439802044080204418020442802044380204448020445802044680204478020448FrancescoSorbaraVaughan—WoodbridgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1120)[English]Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for making note of that, which I appreciate. In effect, the tribunal was equipped with power equivalent to a superior court of record, which could overrule any opinion of the Privacy Commissioner. With today's bill, we see the government choosing the path of consolidated power in the hands of two ministers. The Conservative Party will continue to push for the deletion of clause 15 to ensure that cabinet decision-making is central to the investment review process, and not a ministerial power grab. Perhaps we are looking for assistance from the Senate on that. Cabinet decision-making is at the heart of executive power of our system of government. We want to ensure that no single minister can make the same mistakes that we have seen repeated here time and again. Canadians are depending on us to push for these things to take place. They are sensing less and less of an influence and control, as the democratic individuals in our country vote for the people who sit in this place, including ministers. Therefore, it is really important that we continue to push the government to include the whole process, especially including as well that cabinet intervention. The Liberals missed their chance to broaden the scope of Bill C-34 so that it would be applicable to changing geopolitical realities. It was a chance to ensure that Canadians and Canadian interests would have a dominant say in what would get built and what would get purchased in our country, how our resources would be managed and, above all, ensure they would be protected from complex and risky foreign interests. Within my own province of Saskatchewan, there is a great deal of concern about the movement into our country, even in regard to purchasing of our land. Canadians are concerned about all of it, but if there is one thing Canadians are very concerned about, it is that our land belongs to Canadians and that our agricultural, industry and others are not taken over by foreign entities. I asked the government earlier in the debate on this bill why Canadians should allow the minister to strip away any sense of accountability to cabinet or the House and empower himself in such a way. It is not in the best interests of Canadians. It is not in the best interests of any minister who is concerned about ensuring that he or she doing what is absolutely best for Canadians by limiting it to his or her own office and to the bureaucracy, rather than taking into account the voices across the House and within cabinet that represent Canadians. When we form government, Canadians will breathe a sigh of relief on so many levels. They can rest assured that we will always take a thorough look at the long-term implications of foreign investment with respect to how they would affect our constituents, our economy in the long term and our reputation as a safe and reliable destination for international investment and for the investment of Canadians. As I have a few minutes, serving on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to take advantage of this opportunity to speak on behalf of my communities and my constituents, indeed, all Canadians, and thank our veterans and our serving members as well our reservists, who are potentially facing deployment in the near future. Everyone who serves our country and is deployed or working within the system of National Defence deserves our greatest respect and support. I encourage everyone to please ensure they go out to the Remembrance Day services. I know many have taken place this week. Unfortunately, being here, I have not been able to participate at home. However, we need to ensure that we go out, in large numbers, and support our veterans. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802045180204528020453802045480204558020456802045780204588020459AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, the member has put some interesting comments on the record. For the member and anyone who might be following the debate, let us look at what the member just said and contrast that. Stephen Harper went to China and came back with the investment protection agreement for China and Canada. Let us contrast everything the former prime minister did behind closed doors, in a secretive way, in coming up with an agreement that was enforceable by law. Let us then look at what Bill C-34 would do as a modernization from 2009. What members would find is that, through technology and other advancements like AI, it would make a huge difference. It is one of the reasons we have Bill C-34 today.Would the member not recognize that the investment protection agreement, and the manner in which it was done under Stephen Harper, contradicts virtually everything the member said in her speech?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802046080204618020462CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, the answer to that is what the previous speaker said. The world has changed incredibly. China is not what China was at that point in time. The reality is that this—Some hon. members: Oh, oh!Mrs. Cathay Wagantall: Would the member like to hear my answer?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802046380204648020465KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1125)[English]Madam Speaker, truly, the world has changed, and China is on a significantly different path. The member who spoke previous to me from his side of the floor made it really clear, that we have a lot of circumstances taking place in the world. My perspective, and that of many Canadians, is that the government is far from impacting the influence of China in our country. It is lagging. It is not doing what it should be doing and that is putting our country's national protection at risk.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020468AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1125)[Translation]Madam Speaker, my thoughts go out to the Groupe TVA employees and their families following last week's catastrophic loss of 547 jobs. This is a heavy loss for my region, where 24 out of 30 jobs were wiped out. Obviously, we have high hopes that the federal government will be there to support these people. As we proposed yesterday, the Bloc Québécois is calling for a summit as well as a $50‑million emergency fund to support our local media, which are a vital part of our democracy and our communities.Returning to today's topic and the debate on Bill C-34, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and one thing jumped out at me. The government tabled this bill so that it could be passed as quickly as possible. However, the Conservatives, who typically advocate for the economy, moved a motion calling for all foreign state-owned companies not belonging to the Five Eyes countries to be excluded from the application of the act, an attempt to slow down foreign investment.Since 40% of European investment in Canada takes place in Quebec, I want to give the example of Airbus, a French and German state-owned company that, as everyone knows, manufactures airplanes in Mirabel. If the Conservative Party's motion had been adopted in committee, it would have seriously hurt direct foreign investment in Quebec.I would therefore like my colleague to tell me how she thinks she can block all proposed foreign investments from any country other than the Five Eyes. It is possible to have alliances with democratic states that we can trust.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020469802047080204718020472CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, in reference to the first part of the member's intervention, in which he talks about the loss of jobs in Canada, our economy is suffering on all levels and it is due, in a large part, to what was happening before even COVID took place. Investment in Canada was running in the other direction because of the lack of confidence in the government and the over-involvement in extending the time it would take to invest in our country. We have seen that on every level. We have also seen the intervention and interference in freedom of speech and the ability to communicate. There are all kinds of things impacting our ability as a nation to prosper which the government has had a hand. I am very encouraged with the fact that, in due course, this will all change. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802047380204748020475MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, when Stephen Harper was in power, he thought nothing of selling Canada's natural resources to communist state-owned China. He sold Nexen for $15 billion. He signed the secretive free trade agreement with communist China. The Conservatives are saying that those were different times, that it was a different communist China, that the Liberals were to blame. There is no shortage of blame on selling off our country on behalf of the Liberals or Conservatives. However, the other thing that Stephen Harper sold off were two world-class mining companies, Inco and Falconbridge, selling Falconbridge to the corporate raider Glencore. Immediately, we lost one of the world-class copper facilities, and we have lost all the investment that used to happen in northern exploration from Falconbridge. Glencore is a corporate raider, and Stephen Harper knew that.However, if the hon. member is talking about how dangerous the world is today and how much things have changed, why does her leader refuse to get security clearance so he knows what he is talking about when we are dealing with the international crises facing us. Why is he the only leader in the history of the country refusing to take his responsibility seriously and get the clearance so he actually knows what he is talking about in dealing with issues, whether it is China, Hamas or any of these issues facing us today? C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802047680204778020478CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to what the member has to say. Seriously, we all have clearance. The reality is that the government is doing a horrific job of caring for Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that my leader is resonating across this nation, bringing people hope, bringing people a sense of being valued. He understands that when he moves across the floor as prime minister, his role will be as first servant to our country, not someone who will take advantage of his elitism and his ability to undermine the very basic foundations of this nation that Canadians are desperate to have again.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80204798020480CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayToddDohertyCariboo—Prince George//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, it is always something when the NDP members stand and slander another member of Parliament, whether it is the leader or another member of the official opposition—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020481CathayWagantallYorkton—MelvilleCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1130)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question of security clearance is not slander. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment. That was a cheap shot and it undermines his credibility.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMembers' remarksNational securityPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8020482ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89249ToddDohertyTodd-DohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DohertyTodd_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Todd Doherty: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, I want to ask our hon. colleague why a common-sense amendment to modify the definition of state-owned enterprise to include any company, entity headquartered in an authoritarian state like China could fail? Why would an amendment that seeks to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada's national security rather than a systematic approach fail? Why would an amendment that would allow the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed in whole or in part by taxpayer funding fail? Why would amendment that would allow the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process to allow for a more flexible review process fail?Why did the NDP-Liberal government coalition block these amendments?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption80204858020486AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertCathayWagantallYorkton—Melville//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89098CathayWagantallCathay-WagantallYorkton—MelvilleConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WagantallCathay_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Cathay Wagantall: (1135)[English]Madam Speaker, I wish I could get into the inner workings of the minds of our Liberal-NDP and now Bloc coalition members to see why they do what they do.From the examples I have given, we certainly sense, know and have experienced that the government has failed miserably, over and over again, to give good reviews and do what it should do on behalf of Canadians. Perhaps this is just my view and that of the folks where I come from, but it seems the government has a different attitude toward some of these countries that should not have the access they do to foreign investment in our country. We want to see Canadians—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption80204878020488ToddDohertyCariboo—Prince GeorgeAlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-Lambert//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ): (1135)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to begin by drawing members' attention to an important event that is happening tomorrow.Last week at the opening cocktail reception for the Abitibi-Témiscamingue international film festival, Steve Jolin, known as Anodajay to rap fans, was awarded the National Assembly medal for all of the work that he does to protect cultural vitality. Sandy Boutin from the Emerging Music Festival and Madeleine Perron from the Abitibi-Témiscamingue cultural council also received awards.Why am I talking about this? The reason is that, following his first album Premier VII, featuring the hit song J'te l'ai jamais dit, Anodajay, an artist from a remote region who raps in French, put out a second album called Septentrion, containing a cover of the classic song La Bittt à Tibi. His version is called Le Beat à Ti-Bi. Tomorrow, November 10, his record label, Disques 7ième Ciel, will be celebrating its 20th anniversary at none other than the Bell Centre. This record label, which was established 20 years ago, promotes rap and is likely the definitive source for French rap music in North America, with artists such as Koriass, Samian, Manu Militari, Alaclair Ensemble, Souldia, and many others, including Fouki and Zach Zoya, who is originally from Rouyn-Noranda.I should mention that Rouyn-Noranda will be at the Bell Centre tomorrow to celebrate the record company’s 20 years, and I also wanted to acknowledge the talent and fearlessness of Steve Jolin. This will be a great day for Quebec rap.Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-34 and its critical importance for us Quebeckers. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑34, which strengthens the federal government's powers regarding oversight of investments that could compromise Canada's national security. More specifically, Bill C‑34 reinforces the minister's authority, giving him the power to impose conditions during national security reviews and to accept undertakings to mitigate national security risks.These essential amendments are a logical evolution in an increasingly interconnected world where foreign investments play a vital role in the economic development of both Quebec and Canada. Consider the minerals needed to produce technological goods and electrify transportation. All mineral production becomes essential, even strategic, and therefore becomes a national security concern. Consider life sciences or quantum technology businesses or artificial intelligence start-ups. In these sectors, any investment by a foreign government or a foreign firm, from a country such as China, would automatically be subject to an initial review to prepare for an in-depth study. It would be subject to a national security review and systematically rejected unless the investor can convincingly demonstrate its real benefits, meaning its net benefit for Canada. This is an important point.Bill C‑34 and the new critical mineral policy should put an end to the acquisition of resources by foreign-controlled firms that renders our industry completely dependent. This is something I vigorously defended at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. These are good mechanisms for Quebec and Canada. They protect our supply chains, our businesses and our sovereignty from ill-intentioned foreign investments. Each new review process essentially copies what is done in the United States, creating the harmonization that our businesses have also been calling for. By passing Bill C‑34, we are increasing the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a trusted partner, which is a condition for being a preferred supplier and, most importantly, for being integrated into their supply chains.The U.S. has agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, and, importantly, it has backed off on the most protectionist measures in the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, since Bill C‑34 now meets the requirements, the main one being to align our security policies with those of the United States. This is an essential prerequisite for including Canada in its industrial modernization strategy, in particular the development of the electrification industry. I have participated in not one, but two ministerial missions on these topics in Washington. I went there two years ago with the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development and last year with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, who was accompanied at the time by the Minister of National Defence. That shows how current these policy issues are and how vital they are for maintaining our competitive edge.(1140)I do thank the government for its openness in committee. The government agreed to clarify the fact that purchasing a company's assets is the same as purchasing the company itself. If a company owns a mine and resources, and we purchase that company, we also get the mine and resources. This is very important, because it means that the transaction is subject to the act. This clarification was necessary, particularly in the case of intangible assets, such as intellectual property patents, where there was a gap in the previous version of the act. It is crucial that our laws protect our national interests, including intellectual property.There may also be a flaw in the government's overall approach when it comes to protecting intellectual property. Does it go far enough? During our study of Bill C‑34 in committee, several witnesses pointed out that the government could be doing more in that regard.We took a more nuanced position on certain amendments. I supported the idea of considering intellectual property when reviewing transactions because it strengthens our national security and protects our strategic assets.I want to take this opportunity to mention that other ideas emerged during the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology's work. I will start with a fundamental value: transparency. One of the most important changes that the Bloc Québécois and I argued vigorously in favour of had to do with transparency provisions. That was a major issue the witnesses raised and one that came up in the technical documents that were submitted.I insisted on the need for greater transparency around national security in the decision-making mechanisms. That calls for more information from agencies responsible for decisions related to national security. That is a legitimate request that comes largely from the professionals who support the parties involved in this type of transaction, as well as from anyone who wants to understand how the decisions are made and which criteria are taken into account.The minister's obligation to make their decisions public represents significant progress. This will improve the public's understanding and enable individuals, businesses and all stakeholders to better understand the process and the reasons for national security-related decisions.We got a commitment from the minister to disclose certain types of information and require parties to a transaction to disclose the names of individuals benefiting from the new company resulting from the acquisition of or merger with the Quebec or Canadian company. We are firmly committed to acting in the best interest of the Quebec nation and to ensuring that the preservation of our national interests is in harmony with our democratic values and our pursuit of open and transparent governance.Consider, for example, the acquisition of Rona by Lowe's. Rona was one of Quebec's success stories. It was acquired by Lowe's, but we will never know the conditions set by the federal minister. Nearly a decade later, we need to consider the consequences of that. Was it because of local procurement obligations, the need to maintain a head office in Montreal or the need to keep a certain number of employees in Quebec, both at the head office and in the companies? Were those aspects respected? We will probably never know, because the conditions were never made public. If they had been, the public would have been better informed and it would have been easier to hold the company to account regarding whether or not Quebec's interests were respected. Let me remind the House that we lost a head office at that time, and that must never happen again. Greater transparency is therefore an important gain.Now let us talk about thresholds. The Bloc Québécois urges the government to go much further and to improve overall oversight of foreign investment, with a view to preserving our head offices, our economic leverage and our control over our resources, which Bill C-34 does not do.I would therefore ask the House to consider a new bill providing for a more complete reform of the Investment Canada Act in this regard. We tried to do it in committee because no one had thought of it when Bill C‑34 was created. Unfortunately for us, the government restricted possible amendments to the sole issue of foreign investment as it relates to national security, which is important, yes, but limited. If we could have improved one thing, that would have been a good pick. However, we were unable to go as far as adding a new provision. While this is very unfortunate, I have high hopes that a new bill could be introduced.(1145)I think there was even some degree of consensus around the table that the government missed an opportunity to review the thresholds to which mergers and acquisitions must be subject, particularly when it comes to guaranteeing that foreign investments will have a net benefit for Canada. That is an essential condition for everyone who is interested in foreign investment.We support Bill C‑34, but we will continue to demand loud and clear that the government introduce a new bill to examine and review the other provisions of the Investment Canada Act.The federal government's blind spot is its failure to protect our economic levers, a critical element that is often overshadowed by more immediate concerns. The data set out in the annual report from the department's investment division, which was tabled in Parliament in October, present an alarming reality that is getting worse as the years go by.Of the 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion that were submitted last year, only 24 of them would have been considered to have national security implications had this bill been in effect at the time. Everything we are talking about right now would have an impact on only about 2% of projects. That is far from nothing, but it is not enough either.The rest, or 1,221 investments, remain subject to the old lax rules with less than 1% of them being subject to a thorough review to assess their true net economic benefit.Each year, more than 97% of investments are not subject to a review. We have a right to question the oversight capacity for transactions.This gap in the protection of our economic levers stems from the growing fragility of the Canada Investment Act, with an increasingly high review threshold, allowing the vast majority of foreign investments to avoid any substantial assessment of their impact on our economy. It is imperative that the government deal with this blind spot by strengthening the controls and reaffirming its commitment to preserving our economic sovereignty for the long term.Over the years, the Canada Investment Act has been watered down. The threshold for a government review of an investment keeps going up. Almost all of the investments slip through and the government does not even have the power under the Canada Investment Act to assess whether each investment is beneficial.The current act, introduced in the mid-1980s, assumes that full liberalization of investment is a good thing, that just about any foreign investment, whatever it may be, is beneficial, resulting in the loss of decision-making levers and head offices—weakening Montreal's financial sector in the process—the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers, possible land grabs and the loss of control over our natural resources. Doing nothing is disastrous.By focusing solely on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. In an economy that is in transition, that is no longer something we can afford, not that we could ever afford it.COVID-19 has also caused us to reflect on many aspects of impacts, including the devaluation of certain head office assets and dependence on supply chains. If we are not producing vaccines, for example, we are dependent on foreign vaccine portfolios. This cost us billions of dollars. I am eager to have this information. If we had domestic companies that could have been protected, maybe we would still have assets, and it would have cost much less to secure the health of our population.To that end, we invite the government to table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act, not only the part on national security. National security is important, but so is economic security. In particular, the government should significantly lower the threshold beyond which it authorizes foreign investments without a review.Bill C‑34, which focuses mainly on national security, also raises legitimate concerns for many Quebeckers and Canadians. Although protecting national security is a crucial part of the legislation, it should not overshadow the gradual loss of control over our economy.As a citizen concerned for our economic future, I call on the government to go beyond a simple review of the Investment Canada Act's national security provisions and to adopt a more holistic approach to modernizing the entire act. National security is undeniably a major concern for any government. However, it is just as important to consider economic security. The economic well-being of the provinces is closely linked to our ability to protect and promote our local industries.The federal government must pave the way for greater recognition of innovation zones and the efforts made by stakeholders in these vital zones.(1150)For example, Abitibi—Témiscamingue is rich in minerals that are critical to the new economy. We have expertise in this area, and this could put Quebec on the map internationally. Once again, I invite and even encourage the minister and those advising him to recognize our uniqueness and the leaders of my community by working with us to increase economic activity in and around the mines. I also urge them to protect the efforts being made to develop these companies, which are so sought after by foreigners.The government must act decisively and lower this threshold considerably in order to effectively protect our economic interests.The Bloc Québécois has raised this concern numerous times, and we have conveyed it to the minister and his officials every time the Investment Canada Act came up for discussion. I have personally done so.The current threshold is too high. This means that many potentially sensitive transactions are not being reviewed by the relevant authorities. Lowering the threshold for foreign investment will enable the government to better control transactions that could have a negative impact on our economy. That does not necessarily mean that all foreign investments should be blocked, but rather that we must be able to carefully evaluate each case and impose conditions, if necessary, to ensure that these investments truly benefit Quebec or the rest of Canada.By modernizing the entire Investment Canada Act, the government can also put in place mechanisms to encourage investment in key sectors of our economy. Tax incentives, targeted subsidies and other incentives can be used to attract domestic and foreign investment in areas such as technology, R and D, manufacturing and many other vital sectors. The aeronautical field also comes to mind. In addition, modernizing the act can help ensure that foreign investment does not compromise our economic sovereignty by allowing foreign players to take control of our strategic companies. Appropriate control mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that Canadian companies remain under Canadian control and Quebec companies remain under Quebec's control. This is necessary to protect our interests.It is important to note that the modernization of the Investment Canada Act should not be seen as an isolationist measure, quite the contrary. We recognize the value of international trade and foreign investment in our economy. However, we have a duty to protect our long-term economic interests. In that sense, ownership of our resources is a fundamental issue.The government is responsible for striking a balance between national security and economic security. By modernizing the Investment Canada Act in a way that takes both of these aspects into consideration, we can guarantee that our economy will remain, strong, competitive and sovereign.I want to dig into the pandemic example a little more because there is something interesting there. Some companies, like Air Transat, lost value. Air Canada was in a similar situation. The Standing Committee on Industry and Technology did a study on the Investment Canada Act and its potential repercussions.I believe that Bill C‑34 is essentially the product of the recommendations that came out of the work we did in committee at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic. One of my concerns back then was potential loss of value due to a major economic factor such as COVID‑19. Given the current inflationary context, we may still be heading for a recession. Interest rates have gone up a lot. We know that the situation with the Canada emergency business account is key to the survival of our SMEs. About 80% of them have not yet started repaying their loans. Many businesses are in danger. Had we been able to lower the thresholds and provide better protection for these businesses, maybe we could have saved these strategic assets. Based on the overall current context, we believe that lowering the thresholds is still appropriate. Economic growth can never be taken for granted.Lastly, by focusing mainly on national security, Bill C‑34 fails to adequately address the fact that Quebeckers and Canadians are gradually losing control over their own economy. It is imperative that the government table another bill to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act by significantly lowering the foreign investment thresholds, introducing incentives to stimulate domestic and foreign investments in strategic sectors, and protecting our economic sovereignty.As I have said before, national security is important, but so is economic security. Our future depends on it.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActCOVID-19Critical mineralsDecision-making processEconomic impactForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInformation disseminationIntellectual propertyMergers and acquisitionsNational securityPandemicRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption8020491802049280204938020494802049580204968020497802049880204998020500802050180205028020503802050480205058020506802050780205088020509802051080205118020512802051380205148020515802051680205178020518802051980205208020521802052280205238020524802052580205268020527802052880205298020530802053180205328020533802053480205358020536AlexandraMendèsBrossard—Saint-LambertBernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup//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.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC): (1155)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I have an important question for my colleague.We proposed amendments, including one that would have made it possible to go back to the current act, since, under the new version, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Department of Industry could be the only two entities determining whether an investment would be good or not.If both ministers are from western Canada, Ontario or the Maritimes, and neither is from Quebec, these two ministers would have absolute power to decide whether an investment is good for Canada without considering the interests of Quebec, assuming proposed investments in Quebec are involved. My colleague mentioned some examples in his speech.Why did my colleague not support the amendment we presented?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption8020537802053880205398020540SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire: (1155)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague's work on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, especially his vigorous defence of Quebec's interests. I do want to recognize that. As an entrepreneur himself, he is aware of the requirements and problems that business owners can encounter. His business might not be a likely target for a foreign buyout right now, but who knows. Maybe one day, with globalization, there may be foreign interests that take over in Rivière‑du‑Loup.The fact remains that the current law has significant limitations. Should the Conservatives form the next government, I hope they will very quickly table a bill that will address the concerns, particularly about lower thresholds. Protecting our strategic sectors is essential. Obviously, there is the whole issue of transparency.What my colleague is asking me is this: If a minister is not from Quebec, will he have the same ability to defend Quebeckers? That is a perfectly legitimate concern. Quebec's economy is very different. It is built on strategic sectors that often differ from major Canadian sectors. Take aerospace, for example. Canada has no national aerospace policy, which is totally absurd. It results in untendered projects, such as the purchase of aircraft. Consequently, the Canadian government is not doing its job to protect the Quebec economy.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption802054180205428020543BernardGénéreuxMontmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-LoupKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1155)[English]Madam Speaker, I would like to think that Manitoba has a lot in common with Quebec and its industries, such as the aerospace and the pork industries. The other thing we share in common is the fact that we have incredible capabilities and potential. Bill C-34 ensures there are better safeguards for companies, large or small, whether it is Hydro-Québec, Manitoba Hydro or the small company start-ups. Given the changes in technology and AI, our industries need to be protected from foreign investment. This bill modernizes that and brings us that much closer to providing a higher sense of comfort. I would ask if the member agrees.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80205448020545SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire: (1200)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I will agree with my colleague from Winnipeg North that our provinces have something in common. I dream of the day when I can go to a Nordiques game in Winnipeg. There is a lot of sharing that we could do.The economy is changing. I think the member for Winnipeg North would be welcome on the committee because the points he has raised would be very useful around the table. I would like to see him get out of the House sometimes, get his hands dirty, and present these amendments in committee.I feel that the government has indeed done a diligent job, but within the limits imposed on us by the shackles of Bill C‑34. The law needed to be modernized to meet the realities of a new economy.Right now, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology is examining Bill C-27. I think everyone agrees on the fundamental aspect of data protection for all Quebeckers and Canadians, and especially for children. However, when it comes to developing AI and protecting our cultural sovereignty—and here I am thinking in particular of Quebec's cultural sovereignty, our French language and our accent, which CBC values so much—we definitely need to modernize this law and go even further. This is also important for protecting our start-ups and emerging companies that have patents and those that are working on and developing AI. We have some very painstaking work to do. I thank the government for its collaboration on Bill C-34.C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other ActsC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020546802054780205488020549KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthAlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-Patrie//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/58775AlexandreBoulericeAlexandre-BoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieNew Democratic Party CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BoulericeAlexandre_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Abitibi-Témiscamingue for his excellent, well-researched speech. He provided us with a lot of information. I really appreciated the fact that he talked about the need for transparency. Rona was a particularly striking example for Quebeckers. I think it is important to insist on transparency in relation to the conditions.I would like the member to tell us more about the notion of net benefit. Sometimes, there are conditions related to maintaining jobs, creating jobs and keeping the head office in Quebec. Those are important things. Could we not think about a long-term net benefit? I am not talking about a commitment of three to six months, but about medium- and long-term commitments.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEconomic developmentForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsJob creationNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption80205508020551SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire: (1200)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for his comments, which are always cordial but sometimes force us to dig a little deeper.I will answer his question by giving him an example. Strategic critical minerals are a key issue. North American Lithium, a Chinese-owned lithium mine in Abitibi—Témiscamingue went bankrupt. Investissement Québec had shares in this company, which was put back on the market. In the end, an Australian company took it over, mainly for export purposes, and established partnerships with Tesla, among others.With regard to long-term strategic needs, it is absolutely critical that Quebec own this resource. Right now, when major investments are made, like the ones the federal government is making in Stellantis, GM and Northvolt, there is no guarantee that supplies will come from Quebec or Canadian supply chains. Will GM vehicles and others have lithium from Quebec or Canada in their batteries? There is no guarantee of that.The purpose is precisely to consider the long term. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that we can cut five to 20 years from government investment if we develop the downstream supply chain from the mine and bring processing plants to Abitibi-Témiscamingue, like Sayona did. I acknowledge and thank Sayona for doing so, but it is important to have a facility near the mine to process the minerals that are needed at every stage, in other words, from the anode, cathode, chemistry, cell and other steps to the battery and then the automobile. There are economic and environmental benefits. To respond to the question and concern of my colleague, this needs to be done in Quebec, because that is where the value-added is developed and there is a long-term vision. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEconomic developmentForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsJob creationNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption80205528020553802055480205558020556AlexandreBoulericeRosemont—La Petite-PatrieMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my enthusiastic colleague. His speeches are always very lively and well researched. It is obvious that he really knows his stuff when it comes to anything related to innovation, especially the people who have expertise in his region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue.I want to come back to the question asked earlier by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I was rather confused, even surprised, upon hearing his comments. He has been a member of the Canadian Parliament for a number of years and, all of a sudden, he is worried that having ministers from outside Quebec could put Quebec at a disadvantage, because economic interests could be concentrated outside Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois have had the answer to this question for a very long time. For us, the only way to truly defend the interests of Quebec is to be independent.I wonder if my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue could share his thoughts on defending our head offices in Quebec and our economic interests, which are often at odds with the economic interests of the oil and gas sector in the rest of Canada.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEconomic developmentForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsHead officesNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption802055780205588020559SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueSébastienLemireAbitibi—Témiscamingue//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104630SébastienLemireSébastien-LemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LemireSébastien_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Sébastien Lemire: (1205)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski‑Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent question.I wish there were a reporter in the House to hear what a staunch defender I am of the interests of my region, Abitibi-Témiscamingue, just like my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.Quebec sovereignty essentially boils down to three things. Obviously, one is the ability to collect our own taxes and reinvest them in Quebec's economic priorities, including the battery industry's transformation. Another is the ability to sign our own treaties, as a member. This would include environmental treaties, which the Conservatives are obviously going to brush aside. The last is to pass all our laws based on our national interests, like the Act respecting Investissement Québec.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEconomic developmentForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsHead officesNational securityProvince of QuebecThird reading and adoption802056080205618020562MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise here today once again to speak to Bill C-34, which would update the Investment Canada Act. I spoke to this bill on Monday. It is now Thursday and not much has happened in the interim. We did consider a report stage amendment and voted on it, an amendment that would have taken some of the powers vested in the minister in this new act and moved them to cabinet. That amendment was defeated, so we are basically back to where we were when it came out of committee at report stage. I will therefore be repeating some of my comments from Monday, naturally.This act is designed to do two main things. It is designed to ensure that foreign investments in Canada have a net benefit for Canadians and that foreign investments are not detrimental to our national security.As I said previously, many Canadians will know this act from its first iteration, back in the seventies, as the Foreign Investment Review Act. It was brought in at that time because there was a rash of foreign takeovers, predominantly American takeovers, of Canadian companies. American companies were moving in as the economy was booming in the fifties and sixties. There was money for these companies to expand. They moved north and started to buy up Canadian companies. I remember that at that time, to go way back, there was real concern in Canada about this trend of foreign companies taking over Canadian companies, sometimes moving their operations entirely out of the country, sometimes just keeping them as branch plants of larger multinationals.The Foreign Investment Review Act was brought in then to deal with this situation. It reviewed these transactions as they took place, and the Foreign Investment Review Agency approved about 90% of them. Canadians are open to investment. We know that we need investment to grow our economy, but 10% of those applications were turned down by the Foreign Investment Review Agency in the seventies and early eighties. That brought criticism to the agency by both Liberals and Conservatives, who thought we should be open for investment and should not be turning down some of these applications.In 1984, Brian Mulroney brought in this act, the Investment Canada Act, to replace the Foreign Investment Review Agency with Investment Canada, of course saying he wanted to welcome foreign investment. True to his word, under the Mulroney government, the new Investment Canada entity did not turn down any applications for foreign takeovers.The Liberal governments that followed Mulroney's, those of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, had the same record, with not one application being blocked. The Harper government was a different story. Harper blocked the sale of British Columbia-based MacDonald, Dettwiler to the American company Alliance based on both financial benefits to Canadians and the critical technology argument.On the other hand, in 2012, the Harper government allowed the $15-billion sale of Canadian oil company Nexen to the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, owned by the Chinese government, and the $6-billion sale of Progress Energy to Malaysia-based Petronas. Then, on the same day, the Harper government changed the Investment Canada Act to block state-owned foreign investments in Canadian oil and gas companies. It was a good thing but essentially closed the barn door after the horses had left.(1210)Legislation regulating these foreign takeovers in Canada of Canadian companies has changed from time to time over the past few decades. Foreign investment trends have changed as well. The share of investments in Canada by the United States has declined over the past few decades, but it still leads the pack. It is still the main country, not surprisingly, dealing with foreign takeovers of Canadian companies because of its close proximity to us and the history of co-operation between our countries. It is followed by the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Luxembourg, of all places, Switzerland, Japan, China, Germany, Brazil, France and Bermuda, although I assume, as I said on Monday, Bermuda and Luxembourg are there because that is where Canadian companies are sheltering their profits; they are not bringing investments from those countries. It is clear that we need to keep up with the times in regulating foreign investment, and Bill C-34 is another example of that.Information and data are the new oil, and earlier versions of the Investment Canada Act were essentially blind to that. I have talked to numerous companies over the years, especially tech companies. At the natural resources committee and now at the international trade committee and the science and research committee, one story I have heard repeatedly from companies is that while small Canadian companies, especially tech companies, work hard to develop new technologies, say in hydrogen energy or AI advances, when it comes to expanding companies to get their products to market, they need investments. These companies develop technologies and do all the testing, and when they have a product that people want, they have to invest to expand their operations to get their products to market. We often call this stage the “valley of death” because so many companies fail at that.In the Canadian tech ecosystem, we do not have big Canadian tech companies that can help invest in smaller companies, so too often the investment they attract is taken over by foreign companies from the United States, Europe or China. With those sales goes the intellectual property, the ideas behind that new technology, and the real core of the company's value disappears from Canada immediately. The present version of the Canada Investment Act allows companies to report takeovers after the fact, so a foreign takeover could happen and then it is reported to Investment Canada. However, when that happens, for instance with a tech company takeover, we need some way of reviewing the takeover before the transfer of intellectual property happens.Bill C-34 has a pre-implementation filing requirement for certain investments to give early visibility to situations where there is a risk that a foreign investor will gain access to sensitive assets or information immediately on closing a deal, because if critical intellectual property is involved, it is usually too late to stop the transfer of that information if it is done after the fact. It is not like the old days when the main value of a company was in the factories it owned or in the rights to natural resources, that sort of thing. This new pre-implementation filing could help put a stop to that, where necessary.As an aside, on top of this, we really need to develop domestic measures to help develop and protect intellectual property here in Canada so that companies are better prepared when they get to that stage and can keep intellectual property in Canada, where it can be used to help grow our economy. Canada is the leader in many areas that are now very important in the world of technology, such as AI and, as I mentioned, the development of hydrogen energy and fusion. There are various technologies that we are the leader in, and we risk losing that leadership position if all of this intellectual property gradually leaks away.(1215)What are some other things that would make this bill even better? First, the act should mandate the review of an acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of a company previously reviewed by the ICA. This refers to situations where a foreign company takes over a Canadian company and Investment Canada reviews it, finds the company is okay, as it looks like Canadian interests would be protected, and then okays it. After that happens, sometimes the foreign company is taken over by, say, a foreign state.This has happened several times with Chinese companies, and I will talk about a couple of them. It is a real concern. I mentioned Monday the story of a company called Retirement Concepts, which owns and operates seniors residences in British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec. These are long-term care homes taking care of our seniors. I have told the tragic story of a family's loss of both parents to inadequate care in the Summerland Seniors Village, which is one of the Retirement Concepts care homes in B.C. that is very close to where I live. Suffice it to say that Retirement Concepts has a checkered history of investigations for its operations. Even after that, in 2016, Chinese insurance giant Anbang, then a privately held company, bought Retirement Concepts. The transaction was reviewed and okayed by Investment Canada, but less than a year after that purchase was okayed, the Chinese government seized the Anbang company and jailed its chairman for fraud. Perhaps it knew something the Canadian government had missed when that review was carried out.Suddenly, we have the Chinese government owning a company that is one of the largest providers of long-term care in Canada, and certainly the largest in British Columbia. Not only is it one of the largest providers of long-term care for our seniors, taking care of our mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers, but it is known to provide very poor care for seniors in many situations. In fact, in 2020, the British Columbia government had to seize management control of four care homes run by Retirement Concepts because of continuing problems of poor care. It returned that control just over a year later, but it is an indication of the lack of priority Retirement Concepts has placed on the care of seniors.At present, I do not see any direct provisions in the ICA that would allow Investment Canada or the minister to review the subsequent acquisition by a state-owned enterprise of an ICA-approved takeover or merger by a foreign private company. We have to change this.The NDP put forward an amendment that would allow for the review of a takeover by a state-owned enterprise of a previously approved acquisition of a Canadian firm. This could be done by establishing the power to require a mandatory divestment of all Canadian assets by entities in these specific circumstances. This is an example of where we could and should take a big step in that direction.I have been told the NDP amendment to fix this was ruled out of order because the government claimed it now has the power to enforce the divestment of any state-owned purchase. If that is the case, then it should act on Retirement Concepts without delay. This would not only take the Chinese government out of the business of taking care of our seniors, but would be a step toward taking all for-profit enterprises out of seniors care. There is not place for profit in our health care system, and that includes seniors care.Anbang also features in another cautionary tale about foreign takeovers in Canada, one that highlights the risk of exposing Canadians' privacy and digital rights. This was again in 2016. Anbang was very busy in 2016 buying up Canadian companies. The Chinese company Bluesky Hotels took over InnVest, a Canadian real estate company that invests in hotels and owns over 100, in a deal worth $2.1 billion. It was the biggest owner of Canadian hotels.(1220)It is alleged that Bluesky is just a front for Anbang, because that company initially wanted to acquire InnVest, and the executive in charge of Bluesky is a former employee of Anbang. However, Investment Canada reviewed and approved the takeover. As I mentioned, a few months later, Anbang was seized by the Chinese government.This development has raised significant concerns regarding privacy issues, among other things. China's Ministry of State Security was reportedly behind the massive cyber-attack against the Marriott hotel chain, compromising the personal information of 500 million guests. This has heightened the concerns of the employees and guests of InnVest hotels. Therefore, we need to amend the Investment Canada Act to allow for a privacy protection review.Another factor to consider in investment reviews is preventing publicly funded research and development from leaving the country, resulting in the loss of jobs and, basically, the theft of taxpayer dollars. A company called Nemak received $3 million from the government's automotive supplier innovation program. However, in 2020, Nemak closed its plant in Windsor, where those funds had been used to create new products for General Motors, and transferred the technology and those jobs to its operations in Mexico. An NDP amendment passed in committee would allow for the review of a foreign takeover, which would consider intellectual property that was developed with funding from the federal government and issue remedies to retain the benefits in Canada. Therefore, a situation such as that of Nemak would not happen again. The foreign investment review would now also include the effect of the investment on the use and protection of personal information of Canadians. This would help prevent such situations as the one we saw with Bluesky and Anbang. The federal and provincial industrial, cultural and economic policies affected by foreign investment would now be included in the review as well.I will conclude by running through some of the amendments that were passed at committee that strengthened the bill or, at least, changed it.One amendment was to allow the investment made by a foreign entity, especially state-owned enterprises, to be fully reviewable, regardless of the size of the investment. Before, there was a lower limit that would trigger a review. In addition, in clause 8, there was the NDP amendment, which I mentioned, that would trigger a review on a takeover of a company by a foreign company that would see the loss of intellectual property and technology that had been funded by the federal government. There is an amendment that would expand the investment review to include partial investments by foreign entities; another amendment would include a non-Canadian who has been convicted of an offence involving corruption as part of the investment review process. Hopefully, if they found out that the head of a company such as Anbang was charged with fraud, that would trigger a review right away and probably result in the cancellation of that transaction.There is another amendment to impose interim conditions on both the foreign entity and the target Canadian business during the review process, as long as national security risks are not increased. Another amendment that involves national security instructs the minister to provide copies of any order concerning a foreign investment review to the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians and the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.I will finish by saying that, in this new world where ideas and data are more valuable than the natural resources we have so long relied on, we need a new regulatory framework to protect our industries, our workers and our companies. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaCorruptionForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIntellectual propertyMergers and acquisitionsNational securityPrivacy and data protectionRegulatory reviewResearch and researchersResidential homes for the elderlyState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption802056380205648020565802056680205678020568802056980205708020571802057280205738020574802057580205768020577802057880205798020580802058180205828020583802058480205858020586802058780205888020589802059080205918020592SébastienLemireAbitibi—TémiscamingueRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by the hon. member, and it started with a false premise. The hon. member seems to think he is an expert going back to the Investment Canada Act's introduction on how many investments have been approved or not approved through the process. Of course, he said none, which is completely false. Even in the Harper government, just briefly, there were examples. PotashCorp was rejected by the Harper government, as were the sales of the Canadarm to U.S. interests and Radarsat. Thus, the member should do his homework a little more before he speaks about those issues.However, on the bill itself, could the member explain why he thinks the government believes that cabinet should not be involved in the decision-making process in any acquisition of a corporation by a foreign entity?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80205938020594RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the member was listening carefully enough, because I never said any of those things.What I said was that the Mulroney government did not—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80205958020596RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (1225)[English]Not true. I was there.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020597RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, all the examples the member gave were from the Harper government, and I praised Harper in the speech. I do not do that very often. I just wanted to point that out. I was saying that Harper changed all that; actually, I could have mentioned PotashCorp and all those things, because that was in my notes as well. I just did not want to go there. I just want to put that on the record.As to the member's question about cabinet versus the minister, the NDP voted with the Conservatives on that amendment, so I think that settles that.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80205988020599RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I will let the other two figure out the Mulroney versus Harper era.The member referred to AI. Canada, in very real and tangible ways, is in fact leading the world in certain aspects. AI is so encouraging and important, and by modernizing the legislation, we would be able to have more protection, so we do not have foreign investment coming into Canada and then lose control of some of that critically important AI development.Would the member agree with that?Artificial intelligenceC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802060080206018020602RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would totally agree.In my speech, I briefly mentioned the need to really develop and bolster our intellectual property programs and culture in Canada. That is outside this act, which controls investment and the takeovers of Canadian companies. We are studying this in the science and research committee right now, about how exposed a lot of Canadian research and development is to foreign takeover, foreign theft and foreign entities taking our intellectual property because they have the legal right to it.The value in these companies today is intellectual property. AI is one example. It is lost so quickly and easily. We have to do everything, controlling it not only in these acquisition regulations but also in the period of science and research that leads up to some of these investments.Artificial intelligenceC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802060380206048020605KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, what was raised here was about the Stephen Harper years.Stephen Harper sold off a massive amount of natural resources to state-owned Chinese companies in a $15-billion Nexen takeover, then signed a secretive free trade agreement with China. He handed the Chinese Communist Party baskets of blueberries to show our good faith.Now the Conservatives are saying that the world has changed; that was a different Communist government then. They rail about Communist governments now because of the Liberal government. However, the former Conservative government gave up $15 billion of Canada's natural resources to a foreign state-owned company.That is the history of the Conservative Party, of Stephen Harper and of Brian Mulroney. It is certainly going to be the history, if ever that dark history is written, of the member who represents the party now. How does my hon. colleague think that the Conservatives could now pretend to defend the national interests, when they sold us down the river every chance they got? C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020606802060780206088020609RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am sure they were blueberries from British Columbia. They are bigger and better.I mentioned in my speech the fact of two very significant takeovers that happened during the Harper era. One was from, basically, the Chinese government, in our oil patch; the other was from Petronas, the Malaysian oil and gas company.Canada has, since its inception, relied on its natural resources to be the basis of our wealth. This is basically our birthright. It is what we have to really develop the Canadian economy. Therefore, I think we have to be very careful about any takeovers by companies that give foreign companies and, especially, foreign governments control over our natural resources, especially one as important as oil and gas.I think it is ironic, as I mentioned in my speech, that the Harper government banned the sale of oil and gas companies to foreign entities as soon as they approved those two acquisitions.I think it is certainly something that we have to really be careful of in the future. Hopefully, these incremental changes in Bill C-34 will help us do that.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206118020612802061380206148020615Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaMarioSimardJonquière//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104773MarioSimardMario-SimardJonquièreBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SimardMario_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ): (1230)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I feel I must rise because of my colleague's unacceptable remarks.I come from Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. They call us the “Bleuets”. I am offended by my colleague's claim that the best blueberries in the world come from his region. My entire region must be offended, and I would like to give my colleague the chance to take back his comments as a courtesy to the people of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean.He may also wish to continue talking about the importance of natural resources in the context of this bill.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaForestryGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802061680206178020618RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should back down now and apologize for one part. I said they were bigger and better. They are certainly bigger in British Columbia. The taste may be up for debate.I would like to thank the member for the last part of his question. I know he is a real advocate for natural resources in Canada and Quebec, especially forestry.I am from British Columbia, where forestry has been the driver of our economy since before I was born. It is becoming less important now, but it is still a huge part of our economy.The history of British Columbia's forestry is a history of foreign acquisitions. A lot of the companies that really control our forest ecosystems in British Columbia were gradually taken over, as 95% of our forests are basically leased out in very long-term leases and tree farm licences in British Columbia to private companies.Some are held by Canadian companies and some by foreign companies. This whole process has to be really monitored and regulated very carefully if we are to protect the value of those forests for the future, whether it is in terms of timber and fibre, the watershed providing clean water, biodiversity or all the benefits that wild forests can have.This is, again, something that we should really be looking at when we think about foreign investments in Canada.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaForestryGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802061980206208020621802062280206238020624MarioSimardJonquièreKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, for the last minute or so, I have been sitting in my chair contemplating a private member's resolution perhaps in the future to talk about blueberries. The member from B.C. was talking about the blueberries from B.C. My colleague from Fredericton was talking about the lovely blueberries in communities around Fredericton, and there are blueberries in the province of Nova Scotia. I can attest there are blueberries growing even in the province of Manitoba. From coast to coast to coast, and I believe even in Yukon, we can get blueberries, but do not quote me on that.What we could all agree on is that blueberries are very healthy. We know that for a fact. It is a nutritional powerhouse for one's diet, so we should all be eating blueberries, no matter where they come from. I will wait for the private member's motion at some point in the future to add to those thoughts.Having said that, I am grateful that today we are debating Bill C-34 and that the Conservative Party did not move a motion for concurrence. That means we actually get to debate the legislation that was intended to be debated. That is how I would start off in terms of good news, in recognizing that the Conservatives have provided us the opportunity to debate the bill. However, members will recall that we did have to bring in time allocation in order to get the bill to the committee, in order to ultimately get it to third reading. I am going to continue to be a little optimistic. I have listened to the speeches on all sides of the House, and there are a couple of thoughts that come to my mind. First, members seem to recognize that it is important that we modernize and update the legislation and justifiably so. Over the last decade-plus, which is the last time we actually saw any form of substantial change to the legislation, a lot has changed. In the question I posed to the previous speaker, I talked about AI. It is incredible the degree to which AI has grown in the last number of years. It was not that long ago when someone sitting beside me in the chamber said, “Pick a topic, Kevin.” I think I can say my first name, Mr. Speaker. I picked a topic and used the example of the Philippines. Moments later a speech that I would apparently be comfortable saying appeared right there, in one minute. It was a detailed speech talking about the Philippines—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802062580206268020627802062880206298020630RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could we have the chatbot version instead of the real one? It might be more to the point. I would certainly be willing to include it, and if we need unanimous consent, I would support that. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMembers' remarksNational securityPoints of orderThird reading and adoption8020631KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1240)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am not that up on technology and social media to be able to talk about chatbots. The point is, as other members have made reference to, that things have changed considerably, and one of those things is dealing with technology and amplifying the issue of AI.It is interesting when I listen to the Conservatives, and their critic in particular. They have so many reservations about seeing this legislation ultimately pass. We saw that in their statements today and in the questions they are posing. Earlier today, one of the Conservative members stood in her place and talked about how bad the Government of Canada, that we kind of sneak around to do things, and then asked why we would want a minister to be responsible. I asked the member to reflect on an incident that occurred a number of years ago. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister of Canada, he ventured over to China and I believe brought back a commitment to bring panda bears over from China. What was not well advertised was that he put in place an investment protection agreement. The other day I made reference to it as a free trade type of agreement. The member for Abbotsford stood in his place and demanded that it was not a free trade agreement, but rather it was an investment protection agreement. We can play with words all we want, but the bottom line is that agreement was done in complete secrecy. Therefore, when Conservatives stand up and talk about how we are going to give all this power to the minister, I think they should reflect on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the manner in which he put into place a substantive agreement known as an investment protection agreement between Canada and China. If we contrast that to many of the things the Conservatives are saying during the debate on Bill C-34, I think they would be a bit surprised with what would have happened had they had the same principles they have today back when that agreement was signed with China, because we know what their attitude toward China is today. I say that because, when I think of the legislation, I believe that having the authority lie with the minister, who has an obligation to consult with the public safety minister, which is often not mentioned, adds a great deal of strength to the legislation. Ultimately, there is accountability for the minister that takes place in different forums, whether it is through question period, orders for return, the minister going to committee or in the form of written letters. Today there are many types of mainstream media outlets that members can go to, as well as social media. There are many different ways in which the opposition is able to track, oppose and raise the level of public debate on issues. Therefore, I do not share the concerns that members across the way have with this legislation now giving more authority to the minister. The minister can now request a further national security review.(1245)We need to recognize that the primary purpose of this legislation is to protect Canada's best interests on the issue of foreign investment. It is interesting. We have heard in the chamber a great deal about foreign interference. We have had committees study it. We have had a public inquiry of sorts looking into the issue of foreign interference. Investment is another way in which countries can, in fact, cause issues related to foreign interference concerns. I would have thought that would have elevated the need to see this type of legislation not only being talked about, but also passed.The New Democratic critic was talking about amendments, as was the Conservative critic. They were talking about the amendments that were not passed. There are two issues that I would highlight, which the members did not reference.One issue is that, in approaching the committee, the government was very open to improving the legislation through amendments, if the amendments could improve the strength of the legislation. What we saw, as we often see, at least in this government, was a willingness and an openness not only to listen to potential amendments, but also where it makes sense and adds true value in terms of the strength and scope of the legislation, to see the amendments pass. We saw that at the committee stage. We saw significant amendments proposed and passed. Not all amendments passed. A member referenced one of the amendments that he was concerned about, but then he was assured that the minister already would have the authority to be able to do it, and the amendment was not approved.The point is that today the legislation is even stronger than it was prior to going to committee. That is why we, including me, pushed very heavily to get Bill C-34 out of second reading so that we could get it to committee stage and look at potential amendments.Members can correct me if I am wrong, but at the end of the day, I believe that the legislation is going to be receiving all-party support. I am not too sure about the Green members, but I do believe it will be receiving substantial support.I know there are other pieces of legislation that the opposition has concerns about. The Ukraine trade agreement is one of them. Much to my surprise and the surprise of many, it would appear that the Conservative Party might not be supporting that particular agreement. It is important. It is an important part of foreign investment, and let me tell members why.At the very beginning, back in 2015, when we took office, we made it very clear that as a government we wanted to be there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. I suspect that if members were to do a search in Hansard, they would find that I have re-emphasized that on many occasions. That is the type of action and the type of budgetary and legislative measures that we have put into place to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, not to mention the many other policies to assist in lifting other individuals, including seniors and children, out of poverty.A big part of that is to recognize that Canada is a trading nation. When I say it is a trading nation, we can look at the number of agreements that were signed off by this government. Never in history has a government signed off on as many trade agreements as this Prime Minister has. That is a clear fact.(1250)No doubt there was some preparatory work done under the previous administration, but the signing off and the finalizing of those agreements were done under this administration. Trade is important to our communities in all regions of our country.I have referred to HyLife, as an example, in the community of Neepawa, Manitoba. At HyLife, they process literally hundreds, if not thousands, of pigs every month, and likely thousands of pigs are processed every day in Neepawa. Think about the jobs created as a direct result, whether in the farming community or on the factory floor. Colleagues may be surprised to know that the last time I had a tour of the facility, 98% of what was coming off the floor was being exported to Asia.That particular firm is not alone. I think it amplifies how important trade is and the opportunities that trade provides. Think about investments. Having those trade agreements encourages more investment, foreign investment. When people look at those direct jobs I referred to, they should think about the indirect jobs that are a direct result of those. Farming and working in factories, and every job in between, could be classified as direct jobs. Indirect jobs would be selling cars, and making restaurants, houses and appliances. Those are all indirect jobs because of the economics of having that particular processing facility, all of which demonstrates why trade is so important. Let us compare Canada to any other country in the world, including the U.S.A., and it has trade agreements that expand the world. As a result, as part of having those special relationships with countries around the world, it sends another message that Canada is not only a good country to trade with but also a good country to invest in. I believe, if we apply that perspective to the advancements we have seen in small businesses in every region of our country, whether small, medium or big, we should all be concerned about how money is flowing into the country and being invested in companies that are already up and running. As I indicated, if we think back to foreign investments in 2009-10, the world was very different, with respect to technology and AI. There are so many other factors at play. That is why it is important that we bring forward Bill C-34. By doing that, we are ensuring Canadian interests are, in fact, protected. An ideal example of that would be any foreign company investing in a company in Canada for the purpose of taking it over and then potentially shutting it down, or taking the technological advances or AI development within it and taking it out of the country, thereby limiting potential growth in that area, especially in areas of expertise.(1255)My friend from the Bloc referred to the industries in the province of Quebec. In the preamble of my question to him, I pointed out that there are a lot of similarities between Quebec and Manitoba. Manitoba's aerospace industry is very important. The other day, I met with someone at StandardAero, and we talked about the importance of the aerospace industry and engines. That company has been in Manitoba for over 100 years.There are all sorts of things that take place in our specialized industries, whether it is aerospace or hydro, again, something we have in common with the province of Quebec. There are certain sectors throughout the country in which I suggest we are on the leading edge, and we need to be very cognizant that some outside characters might not necessarily be acting in good faith when they say they want to acquire company X. That is why it is important that this legislation passes. It is important that the minister has the ability to make those decisions and to work with the Minister of Public Safety.There are many other ways to ensure there is public awareness and a high sense of accountability, which I alluded to earlier. It is why I am hoping the Conservatives, the opposition, will recognize the value of the legislation. It is now at third reading. It is in a great position to pass and, hopefully, time allocation will not be required. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign influenced activitiesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInternational tradeNational securityThird reading and adoption8020633802063480206358020636802063780206388020639802064080206418020642802064380206448020645802064680206478020648802064980206508020651802065280206538020654802065580206568020657Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, I chuckled when the hon. member mentioned middle-class Canadians, or those aspiring to be. It is funny how, after eight years, middle-class Canadians are now just trying to stay in the middle class as a result of all the policies of the government, with the affordability and inflation crisis caused by overspending and the debt that has accumulated.I want to speak specifically about Bill C-34 and the mandatory notice regime. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty within industry right now as it relates to the applications that are in the process, in some cases by minority investors. As for the definition of the mandatory notice regime, and specifically what categories of investment would fall into that, there seems to be a little uncertainty. I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what that would be.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206588020659KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are some interim conditions that can be placed on investments. Many of the details the member is looking for would probably be best sought from the minister, because not all of it would be covered in the framework of the legislation being put forward.Have said that, I want to comment on the member's observation, which I suggest is inaccurate. From the very beginning, we have been there to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. Let us compare Canada's record, with respect to interest rates and inflation rates, to virtually any of the G20 countries. I am thinking particularly of the United States. Canada has done reasonably well, very well compared to the U.S., but it does not mean we should not continue to support the middle class. That is one reason we came up with the grocery rebate. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to vote against supports for Canada's middle class.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206608020661JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilLindsayMathyssenLondon—Fanshawe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105221LindsayMathyssenLindsay-MathyssenLondon—FanshaweNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MathyssenLindsay_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): (1255)[English]Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of conversations this morning about the selling out of Canada by past governments, not only by the Harper government but also by the Mulroney government before that, and the signing of the disastrous Canada-China FIPA, where both Conservatives and Liberals, in an interesting coalition, I might add, voted on that.I will give credit to the Liberal government for trying to fix its mistakes in Bill C-34. I appreciate that. However, I am confused and would love to hear the hon. member's comments. Even though the Conservatives have now recognized some mistakes and are trying to fix them, and they agree with the bill, why are they working so hard to delay the passage of it?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206628020663KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the principles of free trade are something we have been very supportive of. That is one reason we have signed off on many agreements.Just to add an interesting twist, the coalition today on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement is the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals. We are still waiting for confirmation from the Conservatives.I am hoping we will get a unanimous coalition. I am not too sure about the Greens, to be honest. In terms of the recognized parties in the House, we are still waiting for the Conservative Party to stand up and say that it supports the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement, and to date, there has been no indication. It was the member for Cumberland—Colchester who stood in this place and said that the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine was “woke” and that Canada was “taking advantage” of Ukraine, which is absolutely ridiculous.Remember, it was the President of Ukraine who came to Canada in September this year, a month and a half ago, where an agreement was signed. Unbelievably, it is the Conservative Party that is preventing that legislation, that free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, yet it likes to say that it supports Ukraine. It is questionable.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020664802066580206668020667LindsayMathyssenLondon—FanshaweCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague to elucidate a bit more on the comments by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, because we know he was part of that group that travelled and that had $1,800 worth of champagne and other things. The Danube Institute partly supported that, alongside my cousin, Dan McTeague, and supposedly paid for all that. Imagine that.The Danube Institute is promoting an attack on the work being done to defend Ukraine, claiming that it is woke, that we would have members of the Conservative Party in Europe meeting with those who say there is a “deep state” over NATO.I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he has had a chance to look into this mysterious trip with bottles of wine and expensive dinners that were given to four members of the Conservative Party, including the member for Cumberland—Colchester, and this issue with the Danube Institute document that says it is going after so-called “woke” politics and NATO's support for Ukraine. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802066880206698020670KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1300)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know there have been very serious allegations, and those allegations have been referenced both on the floor of the House of Commons and in committee, I understand.I believe the Conservatives owe an explanation. There is this far-right extremism coming out of the benches. They got thousands of dollars' worth of wine, not to mention main courses. Who paid for all of that? Was it the individual members of Parliament?I think a lot needs to be looked into and, hopefully, the Ethics Commissioner will do that. Hopefully, the ethics standing committee will be afforded the opportunity to study the matter, because there are some real concerns. Is there a connection between that and some of the positions the Conservatives are taking today on the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement?I think there is some merit. I have heard it on several occasions on the floor of the House, and I was told by one or two people that it is even starting to come up in the ethics committee. I do not know the details, but I sure hope that is not what the stumbling block is, in terms of the Conservative Party's refusal to allow the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement to go to committee.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020671802067280206738020674CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know the issue of sponsored travel is coming up frequently in this place. I brought this up before, and I am interested in the hon. member's take on this.The member for Timmins—James Bay, in 2022, took a sponsored travel trip to Berlin, Germany, which was an expensive $10,489. The trip was paid for by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. In 2007, NGO Monitor found that FES partnered with politicized NGOs to attack Israel.Mossawa is one of the main Israeli-Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay actually held a joint press conference in 2004 with Hezbollah. My question—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802067580206768020677KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. Obviously we struck a nerve about the $1,800 bottle of wine and the Danube Institute, but what the member is saying is a falsehood.If the hon. member has evidence, I would have him submit it, if they will submit who actually paid for the $1,800 bottle of wine that the member for Cumberland—Colchester drank. If he wants to submit evidence, we would ask the Conservatives to give the evidence of who paid for all those drinks.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMembers' remarksNational securityPoints of orderThird reading and adoption80206788020679JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. John Brassard: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, talking about striking a nerve, my question to the hon. member who just gave his speech is this: Would he agree that having a press conference with Hezbollah is ill-advised?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020682Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux: (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that there are some very serious allegations and concerns related to the far right within the Conservative caucus today, and a trip that was made, for which the issue of ethical behaviour has also been raised. At the very least, let the standing committee on ethics, and possibly the Ethics Commissioner, become engaged on it.I think there are some things that need to be answered. I was talking a lot about the importance of trade. My point is that I sure hope that the behaviour of some of the Conservatives within the caucus is not what is preventing the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine from being advanced at committee stage, because this is so important, not only for Canada but also for Ukraine. It would not only be in the best economic interests of both countries, but it is also the timing, given that there is a war taking place in Europe, and the powerful message it could send. I would still like to think that the trade agreement will, in fact, be passed at all stages, including royal assent, before Christmas. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206838020684JohnBrassardBarrie—InnisfilKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh (Saskatoon—Grasswood, CPC): (1305)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House today and talk about Bill C-34, which is the Liberals' attempt at increasing security on foreign investments in this country.Before I get under way, I would like to announce that I am going to share my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Yellowhead.This is an important issue in the country, and it is an important bill, Bill C-34, that we are facing here today. We cannot simply allow authoritarian regimes whose values and goals are fundamentally opposed to ours here in Canada to control important infrastructure or resources in this country. We must protect Canada's national economic and security interests. However, after eight years in power and two years after the industry committee presented this report on the issue, the government is finally trying to take action on the file. I want to acknowledge the work done in the committee both on the initial study and on improving the legislation before us. I think further improvements definitely can be made, but I will get into that a little later.The world, as we know, is changing every day. Quite frankly, we all know this is kind of a dangerous time right now. National security needs to be top priority, even though the government has decided to take $1 billion out of the national defence fund at this time. It is unreal that the Liberals would even think of doing such a thing. Internationally, we have seen conflicts sprouting up almost every month. We have the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a perfect example of an authoritarian dictator willing to do whatever he wants to get whatever he wants. We look at the resources involved and ultimately how Russia will use violence to violate the sovereignty of its neighbour next door.Domestically, we are seeing what countries will do to increase their influence and control where they cannot simply invade. Russia and Beijing are actively interfering in our elections, which we know is a fact. Kenny Chiu, whom I sat with in the last Parliament, is not here, because of the interference from Beijing. Also, foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property and other assets. They are gathering data daily on our citizens and they are exploiting that data. Just today, on the front page of the national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, the headline reads “Huawei still filing patents tied to work done with Canadian universities after Ottawa's restrictions.” It goes on to say that “The Chinese tech company Huawei Technologies is still seeking patents for research it conducted in partnership with publicly funded universities in Canada, more than two years after Ottawa began restricting funding for academic collaborations with connections to foreign states considered national security risks”. Huawei has filed patent applications for research on 5G wireless; artificial intelligence, which has been brought up in the House in the last hour; semiconductors; and the optical communications done in collaboration with academics and investors at the University of Toronto. We have see it at Queen's University, the University of B.C., Western University and McMaster University. All those universities, they say, are fulfilling pre-existing contractual partnership agreements. However, let us make no mistake: All of the commercial rights to this property, which has been invented by Canadians and funded by Canadians, are now owned exclusively by Huawei. This is what we are talking about in Bill C-34. I have more to say on Huawei and what it has done in my province of Saskatchewan. I will come to that.The end goal, obviously, is to take over as much of Canada's economy as possible in order to make us beholden to foreign powers that have no interest at all in democracy, freedom and the rule of law. We can see this happening all over this country. We see Chinese state-owned enterprises buying up farms, fisheries, mines and other things.(1310)Even in my province of Saskatchewan, when I drive around, I will see signs in the ditch saying that if people want to sell land, they should call a certain 1-800 number. If they call that number, it could be a third party. Indirectly, what is happening is that somebody in Beijing or China is wanting to buy Saskatchewan farmland. Saskatchewan farmland, as we all know, has gone up considerably over a number of years because, in my province, we are proud of it. We want to feed the world. This is what we are seeing in this country in ditches everywhere. I mentioned Saskatchewan, and I have been to Manitoba, Alberta and elsewhere, and I know there are signs in ditches saying that that if people want to sell land, they should call a 1-800 number. When they do, they get a third party talking on behalf of probably China or other countries.We are in a situation where people need to be able to trust that their Parliament and their federal government are protecting them and their country. Unfortunately, this is another example of the Liberal government's doing something too late with Bill C-34. The bill would not go far enough to address the risks faced by all 40 million of us Canadians. Given recent events, it needs to be much stronger. I can recollect that in 2021, the industry committee studied the act and put out a report explaining how the act could be improved. Clearly, the government mostly ignored that report, because in Bill C-34, the government addressed only two of the nine recommendations that the committee put forward at that time. Let us fast-forward to this year at the industry committee, meeting once again. My Conservative colleagues were able to make some modifications to improve the bill and address some of the gaps, including important amendments that would ensure a more rigorous review process of investments and acquisitions by foreign state-owned enterprises. Those amendments were to lower the threshold for national security reviews of foreign purchases by state-owned enterprises, make it mandatory for the minister to conduct a national security review when that threshold is met and, finally, create an automatic national security review whenever a company has been convicted of corruption charges. These were important and necessary improvements to the bill. I am very glad that the committee saw the common sense of these amendments and adopted them.However, the legislation still would not go far enough. The NDP-Liberal government rejected amendments that would have further improved the legislation and properly and fully protected Canadians. One of the rejected amendments, one which I think is crucially important, would have modified the definition of a state-owned enterprise to cover companies or entities headquartered in an authoritarian state like China. I understand the potential concerns with such an amendment; the nationality of the company should not usually be sufficient to label it a state-owned enterprise. This is where I was going to get to Huawei and the reaction of the industry minister, a couple of years ago, in not making a decision on Huawei. I think it has cost my province of Saskatchewan $200 million. The province was invested into Huawei for 4G in the province of Saskatchewan. It was waiting for the minister of industry to make a decision on Huawei. It took him months. Finally, he made the decision, but the province of Saskatchewan was into Huawei for over $200 million, so it had to put on the brakes and then reinvent itself. This has cost Saskatchewan and others in this country millions of dollars. This is something that our allies in the Five Eyes alerted Canada about long before the minister made the change, and it has cost Canadians a lot of money.I just wanted to make those points. I am concerned about Huawei, as it is taking information from the five universities still today, when actually Huawei should have been out of this country long ago.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityPatentsRegulatory reviewSplitting speaking timeState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption8020685802068680206878020688802068980206908020691802069280206938020694802069580206968020697KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to what the member is saying, and one cannot help but think about the time when Stephen Harper went to China and signed a secretive investment agreement. No one knew about it. Then, we get the Conservatives coming here, criticizing and asking why we would have power go to the minister.This is good legislation, when we look at the input from the public safety minister and so forth to the minister. The legislation would give strength in terms of protecting Canadian interests when it it comes to foreign investments. I thought the member would have been supporting the legislation. Maybe he could provide his thoughts in terms of what some might be perceiving as a bit hypocritical, given the attitude that Stephen Harper had in the secretive deal for investments for China only.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80206988020699KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1315)[English]Mr. Speaker, what has been done is that the authority has been taken away from cabinet. It would rely on one minister. That minister could come from Quebec. That minister might come from who knows where in the country. Obviously that one minister might have a bias toward maybe his or her own riding or province. That is one reason we are a little upset with this. It has to go through cabinet. The more eyes that see this, the better. Only having one set of eyes looking at it is a major concern I see in Bill C-34.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020700KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, it was an excellent speech, particularly on the issues of the amendments to the bill that we managed to get passed. The bill missed the opportunity to do anything other than administrative changes, so we managed to update it to the geopolitical issues we have today. I am sure the minister will appreciate having those powers.I would like to expand this a little more, because the Liberals voted against our amendment that would have focused strictly on the issue of headquarters in hostile states. This is a big national security issue. It is not to reject it, but just to make it an automatic review. I am not sure why the Liberals would be afraid to have the power to review it and decide whether they want to reject it on that basis.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption80207018020702KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, as shadow minister, the member has done a great job looking after Bill C-34. The Conservatives put through several amendments. We had a page filled with amendments, but only had three or four passed. A number of them failed because there was a Bloc and Liberal conspiracy against the Conservatives. With what has happened here recently, as we have seen with the fuel pumps and everything happening in the Maritimes, now we know why the Bloc has partnered with the Liberals on this bill. There is 3% of Canadians who are affected in the Maritimes with the energy and 97% are shut out, but now we see why the Bloc has joined the Liberals in this bill.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption8020703RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1320)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague's statements are kind of out there.He does seem to think the Bloc Québécois is pretty important. That is interesting. He says the Bloc Québécois is responsible for removing the tax on heating oil in the Maritimes. Can he tell us which motion or act the Bloc Québécois voted for that made that happen, when that decision is solely within the purview of the current government? That is a question I would like to ask my colleague.Anyway, I do want to add something about the bill we are debating today because it is easy to get off topic. The Bloc Québécois's criticism of Bill C‑34 relates to the thresholds that trigger a review. If we look at all the foreign investment proposals from 2022, the new measures would require a review of only about 10 of those 1,200 proposals. That is barely 2%. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Security of investments really is important, but what is being done to implement better mechanisms to broaden the foreign investment security review process?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption8020704802070580207068020707KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodKevinWaughSaskatoon—Grasswood//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89084KevinWaughKevin-WaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodConservative CaucusSaskatchewan//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/WaughKevin_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Kevin Waugh: (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, this is not about Quebec; this is about everybody in the country. I know he represents Quebec, being a Bloc member, but I will give one example from my province of Saskatchewan. There have been $18 billion invested in the Jansen potash mine. It is the largest investment in the history of Saskatchewan. It is done by BHP Biliton out of Australia. It had the first phase, which is $12 billion, and it just announced another $6 billion. This is the kind of investment we need and can work with from this company from Australia, which will be headquartered eventually in Saskatoon.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewThird reading and adoption80207088020709MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka (Yellowhead, CPC): (1320)[English]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, a bill that attempts to strengthen the Investment Canada Act with significant amendments.As we approach the discussion on Bill C-34, a critical examination is warranted. It comes after an extensive period where our national interests have been left vulnerable to foreign entities. After eight long years under the Liberal government, the urgency to safeguard our economic and security interests seems to have taken a back seat, as it has taken us this long to look at protecting Canada's economy.The core concern here is the significant presence of state-owned enterprises, particularly from the People's Republic of China, the PRC, within the Canadian economic landscape. This is not a matter of casting doubt on foreign investment as a whole, which has long been a source of innovation and growth within our economy. However, there is a distinction to be made when such investments are linked to foreign governments with agendas that do not align with Canadian values or interests.Bill C-34 proposes to strengthen the Investment Canada Act, yet one cannot help but ponder whether the measures are sufficiently robust. This bill does introduce mechanisms that might allow us to better scrutinize these investments. Indeed, the imposition of stringent penalties and the elevation of national security reviews are steps in the right direction. However, the specifics with which we address the challenge posed by the PRC are lacking.It is imperative to understand that the issue at hand is not one of mere procedural delays or legislative enhancements. It is a matter of national sovereignty and the integrity of our economic and security infrastructure. The amendments within Bill C-34 would grant the minister enhanced powers to investigate and intervene, yet there remains an imperative to want to question the thoroughness of this approach.Have we provided a framework robust enough to contend with the sophisticated strategies employed by state-owned enterprises, particularly those backed by the government in Beijing? The PRC has demonstrated its capacity and inclination to wield economic leverage as a tool of broader geopolitical strategy. The foresight is to anticipate the sectors of our economy that may be targeted for acquisition, and control is crucial.The legislation mentions the creation of a list of sensitive sectors that would warrant automatic review, yet it does not preclude the possibility of loopholes being exploited. Let us turn our attention to the particulars of Bill C-34, where we must sift through the substance of proposed reforms. The bill, as it stands, attempts to pre-emptively secure investments that might pose a risk to national security by instituting a mandatory filing requirement. This is indeed a prudent move, but how we define specified investments and the criteria for such pre-emptive measures must be crystal clear to avoid any grey areas that could be exploited.In simplifying the process for the minister to act on national security reviews, we are placing significant trust in the judgment and efficacy of a single point of failure. While streamlining may expedite action, it also bypasses layers of scrutiny that can be vital in making balanced decisions. In the hands of one, the decision may be swift, but the question remains, will it be thorough?Strengthening penalties for non-compliance sends a clear signal. It communicates the seriousness with which we take these matters. However, the deterrent effect of these penalties lies in their enforcement. Without a track record of rigorous enforcement, penalties on paper may not translate into a meaningful deterrent in practice. We must not just increase fines; we must demonstrate that we will impose them. Also, granting the minister authority to impose conditions and accept undertakings opens the door to inconsistencies and influence of which we must be wary. When we consider the removal of the Governor in Council's involvement in the initial stages of a national security review, we must ask if we are centralizing power to the point of vulnerability. Oversight is not an enemy of deficiency, but a bedrock of democracy.(1325)In continuing discussion, we must bear in mind the history that brings us to this juncture. We are not operating in a vacuum, but against a backdrop of past decisions and actions that have left us questioning the robustness of our investment review process. As we proceed with this dialogue, it is crucial to reflect on past actions that serve as a backdrop to today's discussions on Bill C-34. We cannot ignore instances where our review mechanisms seem to falter, where foreign acquisitions proceeded with what some would argue was insufficient scrutiny. The case of Norsat International and subsequent dealings involving sensitive technology raises an eyebrow to the effectiveness of our past reviews. This is not about pointing fingers, but about understanding the gravity of what is at stake. The acquisition of Neo Lithium Corp. by Zijin Mining and the Canada Border Services Agency's use of Hytera Communications equipment, despite espionage charges against Hytera in another allied nation, illustrates a pattern we cannot afford to ignore. Our legislative framework should not only close the doors to such occurrences in the future, but also serve as a deterrent. Moreover, the pace of global change does not afford us the luxury of reactive policy. We need proactive measures that ensure the safety and security of our nation's interests. This includes comprehensive reviews of state-owned enterprises' acquisitions, regardless of size, especially when countries with aggressive postures on the global stage are involved.As we bring these concerns into the present context, the urgency to address them becomes clear. We are at a crossroads where the discussions we make today may shape our economic and national security for years to come. Bill C-34 is a step, but there is concern that it does not go far enough. We must ask ourselves, is this legislation merely a reaction to the past oversights, or is it a visionary move to secure our future?While it makes strides in certain areas, it falls short in terms of automatic reviews and clarity in defining strategic sectors. In the ideal world, every investment would bring mutual benefits without compromising our national interests, yet we know the world is far from ideal, and the bill in its current form does not fully rise to the complex challenges we face.Part of our duty is to ensure the security of Canada's future. Our duty is to enact legislation that does not just respond to yesterday's challenges, but anticipates tomorrow's threats. While Bill C-34 moves to tighten the reins on foreign investment and strengthen our defences, we must ensure it is not a case of too little, too late.This is not just about adjusting the mechanism of the Investment Canada Act. It is about safeguarding the heart of Canadian innovation and security. Our vigilance in reviewing and improving this bill will demonstrate our unyielding commitment to the prosperity and security of Canada.Let us ensure that this legislation is more than a response to past oversights. Let it be a steadfast guideline of our future economic sovereignty. This is our duty and it is one we must undertake with the utmost seriousness and dedication.I appreciate the opportunity to address these crucial issues. Let us proceed with a clear vision and a firm resolve to protect the interests of Canada. I look forward to taking questions. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityPenaltiesRegulatory reviewState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption80207108020711802071280207138020714802071580207168020717802071880207198020720802072180207228020723802072480207258020726802072780207288020729802073080207318020732802073380207348020735KevinWaughSaskatoon—GrasswoodManinderSidhuBrampton East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105045ManinderSidhuManinder-SidhuBrampton EastLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SidhuManinder_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.): (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, when I am talking to industry innovators, researchers and even the clean technology sector, they expect the act to be transparent. They expect our national security interests to be protected. While we continue to grow the economy and create well-paying jobs, it is important to take note of our national security interests, but also to protect the interests of our innovators and researchers.I would love to hear the member's thoughts on that aspect. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInnovationNational securityResearch and researchersThird reading and adoption80207368020737GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1330)[English]Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the protection of innovation, technology and researchers in Canada has been lacking quite a bit in Canada. It seems they are working with such companies as Huawei, and there are no safeguards put in place. The minister promised us in February that these safeguards were coming. Have we heard of anything yet? No, we have not. Unfortunately, that is substantially lacking.We need to take action now to protect our innovation and security here in Canada.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207388020739ManinderSidhuBrampton EastDanAlbasCentral 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 OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, by rejecting Conservative amendments to create bright-line rules, such as those regarding investments from companies headquartered in hostile states being immediately referred to a review, and by not exempting our Five Eyes partners, which all clearly show not just democratic values but also market values, we are competing on taxes, environmental processes and investment rules for timely decisions.Does the member believe that the government has lost a major opportunity to welcome that investment quickly into our country from those countries that are aligned with us, and the opportunity to immediately send a signal to foreign states that want to use our investment rules for their own strategic advantage?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActFive EyesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInnovationIntelligenceNational securityResearch and researchersThird reading and adoption80207408020741GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question because the member brought a very specific thing forward when he referred to the Five Eyes and our stance on the world stage.We basically do not have the same type of security anymore where our Five Eyes are actually partners with us. It seems to be more like “four eyes” now. The problem is that they are leaving Canada out of a lot of security discussions because of the decisions we have made in the past and continue today. The government is lacking a lot of the oversight that needs to be done to protect security and innovation in Canada, which it is not upholding. We are definitely losing out in a lot of areas.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActFive EyesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIntelligenceNational securityThird reading and adoption80207428020743DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1335)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.I would like to talk about common sense. I am going to tell a true story and I would like my colleague to tell me if it makes sense.We are talking about the Conservative Party, who, today, is worried about foreign investments and our national security. However, that same party nearly had a leader who worked as a consultant for a company that is banned in Canada and that my colleague named: Huawei.That company has been banned by the Five Eyes. Obviously, as usual, the federal government was lagging behind and Canada was the last country in the Five Eyes to ban Huawei.I would like my colleague to explain how we are supposed to trust the Conservative Party when it allowed a person who worked closely as a consultant with a banned company to be a candidate for leadership of the party.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207448020745802074680207478020748GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was quite a story he told. Just because someone runs for leadership does not mean they are the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. We have an open process and allow anybody to run. One of the problems that we have in Canada is companies such as Huawei. The Liberal government took years to finally say that it should not be allowed to operate in Canada. The real story here is about the failure of the Liberal government to stand up for Canadians in security by making companies such as Huawei available. Even to this day, it is still working with universities to build technology. It just filed patents last week with Canadian universities.It is shameful that the Liberal government is not standing up for safety and security in Canada.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802074980207508020751MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, one of the provisions in this bill would be to have more security over issues such as potash and MacDonald, Dettwiler, which would have national security provisions. Could the member give just a quick comment about how important it is to include that element of national security related to the goods, services and natural resources that Canada has?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207528020753GeraldSorokaYellowheadGeraldSorokaYellowhead//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105751GeraldSorokaGerald-SorokaYellowheadConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SorokaGerald_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Gerald Soroka: (1335)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is very imperative that, at any time while dealing with any of our energy sectors, we realize these are opportunities to make sure we are self-sufficient and that we are not going to have issues in the future with a loss of production or a loss of opportunities. We need to make sure that these kinds of companies are going to be safe because they are producing energy, or fertilizer in this case, as well.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8020754BrianMasseWindsor WestChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): (1340)[English]Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to advise that I will be splitting my time with the very hon. member for Brampton North. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the bold moves taken by the government to address economic and national security threats to Canada through Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. I would also like to highlight the great collaborative work done during the committee's study to make the bill even stronger.Bill C-34 sets out a series of amendments to improve the national security review process of foreign investments and modernize the Investment Canada Act. Collectively, these amendments are the most significant legislative update of the act since 2009. These amendments also represent one of the multiple steps the government has taken to ensure we can defend our economic interests, contribute to the resiliency of the global supply chain and protect our national security. This, in turn, helps us to attract stronger partnerships with our allies and to foster economic growth, a strong foreign investment regime and good beneficial investments in Canada, ones that will create high-quality jobs and opportunities for Canadians.Defending our economic interests and protecting our national security are issues of critical importance, especially since our current climate of rapidly shifting geopolitical threats. This issue is a non-partisan one. During the six sitting days that Bill C-34 was debated, the House repeatedly stressed the need to modernize the Investment Canada Act to achieve those objectives. The House ultimately decided in a unanimous vote to refer the bill to study because we all recognized how important it was to get these amendments right so we could protect national security while ensuring we are not chilling useful and good investments.We recognize that Bill C-34 has undergone a rigorous, robust study that spanned 11 meetings. During those meetings, the committee heard from a variety of legal and subject matter experts who testified about the benefits of foreign direct investment on Canadian business, the importance of protecting Canada's hard-earned intellectual property and the need to ensure our regime is capable of tackling the emerging national security challenges that Canada and our security partners are facing. We have engaged meaningfully with opposition members to discuss their perspectives and concerns and have worked collaboratively to bring new amendments that further strengthen the bill. We worked together to ensure that Canada's foreign investment regime continues to be the gold standard. The bill would not only provide us with better tools to protect our national security, but also help bring Canada into greater alignment with our international partners and allies.The industry committee heard from witnesses about how important it is for Canada to have a regime comparable to its allies. Having a comparable regime would help to address common threats and maximize our collective effectiveness. One example of how we have aligned our regime closely with our allies through Bill C-34 is the new requirement for prior notification of certain investments. The United States, the United Kingdom and Australia all have introduced something similar within the past two years, either through recent amendments or stand-alone regimes.The United States amended its foreign direct investment laws and added new types of transactions for government review. For the first time ever, it mandated notifications in transactions involving critical technologies, certain critical infrastructure or the sensitive personal data of American citizens. These regulations came into effect in February 2020.Australia updated its law on foreign direct investment in January 2021. It introduced authorities to protect national security, including powers for the Australian government to require mandatory notification for transactions involving a national security business before the transactions are implemented.The United Kingdom introduced a new regime for national security and investments in 2021. The U.K. legislation created a mandatory obligation to secure clearance for transactions that would acquire control of a business in 17 sensitive sectors before the transaction is completed.The new pre-implementation filing requirement for Bill C-34 would allow Canada to have even better and earlier oversight over investments in certain sensitive sectors, especially when they give investors material access to assets and non-public technical information upon closing, such as cutting-edge intellectual property and trade secrets.(1345)This amendment would enable the government to prevent irreparable harm through the loss of these intangible assets. Investors would now be required to file notification in time periods set out by regulation.I want to emphasize that this amendment is a targeted approach limited to only certain business sectors. Across the board, a pre-implementation filing requirement would have an unnecessarily burdensome impact on businesses and investors without improvements to national security protection. Our targeted approach would provide greater certainty and transparency to businesses and investors.Another example of Bill C-34 better aligning Canada's regime with those of its allies is its introducing the authority for the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety, to impose interim conditions on an investment. This would reduce the risk of national security injury taking place during the course of the review itself, such as through the possible transfer of assets, intellectual property or trade secrets before the review is complete. This amendment is similar to the U.K.'s new power that allows its government to impose interim orders while the review is being conducted, preventing foreign investors from obtaining confidential information or accessing sensitive assets or sites until after the review is complete.Finally, Bill C-34 introduces the authority for more direct information sharing by the minister with international counterparts for national security reviews to help common security interests. Previously, the minister had a limited capability to share case-specific information with their international allies. We know that Canada and our allies share similar national and economic security concerns. Our allies are concerned with threat actors operating in multiple jurisdictions to secure a monopoly in critical assets and technology. It is becoming increasingly more important to share information with allies to support national security assessments to prevent these threats from happening. This new information-sharing authority strengthens co-operation between Canada and other like-minded countries to defend against investors that may be active in several jurisdictions seeking the same technology. That said, Canada would not be obligated to share such information where there are confidentiality or other concerns.I thank esteemed colleagues for their attention today. I can assure members that our approach is pragmatic, principled and provides a solid framework.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInformation disseminationNational securitySplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption802075580207568020757802075880207598020760802076180207628020763802076480207658020766802076780207688020769GeraldSorokaYellowheadChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was really getting into it. It was an exciting moment. There was some enthusiasm on the other side, which I think led to further confusion. It is a fault across the board, and we can all take a little blame. I am in the winding-up phase of my speech, and I apologize for any confusion.To conclude, the collaborative efforts during the industry committee have ensured that we woudl meet these goals, which is why I believe that this bill, as amended, should be adopted and referred to the other place. We are confident that, with Bill C-34, Canada would encourage positive investment without having to compromise on our national security, getting the best of both worlds.I thank the INDU committee for all of its work. All of the committee members did outstanding work to get us to a place where, I think, we will have all-party support when we finally vote on this bill. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802077480207758020776Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaPhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough South//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105291PhilipLawrencePhilip-LawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LawrencePhilip_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC): (1345)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to ask questions of this member, whom I know well. He is a great human being. The member can put that in his campaign commercial.I am sure, or at least I am hopeful, that the member will be a member of cabinet. Does he not think that some of these national security decisions, opposed to just being decided by the minister, as per the bill, should go in front of cabinet so the people of St. Catharines, for example, could have a say?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207778020778ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I shared an office together for about a year as articling students almost 20 years ago, which is an awful thing.I am sure good ministers will always consult with their fellow cabinet members, but keeping this to a couple of ministers allows us to be nimble and allows ministers to conduct a review in the most expeditious way, ensuring not only that there is security but also that business transactions and investments continue to happen.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207798020780PhilipLawrenceNorthumberland—Peterborough SouthJenicaAtwinFredericton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104586JenicaAtwinJenica-AtwinFrederictonLiberal CaucusNew Brunswick//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AtwinJenica_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his enthusiastic speech today, and I greatly appreciate the love we are seeing in the House.In the opening of his speech, he characterized this bill as bold, although I have heard from our Conservative colleagues that it is not going far enough and is only a small step in the right direction. Could he comment again on the collaborative process at committee and the putting forward of amendments to make this bill as strong as it could possibly be?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207818020782ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I was not at the committee, but I do know that Conservative amendments were brought into the bill.It is the role of opposition parties to say that the government is not going far enough or is going too far, which is often where we find ourselves. However, I think the committee has struck the right balance. This is a good step forward and a bold step forward to bring us in line with our allies and ensure that Canada continues the incredible track record of foreign direct investment.The Minister of Innovation was quite excited today about Canada being third in foreign investments, and I know he does incredible work on a daily basis. This would help Canada continue to succeed into the future.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802078380207848020785JenicaAtwinFrederictonBrianMasseWindsor West//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/9137BrianMasseBrian-MasseWindsor WestNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MasseBrian_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, being part of the committee, I know there was a collaborative approach.New Democrats have been raising this issue since 2003, when China Minmetals was buying Canadian natural resources. Unfortunately, the Liberals have a track record of selling our natural resources, whether it be to Inco, Falconbridge or Stelco. A whole series of our natural resources and natural resource industries have been lost.I would like the member to reflect on whether the Liberals regret selling Petro-Canada for a significant loss in the market at that time, when it was okay for the Chinese state government to own Canadian natural resources but it was not okay for Canadians to own their own natural resources. What do the Liberals think about that as we go forward, given their past record of missed opportunities to protect Canadian companies and natural resources?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802078680207878020788ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesChrisBittleSt. Catharines//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88934ChrisBittleChris-BittleSt. CatharinesLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BittleChris_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Chris Bittle: (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am a little worried that the member overestimates how old I am. I think the things he is talking about happened when I was in high school. I am not sure how to respond to that.I do know that the government is committed to national security efforts. That is what this bill is about. The hon. member can talk about decades in the past. We are committed to the future. We are committed to ensuring that Canada is there, that our security investments are protected and that we thrive into the future.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80207898020790BrianMasseWindsor WestRubySahotaBrampton North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88698RubySahotaRuby-SahotaBrampton NorthLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SahotaRuby_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.): (1350)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to the modernization of the Investment Canada Act. As many who are following this debate know, this act was last revised in 2008, so this legislation represents the most significant update to the act since that time. It would ensure that we can address changing threats that arise from foreign investment and would do so while our government continues to welcome foreign direct investment.As my colleague before me stated, we are rising in the ranks of foreign direct investment, but at the same time, we are also facing global threats unlike ones we have ever faced before. This is a really appropriate time for us to get in line with other allies of ours and update our act to make sure we are keeping Canadians safe as a whole.Speaking of Canadians, the other day, a young adult in my riding wrote to my office. He is a first-year political science student. He wrote to me about concerns with foreign interference, and some of what he said was quite interesting. He proposed three different areas in which the Government of Canada could do better in order to make sure we are safe from foreign interference threats.He wrote to me about the recent statement made in this House about Hardeep Singh Nijjar's murder. However, he went a lot further than just this instance and talked about our democracy as a whole and what we should do to protect it now. He said that we are seeing very bold covert operations taking place in our country, whether it is disinformation campaigns, hacking, political manipulation or espionage. All of these things are rising, and there are concerns regarding the traditional boundaries of espionage. He says, there is a shift toward more overt and covert interference in international affairs by state players. Interestingly, he writes that countries like China, Russia, Iran and India are assembling economic blocs and seem to be more open to taking chances to further their geopolitical objectives. He further says that although covert operations on Canadian soil are not new, Canada is a desirable target due to its advanced economy, technology and abundance of natural resources. He says it is concerning that these problems are converging and that foreign actors can profit from Canada's defining characteristics by taking advantage of our society's openness and variety. It is in our communal responsibility to confront these threats, and we must work together to stop foreign meddling from undermining the core values of our country.He continued to talk about strengthening cybersecurity and safety measures regarding actors who seek to take over our resources, which we have seen. There has been concern when it comes to agriculture and infrastructure as well. I thought it was very interesting that a lot of these things tie in. It is an important time for us to be taking these types of measures to make sure we continue to protect Canadians, Canadian interests and our economy at the same time, doing it in a transparent way as we continue to have more and more free trade agreements with countries around the world. Since our country has more agreements, especially those signed by this government, than any other country in the world, we need to make sure we also have the safety nets in place to make sure that, through these agreements, we do not increase our chances of risk.This bill is an extremely good effort, and I was excited to see that, through the committee process, many amendments were made to further strengthen this legislation. The Conservatives and the New Democrats have all had input. From the speeches I have heard in this House, it looks like we may differ slightly, but there is core support to make sure that this legislation passes, keeps Canadians safe in the future and continues to increase the economic prosperity of this country.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Acte-SecurityForeign influenced activitiesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802079180207928020793802079480207958020796802079780207988020799ChrisBittleSt. CatharinesSalmaZahidScarborough Centre//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC): (1520)[English]Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and debate the important issues faced by Canadians, specifically, those good people who sent me here from the beautiful constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot in east-central Alberta. If I could, since this is the last sitting day prior to Remembrance Day, I would like to quickly reference a couple of things. I hope I have the latitude to do so. Today, I met with Harold and Mike, who are members of Persian Gulf Veterans of Canada. It was an interesting meeting, where I had the opportunity to hear from these two distinguished retired servicemen about how they are not considered to have fought in a war in their time in service to our country. I wanted to acknowledge this specifically here today; an appropriate commemoration, truly, would be to ensure that those who served in our country's armed forces, especially during times of conflict, are acknowledged accordingly. I wanted to acknowledge that before I get into the substance on Bill C-34, because I do not think I will have a chance to do so otherwise before Remembrance Day. Of course, all of us in this place honour the sacrifice made by so many.We join into debate here on Bill C-34, which is a bill of seven parts that addresses a host of issues in relation to amendments to the Investment Canada Act. In particular, I would like to highlight a few things today. I listened with great interest this morning, and to previous debates, and I have participated in previous discussions related to the bill. I wanted to ensure that aspects of this are— C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80210918021092802109380210948021095GregFergusHon.Hull—AylmerChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105614DamienKurekDamien-KurekBattle River—CrowfootConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KurekDamien_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1525)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes, I was going to get there, so I appreciate that. I will take this opportunity to let the table know that I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the new and very capable member from Manitoba, the member for Portage—Lisgar. He came in with big shoes to fill, maybe not big in size, but big shoes to fill in terms of his predecessor, the Hon. Candice Bergen. I look forward to splitting my time with him.Getting back to the substance of Bill C-34, we have before us a bill that addresses aspects of what has become an increasingly problematic circumstance globally at a time when there are specific demands associated with the global investment climate that have put many of our supply chains at risk.Of course, we saw the practical workings of this during COVID, with respect to supply chains and things that many Canadians took for granted. We always expected to be able to see things like toilet paper on grocery store shelves, yet we saw during COVID that the supply chain system and the numerous aspects of that were challenged. There were pressures that resulted in things like grocery store shelves being empty.We saw things like a shortage of microchips. This meant there was a shortage of a whole host of things that many people would not have associated with microchips, from vehicle manufacturing to other things.This has a specific relevance to Bill C-34. When it comes to foreign investment, we have to ensure that, as a nation, as a G7 country, we get it right in all aspects of how we permit, specifically, state-owned enterprises in the larger context of foreign investment happening in our country. I do not think anybody in the House would argue that there certainly is investment needed and that Canada should be a destination to invest, a destination for capital. We have seen that over the course of our history.Certainly, I look back to the time when Stephen Harper was prime minister. The predictable business environment that existed within this country was one that was envied around the world. We saw in the midst of incredibly challenging global economic circumstances that Canada was a beacon of hope and predictability, where people could invest and see some certainty.Over the course of the challenges that we have seen over the last number of years, whether that be in relation to the COVID pandemic, whether that be in relation to the host of concerns surrounding supply chains, the fact is that over the last decade or so, there has been a radical shift in the geopolitical objectives of certain state players around the world.I would notably say that the People's Republic of China would be at the top of that list, although it is not limited to it. Certainly, its objectives have changed the global investment climate dramatically.I have heard a lot of members from the party opposite criticize the past record. I believe it was the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg who referenced that the Harper government had done some preliminary work on CETA. I am proud that it was Conservatives that negotiated the deal. The Liberals almost screwed it up, but they were able to, with support from Conservatives, actually get that across the finish line.Over the last decade, there have been radical shifts that have taken place. Of course, that has to be addressed in our legislative frameworks governing some of these things. We need to ensure that they are responsive to that.We have seen over the last number of years, specifically the last eight years that this Prime Minister has been in power, an erosion of trust, as I have talked about often. This includes the investment climate in our country. We are dealing with significant advancements in things like technology. We are seeing a demand for things like critical minerals. We are seeing food supply chains being put at risk. We are seeing the need to ensure that we have tight parameters and an understanding, so that not only does this protect Canadians first and foremost, but that it also ensures there is that investment certainty in our country, including for folks here at home investing.Quite often when we talk about things like investment, it gets lost on many folks who are not trading stocks on a regular basis or not staying in tune with the financial markets. They may see a headline that the TSX is up or down, or something like that.(1530)The reason this has such particular relevance is that every single Canadian is, in fact, an investor. If one has ever paid into a pension fund, whether that be the CPP or otherwise, that individual is an investor. We need to ensure that we have that predictable investment climate. Specifically, we were disappointed at committee that the Liberals were not more responsive to some of the very practical amendments the Conservatives brought forward on this bill. Those amendments would have ensured that a threshold, for example, to trigger a national security review was reduced so that for Canadian resources, including intellectual property, there was a safer and more secure environment. It would ensure that those things could not fall into the wrong hands, as we have seen, unfortunately, has been the case over the last number of years. In fact, if one could believe it, there were 10 amendments that the Conservatives brought forward. They were practical things, things that we heard from testimony at committee that would have helped address some of what we believe are ways the bill could have been improved. As I come down to the last minute or so of my speech, we have a need in this country to ensure that our investment climate responds to the demands of a modern supply chain. We need to ensure that we have everything that is required, whether it be the critical minerals that are so essential for the manufacturing of things like our cellphones, or whether it be a host of other things that go into the economy of today, and the economy that is being built for tomorrow. It is absolutely essential that we get this right. I would make this point in terms of the larger conversation and not just in relation to Bill C-34. We have to take seriously the national security implications when it comes to foreign investment in Canada, and not only when it comes to big multinational mergers and whatnot, which may make headlines.We heard at committee, and we have heard throughout the course of debate, that there is a host of peripheral discussions that are required when it comes to strategic investments that may serve the geopolitical interests of a foreign state, some of which are hostile to our national interest. If we do not take these things seriously, we can see a diminishment of Canada being able to have a secure economy for our people, and also a secure investment environment for capital, which is so very essential.As we continue the debate on Bill C-34, I hope we can take seriously how important this bill is, not only in terms of the issues it is purported to address, but also in terms of the host of concerns surrounding foreign investment. We have to ensure that we get it right so that Canadians can depend on a predictable environment for their capital, where Canadians can benefit on the home front most important of all. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActDistribution and service industriesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRegulatory reviewSplitting speaking timeThird reading and adoption802109880210998021100802110180211028021103802110480211058021106802110780211088021109802111080211118021112802111380211148021115802111680211178021118Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1530)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois thinks that Bill C-34 does not go far enough in protecting our economic flagships, our head offices, and the innovative efforts of SMEs, which are being bought up by foreign entities. Often, they come up with important innovations that become profitable abroad. We do not think that enough transactions are being reviewed.I would like my colleague to elaborate on that. Does he think that we need to do more to protect our head offices and innovative small businesses?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsHead officesNational securitySmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption80211198021120DamienKurekBattle 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 OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is right. There are many examples where there are innovations. We have an incredibly innovative culture here in this country. An example is my home region of rural Alberta, whether it comes to the oil and gas sector and the incredible innovations that make our energy sector the cleanest and greenest on the planet, which we can depend on and be proud of, or whether that is in agriculture, where we see incredible innovations. We need to ensure there is that security so that when somebody innovates in Canada, it does not end up being stolen from them, even if it is a small investment. Sometimes it is not the billion-dollar acquisitions and mergers that will make headlines on BNN Bloomberg. Also, we heard stories of fishing ports on the Atlantic coast where there were strategic investments meant to control and take away opportunities from Canadians. We have to ensure that we get it right. The member is right that this bill does not address all those concerns. It takes some steps, but certainly more needs to be done. It is too bad that the Liberals did not take our advice seriously and pass the common-sense amendments that we brought forward during the committee discussions. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsHead officesNational securitySmall and medium-sized enterprisesThird reading and adoption8021121802112280211238021124YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéCharlieAngusTimmins—James Bay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/25470CharlieAngusCharlie-AngusTimmins—James BayNew Democratic Party CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/AngusCharlie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague on the issue of critical minerals as I represent Timmins—James Bay, which has some of the greatest base metal and critical mineral deposits anywhere.There is a number of issues that we need to face in Canada in terms of being able to compete in this fast-moving energy transformation. Number one is making sure that that supply chain is able to benefit our economy. We know that other international economies are desperate to get metals.The other issue is strategic. That is about whether or not we put a lens of sustainability on, for example, metals like cobalt and lithium that are controlled by China and that are being exploited in really brutal conditions, for example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We need to actually have a supply chain that says we can do it sustainability, that we can do it with good jobs, that we can do it with investment, and that we can do it to build up a Canadian-North American economy, as opposed to simply going to the bottom line of what is happening in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with Chinese control and horrific human rights abuses.I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say on that.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActCritical mineralsForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8021125802112680211278021128DamienKurekBattle 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 OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Damien Kurek: (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, do members know what is tragic about the comments that member just made? I agree with him that we do need to ensure that we protect the critical minerals that are essential to our economy. We need to ensure that Canada is the place where we have an abundance of those things, whether it is lithium from my home province that is in what is known as produced water, a by-product of oil.Here is the tragedy. That member is talking about cobalt, a very important part of the modern economy. It is also that member who stands against Canadian oil and gas development. He is concerned about human rights abuses when it comes to critical minerals and the abuses associated with that production abroad, yet he and his coalition partners in the NDP want to see energy production outsourced from Canada to jurisdictions where they do not care about human rights, where they do not care about LGBT rights, where they do not care about the dignity of humanity, and they would even go as far as to fund the war machines that would kill citizens in countries like Ukraine.It is tragic that the New Democrats are either ignorant to that reality or they simply are intentionally conflating the fact that we could be a leader when it comes to all critical minerals, all energy, yet it is because of individuals like that and the ideology of that coalition that is holding Canada back.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActCritical mineralsForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80211298021130802113180211328021133CharlieAngusTimmins—James BayChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/108395BrandenLeslieBranden-LesliePortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeslieBranden_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): (1535)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, otherwise known as the national security review of investments modernization act.With it being so close to Remembrance Day, I too would like to offer my appreciation for all those who have served and continue to serve, and all the families that support them. I would encourage everybody to make sure they attend a ceremony this Saturday to honour and respect veterans for all of the work they have done.Speaking of our security, the NDP-Liberal coalition has, for far too long, not taken our national security seriously, so it is good to see some efforts being made through the legislation before us. Unfortunately, our reputation on the world stage has taken a beating over the past eight years. We have seen numerous diplomatic debacles over those years, and a Prime Minister who regularly embarrasses Canada on the world stage. It seems that every time I go on social media, another country's news broadcast is mocking the Prime Minister. It is one thing to embarrass oneself with a tickle trunk of outfits to wear to another country or by wearing blackface more times than one can remember, but the Prime Minister has forced our allied nations to lose confidence in us as a partner. Just this past July, Dan Sullivan, a United States senator from Alaska, called out the Liberal government for consistently failing to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target for defence spending. What is worse is that the Liberals are cutting $1 billion from our defence budget this year. While the American ambassador played it nice a few weeks ago and said he is not yet worried about our failure to meet our NATO targets, we all know and can recognize how our allies feel about Canada these days. If we had been taking our national security seriously, perhaps Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States would not have separated off from the Five Eyes alliance and created their own strategic defence partnership without Canada.With regular disruptions to our ports and railways, we are losing the perception of us as a reliable trading partner that can deliver the goods we produce here in Canada to market. With a changing climate, our adversaries see the north as an opportunity. They see a wealth of resources and future transportation routes, and we are increasingly unable to protect our own sovereignty in the north. The sad reality is that under the Liberal government, we have become a bit of a laughingstock on the world stage, and it is disappointing to admit that. However, I cannot think of a single nation around the world with which our relationship has improved over the past eight years.Given all of the failures internationally, one would assume that perhaps we would want to take care of our domestic economic needs here at home, but we have not done that. Although we are taking a good step with this legislation, after eight years, foreign state-owned enterprises, particularly those connected with the Communist regime in China, have heightened their influence in Canada. I will provide a few examples. In 2017, the government allowed Hytera Communications, a firm with ties to China, to acquire B.C.-based satellite communications company Norsat International. In 2020, Nuctech, a company owned by the Chinese government and founded by the son of a former Chinese Communist Party secretary general, won a bid to, get this, provide security equipment to over 170 Canadian embassies around the world. Imagine that. The government was going to entrust the security of Canadians stationed abroad to technologies linked to the Chinese Communist Party.I know there are a lot of examples like this, but I will end with one more. Just last year, the CBC revealed that in 2017, the CBSA began using radio equipment and technology from Hytera, the company I just referenced. It was quite literally using the technology at our borders while our main ally, the United States, was indicting the company for 21 espionage charges. It banned the company from operating and doing business because it posed an unnecessary risk to national security. At the same time as our border guards were using the equipment, our American counterparts and friends were kicking the company out of their country.It seems as though often the current government is focused on political interests and not our national interests. We should not be surprised. We all remember when the Prime Minister alluded to his level of admiration for China's basic dictatorship. It is perhaps why the Liberals have given China so many passes and why they have allowed Chinese-linked companies and agencies to infiltrate our university campuses, co-opt our research and take our technologies that innovative Canadians, innovative students and innovative companies in Canada have been spearheading.(1540)We could talk about all these failures all day, but I want to address specifically some pieces of Bill C-34. I was pleasantly surprised that the Liberals brought the legislation forward, because it is an important idea to try to always enhance our national security, particularly as things evolve and our competitors become our allies and our allies become our enemies in the global world.The goal in the legislation of amending the Investment Canada Act to protect our national security is not a bad one at all, but I really thought that for once, the Liberals had come up with their own idea. However, looking back to our 2021 platform, I noticed we had pledged to do the same thing: “Canada's Conservatives will: Protect Canadian intellectual property with a strengthened Investment Canada Act”. As the old proverb goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and there has been a lot of mimicking going on lately. My first speech in the House was just last month, about the affordable housing and groceries act, which was plagiarism, effectively, of two Conservative bills, Bill C-356 and Bill C-339. Of course we also saw, just last week, a climb-down on the carbon tax for home heating for some Canadians in some parts of the country.Not all mimicking is bad, but at the end of the day, as my fellow Manitoban colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said, “The Liberals are tired, they are weary and they do not have anything else to bring forward”. This seems to be the case. While I would prefer an election so we can put forward a strong platform that will include enhancements to the Investment Canada Act, among many other things, I do hope the current Liberal-NDP coalition keeps copying a few of our ideas. It can start with axing the carbon tax in its entirety, but I am not going to hold out a lot of hope.Overall, Bill C-34 needs to go further. It does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians. By and large, the largest threat we have to investments here in critical services is by state-owned or state-connected enterprises from authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Canadians are rightly concerned about this problem. Foreign direct investment is a good thing. We should want to draw investment dollars into our communities. However, we should also want to maintain our sovereignty and our national interests. The reality is that we have become a place where people do not want to do business. Investments in our natural resource sectors, among many others, are flooding out. Our counterpart, the United States, which does not have a carbon tax, is more appealing to do business with. Companies would rather go just south of the border, south of my riding, and set up business there.The bill does not include the ability for the government to create a list of authoritarian countries that are prohibited from owning Canadian companies or assets, which I think it should do. The Conservative team, at the committee stage, did a great job of bringing forward common-sense recommendations for changes to the legislation. Not as many were adopted as should have been, but Conservatives did work hard to fix some of the flaws.One last issue that is becoming increasingly important and visible, particularly in my area in the Prairies, is the increased buying of farmland by Chinese-linked companies and organizations. Not only does this threaten our long-term food security but it also significantly increases prices for young farmers who are trying to enter an already very difficult industry to get into. It is important that we enable the Investment Canada Act to be broad enough and flexible enough to have cabinet be able to make important decisions on whether a takeover or change in ownership is in the best interest of Canadians. This seems like common sense to me. We know it is something only Conservatives can provide.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaFood supplyForeign companiesForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityState-owned enterprisesTelecommunications equipmentThird reading and adoption80211358021136802113780211388021139802114080211418021142802114380211448021145802114680211478021148Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaMarkGerretsenKingston and the Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88802MarkGerretsenMark-GerretsenKingston and the IslandsLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GerretsenMark_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): (1545)[English]Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are very familiar with the Conservative slogan “common sense”, because the former premier Mike Harris, when he brought along common sense, ended up with unsafe drinking water and a countless number of problems based on his common-sense revolution. Therefore, it is pretty clear where the common sense from Conservatives is.I want to go back to the member's comment, specifically when he said that $1 billion was being cut from the defence budget. His implication was that this was going to affect the CAF. No member of the Canadian Armed Forces is going to be affected by this. As a matter of fact, what is going to be affected by what is being talked about by the minister is reducing the number of outside contracts and the number of third party agreements that the government has. Ironically enough, the member then went on to criticize this later in his speech.Would the member agree with me that, at least as it relates to government business, finding savings in terms of less contracting out, which is what that $1 billion is about, is a good thing?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActContracting outForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802114980211508021151BrandenLesliePortage—LisgarBrandenLesliePortage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/108395BrandenLeslieBranden-LesliePortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeslieBranden_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Branden Leslie: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, what a weird time it is to cut $1 billion. I am all for finding efficiencies in government, and after the last eight years of absurd inflationary spending, we absolutely can find billions of dollars to cut. I find it interesting that we are finding cost savings by going to a third party consulting company and paying it $660 million to give us advice on how we can best stop spending money on consultants.It is important, at the end of the day, that when my colleague criticizes common sense and links it to the Mike Harris days in Ontario, my constituents, my friends and my neighbours have common sense. They know it when they see it, and they know they do not see it in the current Liberal government.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActContracting outForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80211528021153MarkGerretsenKingston and the IslandsHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on taking a seat in the House.One of the things that the member spoke about today was the idea that over the last eight years, Canada has become diminished on the world stage. I would say that while it is true that Canada is diminished on the world stage, it is not something that happened just in the last eight years. In fact, the cuts that we saw to official development assistance under the Harper government were directly responsible for Canada's not being able to get a security seat when we tried for that seat. The cuts by the Harper government and the failure of the Liberal government to reverse those cuts were a huge part of that, as the continent of Africa saw that we had stepped back from participating in a meaningful way with it.The member also spoke about the need to not invest in China because of the human rights abuses that we are seeing in China and with China being a belligerent on the world stage. I wonder whether the member has any comments to make about the fact that we have a new Indo-Pacific strategy and that India, under the Modi government, has shown itself to be belligerent and not to be following human rights as well. Therefore, are we not taking our eggs from one basket that is not adhering to our beliefs as Canadians for human rights, and putting them into another basket where human rights are also not being protected?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndo-Pacific regionNational securityThird reading and adoption802115480211558021156BrandenLesliePortage—LisgarBrandenLesliePortage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/108395BrandenLeslieBranden-LesliePortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeslieBranden_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Branden Leslie: (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for the well-wishes.I will start by saying that there has been a shift over the past eight years. We had a previous prime minister who was strong and principled on the world stage. I think back to the moment when he told Putin to get out of Ukraine the first time that he invaded. That is the Canada I want to be a part of. I want to have a strong foreign policy vision for our nation.In terms of India and China, the member is right: Our best strategy is diversification. We are an export nation. We are a natural resources-based nation. We are a trading nation, and it is something we should be proud of. A pan-American agreement is a good approach. At the end of the day, we need to make sure we are doing things in the best interest of Canadian companies and of Canadians themselves.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsIndo-Pacific regionNational securityThird reading and adoption802115780211588021159HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1550)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is the first chance I have had to address the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar since his win in the by-election. I would like to congratulate him. I look forward to working with him in this place, as I did with his predecessor.In terms of the piece of legislation before us, I am very concerned that we apply a new lens to foreign investment in Canada, from a national security point of view and from a national sovereignty point of view. We have had the recent experience, which I have mentioned in this place, of something that did not ring any bells or raise any flags as it began, which is a company called Paper Excellence. It is owned by one billionaire from Indonesia who has now bought up the majority of the pulp and paper sector of our economy: Resolute Forest Products, Catalyst paper and Domtar. How do we track that? What triggers an investigation when we start seeing the Canadian economy bought up and held in countries like Indonesia where we do not at this point have a relationship that would let us track that?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80211608021161BrandenLesliePortage—LisgarBrandenLesliePortage—Lisgar//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/108395BrandenLeslieBranden-LesliePortage—LisgarConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LeslieBranden_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Branden Leslie: (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question. The fact is, it took eight years. That is too long. We do need to act and to make sure we have the flexibility to look at evolving national interest issues and track them better so we can be more flexible and responsive in identifying problematic investors.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8021162ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC): (1555)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.It is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington into this chamber. Today, I look forward to addressing the third reading of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, with the aim of protecting Canada’s national security. That is the important part.After eight years of the Prime Minister, numerous foreign state-owned enterprises have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, intangible assets and the data of our citizens. As usual, the government has done too little, too late, to fully protect our national economic and security interests.While Conservatives are pleased that four of our amendments were passed at committee, we are a bit bewildered as to why the Liberal-NDP government would want to water this legislation down. It defeated 10 amendments that would have made Canadian interests more fully protected by having better legislation. Why?One of the amendments defeated at committee would have modified the definition of a state-owned enterprise to include any company or entity headquartered in an authoritarian state, and of course, one of the main ones there is China.The House of Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations presented an interim report to the last May that was entitled “A Threat to Canadian Sovereignty: National Security Dimensions of the Canada–People’s Republic of China Relationship”. This report offered an in-depth review of the national security implications related to the PRC’s actions. It addressed key national security topics, including the safeguarding of Canadians from foreign interference, preventing threats to Canada’s democratic institutions and elections, defending intellectual property and research, enhancing cybersecurity, combatting organized crime and money laundering, addressing global health governance threats and scrutinizing the PRC’s intentions in the Arctic. This report should serve as a warning. We need to align ourselves with our allies.The U.S. has created a committee on foreign investment in the United States, or CFIUS, which is an inter-agency committee authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the U.S. and certain real estate transactions by foreign persons, to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the U.S.Have we not learned our lessons, through COVID, by allowing critical elements of our economy to be put under foreign control? A recent CBC article said, “Casey Babb, an international fellow with the Glazer Centre for Israel-China Policy and an instructor at Carleton University in Ottawa, said China uses foreign investment as a strategic tool.”I am going to quote him from the article: “They use foreign investment as a door, as an entry point, to gain access to markets, to gain access to government, to investors as well”.He goes on to say, “It's a great way to sort of use licit means to carry out illicit, or even legal but injurious, activities.” Dr. Babb also said that “China is looking to tap into [Canada's] natural resources, including oil, critical minerals and fish.”The government’s “soft on China” policy must end. One of the amendments it refused to pass sought to list specific sectors necessary to preserve Canada’s national security, rather than using a systematic approach.Let me provide a personal example of a sector-specific area. On our own farm in Leamington, in the years prior to the Ukraine-Russian war, we actually used more Belarusian potash on the farm than our own Canadian Saskatchewan potash. Why? Sea freight is relatively cheaper than rail freight. Why is our rail freight so expensive? Because it is being tied up hauling crude oil to eastern refineries, rather having that oil flow through an energy east pipeline, which is lowering our rail capacity for moving potash and other goods that cannot move by pipeline. Supply and demand drives up the cost of freight. In addition, 660,000 to 680,000 tonnes of nitrogen fertilizer, mainly urea, were imported pre-war into eastern and central Canada. Why is western natural gas not flowing through a pipeline to fertilizer manufacturing plants here in eastern Canada? Again, Russia's invasion of Ukraine should teach us a lesson. Where we have critical inputs in Canada, we should ensure that we have the infrastructure that could be used domestically so that we would have competitive prices vis-à-vis foreign options.(1600)Another Conservative amendment that failed to pass would have exempted non-Canadian Five Eyes intelligence state-owned enterprises from this national security review process to prevent an overly broad review process. This, unfortunately, sends all the wrong signals to our Five Eyes partners with whom the Liberal government's policies have been at odds.Canada needs to be seen as a reliable player in this partnership. Under the current government, this has not been the case. Canada needs to restore its trustworthy reputation with the U.K., the U.S., Australia and New Zealand so that critical intelligence information gathered by one member can be confidently shared with other members.Again, the failure of this amendment to pass sends all the wrong signals to our allies.Amendment 25.4(1.1) would have allowed the Government of Canada to maintain ownership of intangible assets that have been developed in whole or in part by taxpayer funding. An example of an intangible asset, which I learned in preparation for this speech, is a radio frequency filtering system for our Mounties. What is that? It is a filter circuit made up of capacitors, inductors and resistors that is used to filter the signal frequency in communication channels.What is behind this? Let us think back to 2017 when the China-based Hytera acquired a telecom company from B.C. called Norsat. This company has significant Chinese government ownership, but it does not make any money. Does that not send a signal that this should be looked at? This company significantly lost money for six years.We rightfully called for a full national security review, but the industry minister refused, and he approved the Chinese acquisition that provided the RCMP with telecom equipment. Incredibly, the federal procurement department awarded a $550,000 contract to Ontario-based Sinclair Technologies to build and maintain the radio frequency filtering system for the Mounties. By the way, Sinclair Technologies is the parent company of Norsat International.In 2022, Norsat was charged with 21 counts of espionage in the U.S., and President Biden banned it from the U.S. Just eight months later, the RCMP awarded China's Hytera subsidiary, Norsat, the contract to install telecom hardware in our RCMP communications systems.When questioned at committee, the RCMP was asked if it knew whether Hytera was charged and banned from the U.S., and the answer was “no”. How can the Liberal government continue to let such enormous security breaches happen?We all know how important lithium is for our economy. It is needed to make the batteries for our EV vehicles. In 2019, the Liberals approved the sale of Canada’s only lithium-producing mine to the China state-controlled Sinomine Resource.Every ounce of lithium mined in Canada right now goes to China, while Canadians are unable to supply lithium to our own growing electric vehicle industry, which is putting our nation in a potentially vulnerable situation. Again, in 2019, Conservatives demanded a full national security review. The “soft on China” Liberals ignored it. I guess this would explain why the NDP-Liberal coalition voted down amendment 25.3(1), which would have allowed the minister to go back and review past state-owned acquisitions through the national security review process, which would have allowed a more fulsome review. Last week, the Prime Minister did show us that the Liberal government can go back, as it adjusted the carbon tax on home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada and in rural Canada. The government demonstrated it can reverse course after identifying a mistake. That, of course, was in response to polling, not in the interests of national security. It is time for a common-sense government, a government that would allow our nation to prosper while at the same time protecting its citizens. Conservatives will continue to use our voices to ensure that both the prosperity and the protection of our citizens is defended.BatteriesC-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaFertilizersFive EyesForeign companiesForeign investments in CanadaFreight transportationGovernment billsNational securityPotashState-owned enterprisesTelecommunications equipmentThird reading and adoption80211638021164802116580211668021167802116880211698021170802117180211728021173802117480211758021176802117780211788021179802118080211818021182802118380211848021185802118680211878021188BrandenLesliePortage—LisgarYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1605)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.I would like to know what he thinks about something specific. Earlier, I asked a question about whether enough is being done to protect our head offices. The member told me that he agreed with me but that there must be balance in all things. What we want to do locally—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80211898021190DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron: (1610)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will start from the beginning. I was thanking my colleague for his speech and telling him that a little earlier, I had mentioned that the Bloc Québécois members feel that this bill does not go far enough in protecting head offices.However, as in everything, there needs to be balance, reasonable measures. We cannot shut down all outside investment. Several MPs have reiterated today that there needs to be outside investment as well. It is a question of striking the right balance. How do we implement good measures that preserve jobs, to try and maintain our technological innovation, but without blocking all outside investment?I would like my colleague to share his thoughts with us. Where do we find the balance to be able to export, too, at some point?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption802119480211958021196Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dave Epp: (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We do want the investment here. Actually, some of the amendments proposed were going in the direction of allowing a less rigorous process for our Five Eyes allies, who have better processes in place than we have right now, to have reciprocity in the approval process. In addition, one of the amendments targeted only authoritarian states, which tend not to be our allies. There was differentiation, if we look at all the amendments, that allowed for a differential process depending on where a potential investment was coming from.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8021197YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéHeatherMcPhersonEdmonton Strathcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105689HeatherMcPhersonHeather-McPhersonEdmonton StrathconaNew Democratic Party CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/McPhersonHeather_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP): (1610)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is a new member, as am I, of the international development caucus, and I enjoy working with him very much on that work.I have a couple of things. First of all, he talked about the need for Canada to play a bigger role in the world so that our allies share intelligence with us. However, I cannot help but point out that the leader of his party, who is hoping to be the prime minister of this country, refuses to get top security clearance and in fact would not be able to benefit from their intelligence in any way.The other thing he spoke about was the need for us to invest in energy infrastructure. My friend, the member for Timmins—James Bay, and I were in Germany meeting with the Chancellor and the head of the chancellery at this time last year, and they spoke to us about the need to translate their energy sources. They wanted their energy sources to become green. They were not interested in a long-term investment in fossil fuels. They wanted to get off fossil fuels, so building the infrastructure for fossil fuels that, in fact, the rest of the world is already moving away from does not seem like a very smart strategy.I am wondering if he could comment on that.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEnergy and fuelForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInfrastructureNational securityThird reading and adoption8021198802119980212008021201DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dave Epp: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague and I both have a passion for addressing hunger. There are eight billion people in the world. Four million of them are dependent on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers made through the Haber-Bosch process from natural gas.If we had the pipeline that I referenced in my speech to eastern Canada, in the short term, we could have addressed the needs of our allies Germany and Japan, which have come calling for LNG. There will continue to be a need for infrastructure dealing particularly with natural gas.We could also do far better in addressing the world's expanding use of coal with LNG. That would do more than any carbon tax ever will, as the record of it is showing, in reducing world greenhouse gas emissions. It was predicted 10 years ago that we would reach peak coal. We set a record in coal consumption in the world last year. We are predicted to smash that record this year. Why are we not putting Canadian LNG on the world market? It is because we do not have the infrastructure to deliver it to our allies and to some of the countries still putting coal-fired plants online.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActEnergy and fuelForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsInfrastructureNational securityThird reading and adoption802120280212038021204HeatherMcPhersonEdmonton StrathconaDanMuysFlamborough—Glanbrook//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110415DanMuysDan-MuysFlamborough—GlanbrookConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MuysDan_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dan Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, we know that after eight years of the government's policies, the OECD put out a report that says Canada will have the worst performing economy in terms of business investment out of the entire industrialized world this decade and for the next two subsequent decades as a result.I am wondering if the member could comment on this piece of legislation and the fact that the 10 amendments proposed by the Conservatives that were voted down by the NDP-Liberal coalition could have perhaps been part of a remedy to that situation.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80212058021206DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonDaveEppChatham-Kent—Leamington//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105082DaveEppDave-EppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/EppDave_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dave Epp: (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, absolutely. If the member wants to know more, I can add to that. There are so many places where Canada could be leading, and we are not because we have not made the investments in our infrastructure. That needs some discerning. This legislation is a step in the right direction, but it does not do nearly enough to allow us to screen potentially helpful foreign investment to get the infrastructure we need to serve our allies, and it does not do enough to protect our mineral assets and other critical assets for advancing our economy here at home and abroad.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80212078021208DanMuysFlamborough—GlanbrookMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): (1615)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House as a representative for the amazing people and spectacular region of North Okanagan—Shuswap.Before I speak to Bill C-34, I would like to acknowledge that this is Veterans Week. I also acknowledge the recent loss of a dedicated community volunteer, constituent and friend, Steve McInnis, a 37-year veteran with the Canadian Armed Forces, where he served with distinction. In 1988, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to UN peacekeepers, and Steve received this fitting recognition for his service in the cause for peace in the Sinai peninsula from 1977 to 1978. Steve served his country and community proudly and with distinction and will be deeply missed. I am confident Steve has reconnected with his long-time friend and fellow veteran Paul Shannon for beers, laughter and, of course, their famous shenanigans.I say to Steve, Paul and indeed all veterans and Canadian Forces families that Canada appreciates their sacrifices and we will never forget. I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act. The proposals of this bill seek to amend the Investment Canada Act's governance of acquisitions of Canadian companies by foreign entities. After eight years of Liberal inaction, this bill is long overdue. I will provide some examples of how overdue it is.In 2017, six and a half years ago, red flags were raised and alarm bells sounded about the takeover of B.C. seniors homes by profiteers in Beijing. I will quote one of my Conservative colleagues at the time, the former MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Caribou, Cathy McLeod, who stated:Our seniors are concerned about the quality of care, of food, and the credentials of the people caring for them. This transaction is clearly not about charity; it is about profit. Why would the Prime Minister put the care of our parents and grandparents at the mercy of profiteers pulling strings from Beijing?The Liberals' response to Ms. McLeod's concern was dismissive and short-sighted. As the industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, said, “the additional financial resources will allow Cedar Tree the ability to expand, provide better service, and create more jobs.”Despite the Liberal reassurances back then, services for B.C. seniors were neither expanded nor improved. To the sad contrary, services became worse. It was B.C. senior citizens who suffered when multiple Beijing-controlled senior care homes failed to achieve standards of care for some of our most vulnerable citizens. The Liberals ignored warnings from the Conservatives, and the result was a Beijing-controlled disaster that caused suffering for seniors in British Columbia, suffering the Liberal government was warned of, suffering it ignored and suffering it enabled. That was the first example of how the government's hesitance and delay in protecting Canada have hurt Canadians.As another example of how overdue this bill is, I will reference a 2019 report from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. The fisheries committee undertook this study in response to very serious concerns raised by Canadian fish harvesters and coastal communities who had seen their access to Canada's fisheries eroded by increasing levels of foreign control.The committee's study was in response to alarm bells warning us about very significant portions of Canada's west coast fisheries being bought and owned by foreign buyers. Alarms were raised by Canadian fishers who were and continue to be very concerned about the loss of control of not only a valuable Canadian food source to foreign entities, but a source of culture, economies and well-being for our coastal communities. The Liberal government should have acted sooner in response to the testimony we heard during that study, which pleaded for the government to protect Canada's interests from foreign interests. One witness testified:(1620)As for overseas investment, besides a few large companies, this is very hard to trace, but there are examples. For instance, you may have heard of the recent scandal with money laundering through gambling and real estate in B.C. We traced one company that has been investing in groundfish and now owns 5.9 million pounds of quota. The director of this company is the same overseas investor named in newspaper articles on money laundering through casinos and real estate in Vancouver.This testimony was provided to Parliament over four years ago. What is even more troubling is that even though that report was tabled in this House back in May 2019, the same fisheries committee was recently provided an update on the Liberal government's progress in addressing foreign takeovers. That update exposed that the government has failed to prioritize and take actions required to prevent foreign ownership and the control of Canadian fisheries resources that Canadians and Canadian communities depend on. One key recommendation from that 2019 report stated:That based on the principle that fish in Canadian waters are a resource for Canadians (i.e. common property), no future sales of fishing quota and/or licences be to non-Canadian beneficial owners based on the consideration of issues of legal authority, and international agreement/trade impacts.When the committee received an update on the Liberal government's response to that report recommendation, we learned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans still had no way of knowing who owns what when it comes to west coast fishing licences and quota. The Liberals put out a botched survey to try to find out, but little else has been done to address the issue. These are just two examples of how the Prime Minister and his government cannot be trusted to do what is right for Canadians' interests. I will say, though, that there are members of this House who can be trusted to provide improvements to legislation, even such as this bill, which was flawed as originally drafted. I would like to recognize and thank my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, for the work that he and other Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology have done on Bill C-34 to strengthen it and hopefully deliver some much-needed and overdue protections to Canadians.At the committee stage, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets recognized the flaws in this bill and, by working with the other opposition parties, was able to get significant amendments passed to strengthen the bill and protect Canadians' interests. Some of those amendments included, number one, that for any state-owned enterprise from a country that does not have a bilateral trade relationship with Canada, the threshold for review by the Government of Canada would be zero dollars, and number two, that any transaction over zero dollars would be reviewed, compared to the threshold now, which is $512 million. Chinese government-controlled and other foreign entities are buying a lot of assets through sales of under $512 million now, without review. The new threshold, should this bill pass, would be zero dollars to trigger a review. The same would apply for a new concept that was added, which is that all asset sales would need to be included in the test with a state-owned enterprise so that an investment to acquire, in whole or in part, the assets of an entity could be subject to a review. As I close today in the final minutes of debate before we all return home to our communities to take part in Remembrance Day ceremonies, on behalf of my family and all the residents of North Okanagan—Shuswap, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the brave members of our Canadian Armed Forces for their service, and express this gratitude to Canada's veterans, many of whom made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, and to their families. We will never forget. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaFisheries and fishersForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityResidential homes for the elderlyState-owned enterprisesThird reading and adoption8021209802121080212118021212802121380212148021215802121680212178021218802121980212208021221802122280212238021224802122580212268021227DaveEppChatham-Kent—LeamingtonRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89327RichardCanningsRichard-CanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CanningsRichard_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP): (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap brought up the example of the long-term care homes that have been so problematic in our valley and in our province of British Columbia. The company Anbang, through Cedar Tree and others, perpetuated a situation of very poor care for our seniors: mothers, fathers, grandfathers and grandmothers. The NDP put forward an amendment to make it such that, if a foreign government took over a company after a foreign company had been cleared, as was the case with Anbang Insurance, Canada should act. When the NDP amendment was put forward for this bill, the government members said we could already do that.Could the member comment on that and whether the government should take immediate steps to take over the company that is taking care of our seniors, since we really do not trust it to do that?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityResidential homes for the elderlyThird reading and adoption80212288021229MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1625)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay is correct. We need to do everything we can to ensure the safety and well-being of our senior citizens, especially those who are in care homes and do not have families to support them. With respect to the technicalities of exactly what the current government can and cannot do, I would not want to be quoted on that. I believe it is a bit more of a legal decision. However, I agree with the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay: We need to ensure that there are measures in place to protect against foreign overtake of Canadian companies that serve our citizens. We must make sure that they are well protected.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActChinaForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityResidential homes for the elderlyThird reading and adoption80212308021231RichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West KootenayMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1630)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. I understand that the review itself has not been updated in a number of years. This is highly significant considering the scope and the likelihood of foreign interference, as we witnessed with China and others.I have a concern. Our goal is not only economic prosperity, but also to keep our resources as our private preserve. What is missing in this bill that could cause a company to shut down if not for foreign investment? What should the government propose to maintain prosperity and hold on to our natural and human resources? Is this bill missing something?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption80212328021233MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, we are seeing that, after the inflationary spending of the current government, many businesses are struggling to survive. With the high interest rates that have been created, we are concerned about how many businesses may not be able to do so. However, to quickly sell them off to a foreign entity, which is really just looking to buy up businesses for pennies on the dollar, is not the answer. There should be a way for Canadians to invest in Canadian companies to make sure that those businesses are viable and can continue. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityThird reading and adoption8021234Marie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—LabelleDanAlbasCentral 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 OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the words of the member of Parliament for North Okanagan—Shuswap, as well as his leadership, particularly when it comes to the fight against aquatic invasive species.Conservatives know that, if Canada is going to compete for foreign direct investment, we need to have three things right: We need proper investment rules, a competitive tax environment and environmental processes to get big projects done. Right now, the government has struck out on all three.Conservatives wanted to actually extend an amendment that would allow for our Five Eyes partners, which share not only our values in terms of democracy and legal processes but also our market-based approach. That would have relieved at least one of the three important points that I raised earlier on how to attract direct investment. What does the member think about the current government's approach when it comes to these three points: taxes, investment rules and environmental processes?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityTaxationThird reading and adoption8021235802123680212378021238MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapMelArnoldNorth Okanagan—Shuswap//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89294MelArnoldMel-ArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ArnoldMel_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. Mel Arnold: (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola for the question and for his support on something that I am passionate about, the prevention of aquatic invasive species into the Okanagan, Shuswap or any waters in B.C. On the three points the member mentioned, the current government has certainly failed. We are seeing taxes at higher levels than they have been in years. Inflation is incredibly high. The investment attitude in Canada is not good. We need a common-sense Conservative government that will re-attract business to Canada and allow businesses to profit and prosper. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityTaxationThird reading and adoption80212398021240DanAlbasCentral Okanagan—Similkameen—NicolaJohnBrassardBarrie—Innisfil//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88674JohnBrassardJohn-BrassardBarrie—InnisfilConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BrassardJohn_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization ActInterventionMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): (1630)[English]Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his recognition of veterans as we approach Remembrance Day. I want to express my sympathy to the family of Norm Zimmerman, a local resident and World War II veteran. In 1943, he joined the RCAF. I want to express my condolences on behalf of a grateful nation to his son Bruce and to his family. C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityRemembrance DayThird reading and adoptionVeterans80212418021242MelArnoldNorth Okanagan—ShuswapChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88715KarinaGouldHon.Karina-GouldBurlingtonLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GouldKarina_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)(1200)[English]Motion moved:That, in relation to Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; andThat, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House 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 then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800964380096448009645Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is in relation to the amendment we are debating now at report stage. We are dealing with section 15, which basically takes cabinet out of the beginning of the process and says the minister only has to go back to cabinet at the end of the process if a national security review says there is a problem. If not, the minister does not have to go back.Does the minister not believe that we get better decision-making by having all cabinet colleagues involved in the decision-making, not just an individual industry minister making that choice?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096488009649Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is a time to think, a time to debate and a time to act. I am pleased to report to Canadians watching at home, and I am sure there are many on this Monday morning, that not only the bill but also the amendments have received unanimous support from all parties in this House. I am a bit surprised to see, even today, the hidden agenda of the Conservatives to block this bill from going forward, because, as we can see from the record, all parties have agreed to it and all the amendments have been agreed to. We should be in a place today where we can say to Canadians that we take national security seriously and that we want to act in the interests of Canadians.That is exactly what we are proposing today. We want to move to a vote so we can better protect Canadians by having more tools in the tool box. I would say that my colleagues on both sides, and my respected colleague, would agree with that because the whole purpose of this bill is to have more tools in the tool box. We live in a time of a lot of uncertainty and geopolitical challenges. We welcome foreign investment, but obviously we want to make sure we have the tools in the tool box to protect Canadians.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800965080096518009652RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can provide his thoughts on this. The Conservatives often talk about the issue of foreign interference. Here we have legislation that looks at it from a different perspective, an economic perspective. That is one of the reasons it is important to see this legislation ultimately pass. I would be interested in his comments on that and why the Conservatives continue to not want to see the legislation pass, which is to the detriment of Canadians as a whole.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009653François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in this bill that would help Canadians. Members should think about that. We are going to reduce the net benefit threshold review, which is something a lot of members in this House have been asking for. We are going to expand the jurisdiction of the ICA to include asset sales. At this time, we need these kinds of provisions. We are going to have stronger penalties. We are going to have more tools. Imagine, for example, being able to accept undertakings or prevent a transaction from going forward as the government is studying it in the interests of Canadians. Think in the context of IP.The last time this bill was amended, and members should hold on to their seats, was in 2009. That is the last time it was looked at. If we think about the lapse of time and how the world has changed, obviously we need to act.This House has had a lot of time to look at this. We introduced the bill on December 7, 2022, so members can imagine that Canadians at home are anxious to see every member of this House acting quickly in order to protect their best interests.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800965480096558009656KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLisa MarieBarronNanaimo—Ladysmith//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111023Lisa MarieBarronLisaMarie-BarronNanaimo—LadysmithNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarronLisaMarie_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP): (1205)[English]Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member that perhaps many people in this House are wondering about. Why do the Conservatives continue to obstruct important business from moving forward, even when it is legislation they support? Can he share his thoughts on that? How do we move forward to get things happening in the House in the timely manner we need to see?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009657François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I like the question. I wish I could answer it. I do not know, honestly, because Conservatives agreed to the legislation and the amendments. They support them, yet they do not want to vote.I am glad Canadians are watching. They must be wondering at home why the Conservatives agree but do not want to vote. What is the logic of that? The only thing I can find is that they want to obstruct the work of Parliament. They want to delay everything. They will not even allow Bill C-56 to pass, which we talked about before, to make sure we reform competition. They say that Canada should work at the speed of business, and look at them this morning. What about the speed of business? What about voting on something they want? Find the logic in that. Folks watching at home are wondering why Conservatives agree but do not want to vote for it. It is very tough for me to understand that. I am sure my kids, who are watching at home, would ask how that is possible. That is the real question we are asking. Why do they not do what is right for Canadians? They supported the amendments. They support the bill. We had 44 witnesses. We had 20 hours of debate in the House, 11 meetings at the INDU committee and 20 hours of witnesses.As I said, there is a time for debate, but there is also a time for action. The time for action is now.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009658800965980096608009661Lisa MarieBarronNanaimo—LadysmithMaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104705MaximeBlanchette-JoncasMaxime-Blanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/Blanchette-JoncasMaxime_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on his intervention.Bill C‑34 is certainly well intentioned. We also recognize the work that was done in committee, which enabled us to add to the bill the concept of sensitive sectors, including intellectual property and data banks that contain personal information.However, the bill is still incomplete and that is the problem. If we were to apply the new rules proposed in Bill C‑34 to the projects submitted in 2022, only 24 of the 1,255 projects would be reviewed. That is not even 2% of all the projects. I would like my colleague to explain whether he agrees that we need to lower the review threshold to cast a wider net and have better rules that will make it possible to review all the projects so as to protect the local economy and prevent any loopholes in foreign investments.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800966280096638009664François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1210)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows how much I respect him. He is one of the members of the House that always contribute to the debate.The problem is that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, and people likely do not understand the situation. The Bloc Québécois supports the amendment. Everyone has spoken and everyone has voted in favour of the bill and the amendments. We are asking our colleagues in the House today to put it to a vote. Everyone is in agreement. The members from my colleague's party are in agreement. They voted in favour of the amendments and the bill.Today we are saying that we need to work in the House in the interest of Canadians. People watching us in the galleries and at home are wondering why we have not started voting. That is the real question today. I do not believe I have heard any of my colleagues give us a good reason not to vote when everyone is in agreement. Today's debate is all about moving the bill forward.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800966580096668009667MaximeBlanchette-JoncasRimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les BasquesCherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/1809CherylGallantCheryl-GallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeConservative CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GallantCheryl_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, CPC): (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives put forth several amendments, two of which were rejected. One would have required the minister to conduct a national review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever the review threshold is met. The other would have made the act retroactive.How does the minister expect the government to ensure our national security is in place if we cannot go back to see which companies got in under the wire and may be doing Canadian companies harm?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096688009669François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1210)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to answer that question.The hon. member would know that what we are doing with this bill is giving more tools. That was the discussion at committee, I would say respectfully. Let us look at that. There were 11 meetings at INDU and over 20 hours at committee. Not one but 11 significant amendments were voted on by everyone. Everyone agreed that this bill needed significant amendments and everyone voted for them.What we are debating today is not the essence of the bill. Everyone is looking at this and we all agree, so we are just saying let us vote on it. That is what the record of the committee says. This is about national security. We are not talking about any kind of thing. We know that economic security is national security.I have enormous respect for our colleague, who is asking a good question, but that debate happened in committee and members voted for it. Now we have a bill that is ready to be voted on at report stage and then at third reading. I know that, because our colleagues voted for it at committee, in their heart they want to vote for it. Let us not allow politics to block national security, because that is too important for Canadians.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009670800967180096728009673CherylGallantRenfrew—Nipissing—PembrokeJennyKwanVancouver East//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89346JennyKwanJenny-KwanVancouver EastNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KwanJenny_NDP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am entering this debate because I have seen the Conservatives over and over again think of different tactics to delay progress on virtually anything in this House. They will bring forward successive concurrence debates to delay progress of other matters in this House, even though those debates are being actively dealt with at committee. Therefore, here we are.What I am hearing from the minister is that on this issue, the very questions the Conservatives are raising have been discussed extensively at committee, yet they are still in this House trying to block passage of the bill. Under what circumstance is it justifiable for all of us as parliamentarians to be in this House to obstruct the work that needs to be done on behalf of Canadians?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096748009675François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1215)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. The obstruction tactics that we see from the Conservatives are hurting Canadians. I like the way the colleague put it. There have been two concurrence motions for when we brought this bill forward. For folks at home who are at watching and wondering what a concurrence motion is, it is a delay tactic, which is what is happening. There were over 20 hours of debate in the House, 11 meetings at the INDU committee, with over 20 hours debate at the committee, and 44 witnesses. On the basis of that, everyone agreed, and we all voted for the amendments. Everyone agreed. We are at a time when Canadians are scratching their heads, and I understand my colleague because I am scratching my head too, thinking that, if everyone agrees, why do we not do the right thing.We asked the opposition to stop obstructing when it comes to national security. I have heard colleagues ask, “Why do you not act at the speed of business?” I will turn the question around: Why do my colleagues not act at the speed of the business? People are watching. Businesses are asking, “What? You don't want to vote on something you agree upon? What kind of democracy is that?”In a democracy, we need to debate, but there is a point when we need to act, and the time to act is right now.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPolitical behaviourReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009676800967780096788009679JennyKwanVancouver EastXavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88422XavierBarsalou-DuvalXavier-Barsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarsalouDuvalXavier_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ): (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the minister to convince the public of the need for his gag order. We are debating a closure motion, but we are wondering why we are even doing that. The Liberals are only imposing closure because they already know that someone is going to vote in favour of it, and that is likely the NPD, which is part of their coalition.My question will instead focus on the bill. I think that there is a missed opportunity in Bill C-34, and since I have the floor, I want to speak to that problem. The minister is here, so why not?Bill C-34 modernizes the entire issue of national security to tighten the rules in that area. That is not a bad thing in the current geopolitical context. However, the government left out a major component that it would have been only natural to include in this bill. We have often raised, in the House and in public debate, the issue of modernizing the Investment Canada Act, particularly the economic interest component of it.When a major investment is made in a business here or in a new business, or when a foreign entity purchases an existing business, how is it that the review threshold is as high as $1.7 billion? When this government took office, there was a review threshold of $300 million. That means that, now, with the exception of cases where there is a threat to national security, the government does not even take an interest in files until the review threshold reaches $1.7 billion, as opposed to $300 million. Does the minister not think that is rather high?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096808009681800968280096838009684François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1215)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I have a lot of respect for him. I find we do a lot of work together.The current debate is to decide whether we proceed to a vote. My Bloc Québécois colleagues had the opportunity to debate the bill. We heard from 44 witnesses for a bill on which everyone agrees. People are watching us. They see that we debated the bill for 20 hours in committee, and that everyone was in agreement. We are looking at each other, and we all agree. All we are asking today is to move forward to a vote, since we are all in agreement.As my colleague said, this is a critical time in the world. We want to have more tools in our tool box so we can protect national security. Members agree on that. This not a matter of alliances. This should be a unanimous vote, and my colleagues should co-operate and agree to vote, since they are in agreement with the bill. This is what we are talking about today.We want to work at the speed of the industry, and we want to protect it. I believe that our colleagues from Quebec and the Quebeckers who are watching us understand that the minister needs tools. We want to protect the aerospace and semiconductor industries in Quebec, we want to protect our domestic industry. We want to make sure, for example, that any foreign buyouts are subject to a modern regime. The last time the regime was updated was 14 years ago.I think people watching at home are saying that even the Bloc Québécois members should vote in favour of moving forward. We all debated the bill, and we are in agreement. It is time to vote.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096858009686800968780096888009689XavierBarsalou-DuvalPierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—VerchèresMartyMorantzCharleswood—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 OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps arguing that we have debated this enough and that all of these amendments were voted on at committee. Getting back to the question that my colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets asked, there is one question that was not voted on at committee, and it is perhaps the most important one. It has to do with ministerial discretion. That was not voted on at committee, which is why we brought it back to the House.My colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets asked a very direct question, and the minister did not answer it. I think Canadians who are watching these proceedings deserve an answer. Does the minister not think that the country would be better served by all of cabinet undertaking the security review, rather than one minister from a particular region where certain interests are served? C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80096908009691François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question again. There were 11 meetings at committee to talk about that and 20 hours of debate. This has been debated at committee. People had the chance to debate it, but now that the debate is taking place in the House and everyone agrees, it is time to vote.Canadians watching at home are saying there were 20 hours of debate in 11 committee meetings and 20 hours of debate in the House. Members had the chance to debate it, and they said that they agree with the amendments. Now they are asking why the government is asking them to vote on it. It is to protect Canadians' national security and make sure we have modern tools in the tool box.There are real questions, which I know Canadians are asking. What is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives? Why would they want to block legislation? Why are they blocking Bill C-56, which would reform competition? Why are they blocking amendments to the Investment Canada Act?When it comes to national security, members need to forget their political affiliations and do what is right for Canadians.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009692800969380096948009695MartyMorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf Islands//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/2897ElizabethMayElizabeth-MaySaanich—Gulf IslandsGreen Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MayElizabeth_GP.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): (1220)[English]Mr. Speaker, this debate is not on the merits of Bill C-34, but on the use of time allocation once again. On principle, I will vote against time allocation always because this is the place where legislation gets debated. Many members of the House are not members of the industry committee. I am not allowed to be a member of the INDU committee. I have very strong views on Bill C-34 and national security considerations on takeovers of Canadian companies, but will not be allowed to speak to this because, yet again, the guillotine is being brought down. The Harper administration did this time and time again, and the opposition knew it was wrong then. The Liberals promised that they would not, and now it is routine. Time allocation is put on almost every bill. The hon. minister knows the high opinion I hold of him. I want to be able to discuss this legislation. I was the first MP in the House to identify that the takeover of Aecon by the People's Republic of China should have had a national security review. For a long time, I was the lone voice. We finally got it, and the deal was turned down.I care about this stuff, and I really think every member of the House has a right to participate in debates. Time allocation defeats that right.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityParticipatory democracyReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009696800969780096988009699François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member knows how much I like her, and her contributions to the House are well known to all members.We actually want debate. There were 20 hours of debate in the House, 20 hours of debate at committee, and 11 meetings at committee with 44 witnesses. I agree that we need debate, which I believe in, but there is also a time when we need to act. My colleague from the NDP said it best earlier when she said that the Conservatives consistently, systematically and regularly use delay tactics so the House cannot move bills forward. That is not democracy. In a democracy, we need to debate, we need to think and we need to make sure every voice is heard, but the duty of every member, at one stage, is to vote. We need to vote on bills so they can move forward, go through the Senate and hopefully get royal assent.As I said, there comes a time in a democracy, and in the House, when we need to move forward, particularly when it comes to national security. I would not know how to explain to Canadians that members are in agreement, but they do not want to vote. It is very difficult mentally to understand that. They would ask, if we agree, why would we not vote. That is why people sent us to the House: to vote. Members should vote, and then we will move on in protecting the national security of Canadians.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityParticipatory democracyReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009700800970180097028009703ElizabethMaySaanich—Gulf IslandsAndréanneLaroucheShefford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104973AndréanneLaroucheAndréanne-LaroucheSheffordBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LaroucheAndréanne_BQ.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMs. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ): (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I know that he runs his department with passion. I will speak briefly of the issue of closure motions in a minority government. As the closure motions keep on coming, we wonder if the government really understood the message it got from voters. They wanted it to reach agreements in the context of a minority government. Imposing one gag order after another is not what I would call taking into account the fact that it is a minority government.We voted for Bill C-34, but as my colleagues said, there are a few blind spots. In particular, the last update to the Investment Canada Act dates from 1985. I was not very old in 1985. That was some time ago. I would like to hear my colleague comment about how this would have been a great opportunity to update it completely in order to protect our domestic head offices, not just address the issue of national security. We could have extended the scope of the act to include that.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80097048009705François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1225)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's argument, but legislation must move forward even in a minority government. I think that my colleague would agree that, once the debate has taken place and members are in agreement, they call for a vote. Instead, we are seeing the Conservatives move all kinds of motions to prevent us from voting. In a democracy, it is important to vote. Debating is important, but it is also important to vote. We are asking to go to a vote. Action is urgently needed.I remember appearing before the committee. My Bloc Québécois colleagues are in favour of the bill. My Conservatives colleagues are as well. That is what people at home do not understand. The other parties agree with it. When we had the debate, when we had the opportunity to express our opinion on the bill, 11 major amendments were agreed to by all parties. That proves democracy is working.In a minority government, we also have to be able to pass legislation, especially on national security. That is important. Everyone agrees that we need tools in our tool box. Everyone is saying we need do the right thing. We are doing that together. We are moving forward in good faith. I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues.Today, what we are saying is that, at some point, we need to vote. That time has come.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009706800970780097088009709AndréanneLaroucheSheffordFrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/111007FrankCaputoFrank-CaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooConservative CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CaputoFrank_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC): (1225)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. I must say that this minister has given us a master class in how to talk out the clock today. The NDP-Liberal government has moved time allocation 37 times this Parliament alone. In the period up until Tom Mulcair, the NDP only supported time allocation 17 times, so now the NDP has done it over double the amount of times. What has its members gotten? The NDP say they want pharmacare. They have gotten nothing from the Liberal-NDP coalition.Therefore, my question is this: Given that the Liberals have given the NDP government nothing, the government of no democratic principles, what are they promising them, since the NDP is getting nothing for truncating debate, which is what we are dealing with today?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPartisanshipReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800971080097118009712François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contributions in the House. I am sure the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo like him. I am sure they are watching the TV today and saying, “Hold on a minute. We are all in favour of debate, but once we agree, can we vote?” That is the question. People have agreed on the amendments. I am sure people watching are thinking that we all agree. They want democracy. They want debate. They want robust debate to make sure. However, once there is agreement, we need to vote at some stage.In this case people have agreed, and we need—C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityPartisanshipReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80097138009714FrankCaputoKamloops—Thompson—CaribooChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105511MartyMorantzMarty-MorantzCharleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—HeadingleyConservative CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MorantzMarty_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Marty Morantz: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, I know the member to be a good person and an honest person, but he is saying that we have agreed to something that we have not agreed to. I do not think that is appropriate. It has been very clear that we have not agreed, particularly on the amendment to clause 15.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMembers' remarksMotionsNational securityPoints of orderReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009716Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a genuine consensus of agreement in the legislation and the principles of the legislation, yet the Conservatives continue to want to prevent the House of Commons from being able to pass legislation with all forms of filibustering. A good example of that is Bill C-56, something that we debated earlier today as part of a private member's bill where members on all sides were talking about the importance of competition. However, Bill C-56 is yet another victim of Conservative filibustering.I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the filibustering that takes place, which hurts Canadians.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActC-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition ActFilibusterForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80097198009720Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, this will allow me to respond to the point of order that was made. There was agreement by all parties on 11 significant amendments to the bill that we are talking about.I value the contributions of my Conservative colleagues. I value them. That is why I went to the committee. We took on border amendments. We agreed that the best way to have good legislation in this country is to have work being done at committee, to listen to witnesses and work together. They know me. I am a very open-minded person. We accepted not one but 11 significant amendments to this bill. Everyone agreed that those were the significant amendments we needed to move forward. That was the agreement of the committee. I think the question of the member is relevant. Once that was all done, after 44 witnesses, 20 hours of work at committee and 20 hours of time used in the House, there comes a time when people at home will say we need to move on and vote. That is exactly what we are asking for today with this motion.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActFilibusterForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800972180097228009723KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC): (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, it is nothing but a bunch of myths from the Liberal minister. He bragged earlier that he had dropped the threshold; he did not. I brought that motion in, and Liberal MPs voted against it. I brought in the amendment to the committee that put bribery and corruption in. Liberal MPs voted against it. The only reason it is through is because the opposition put it in.The whole point of report stage is to allow for further amendments. The minister has ignored for a half hour the call to say yes or no to whether he thinks cabinet should be eliminated from the process of reviewing foreign investments. His bill would remove cabinet from that process and put it solely in the minister's hands.Why, for a half hour, has he decided not to answer the question? Will Liberals support our amendment at report stage to return cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada Act, yes or no?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation800972480097258009726François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1230)[English]Mr. Speaker, the member knows how much I like him and, I will say in front of everyone in this House, his contributions. I may have had half an hour, but he had 20 hours of work at the committee to put forward his amendment. During these 20 hours, not one but 11 significant amendments were adopted by everyone. This was the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives. They had 20 hours in committee to do that, and they came and said they agreed this was the best way forward for this bill.I welcome his contribution. I thank him for what he does in making sure he improves legislation. However, after 20 hours, someone at home would think that they must have done the work they needed to do. What we are saying today is we need to vote. That is what the motion is about today.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80097278009728RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsRickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. Margarets//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/109922RickPerkinsRick-PerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerkinsRick_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionMr. Rick Perkins: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the question. Yes or no, will he vote to return cabinet decision-making to the Investment Canada process? Why does he think he is so important he is allowed to ignore his colleagues in that role in making those decisions?C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009729François-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—ChamplainFrançois-PhilippeChampagneHon.Saint-Maurice—Champlain//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88633François-PhilippeChampagneHon.François-Philippe-ChampagneSaint-Maurice—ChamplainLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/ChampagneFrancoisPhilippe_Lib.jpgGovernment OrdersNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. François-Philippe Champagne: (1235)[English]Mr. Speaker, yes or no, will my colleague vote for the motion? That is the real question, because they had 20 hours of debate. The good people in his riding are wondering. If he agrees, how will he vote? Like I said, there is a time for debate and there is time for action. The time for action has come now. This is about national security. This in the interest of Canadians. I want every member of this House to support the motion.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsMotionsNational securityReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009730RickPerkinsSouth Shore—St. MargaretsChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgGovernment OrdersInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1320)[English]Motion agreed toI declare the motion carried.I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActDecisions of the HouseDivision No. 440Extension of debateForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsGovernment ordersMotionsNational securityRecorded divisionsReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation8009736Chrisd'EntremontWest NovaRichardCanningsSouth Okanagan—West Kootenay//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88299SeamusO'ReganHon.Seamus-O-ReganSt. John's South—Mount PearlLiberal CaucusNewfoundland and Labrador//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/OReganSeamus_Lib.jpgRoutine ProceedingsNational Security Review of Investments Modernization Act [Bill C-34—Notice of Time Allocation Motion]InterventionHon. Seamus O'Regan (Minister of Labour and Seniors, Lib.): (1315)[English]Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act.Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the respective stages of the said bill.C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada ActForeign investments in CanadaGovernment billsNational securityNotice of motionReport stageThird reading and adoptionTime allocation80029468002947SeamusO'ReganHon.St. John's South—Mount PearlMartinChampouxDrummond//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow(1745)[English]Third reading moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in the House today and speak again to my private member's bill, Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act. I would like to thank all the members of the agriculture and agri-food committee who participated in the study of this bill and worked with our witnesses and stakeholders to try to bring this forward. I do want to take a moment to thank all of the stakeholders who have supported this bill from the beginning: the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Cattle Association, the Canadian Meat Council, the Canadian Pork Council, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Egg Farmers of Canada, Turkey Farmers of Canada, the National Cattle Feeders' Association, Alberta Farm Animal Care and Canada's Accredited Zoos and Aquariums.During the committee discussion, we did have one amendment to this legislation, which included removing the words “knowing that or being reckless as to”. This is some clarification for my colleagues in the Liberal Party and NDP and I do appreciate their participation. The second amendment was to lower some of the penalties as part of this for unlawful trespassers, but one amendment to remove penalties for groups and organizations that encourage this unlawful behaviour was not successful. It is not surprising that animal activist groups wanted these penalties removed from this legislation. These groups encourage this unlawful behaviour, which is a fundraising mechanism for them. For example, in the United States alone last year, these groups raised more than $800 million and organized more than 500 attacks on farms across the United States. We do not have specific statistics in terms of fundraising and numbers in Canada, but we do know that Canada ranks seventh in the world in the number of attacks on farms by animal activist groups.These producers and farm families are subjected to vandalism, cyber-attacks, tampering on farm and arson, but, most important, relentless intimidation and harassment. This takes its toll on farm families across Canada. It jeopardizes the biosecurity on farms and certainly the health and welfare of our livestock. Most important, we heard at committee that these illegal intrusions have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of our farm families. We had a hog farmer from B.C., Mr. Binnendyk. His family went through having 200 protesters on his family farm. I want to quote Mr. Binnendyk's comments at committee. He said:[I]t affected us as a family,...for a number of years it was basically like you were...being watched. We used to be proud to be hog producers. Now we don't tell anyone. The perception that people have about us has all been spread by lies and stuff that are not true. It takes the fun out of what you do.There aren't many farmers left, especially in B.C. There used to be 300 [hog] producers in the nineties. I do believe there are now [only] four or five producers left. It's a dwindling...industry, [to be] sure.We also had Megz Reynolds, who is the executive director of The Do More Agriculture Foundation, which is an important advocacy group for mental health on farms. I want to quote some comments from Ms. Reynolds as well, from committee. She said:[These] people showing up and trespassing [and protesting] are not whistle-blowers. They don't necessarily understand what that farmer needs [or what they] do to take care of that animal and what that animal means to that farmer. I've talked to farmers, men, across Canada, and they tear up when they talk about having to cull a full barn in response to [a] disease....I talked to a producer in Saskatchewan, and she does not feel safe to send her children out to fix fences by themselves because of the perceived risk from protesters. These are actual things happening on farms today, where in rural Canada our farm families do not feel safe on the land that they have nurtured and cared for, in many cases for generations.I cannot be more crystal clear about this point in this legislation: This bill would not hinder in any way an individual's right to protest on public property. This bill would not prevent whistle-blowers from coming forward when they see standards of care not being met. In fact, whistle-blowers would be protected under this proposed legislation because they would be lawfully allowed to be on the premise with the animals. (1750)Canadian farmers and ranchers have a moral and legal obligation to look after their animals. Farmers operate in a highly regulated system, and the environment and strict codes of conduct must be followed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of farm animals.It was also highlighted at committee in testimony that people are showing up on farms who are not whistle-blowers. Activists are not whistle-blowers. True whistle-blowers are family members, employees, veterinarians and professionals like CFIA inspectors who understand the nuances of animal husbandry. They understand the livestock industry. They know what they are looking for if standards are not being met.Members from all parties recounted situations in their ridings where they saw these activities happening and the impact that it had on our farmers and constituents. What worried me, from some of the testimony at committee, is how brazen some of these activists have become. They are putting not only farmers and farm animals at risk, but also the public. We saw an animal rights group in Montreal hang three dead hog carcasses from an overpass. The consequences of that could have been devastating.We heard from a farmer in Ontario who was attacked by ransomware. His farm and his operation were held hostage unless he admitted publicly that he was mistreating his animals, which we know was utterly false. Mr. Binnendyk said there used to be 300 hog farmers in B.C., and now there is only a handful. The activist campaigns will work to end animal agriculture if there is not a strong deterrent in place.Opponents of this bill will say there is no proof of animal activism spreading disease. There are two problems with that argument. First, they are missing the whole point of our current situation. It is short-sighted to have an argument that justifies unlawful behaviour that could lead to unimaginable consequences on a farm. Second, it is completely false. We had one incident in Quebec with an outbreak of rotavirus, a disease not seen in almost 40 years, after trespassers were on a hog farm there. Trespassers also went on a mink farm in Ontario, which spread distemper throughout the community, again as a result of trespassing.Another argument is that some provinces have trespassing and biosecurity laws in place. That is true, but only Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Manitoba and P.E.I. That means the vast majority of provinces and territories do not have this type of legislation in place. I think it is very important that we show leadership from a national perspective, a federal government perspective, that says we understand the importance of biosecurity on farms, the importance of food security and the fact that public protests have a place but that place is not private property.Most importantly, what this bill talks about is ensuring that biosecurity protocols on farm are adhered to and protect our food security from diseases like the avian flu, African swine fever, and foot and mouth disease, which pose very real threats to Canadian agriculture. In 2014, the Fraser Valley had 10 farms with avian flu outbreaks, and almost 200,000 animals had to be euthanized. The worst outbreak was in 2004, when 17 million birds had to be euthanized. That outbreak eventually cost the industry about $300 million in losses. In the aftermath, a number of changes occurred to ensure that biosecurity protocols were more strict and were adhered to.In the most recent outbreak of avian flu, which we had this past year, 7.6 million birds had to be euthanized. The provinces of B.C., Alberta, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan were the hardest hit. Farmers are still trying to recover from this outbreak, replacing flocks, cleaning out barns and getting their operations back up.Cammy Lockwood, the owner-operator of Lockwood Farms on Vancouver Island, who, ironically, has free-range chickens and sells eco eggs, talked about the importance of this legislation for protecting their farms from trespassers who very well could be bringing the avian flu virus onto their farms. They have very strict protocols.Many of us as parliamentarians have visited farms in our ridings or neighbouring ridings and understand that many times we have to wear booties, hairnets and haz-mat suits and have to clean our shoes before and after leaving farms. When we travel, we are asked if we have visited a farm in the last two weeks. That is important for not spreading viruses, but that is how easy it is to spread them and it cannot be overlooked.(1755)One example is African swine fever, which thankfully we have not had in Canada. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of if, but likely a matter of when it will come to Canada. When the first case of African swine fever occurred in China in 2018, it spread to every single province in that country in less than a year. It has since spread to the Asia-Pacific, central Asia and eastern Europe and has now been detected in the Dominican Republic. Although it is not a food risk, 100% of animals that come down with African swine fever have to be put down. If an outbreak were to happen in Canada, it would be absolutely devastating. Our Canadian pork industry has a $24-billion economic footprint in Canada. It employs more than 45,000 people, and almost 70% of our production, which is worth $4.25 billion, is exported to markets around the world.Unfortunately, many of us in Canada understand and still feel the ramifications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSC, which happened more than 20 years ago. It cost our cattle industry and was very impactful in my riding of Foothills. I know it was much the same for my Alberta colleagues. It cost us almost $10 billion. In western Canada we lost 3,000 ranches. The vast majority of those ranches have never come back. Our animal herd in Canada is significantly lower 25 years later. It shows us the very real consequences of an animal-borne disease and what it can do to our industries across Canada. This is very real. It can happen. We do not want it to happen again.If there are any lessons we can take, I look back to what happened over only the last couple of years with COVID. I think if any of us had a chance to go back in time, we would have done things differently. We would have been much better prepared to ensure we had the resources in place to protect Canada. We cannot make that same mistake. Members can imagine the consequences if we had an animal-borne virus pandemic in Canada with any of these types of diseases. That is why strengthening the biosecurity of our farms is so critical, which is what this legislation is focused on doing. Certainly, these groups are raising money off of these endeavours and threatening the mental health of our farmers. Most importantly, I hope my colleagues in the House will support protecting the biosecurity of farms and our food security here in Canada and around the world. I look forward to their questions.Animal diseasesAnimal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Dead animal disposalEconomic impactFarming and farmersMental healthPenaltiesPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionTrespassing7987913798791479879157987916798791779879187987919798792079879217987922798792379879247987925798792679879277987928798792979879307987931798793279879337987934798793579879367987937798793879879397987940798794179879427987943JohnBarlowFoothillsLloydLongfieldGuelph//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88761LloydLongfieldLloyd-LongfieldGuelphLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LongfieldLloyd_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.): (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, I remember being on the agriculture committee with the hon. member across the way for Foothills when we looked at the safe handling and transportation of animals, which was another issue where protections had to be put in place. Could the hon. member comment on how this is not much different than protections in the manufacturing industry, where people cannot just wander into manufacturing plants? There are safety protocols that apply to other industries, and this is another example of protecting not only the industry, but also the animals within that industry.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Private Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety79879447987945JohnBarlowFoothillsJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow: (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, I certainly have a lot of respect for the hon. member. I enjoyed our time on the agriculture committee together.He is exactly right. This would put the agriculture industry in line with most other industries in Canada. People cannot simply walk onto a dangerous auto assembly line or into a manufacturing plant. People cannot just walk into a dangerous situation without the proper training, supervision and attire. This is exactly what we are trying to do with this. Unfortunately, there seems to be this mentality out there that people should be able to walk onto farms, protest on farms or sit on farms and take videos and pictures. They really do not understand, because of the misinformation and misappropriation of what agriculture is, which makes this so frustrating, is that it is doing much more harm than they had intended. Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Private Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionWorkplace health and safety798794679879477987948LloydLongfieldGuelphYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1800)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Foothills for his bill and his speech.One of the primary objections to this bill in committee was that it acts as a sort of gag by preventing whistle-blowing when there is mistreatment and that there are not necessarily other ways to blow the whistle. In fact, there are. For example, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deals with complaints. Complaints can be filed with the department, which will send an inspector. If anything problematic comes up, the department will know it. I have a question for the member. Could he tell us what is being done in his province and speak to this objection to reassure people?Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption798794979879507987951JohnBarlowFoothillsJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow: (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a frustrating argument that this is an ag-gag law. The wording of the amendment would protect whistle-blowers or anyone who is there lawfully and with supervision, so to say this is an ag-gag law is completely wrong.Let us back up a little on what the goals are of these so-called whistle-blowers. I have a quote from PETA, which says, “Ending speciesism is our ultimate goal. One strategy to end speciesism would be to end the use of animals as food.” PETA also says, “I consider all [animal]-eating cannibalism.” The Humane Society said, “I can assure you that when we go to Mars, it will be a vegan planet.” To say that these protesters are coming on farm just to highlight the mistreatment of animals is completely misleading. Their one and only goal is to end animal agriculture and raise a lot of money in the process. This is not about whistle-blowing; this is about ending a critical industry in Canada.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79879527987953YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the intent of this bill is a noble one, but I believe that it falters in its execution. During the committee stage of the bill, we had a chance to ask questions of the CFIA senior legal counsel, Mr. Joseph Melaschenko. On two occasions, he identified that the phrase “with lawful authority or excuse” makes this a trespass bill. At the committee, I tried to make this about biosecurity so it would be applicable to everyone equally, given that we have a litany of evidence that many outbreaks on farms have been caused by people who were there with lawful authority or excuse.Why does my hon. colleague not feel that having biosecurity measures apply to everyone equally is the right way to go? If we are serious about clamping down on disease outbreaks on farms, everyone needs to be responsible, including the people who are employees on farms.Animal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)FarmsPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79879547987955JohnBarlowFoothillsJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow: (1800)[English]Mr. Speaker, I do have a lot of respect for my colleague, whom I work with quite closely on the agriculture committee, and we will have to agree to disagree on the implications and the wording of the bill. I would argue that why we wanted to maintain that language is that we had support from just about every other stakeholder group other than the animal activists, who wanted that language taken out.The reason we have that language in the amendment is to protect those very people he is talking about: employees, farm family members, veterinarians and CFIA inspectors, people who are there with lawful authority. If they see something that is not up to standard, then they have the obligation to report it and make sure those things are addressed. Allowing protesters who have very different goals in mind to come on farms to protest puts our animal health and the biosecurity of our farms at risk, and we cannot do that.Animal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)FarmsPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79879567987957AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordBlaineCalkinsRed Deer—Lacombe//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/35897BlaineCalkinsBlaine-CalkinsRed Deer—LacombeConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CalkinsBlaine_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Blaine Calkins (Red Deer—Lacombe, CPC): (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Foothills for bringing forward this piece of legislation. He touched on virtually everything that has happened in my life growing up on a farm in Alberta. We lost the cattle component of our farm because of BSE, which resulted in my family's having to change what we did. We moved to a different type of agriculture, which actually, in some strange way, invited the same activists. I remember my father calling me and playing a recording for me on the phone, in which an animal activist actually said, “If the public knew what kind of farming you were doing, do you think your son would get re-elected as a member of Parliament?”, thereby actually trying to intimidate me into intimidating my father into stopping farming.Can my colleague from Foothills speak to how drastic, how dramatic and how intimidating these folks are? I know they stop by the farms, stay on the highway and take pictures. They intimidate, they block, they cut gates and they let animals out. They do all kinds of atrocious things that are actually very detrimental and unsafe not only for the public but also for the farm and the farm animals.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)IntimidationMilitants and activistsPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79879587987959JohnBarlowFoothillsJohnBarlowFoothills//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/86261JohnBarlowJohn-BarlowFoothillsConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BarlowJohn_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. John Barlow: (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, I doubt any of us can intimidate our fathers into do anything they do not want to do. I am still thankful that the father voice still kind of works a little.The member is exactly right. We heard those stories from farmers, which were heartbreaking. In my speech, I spoke of Mr. Binnendyk, who does not tell anybody he is a farmer anymore, whereas my generation and generations before us were very proud of what we did. Now that the next generation is ashamed of what they do because of that relentless intimidation and harassment, it is imperative for us as parliamentarians to show Canadian agriculture, our farm families, that we will be there for them and will stand up for them to ensure that this lifestyle is something we want to see for generations to come.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)IntimidationMilitants and activistsPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79879607987961BlaineCalkinsRed Deer—LacombeFrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—Russell//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88756FrancisDrouinFrancis-DrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellLiberal CaucusOntario//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DrouinFrancis_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): (1805)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to bill C-275 today, but I would first like to congratulate the member for Foothills for his work in advancing the bill.Bill C-275 would amend the Health of Animals Act to add a new offence to protect farmers and the biosecurity of animals on their farms from those who enter their property unlawfully. The objective of the bill is laudable, as it is meant to deter individuals or groups who choose to illegally enter a farm and potentially cause detrimental impacts to Canadian farmers and their animals.The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had an opportunity to study Bill C-275; during this time, we heard from several witnesses who brought various perspectives forward. What was abundantly clear from witnesses' testimony is that protecting the health and safety of animals is of the utmost importance to farmers and producers. As we noted during the study of the bill, on-farm animal biosecurity protocols are a key element supporting this objective, which is why the majority of committee members voted in support of Bill C-275 passing with amendments. In simple terms, animal biosecurity consists of the practices and principles that protect animals from the introduction and spread of infectious diseases. In Canada, animal biosecurity is an area of shared responsibility. It involves federal, provincial and territorial governments, industry associations and farmers. All these partners work together to strengthen animal biosecurity. Over the years, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has collaborated with industry, academic institutions and provinces and territories to develop voluntary national biosecurity standards for various sectors, including poultry, cattle and dairy. These standards are available on the CFIA's website. Farmers can tailor them to meet their specific operational needs and help protect the animals on their farms. During the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's study of Bill C-275, we learned that a number of industry-led programs incorporate some elements of these national biosecurity standards in their on-farm programs. We have been informed that farmers implement these standards and can tailor biosecurity protocols to meet the unique circumstances of their farm operation. Witnesses spoke to the specific protocols their industry members require on their farms, including showering in and out of barns, washing their hands and signing logbooks, to name a few. Protocols are often unique to the farm and tailored to the specific needs of the farmers and circumstances. It was broadly recognized that these protocols are essential. The risk of an animal disease outbreak is real and can be devastating, as was explained by the member for Foothills. That is why the government has continued to fund efforts to strengthen animal biosecurity in Canada. For example, in 2022, the government allocated $1.5 million to the poultry biosecurity preparedness initiative in Ontario. This funding is directed toward non-supply-managed poultry operations with 300 birds or more. It provides money for these farmers to strengthen their on-farm biosecurity protocols used to reduce the spread of avian flu, such as adding security gates and signage to control entry, purchasing cleaning and disinfecting equipment for their premises and enhancing practices to mitigate interactions between wild and farm birds. In sum, animal biosecurity is crucial for the agricultural sector. Biosecurity protocols help minimize disease risk to Canadian farms and their livestock, reduce the threat of disease to both animals and Canadians, and maintain market access and international trade. I have heard multiple testimonies on Bill C-275, and the difference between a regular business and a farm business is that families live on farms. When protesters or unwanted visitors show up on farms, it is completely different. None of us here in the House are saying that people should not protest, but if a person has an issue with animal abuse, there are resources they can use. For instance, they can call the SPCA in Ontario or OMAFRA to make a complaint. These organizations have the proper resources to show up on a farm, as well as the proper knowledge. Not everybody knows how to raise livestock in Canada. Videos from certain groups that I have seen online clearly show that they have no clue or understanding of how to raise animals on farms. (1810)I can assure everyone that it is in the farmers' interests to raise their animals in a proper way. Why? Because if animals are mistreated they will not produce. It is the same thing with dairy farmers; it is the same thing with poultry farmers. All of us in this House want to ensure that animals are properly raised, but we must ensure that we use the resources that we have available at our disposal, that is, to call the SPCA and OMAFRA. I will not comment on the other provinces. I am familiar with Ontario.There are proper resources that can be called. I would encourage anyone who is worried about animal security or animal welfare to call the proper local authorities to ensure they can do the proper inspections on those farms.[Translation]Because of the complex nature of agriculture in Canada, biosecurity is a collaborative effort. Multiple stakeholders are involved in implementing biosecurity. It requires commitments from all levels of government, industry and individuals. It is very clear that this government and every player in biosecurity share the same objective, which is to protect the health and safety of animals in Canada.At the federal level, the Health of Animals Act establishes a legislative framework to prevent and control diseases that can affect animals. The federal government has also worked with the provinces, territories and industry associations to help fund and support the development of biosecurity standards for various products.In the industry, many associations promote biosecurity through farm programs specific to their products.When it comes to farm operations, owners and farmers can take steps to ensure the welfare of their animals. Implementing preventive measures, including biosecurity protocols, is a long-standing and effective practice on Canadian farms to keep animals healthy.Implementing these biosecurity protocols, such as creating biosecurity zones on farms and establishing biosecurity protocols for entry into such zones, allows us to protect animals from the spread of animal diseases. Canadian and Quebec farmers work tirelessly to ensure the safety of their farms and animals.Private individuals are illegally trespassing on farms, and this worries farmers. In addition, it raises concerns for the safety and health of their animals. Bill C‑275 offers farmers an extra layer of protection to deter individuals from illegally trespassing in barns and pastures and potentially endangering animals.Once again, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and all the parliamentarians who participated in the study of the bill. In my riding, I would like to thank the farmers who ensure that biosecurity measures are respected every day. For example, in the poultry sector, a biosecurity issue such as an outbreak of avian flu at one farm could result in depopulation, where all the animals would be killed. We know that farmers want to protect their animals.Once again, I would like to congratulate the member for Foothills for moving forward and introducing Bill C‑275, which our government is proud to support.Animal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Farming and farmersFarmsPoultryPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoptionTrespassing798796279879637987964798796579879667987967798796879879697987970798797179879727987973798797479879757987976798797779879787987979JohnBarlowFoothillsAlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—Langford//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89269AlistairMacGregorAlistair-MacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordNew Democratic Party CaucusBritish Columbia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/MacGregorAllistair_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP): (1815)[English]Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to give some thoughts on Bill C-275, which was introduced by my colleague on the agricultural committee, the member for Foothills.I was happy to support this bill at second reading, but that support was always conditional on certain amendments being made at committee, just as we did in the previous Parliament, the 43rd Parliament, on the previous version of this bill, which was Bill C-205. Unfortunately, the majority of committee members did not support the amendments that were conditional for my support, and I find myself speaking in the House today saying that I can no longer support Bill C-275.I want to talk about the importance of biosecurity measures because they are incredibly important to Canadian farms and farms all around the world. At the federal level, Canada’s legislative framework for dealing with issues with respect to animal disease and biosecurity rests primarily under the Health of Animals Act and its regulations.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for investigating and responding to reported incidents of a reportable animal disease. We know that many diseases pose a serious risk to farm animals, including things such as African swine fever, foot and mouth disease, and avian influenza. Biosecurity is about preventing the movement of disease-causing agents on to and off of agricultural operations. The three key principles of effective biosecurity are isolation, traffic control and sanitation.At committee, we had a variety of witnesses, and many of those witnesses provided our committee with briefs. One of the organizations was Animal Justice. It provided a report from 2021 that looked at the disease outbreaks and biosecurity failures on Canadian farms. It was around the same time Bill C-205 was being debated in the previous Parliament.I know a lot of people have differing opinions on animal justice, but the report was based on factual data, and that data listed hundreds of incidents of failures of biosecurity, which were all caused by authorized personnel associated with the afflicted farms. That means people who were authorized to be on the farm were the ones responsible for the disease outbreak.Biosecurity is a serious thing. It can happen to any farm, and it can happen to anyone, either through no fault of their own or through being at fault. If they are not following proper biosecurity measures, the results can be quite devastating.I also want to take some time to talk about the differences between federal and provincial jurisdiction when it comes to enacting laws because this is a key point behind my opposition to Bill C-275. We know the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law power. That is why acts, such as the Health of Animals Act, exist.We know that, to be considered a valid exercise of criminal law power, federal legislation has to have a valid criminal law purpose, which can include measures such as health; be connected to a prohibition; and be backed by a penalty for violations. This bill, however, gets out of the federal lane and enters into provincial jurisdiction over trespass law. We know that the provinces of Canada have exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and that is definitely considered to be the domain under which they enact their anti-trespass laws. I think Bill C-275 is unfortunately taking us into provincial jurisdiction, and that is a serious point that we have to pay attention to.This is backed up by evidence that we heard from none other than the senior legal counsel for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Mr. Joseph Melaschenko. On two occasions, both in questioning from the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill and from myself, he confirmed that the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” in Bill C-275 made this primarily a piece of legislation about trespass. He confirmed that on the record on two separate occasions.(1820)What are we to take from that? If the senior legal counsel of the federal agency responsible for the Health of Animals Act is telling our committee that Bill C-275 is veering into trespass territory, why should we as a committee be ignoring it and instead returning a bill to the House with that problematic phrase in it?That is the crux of the problem. That phrase is making the bill veer into that territory. I tried my best at committee to amend the bill. My amendment sought to remove the phrase “without lawful authority or excuse” so that the purported biosecurity measures of Bill C-275 would apply to everyone equally. After all, if we are in fact serious about dealing with biosecurity breaches, knowing we have a litany of evidence detailing just how many on-farm failures there have been from people who are authorized to be there, we should make a biosecurity piece of legislation apply to everyone equally, including on-farm employees. Unfortunately, that amendment failed.I want to commend another member of the committee, the new member for Winnipeg South Centre, who tried with his own amendment to instead insert the phrase “applicable biosecurity measures” so that basically the bill would have applied to everyone who had taken the applicable biosecurity measures. I think that was a reasonable amendment. Again, we have measures in place that the industry has developed. They are voluntary measures, but they are developed with the CFIA, and I think it is quite reasonable that if we are going to make a substantive amendment to the Health of Animals Act, we should make reference to applicable biosecurity measures. Unfortunately, a majority of committee members did not see eye to eye with me or the member for Winnipeg South Centre, and we have the version of the bill we are dealing with today in the House.I also believe that clause 2 of the bill is redundant and completely unnecessary given that the Health of Animals Act already has offences and punishment. I have been in this place a long time, and unfortunately our federal statutes are littered with examples of redundant and unnecessary language in the law. One only needs to look at the Criminal Code of Canada to see that in action. I believe that with offences and punishment already listed in the parent act, having clause 2 in Bill C-275 is unnecessary, and it is yet another reason I can no longer support it.I want to make one thing very clear to all who are listening to this debate: I will never condone unauthorized trespass on private property that puts farmers and their families at risk. I say that not only as the NDP's critic for agriculture and agri-food, but as the member of Parliament for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, an area that has a long and storied history in farming.Unfortunately, I have arrived at this place with Bill C-275 because I believe it is veering out of its federal laneway and into provincial jurisdiction. I believe, in other words, that it is a trespass bill masquerading as a biosecurity bill. Proper biosecurity measures need to apply to everyone equally. If a farm does not follow measures and is responsible for a disease outbreak that spreads to other farms, then it is that farmer who has done a real disservice to his or her neighbours. We need to work to make sure those measures are applicable to everyone.If people are concerned with the inadequacy of current trespass law in Canada, then I invite them to pressure their provincial representatives, because that is where this debate belongs. If members of this House feel that trespass laws are not adequate, then it is the provincial legislatures of Canada that need to take that issue up on behalf of their constituents.It is very difficult to find the correct balance between all of these issues, and I really wish I could have come to a place where I was supporting Bill C-275. Unfortunately and with regret, I do not feel that Bill C-275 would achieve that balance, and I will find myself voting against it.Animal diseasesAnimal healthBarlow, JohnBiosafetyC-205, An Act to amend the Health of Animals ActC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)FarmsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsPrivate Members' BillsProvincial jurisdictionThird reading and adoptionTrespassing798798079879817987982798798379879847987985798798679879877987988798798979879907987991798799279879937987994798799579879967987997FrancisDrouinGlengarry—Prescott—RussellYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1825)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this bill. I have to say I was a little surprised to hear my friend, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, say that he protects provincial areas of jurisdiction. What an odd thing to say at this juncture. We could talk about that at length.I would like to go have a beer with him to hear more about all the obstacles he sees to health care with respect to these systems. I would like him to tell me his definition of areas under provincial jurisdiction when he talks to us here in Parliament about imposing conditions on seniors' care homes in the provinces before sending transfers. I actually object quite strenuously to being told that this evening. I hope the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is listening to what I am saying.I will not hold it against him, though. I will let it slide, but I want to set the record straight. This is not about encroaching on areas under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. I am an elected member of the Bloc Québécois, as I believe everyone here knows. We are always talking about that. I noticed a member across the way with a charming smile that I will take as a sign that he knows what I am talking about. I doubt anyone here is as keen to protect Quebec's jurisdiction as I am. We have had that discussion. At the same time, I must admit that my colleague is not coming out of nowhere on that because trespassing does in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. There are already laws in that regard. The problem is that often those laws are inadequate. They force people into extremely complicated complaints processes that require showing evidence of a direct link between the disease outbreak and the trespassing. I will give the example of the Porgreg hog farm in Saint‑Hyacinthe, where there was a rotavirus outbreak after people illegally trespassed there. The owners must scientifically prove that the outbreak happened because of the trespassing. That is very difficult to do.What we can do at the federal level is amend the Health of Animals Act, which falls under federal jurisdiction. Members can rest assured that I would not interfere in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. That is clear. I am still trying not to laugh after being told that by my NDP colleague. We witness all sorts of things in the House. I cannot help laughing.What we are doing is legislating on animal welfare. This law will reinforce the message. It says that, if a person enters a livestock facility without authorization and jeopardizes its biosecurity, then they will have to pay a hefty fine.My NDP colleague is criticizing us for not saying that everyone would be subject to this fine. We are talking about a $25,000 fine. Do we seriously want to tell people who work on a farm, feed the pigs or milk the cows that if, three weeks or a month from now, they make a mistake and an accident happens, not only will they lose their job and lose a lot of money for their employer, or themselves if they are farmers, but they will also be fined $25,000? That is ridiculous. Employees cannot be targeted by this bill.The purpose of the law is to prevent trespassing, which, I might add, is criminal assault. Nobody is talking about passing a law for the sake of it. The issue here is people entering someone's property and settling in. I already gave an example in the previous Parliament, because, unfortunately, in the House, we often have to restart what has already been done. This bill is in its second iteration. I have already suggested imagining coming home and finding eight people sitting in the living room. Nobody is allowed to shove them out, because physically touching them is considered physical assault. Assault charges could be laid, even if these people are in the living room. The police must be called to ask them to leave.(1830)It may take several hours. It is not known what the individual did while there. Maybe the individual went to sabotage the bathroom. I am talking about sabotage because, at the Porgreg pig farm, someone put water in the diesel tank. Without video surveillance, it is difficult to prove that it was the intruder who put water in the diesel tank. I referenced the laws of Quebec. The laws of Quebec exist, for private property, but we are acting here on another level, that of biosecurity. The committee did not take its work lightly. The committee very diligently made sure that we addressed biosecurity, which we want to protect. The member for Foothills is the sponsor of this important bill and I thank him again for introducing it. I believe it was he who mentioned, among other things, African swine fever, which is circulating in the world today. I am not trying to scare people even though it is Halloween today, but let us call things by their rightful name. If anyone can go onto a farm at any time without following protocols, that will certainly cause problems. Studies done by organizations show that most biosecurity incidents are caused by someone who works on site. Accidents do happen, but does the fact that accidents happen justify letting people assault others with impunity? Honestly, I do not see this as a valid argument. The goal is to minimize risk and protect farmers. Can we start to respect the people who feed us in this country? Yesterday, produce growers spoke out, asking for emergency support programs so their businesses will not go under, but governments are not responding.In this case, at least, the issue is being addressed. I applaud that.I want to talk about safety measures. Farmers must first wash and change their boots. Poultry farmers have different boots for each hen house. Most of the time, they take a shower afterwards. Farmers have specific clothing for the barn. There are a lot of rules to follow, and with good reason. Avian flu can be transmitted by wild bird droppings in the field that the farmer has stepped in without noticing. It could come from the tire of another vehicle that has driven through. It only takes one particle that is nearly invisible to the naked eye to transmit these dreadful viruses. This is a serious subject.We are talking about respecting the people who feed us, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them. They work hard every day, with little income, but they are under a lot of stress trying to stay in business for the long term. There is also the lack of respect and support they get from their government. What we are talking about today is important.This bill does not conflict Quebec's laws. Animal health is a separate area. This reinforces the message. Of course, it is already prohibited by certain laws in some provinces that are stricter than others. Here, however, it is prohibited everywhere.I understand that my time is almost up. I was shocked to hear someone from the NDP tell me to respect provincial jurisdictions. I will remember what he said, and the NDP can rest assured that I will remember it, keep the video and bring it up again in the coming months when he does the same thing again. When that happens, I will ask him what he is doing.For now, let us vote in favour of Bill C-275. Let us show some respect for farmers and, above all, let us protect them. Can we, as a government, tell people that we are going to do everything we can to ensure that they will not be assaulted on their property or when they are working to feed us all?Animal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Farming and farmersFarmsFederal-provincial-territorial relationsPenaltiesPrivate Members' BillsProvincial jurisdictionThird reading and adoptionTrespassing79879987987999798800079880017988002798800379880047988005798800679880077988008798800979880107988011798801279880137988014798801579880167988017AlistairMacGregorCowichan—Malahat—LangfordRichardLehouxBeauce//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104653RichardLehouxRichard-LehouxBeauceConservative CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LehouxRichard_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionMr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC): (1835)[Translation]Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today in support of Bill C-275, an act to amend the Health of Animals Act regarding biosecurity on farms, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Foothills, under Private Members' Business.Like my friend and colleague from Foothills, I love and deeply respect the agriculture and agri-food industry. As a dairy farmer and purebred breeder for over 40 years, I have always been a strong supporter of the agricultural industry, and I recognize the importance of this bill.This bill proposes essential amendments to the current Health of Animals Act, which in my opinion does not go far enough in protecting biosecurity on our farms or in protecting our family farms from unwelcome intruders on private property. It is important to note that the purpose of the bill is not to limit a person's ability to protest peacefully, but to add guidelines and rules that individuals must follow when it comes to animal welfare and cross-contamination, which can have disastrous consequences for the health of an animal or even a herd.As hon. members know, animal rights activists have organized many protests on private property, on farms and at processing plants. Of course, these protests are not limited to certain segments of the animal agriculture sector or certain parts of the country. It is a broader issue. Bill C‑275 simply proposes to double the fines for trespassing on a farm. This will protect biosecurity on the farm, as well as the safety and mental health of farm families. When activists break into farm properties and facilities, they do not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. First and foremost, they endanger the safety of farm animals, as well as of farmers and workers.I know that my colleagues in the House will agree with me when I say that agricultural producers, livestock farmers and processors care deeply about food safety and animal health. They will also agree that mental health and anxiety among farmers are reaching crisis levels, especially since the pandemic.Protecting Canada's food supply is vital. Viruses such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE, foot-and-mouth disease, avian influenza and African swine fever pose a very real threat to Canadian agriculture. These biosecurity threats can decimate livestock herds and devastate our industry and economy.An epidemic in Canada would devastate our farms, and export markets would disappear overnight, crippling the pork industry as well as many other industries in the chain. A single case of BSE in the early 2000s automatically shut down all Canadian export markets.I would like to share with my colleagues my personal experience as a purebred breeder exporting to some 30 countries in the 2000s. All Canadian exports came to a halt overnight, only resuming several years later, very gradually. When it comes to the costs of non-compliance with biosecurity measures, I can confirm that they are very high.The vast majority of people who go to farms respect these biosecurity measures. Enhancing biosecurity measures as they relate to trespassers is a move that is supported by farmers and ranchers, as well as food processors and the many associations that my colleague from Foothills named earlier. Even the former agriculture minister spoke about the unacceptable actions of extremist groups who protest against dairy farms and the fact that this was a major concern of his department.Recently, a growing number of individuals have been breaking into farms and food processing centres. This could lead to major biosecurity problems for the animals and the people who work with them.(1840)I would like to tell the House of Commons about some testimony we heard at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food from a British Columbia hog farmer, Ray Binnendyk, who had to deal with a massive demonstration on and off his property.He and his family woke up one morning to find several protesters in and around his hog barn. These were not isolated individuals; they were brought onto his private property by bus for the sole purpose of disrupting his family's farming activities. Cameras have also been installed inside his hog barn on several occasions.The case I just mentioned was truly catastrophic. This was his and his family's livelihood. The fact that he was the victim of such an intrusion, that his private property was invaded, is appalling. We can no longer allow Canadian farmers to be intimidated. We also cannot afford to suffer from food insecurity in the current climate because of mental health concerns.Clearly, the agricultural industry fully supports these important changes to the legislation. We, the Conservative Party of Canada, hope to have the support of all parties to pass Bill C‑275 as soon as possible.In conclusion, Bill C‑275 will defend biosecurity on farms and in food processing centres. Protecting animals and workers must always be top of mind when it comes to farms and food processing centres.I hope that all members of the House understand the importance of this bill and will support it when the time comes to vote on it here. This bill is in no way partisan. It is common sense. We must do everything we can to protect Canada's agri-food sector. As members have heard in previous speeches and in my intervention, protecting the national food supply is extremely important.It is imperative that the federal government step in to ensure compliance with and regulation of these issues. We must put guidelines in place so the provinces can review them. Then, we must work with all stakeholders to do everything we can to better protect farmers.Animal diseasesAnimal healthBiosafetyC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Farming and farmersFarmsMental healthPenaltiesPrivate Members' BillsProtestsThird reading and adoptionTrespassing7988018798801979880207988021798802279880237988024798802579880267988027798802879880297988030798803179880327988033798803479880357988036YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéChrisd'EntremontWest Nova//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/49344Chrisd'EntremontChris-d-EntremontWest NovaConservative CaucusNova Scotia//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/DentremontChris_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessHealth of Animals ActInterventionThe Deputy Speaker: (1845)[Translation]The member will have two minutes to finish his speech the next time this matter is before the House.[English]The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.Animal healthC-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)Dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order PaperPrivate Members' BillsThird reading and adoption79880377988038RichardLehouxBeauceKyleSeebackDufferin—Caledon//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon(1750)[Translation]Third readingmoved that the bill be read the third time and passed.He said: Madam Speaker, I salute all my colleagues, and especially my colleague from Winnipeg North.The purpose of this bill, which I introduced on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, is to protect whistle-blowers, public servants who disclose wrongdoing. The reason I introduced this bill stems from my first few weeks and months as a member of Parliament, when whistle-blowers, public servants who had witnessed wrongdoing in departments and agencies, began calling my office and asking for my help. I would tell these folks to use the usual means to try and protect themselves as whistle-blowers. I quickly realized that the Canadian whistle-blower protection regime was completely flawed.At one point, I asked myself this question: Am I alone in thinking that there is no way for a whistle-blower in Canada to disclose wrongdoing without falling into a hole before reaching the end of the process? Over time, I realized that many people agreed with my diagnosis. First of all, the International Bar Association ranked Canada's whistle-blower protection regime at the very bottom of the global list, tied only with Zimbabwe. Of the 20 criteria used to classify whistle-blower protection regimes, Canada met only one. The only criterion it met was having a piece of legislation. The other 19 criteria were not met. The legislation is empty.Essentially, Canada's whistle-blower protection regime is like an old car chassis with no engine, no transmission, no tires and no carburetor. That is the vehicle our whistle-blowers are supposed to drive. The International Bar Association says so, the International Labour Organization agrees with us, the public service unions agree with us, former whistle-blowers who have gone through this process and know its flaws better than anyone else agree with us. There are dozens of witnesses.In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates produced a comprehensive report. The committee held 12 meetings on the issue of reforming this whistle-blower protection regime. Twelve meetings for one study in committee is a big deal. The committee received 52 witnesses and 12 written briefs. The findings of this report are clear. It found that in order to function properly, democracy needs two legs. The first leg is accountability. The executive branch, the departments, all have to be monitored in a democracy. That is what the second leg of democracy, transparency, is for. Without whistle-blowers and protection for public servants who disclose wrongdoing, who do the right thing for the right reasons, at the risk of their health, their life, their finances and their career, democracy would not work. These whistle-blowers are our last line of defence. Not standing up for these whistle-blowers is like hitting the ice without a goalie. A developed country cannot operate like that. This is a matter of protecting public safety and respecting Quebec and Canadian taxpayers, who are losing faith in government institutions.Today, I am very proud that this bill has made it to debate at third reading and could be voted on. It must be said that this bill is the result of working together across party lines, a collaborative effort by all parties. I want to recognize my colleagues who participated in this process in a constructive manner.First, I want to thank the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is now our Speaker. At the time, he was working as the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board. He supported us in the amendment process, which means that the Liberal Party can vote in favour of the bill this time. I want to congratulate in advance the NDP member for Courtenay—Alberni, who presented some very good amendments. He worked in co-operation with us. I also want to congratulate the member for Edmonton West, who was the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates when the committee submitted its report in 2017. He has been fighting for this for many years. I know that support and advice are important to him. He is a very wise man. I know that he is very happy that this bill is at third reading stage today.(1755)Of course, I would like to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In particular, I would like to thank the member who went through the entire amendment process on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Dealing with a subject like this required a member who, in addition to being detail-oriented and rigorous, has a heart and understands human issues, the human soul and the profoundly human importance of caring for these people. That would be my colleague and friend, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, and today I want to say just how much I respect and admire her work.I would also like to talk about the people who have had the courage to continue to blow the whistle on wrongdoing at the expense of every aspect of their lives. They have supported us, testified and devoted time, energy and skills to this process. They are the whistle-blowers themselves and the whistle-blower protection groups. I am thinking in particular of Joanna Gualtieri, who testified, offered us her legal services and advised us. She was one of the first whistle-blowers in Canada. She went through the whole process, spent selflessly to get the truth out, and survived some incredible pitfalls. I salute her.I also want to thank Pamela Forward, of Whistleblowing Canada.Tom Devine from GAP, the Government Accountability Project, in Washington, D.C., insisted on coming to the committee in person. He is a global expert who has advised hundreds of administrations on these issues. He wanted to be here in person to work on this bill. I also want to thank Ian Bron, a retired Canadian Armed Forces member. I also want to thank David Hutton for his advice.I want to salute Luc Sabourin, the whistle-blower at the root of the scandal that is unfolding before our eyes, the destruction of foreign passports by Canada behind our allies' backs. This courageous man risked everything: his life, his health, his sense of security and his financial well-being. His pension was taken away. He is here with us today on the Hill. This goes to show that what we are doing today is of paramount importance to Canadian taxpayers, Quebec taxpayers and these people. I salute him. He has my utmost respect.Let us now talk about the content of this bill. First of all, there are rankings, which I talked about earlier. If Bill C‑290 is passed, our whistle-blower protection regime will put us in the middle of the world rankings. We will have a similar ranking to the United Kingdom and France, but we will still be lagging far behind the United States and many American states, the European Union and Australia. That means that this bill is the first of many steps we will have to take when it comes to the protection of whistle-blowers.What are we doing? We are expanding protection to former public servants who are not currently protected but who still have critical information for improving transparency and management in the public sector. We want to get to the bottom of things and give them more channels for filing complaints. Complaints cannot just be brought to the attention of an immediate supervisor because sometimes that person is involved in the wrongdoing. This bill allows for the use of other channels, elsewhere within departments, to file complaints. We included not just administration issues, management issues and the misuse of public funds as wrongdoing in the bill, but also foreign and political interference.If this bill is passed, we will have the opportunity to work with the government and to monitor it to make sure it is acting in good faith. We have acted in good faith. Foreign and political interference are defined by government regulation. We will remain vigilant but open. We trust the government in that regard because we decided to work together. The government will have to be worthy of our trust.Whistle-blowers will be allowed to file more than one complaint at a time. Right now, if they file a reprisal complaint, they reach a standstill with the commissioner. They cannot file two complaints at once. No whistle-blower enjoys filing three, four or five complaints at the same time. No one has time in the evenings and on weekends to fool around with five or six complaints for fun. If whistle-blowers have to file more than one complaint at a time, it is because they feel they need to, and because the public sector needs it to happen in order to remain transparent. That will be guaranteed with this bill.There have been disappointments, and they have been significant, but we have to live with them. It happens often in politics.(1800)The NDP moved an amendment to reverse the burden of proof in some cases. Unfortunately, this was defeated. We supported them. The NDP moved amendments to protect whistle-blowers from reprisals during investigations. That was defeated. I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for the work he did. They were good amendments and, one day, we will have the opportunity to go back to them.This shows, once again, that we need leadership from the government on this issue, because the legislation has not been changed in 15 years, whereas the world has changed. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when the nature of political interference is changing. It is not normal to have legislation that does not evolve when Chinese foreign interference is happening and it was not in the news at the time the legislation was adopted, in other words after the sponsorship scandal.A law that seeks to protect public servants who disclose wrongdoings should not be like an old piece of meat, an old quart of milk or an old yogourt. It should never expire. There should be a mechanism under which these laws are frequently reviewed. The government has work to do, because I did everything that I could in a private member's bill to advance the cause of protecting public servants who disclose wrongdoing. Opposition members cannot spend money. We cannot cover the legal fees of whistle-blowers, some of whom end up financially ruined for wanting to serve their employer. I cannot emphasize enough that whistle-blowers are people who are loyal to their employer and to taxpayers, who are their real employer. The government will have to continue to work on this and follow our example.We are here today because we have a minority government, and private members' bills, especially those from the Bloc Québécois, can help change the world. Let us see what we can accomplish in a minority government. We can protect whistle-blowers. We protected the pensions of Quebec workers by making them priority creditors. We succeeded in protecting supply management in trade agreement negotiations. We managed to protect our fruit and vegetable producers' shipments when they are not paid. We managed to protect the Quebec securities commission when Ottawa wanted to move Quebec's financial sector to English-speaking Toronto. We managed to have an independent public inquiry into Chinese foreign interference, in a minority government. We managed to increase the guaranteed income supplement for our seniors by $600 a year. We managed to get hundreds of dollars for parents by making the universal child care benefit tax-free, because the Conservatives had been taxing parents. The Conservatives are compulsive taxers. We had an investigation into the sponsorship scandal.It pays to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers should vote for the Bloc Québécois. It is important to vote for the Bloc Québécois.I am looking at the Conservatives, and they are speechless. What a wonderful sight.Aside from that, the bill we are debating is in the public interest. This bill aims to protect people's lives. It is about protecting human beings and the quality of life of people who are often portrayed as being disloyal to their employers, but who ultimately just want to make things better and work in an environment that values ethics, transparency and honesty towards hard-working taxpayers. We want to protect these people's lives for the benefit of all.Today, I invite all my colleagues from all parties and political denominations to vote in favour of Bill C-290. There is only good in this bill. Whistle-blowers and public servants are watching us. We must rise to the occasion.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActChain of commandDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceForeign influenced activitiesPolitical influencePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption797516279751637975164797516579751667975167797516879751697975170797517179751727975173797517479751757975176797517779751787975179797518079751817975182797518379751847975185797518679751877975188CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingKevinLamoureuxWinnipeg North//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/30552KevinLamoureuxKevin-LamoureuxWinnipeg NorthLiberal CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/LamoureuxKevin_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): (1805)[English]Madam Speaker, I am glad we were able to get to the member's debate. He articulates quite well. The member made reference to other countries and put Canada in a placement with those countries. Are there any provincial jurisdictions in Canada that have followed suit? If the member has any insights on that, I would very much appreciate hearing them.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsProvincial and territorial governmentsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption79751897975190Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. We discussed that with the whistle-blowers in committee. I thank my colleague for asking it.In Canada, we find that the provinces generally wait for the federal government to make the first move on this issue. It often makes the first move, encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, and then the provinces react. With the resources we have here, we have an opportunity to set an example, while respecting the federal government's jurisdiction, on a whistle-blowing regime that would not be perfect, but would be an improvement. The Liberals have not yet had or taken the time, to put it politely, to improve the law, but yes, we expect most provinces to look to the federal Parliament and read the bill. A bill based on Bill C‑290 has already been introduced in the National Assembly. We know that by doing the right thing at the federal level and improving transparency and accountability in the federal government with Bill C‑290, others will follow. So there are 10 more reasons in the provinces, and three more in the territories, to vote for Bill C‑290.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsProvincial and territorial governmentsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption79751917975192KevinLamoureuxWinnipeg NorthDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I know that in committee there was an amendment that dealt with the matter of subcontractors. I would like my colleague to comment on that.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActContractorsDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption7975193Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, the matter of subcontractors and contract workers is important, as we saw with the ArriveCAN app and National Defence. Unfortunately, expanding protection to subcontractors would require a royal recommendation. That was the nature of the amendment that the Speaker had to reject earlier today. However, it is still an important issue and that is why the government must consider it, because it has the prerogative to do so.There is also the constitutionality of the issue. Most subcontractors fall under the governance of provincial labour laws. We will have to examine that issue. Just because it is not included in the bill does not mean that we did not think about it, that we did not try to address it, that it is not important and that we should forget about it.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActContractorsDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption79751947975195DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaYvesPerronBerthier—Maskinongé//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88418YvesPerronYves-PerronBerthier—MaskinongéBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/PerronYves_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ): (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mirabel for championing this very important bill.Some elected members responded to the bill's intent saying that the government formed a committee to look into the whistle-blower protection regime.Does the member for Mirabel think that is a good excuse not to vote in favour of the bill?C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption797519679751977975198Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, it is always good to think things over. Fortuitously, it so happens that when I introduced my bill, the government announced the creation of a think tank, an expert panel, that will essentially tell us what the 2017 committee did. I think that the government has to keep reflecting, thinking and improving things. There are steps to be taken. The government is the one who has to take those steps. However, the real committee that has to determine this has 338 members and they are seated here.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption7975199YvesPerronBerthier—MaskinongéGabrielSte-MarieJoliette//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/88485GabrielSte-MarieGabriel-Ste-MarieJolietteBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/SteMarieGabriel_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ): (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on this very important bill.I would like to hear what he has to say about legal fees. Why could these fees not be included in this bill? What does this mean for the courageous people who disclose wrongdoing?C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceLegal servicesPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption79752007975201Jean-DenisGaronMirabelJean-DenisGaronMirabel//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/110189Jean-DenisGaronJean-Denis-GaronMirabelBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaronJeanDenis_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessSpeaker's RulingInterventionMr. Jean-Denis Garon: (1805)[Translation]Madam Speaker, that would prevent these people from being ruined by legal fees when they are David fighting Goliath, in other words, the government. As we know, under parliamentary rules, a bill introduced by an opposition member cannot result in more money being spent. That is the prerogative of the Crown. In order to have a fund that would cover the legal expenses of certain whistle-blowers, the government has to draft and introduce it. There must be a ways and means motion. Some countries do this. Some countries recognize the fact that it is not right for citizens to have to spend $1 million, as Ms. Gualtieri had to do, and end up pretty much bankrupt in order to have the right to defend their integrity. Whistle-blowers deserve better.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceLegal servicesPrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption7975202GabrielSte-MarieJolietteCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/105009AnnieKoutrakisAnnie-KoutrakisVimyLiberal CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/KoutrakisAnnie_Lib.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMs. Annie Koutrakis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, Lib.): (1810)[English]Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. Whistle-blowers are the unsung heroes of our institutions. They are the courageous individuals who put their careers, their reputations and sometimes even their lives on the line to expose wrongdoing. They are the guardians of our democracy and the champions of integrity. Their role in our society cannot be overstated, and their protection is a matter of national significance.I think everyone will agree that public servants who wish to disclose serious wrongdoing must have a trusted, effective means of doing so and must be protected. As is the sponsor of this legislation, the government is committed to strengthening protections for public servants who make disclosures of wrongdoing. This is why it has already taken a number of actions, which were detailed at second reading.However, the government is not stopping there. The Prime Minister asked the President of the Treasury Board to build on this progress and “Continue to take action to improve government whistle-blower protections and supports.” Action is indeed being taken. Budget 2022 provided $2.4 million over five years for a review of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. In November 2022, the government announced the establishment of the PSDPA review task force. This task force will recommend amendments to the PSDPA and changes to the administration and operation of the disclosure regime, with a particular focus on the protection of individuals involved in disclosing wrongdoing from acts of reprisal. The task force is composed of people who bring significant experience and diverse expertise in the field. It is currently conducting wide consultations and inviting input from a range of stakeholders to ensure that a variety of experiences related to the federal whistle-blower regime are collected and considered. Experts, public servants and all those with an interest in this subject are being given an opportunity to share their views. The task force will also consider the report issued by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in 2017 and the discussions on this bill.In recognition of the fact that work in this area has evolved over the past several years, the task force will look at the latest developments in whistle-blowing regimes since the committee presented their report. As well, the task force will consider reports from the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and other stakeholders. It will also seek out best practices through research on disclosure regimes, domestically and internationally. The government's intent is to ensure that the law effectively safeguards and empowers public servants to report wrongdoing. This review will ensure that we are taking an evidence-informed approach to identify improvements to the federal disclosure process. These improvements will mean better protection for public servants who come forward to disclose wrongdoings. Clearly, the government wants to improve the act.The bill before us proposes a number of changes that the government fully supports. These are expanding the list of persons covered by reprisal protection, extending the time period for a reprisal complaint; increasing penalties for a contravention of the act, allowing reprisal complaints concerning the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to be made to the Auditor General, ensuring that individuals are provided with reasons when a reprisal complaint is refused and, finally, adding a recurring five-year review of the act. These would be valuable improvements to the act as it now stands. That said, certain amendments in the bill raise legal and operational challenges, many of which were raised both at second reading and at committee. We can take, for example, the removal of the seriousness descriptors from the definition of wrongdoing. By no longer qualifying the degree of severity of wrongdoing covered under the act, the bill would open up the process to the most trivial of misdemeanours. The result could clog the system and reduce its effectiveness; those who blow the whistle on serious problems may not get the protection we all agree they need and deserve.(1815)This could also lead to duplication with existing recourse mechanisms meant for issues such as harassment, discrimination, workplace grievances and privacy complaints, which could lead to conflicting outcomes from multiple proceedings. Employees need a clear, simple and predictable path to follow. The purpose of the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is to address serious ethical breaches that cannot be dealt with using other recourse mechanisms. Bill C-290 also proposes to allow an individual to take a complaint of reprisal directly to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal without a prior investigation by the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. This would create the possibility of completely removing the commissioner from the reprisal process, including the investigation of the complaint and the opportunity for conciliation. As the tribunal has no investigation authority or capacity, all evidence would have to be gathered through the tribunal process. This would make the process more lengthy and costly for all parties involved. As well, we can predict the surge of cases that would overwhelm the capacity of the tribunal. A backlog of cases, which none of us want, would quickly begin to grow. This could negatively impact the original intent and effectiveness of the legislation for those who truly need it.Another concern I would like to raise is the coming into force state after royal assent. The bill proposes a timeframe of one year, but implementation would take more time given the breadth and complexity of the changes it contains. These are a few of the important challenges this bill raises, and we hope that the Senate takes the time to review these elements when studying the bill.BacklogsC-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceLegislative reviewPrivate Members' BillsPublic consultationPublic Servants Disclosure Protection TribunalPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption797521679752177975218797521979752207975221797522279752237975224797522579752267975227CarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingMichaelCooperSt. Albert—Edmonton//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89219MichaelCooperMichael-CooperSt. Albert—EdmontonConservative CaucusAlberta//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/CooperMichael_CPC.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC): (1815)[English]Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-290. This is legislation that would strengthen the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, which provides whistle-blower protections to federal public servants. The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act legislation was shepherded by the previous Harper Conservative government in an effort to restore public confidence in the operations of government following one of the biggest corruption scandals in Canadian history, the Liberal sponsorship scandal, a scandal that involved the waste, mismanagement and misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money as part of a quid pro quo scheme, where Liberal insiders received advertising contracts in return for employing Liberal fundraisers, organizers and so on. These contracts were awarded to people who did little or no work and millions of dollars were funnelled into the Liberal Party as part of this scam. It truly was one of the biggest scandals and really shook public confidence and public trust.In an effort to restore that trust, the Harper government passed the act that provides a mechanism by which federal public servants can bring attention to wrongdoing in a confidential way, including establishing the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, as well as other measures to protect civil servants against reprisals. This bill would build upon the Conservative government's whistle-blower protections by expanding the definition of “wrongdoing” to include political interference. It would expand the powers of the Auditor General in taking disclosures of wrongdoing and undertaking investigations and would expand the scope of those who are protected. It would do other things as well, which have been mentioned in debate on this bill, all of which are positive.This bill could not be more timely given what we have seen over the past eight years from the Liberals: an unprecedented amount of corruption, waste and mismanagement. In that light, it is not a surprise to learn that the Liberal government, based upon the parliamentary secretary's intervention, is less than enthusiastic about this bill. After all, we have a Prime Minister who was found guilty not once but twice of breaching ethics laws. It was unprecedented and never happened before until the current Prime Minister arrived in office. This is a Prime Minister who obstructed justice to protect the corrupt SNC-Lavalin, a Liberal corporation. He fired his attorney general when she called out his corruption. We recently learned that the Prime Minister obstructed an RCMP investigation into his potential criminal wrongdoing in SNC-Lavalin and there is, as we speak, an active criminal investigation into the Liberal government's $54-million ArriveCAN app, better known as “arrive scam”. It is $54 million of taxpayers' money that went out the door for an app that does not work, that cost 500 times more than it should have, not to mention well-established evidence of collusion, price-fixing and fraudulent billing to the tune of millions of dollars.(1820)Just when we think we have seen just about enough of Liberal corruption, there is always another Liberal scandal. We are learning of yet another Liberal scandal at the Liberal green slush fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC. Whistle-blowers came forward with evidence of wrongdoing, which prompted a third-party investigation. That investigation, for which forensic accountants went in, resulted in a damning report. The report concludes that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars were handed out to companies that did not qualify. More than that, there have been multiple instances of conflicts of interest at SDTC.Just to give one an idea, $38.4 million improperly went out the door as part of so-called COVID relief expenditures. Of those companies that received $38.4 million, based on the audits that took place, 29% involved conflict of interest disclosures on the part of board members at SDTC, and not once did any of those board members recuse themselves. The cloud at SDTC is so dark that even this spendthrift Liberal government, which has run up the biggest deficit in Canadian history and doubled the national debt, put a halt and a freeze on spending at SDTC.The cloud at SDTC, involving tens of millions of dollars and conflicts of interest on the part of a board that is chaired by a Liberal insider, a friend of the Prime Minister, underscores why robust whistle-blower protection legislation is needed.Many whistle-blowers would reportedly like to come forward with further evidence of wrongdoing at the Liberals' green slush fund but are reluctant to do so. Those who have are also concerned that they could face reprisals because, as it stands, they are not protected under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act because they are not within the definition of a public servant under the act. Although this bill does provide some additional protection to contractors, it would not protect employees and other whistle-blowers at SDTC who would like to come forward.I would submit that, while this bill is a significant improvement, we would like to see it strengthened even further to include contractors and those who are at arm's-length from the government to be fully protected. The sordid affair at SDTC, the Liberals' green slush fund, underscores that, to shine a light on the rot and corruption that is so embedded right across this government, additional protections are needed to root out waste, mismanagement and corruption. No one, no federal public servant, contractor or anyone, for that matter, connected to government, should feel intimidated or be concerned about potential reprisals for speaking the truth and calling out waste, mismanagement and corruption.On that basis, I support the bill, but it could be improved.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActContractorsDisciplinary measuresDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplaceGreen economyPolitical influencePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsSustainable Development Technology CanadaThird reading and adoption79752287975229797523079752317975232797523379752347975235797523679752377975238AnnieKoutrakisVimyDanielBlaikieElmwood—Transcona//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/89032DanielBlaikieDaniel-BlaikieElmwood—TransconaNew Democratic Party CaucusManitoba//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/BlaikieDaniel_NDP.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP): (1825)[English]Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-290 and the importance of better whistle-blower protection in Canada. Canada has a reputation, unfortunately, of being one of the places in the world among those with the worst whistle-blower protection, so obviously there is a lot more that we can do. We depend on whistle-blowers to be able to identify across a very large government with a large budget where things are not going well. Of course, there is no substitute for the folks who are actually doing the work every day to be able to understand where problems arise and how things are going wrong. We need to be able to create a culture where people feel a lot more comfortable coming forward when things are not going well in their workplace. We can all appreciate that it is a difficult decision. Indeed, there are a lot of stories of folks who have had the courage to come forward and not only have not been rewarded for that but have been punished; in some cases losing their employment, in some cases losing their home or their families and indeed in the worst cases losing their lives. It is a very serious issue. We should be grateful that there are folks in the public service who are willing; and are dedicated enough to doing the right thing that they are willing to come forward. We need to create a culture that rewards folks for showing that courage, instead of setting examples for others of why they should not do that because they know that it did not work out very well for a colleague. The beginning of that culture change has to start with legislation because there have to be adequate protections in place for folks to feel that they have recourse. It is not just the legislation, though. We also need to create workplace cultures where folks in positions of influence know that people who do blow the whistle are going to be well protected enough that people should follow the appropriate workplace policies and procedures and conduct their business in the way that we all expect them to, which is to a high standard.How do they do that? I want to just survey some of the work that my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni did with the sponsor of the bill in order to improve this legislation.One is allowing increased access to the tribunal. We know that over time the commissioner who was set up to hear complaints about whistle-blowing only referred, in 16 years, nine cases to the tribunal. The idea behind that amendment, which I am glad to see passed, was to make it easier for workers who did come forward but did not feel they were getting satisfaction through the commission to be able to access the tribunal.There was also an amendment that passed to create a survey metric so that when whistle-blowers have gone through this process, it would allow getting some feedback from them on how it went and whether they were satisfied with that.Of course, there were other suggestions and amendments put forward in conjunction with the sponsor of the bill that did not go through. Liberals and Conservatives at committee decided not to put them in. One of the really important provisions was a reverse-onus provision for cases of reprisal. Right now, the onus is on the person who is the victim to show that it was in fact reprisal for their whistle-blowing activity. That is a high burden of proof and it usually comes with a pretty expensive legal bill for somebody who, if they are experiencing reprisal, may well not have any employment income at all or may already be under a lot of stress due to harassment in the workplace as a result of blowing the whistle. Therefore, this just multiplies that effect by causing a lot of financial distress as well as a long, drawn-out legal process when really it is the employer who has the resources who should be in a position of having to show that whatever workplace discipline may have occurred was not a reprisal for whistle-blowing and that it was based on something unrelated.(1830)I understand that in jurisdictions that have made this change, it has altered the chance of success for whistle-blowers from one in 500, showing that they were in fact the victim of reprisal, to being as high as one in three. When we talk about changing workplace culture and instilling in employees the confidence to be able to come forward, numbers like that show that, even with the improvements that the bill represents, there is a lot further to go if we want to create the legal foundation for a healthy workplace culture that rewards people for coming forward and naming wrongdoing in the workplace rather than creating a chill and a culture where people are afraid of that.Another way, which is not technically a reverse onus but I think it is of a kind, would have been to protect whistle-blowers from termination automatically, and instead of allowing them to be terminated right away and then having to spend a long time figuring out whether it was the right course of action or not, having some immediate protections upfront would also make a difference in increasing people's comfort to come forward.Likewise, sometimes people go to the commissioner, as I said, and do not get satisfaction. While having some kind of ability for them to then be able to go to the media or go public in some other way, if they are not getting satisfaction through the normal process, is another way that folks could have been encouraged to bring their concerns forward. It was unfortunate that, again, the Liberals and Conservatives conspired at committee to defeat those amendments because it means that, in the context of a country that is notoriously behind when it comes to protection of whistle-blowers, this important moment to make significant advances in whistle-blower protection does not take us as far as we could. Hopefully, it will not take as long to get to the next set of improvements as it did to get us to this one because Canadian workers deserve better than to have to wait that long to get protections that are already afforded workers in other workplaces.I thank the sponsor of the bill very much for his good work on the bill and for his co-operation with the member for Courtenay—Alberni to improve the bill, as much as Liberals and Conservatives, the coalition, if I may be so bold, would allow in this case. Burden of proofC-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisciplinary measuresDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Servants Disclosure Protection TribunalPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption79752397975240797524179752427975243797524479752457975246797524779752487975249797525079752517975252MichaelCooperSt. Albert—EdmontonMarie-HélèneGaudreauLaurentides—Labelle//www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members/104806Marie-HélèneGaudreauMarie-Hélène-GaudreauLaurentides—LabelleBloc Québécois CaucusQuebec//www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Parliamentarians/Images/OfficialMPPhotos/44/GaudreauMarieHélène_BQ.jpgPrivate Members' BusinessPublic Sector Integrity ActInterventionMs. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ): (1835)[Translation]Madam Speaker, a year ago, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member, began a study on foreign election interference. We received more than 70 witnesses and sat in committee for more than 100 hours. I personally questioned the government more than 30 times. I spoke with ministers, experts, academics, specialists, intelligence officers. This ended in a public, independent commission of inquiry. Quebeckers are now aware of the challenges of foreign interference. People may be wondering where I am going with this. I am getting to that. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics tabled a report on foreign interference and all the threats to the integrity of institutions. The Bloc Québécois even said it would introduce a bill to ensure that a foreign agent registry is implemented.None of this could have happened without the whistle-blower who dared to report the situation. This information was reported in The Globe and Mail by a journalist, and we started looking into it. That is why the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had so much time and energy. We took action, and we are still taking action. It is therefore with great interest that I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-290, the public sector integrity act.I will give an example that my colleague from Mirabel mentioned, but I am going to take the liberty of digging a little deeper. Who here remembers the 1995 referendum? I do, because it was my first time voting. The Liberal government of the day spent lavishly out of fear of losing the election. In 1995, a whistle-blower blew the doors off what came to be known as the sponsorship scandal. Nearly every day, there were new revelations in the media about the political interference in the way this program was managed and how $250 million in public funds was squandered. That led the then auditor general to produce a devastating report in 2003. Once again, it was a federal government official who made the courageous choice to disclose the federal government's actions to journalist Daniel Leblanc. The exact same thing happened recently, and once again I would like to acknowledge the public servants who have the common good at heart, who have chosen a career in public service and who dared to take action.It was in the aftermath of the sponsorship scandal that the government of the day introduced the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. I would like to qualify that. My colleague mentioned just one country earlier, but there are 20 others. I will quickly name a few of them. Canada ranks behind Bangladesh, Rwanda, Botswana, Pakistan and the Cayman Islands. The government must take action. We have to do better.Since then, the government has chosen to ignore this issue. As a responsible party, the Bloc Québécois is thinking about the people who contribute to the common good and who make democracy possible, for example. That is why we introduced this bill, and I commend my colleague from Mirabel. This week, on Tuesday to be exact, the Minister of National Defence told me, word for word, that it is a good thing the opposition is there to bring pressure. He can rest assured that we are going to put pressure on the government. We need to take action, and we are going to get it done. I am convinced of that.(1840)In 2017, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates considered this legislation, but that was more than five years ago. Nothing has happened since then. There was the study my colleague mentioned. There are also six major challenges that we need to review, and this needs to pass.I will end my speech with the following statement. When a public servant takes their courage in both hands and decides to report wrongdoing to help get the situation sorted out, the current process does not really make it possible to get to the bottom of the matter and expose or fix the problems.This bill is of the utmost importance. I invite my colleagues to support Bill C-290.C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection ActDisclosure of wrongdoing in the workplacePrivate Members' BillsPublic Service and public servantsThird reading and adoption797525379752547975255797525679752577975258797525979752607975261DanielBlaikieElmwood—TransconaCarolHughesAlgoma—Manitoulin—KapuskasingINTERVENTIONParliament and SessionOrder of BusinessDiscussed TopicProcedural TermPerson SpeakingProvince / TerritoryCaucusSearchResults per pageOrder byTarget search languageSide by SideMaximum returned rowsPagePUBLICATION TYPE