Debates of June 10th, 2022

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe we have another point of order.

The member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is complaining about filibustering by filibustering. Will he get to the point?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing out, yet again, that this is not a point of order. I can understand Conservatives' sensitivity about their deplorable actions, both in the House of Commons and in committee. I can imagine Conservatives being defensive about the incredible hypocrisy of trying to say that they are for something and then doing the exact opposite.

What Conservatives owe Canadians is to stand up and say they have not been doing what they were elected to do. We are supposed to be working to improve legislation, to bring amendments and to listen to witnesses. When the vast majority of witnesses before the committee say they are in favour of Bill C-11, and when the vast majority of witnesses also say that there are some improvements that could be made, then we have a responsibility as legislators both to hear that testimony and to put it into action and actually get to the point where we are improving the legislation.

That is the unbelievable contradiction of what we have seen transpire in the House of Commons over the last few months. There are members of the Conservative caucus whom I deeply respect, and the member for Perth—Wellington is one of them. However, the actions of the Conservative caucus as a whole have been profoundly detrimental to the work we have to do to make sure that legislation is ultimately passed, but also to improve that legislation.

What has the NDP done over that same period? We have pushed the government, and it is a minority situation, so every party has that ability, to put in place, for the first time, national dental care. That would be starting soon for children 12 and under, for the many families—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I believe there is another point of order.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no relevance. He is talking about dental care, not the issue of Bill C-11.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

This is from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017:

Although the House now has rules to limit the length of speeches, at one time there were few limits and debate often strayed beyond the subject in question. In 1882, J.G. Bourinot, then Clerk of the House, felt the need to add this comment to his overview of parliamentary practice:

A just regard to the privileges and dignity of Parliament demands that its time should not be wasted in idle and fruitless discussion; and consequently every member, who addresses the house, should endeavour to confine himself as closely as possible to the question under consideration.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, I am contrasting Conservative behaviour at the heritage committee with what the NDP has sought and obtained: dental care, affordable housing, all of those things that make a difference in people's lives.

The Conservatives at the heritage committee heard the vast majority of witnesses say that Bill C-11 is good but could be better, suggesting specific amendments that could improve the legislation. Why are Conservatives simply refusing to even submit amendments? Every other party, every other member of Parliament around that table has tried to submit amendments. We tried to set deadlines weeks ago, but ultimately we just sent them in. We did our work. We did our homework. We worked late. We made sure we had amendments that could be put forward to the heritage committee for consideration to achieve those improvements.

I think I have maybe a minute left.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The member has four minutes and 34 seconds left.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have a lot to say, so I appreciate that additional time.

There are areas within the bill that can definitely be improved. There is no doubt about that. We have the ability to ensure that we are actually improving that bill.

We have had the debate today, and there have been a number of comments. I referenced earlier the issue around Bill C-11 and Conservative MPs who obviously have not read the bill, who have not opened it or even turned to page one, saying that it had something to do with the government following people on cellphones or the government censoring people's opinions. Obviously, that is not accurate and not true.

At the same time, at the committee level, we have had a number of inaccuracies, and I call it disinformation, that have come up through the course of the day. First is the issue of amendments. As I mentioned earlier, all of the other parties submitted amendments last week. We had been calling for amendments for a couple of weeks before then.

We flag that for a number of reasons. First, there is the time that is required for translation and the time that is required to prepare the amendments. We have to work with legislative staff. All of us around the table, with the singular exception of the Conservatives, did that work to make sure that those amendments are put in place, that they are in order, and that they are conceived in an effective way to make sure they do what they purport to do. As we know, that often involves a back-and-forth. It often involves working with the legislative clerks, and then submitting it for official translation.

That way we have a translation that is accurate, but sometimes corrections are needed. Last week I corrected some amendments that had been submitted in English. I felt that the translation was inaccurate, so we tweaked the translations to ensure that the two versions matched. We had been talking about it for weeks, saying that the amendments really needed to be submitted. The Conservatives refused all attempts to give the clerks and translators enough time to do their work.

The member for Perth—Wellington said a few minutes ago that we have to think about the translators and the clerks. Fortunately, their task will be much less onerous, because the committee members, with the exception of the Conservatives, have already submitted their amendments. Three-quarters of the amendments have already been translated, fortunately. This means that the work is already done. In a way, we have made the Conservatives' work easier.

Second, the member for Perth—Wellington just said that members should be able to vote on the proposed elements. Once again, the Conservatives filibustered the motion moved today. It amounts to the same thing. Each amendment will be voted on by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. This means that members will be called upon to decide the fate of each amendment.

Third, although we are going to have a nine-hour day of debate on these amendments, we also need to vote at some point. The vote is important. We might be working until one or two in the morning, but that is not a problem for me. We are supposed to be here to work. That is why we decided to condense five weeks of hearings into a shorter period. We held the equivalent of five weeks of hearings in a shorter period, but we had time—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to cut the member off, but the time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint‑Louis for questions and comments.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my question I would like to speak to the issue of relevance. While I am sure it is unintentional and I would not want to impugn anyone, the opposition has been constantly and assiduously conflating the subject matter of this bill with the idea of the government spying on its citizens.

We are in a kind of anxious age because of the galloping nature of technology, and of course the Internet and everything around digital communication have added to that kind of anxiety.

I would like to hear the member's comments on how taking conspiratorial narratives and injecting them into this debate does not do anyone any good. In fact, it just feeds the general discomfiture of the age.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Trumpism in the United States we have seen the idea that one can just invent whatever truth one wants and throw it out there and that somehow it is acceptable. I would agree with the member that it is not acceptable.

For the member for Provencher to compare Bill C-11 to governments following people on cellphones is simply unbelievable, yet not a single Conservative MP said that it was wrong and that he should not be saying that.

In the same way that the Conservatives throw out this idea of censorship without any due regard for the bill itself, which they have not read or do not care to read, this does a disservice to democracy. The behaviour of the Conservatives over the last few weeks at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in a similar way has done a disservice. Our job is to take legislation and ultimately vote yes or no. That is true, but it is also our job to work to improve it. That has not been an objective of the Conservative Party in the last few months.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to correct the record and confirm that the Conservative Party, as of last Friday, has submitted a number of amendments to the committee clerk for the purposes of this legislation, but we are not done. We have not finalized all of our amendments because we have not finalized the review of this piece of legislation.

We have made very clear publicly, and did so in a release, the challenges and concerns we have with this piece of legislation, including section 4.2, the definition of discoverability, the redefinition of Canadian content and the thresholds that these institutions ought to meet.

The question I want to ask to the NDP House leader is very simple. Much of this interpretation will be left to the CRTC, based on the policy directive of the minister. The minister has said that he will not release it until after this piece of legislation receives royal assent. Would the member not agree that it would be better for transparency and for the benefit of all of us in the House who are debating and voting on this legislation if the minister would simply, as the government did with Bill C-10, release the draft policy directive to the CRTC so that we can see it, review it and make a judgment on it before we vote on Bill C-11?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member for Perth—Wellington. I think he was trying to be helpful. I think he was undermined by the rest of the representation on the heritage committee, but I know his heart is in the right place. I am very pleased to stand corrected and confirm that the Conservatives have actually submitted amendments. That shows that they find the time frames are reasonable, as we have been debating over the last few weeks. I am pleased to stand corrected on that.

I also know from experience that the minister is very accessible. I know that if the member for Perth—Wellington could sit down with the minister, it would be an opportunity for them to exchange thoughts on the policy directive. I think that is an important piece—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I hate to cut off the member. When we get back to this, he will have five minutes and 25 seconds remaining in questions and comments.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 29 consideration of the motion.

Retirement Income

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to commend my colleague from Etobicoke North, whose motion we are studying today and who chairs the new Standing Committee on Science and Research. I am the vice-chair of that committee, so I have had the opportunity to work with her over the past few months, and I can say that, while we may not always agree, our interactions have always been very cordial, which is a credit to her.

To come back to the matter at hand, I first want to say that I will be voting in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois has long made the living conditions of seniors one of its primary concerns. We deeply believe that every senior deserves a dignified retirement free from financial worry. This is one of our top priorities, and I am proud to say that our actions are a testament to this. I would like to mention a few of the things we have done.

Last year, the Bloc Québécois got a motion passed calling on the House to increase old age security. It bears mentioning that that happened without Liberal support.

On June 2, the Bloc Québécois finalized a petition calling on the government to increase OAS by $110 per month for people 65 and up. I presented a similar petition calling for an OAS raise in the last Parliament. Following a huge campaign involving seniors' groups in my riding and Quebeckers in general, we gathered over 20,000 signatures. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to that success.

During the 43rd Parliament, my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan, introduced a bill to protect pension funds and group insurance by giving them higher priority in the creditors' list when companies go bankrupt. The bill had the support of all four political parties, but it died on the Order Paper when the election was called. Not to be deterred, we reintroduced it in this Parliament.

I could go on and on, but I will get to the heart of my argument. The important thing to remember is that the Bloc Québécois has been on the front lines of every battle to improve the living conditions of seniors, and we will continue to carry the burden on behalf of those who are too often under-represented in the public debate.

We are therefore not opposed to the federal government undertaking studies on the financial situation of seniors and finding ways to improve it, as suggested in the motion. It is entirely pertinent and legitimate to try to come up with new tools that could be used to help seniors make the most of their financial assets and achieve the best possible standard of living.

However, it is essential that these studies, if undertaken, not be used as an excuse for delaying the urgent action that is desperately needed, given the current situation. Particularly in the last year, seniors' quality of life has deteriorated rapidly throughout Quebec and Canada. The runaway inflation we are experiencing, which shows no sign of abating, has caused prices to skyrocket on things like housing, gas and food, and this trend will eventually extend to all goods and services.

Retired workers in particular are more vulnerable and at risk because they have left the workforce and have no way to increase their income. It is no coincidence that many food banks have reported more retirees using their services. In-depth studies might be useful and constructive, but we already have access to a number of measures that could be implemented immediately and provide guaranteed results, without having to reinvent the wheel.

As the Bloc Québécois has said many times, the top priority is a significant increase to OAS for all seniors 65 and older. It could not be clearer. The government recently increased OAS by 10%, but only for seniors 75 and older. Why is the government ignoring the thousands of seniors aged 65 to 74?

Despite what the Liberals may think, it is false to claim that financial insecurity only hits at age 75. FADOQ, the largest group of people aged 50 and over in the country, shares that view and was offended by this age-based discrimination, which set a dangerous precedent by creating two categories of seniors.

Another measure that would be worth implementing immediately is related to the annual indexation of OAS and GIS. At present, these two benefits are indexed based on the previous year's consumer price index. That means the indexation rate for 2022 is based on the consumer price index for 2021. This corresponds to a 2.7% indexation rate.

In January 2022, however, inflation reached 5.1% in Canada, and it has only continued to increase. Unfortunately for those whose only sources of income are OAS and GIS, they must pay this year's prices for gas, groceries and medications, not last year's.

The result of this shift is that seniors' purchasing power is undermined because the cost of the goods and services they use is going up faster than their pensions. We therefore have to consider whether there is another indexing method that could be applied to OAS and GIS, one that would not erode seniors' purchasing power.

The answer is yes. Many pension advocacy groups suggest basing the indexation of pensions on trends in wages, because they increase faster than the consumer price index. Another calculation method that was developed by the United Kingdom involves increasing benefits yearly to match price increases, wage growth or 2.5%, whichever is highest.

There is no doubt that a study on aging and the financial health of seniors should consider this issue and possibly explore other mechanisms in order to determine which one would best preserve seniors' purchasing power year after year.

Finally, another issue that requires immediate attention is how to retain experienced workers. Since 2014, the active population in Quebec has been shrinking every day as workers retire and are not replaced by the smaller new cohort. Population aging is well under way and will accelerate sharply over the next decade.

That is especially true in my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, which has one of the fastest-aging populations in Quebec. Currently, one in four people in the Lower St. Lawrence region is over 65, and that ratio will increase to one in three within 10 years.

This decrease in the number of workers is also causing a labour shortage that continues to be a headache for employers. At the same time, one in four seniors believes that staying employed is important for staying active, cultivating a sense of usefulness and aging in a healthy way. Why then are most of them leaving the labour market?

It is not out of a lack of interest, but because of disincentives to stay. Pensioners who stay in the labour market have their pensions clawed back when they start earning employment income. We need to address this problem and bring in measures to encourage experienced workers who are willing and able to keep working.

A new tax credit for experienced workers, similar to the one Quebec is offering to help workers aged 60 and over, is worth exploring. An increase to the amount of employment or self-employment income that is exempt from the GIS calculation is also a promising option, as it would allow seniors to earn more annually without having money clawed back from their GIS cheque.

In conclusion, I could never see myself condemning the federal government for doing too much for seniors. The Bloc Québécois will be supporting the Liberal motion, but I would remind our colleagues on the other side of the House that sometimes, it is better to leave well enough alone.

I am certain that the member for Etobicoke North has seniors' well-being at heart. I therefore invite this member of the Liberal Party to stand in solidarity with the Bloc Québécois by supporting our proposals to substantially increase the purchasing power of seniors in our communities. Seniors need allies in the government party.

The government should start by increasing OAS for all seniors at age 65, to allow those who are being hit hard by inflation to breathe a little easier. Only then can we undertake further studies.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the concerns expressed in the motion before us. It is important that seniors live with dignity, that they are not overwhelmed with safety, health or financial concerns, and that they do not worry about how they will live if their savings run out. However, I believe that there are a lot of studies sitting on shelves in this place that have never been acted on. In fact, there is already a very current seniors study from HUMA that has not yet made its way to the House. That study was done just a year ago, before the Liberals' unnecessary election. I hope that at some point soon the report will make its way to this chamber to be acted on. Too many studies done by committees, by the PBO, by NGOs or even by accredited research institutes are not acted on by the government.

As my colleague for North Island—Powell River said, “several years ago there was a substantive study on a national seniors strategy, yet there is still no national framework in this country to address the large population of people who are aging”. There is also no federal plan to address how we are going to manage the aging of our population, and no plan on how we are going to work with provinces and territories in a meaningful way to make sure that none of the seniors across the country is left behind.

I point to health care. Provinces and territories are practically begging the government to increase health care transfers to deal with the tsunami of health care needs of our aging population. It is clear that the government has no plans for seniors in this country. At the same time, members in the House can see, in their very own communities, that many seniors are struggling. Their struggles are not because the government is missing another study. It is because the government has not responded to the studies that have already been done on this topic.

An example of one that was not acted on was published by the Broadbent Institute in 2016, six years ago. It is entitled “An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors”. It reads:

The analysis thus far has presented sound evidence that current policies, programs, and approaches to ensuring the economic security of Canada’s seniors are falling short. In addition to worrisome levels of poverty, the data show totally inadequate retirement savings of Canadians without workplace pensions. This highlights both the need for expanding the CPP/QPP and the shortcomings of voluntary savings vehicles like TFSAs, RRSPs, group RPPs, and the more recent Pooled Registered Pension Plans.

If only the government had acted on the findings of this study six years ago, seniors would be in a better place than they are now, but the government did not. Knowing the history of the Liberal government’s inaction, I do not believe that another study would result in concrete steps to improve the lives of seniors. What I am really interested in is something that is actually going to make change: something that is going to address the realities that people are living longer and that their retirement savings have to last substantively longer.

I want to see this government help seniors. We need solutions, not studies. I really mean that, because I have talked to too many seniors across the country, and in my own riding of Port Moody Coquitlam, who have told me that they cut their medication in half. They are not taking their medication to save money. They are putting their own health at risk because they cannot afford to take their meds. Now, with the increasing price of food, I am hearing from seniors that are no longer buying meat or dairy, and some not even fresh fruit.

One of the reasons it is getting harder too is the financialization of housing. In my community, I can point to REITs. REITs are going after stable seniors rental housing. Too many real estate developers and agents are tirelessly harassing seniors on the doorsteps of their own homes, encouraging them to sell even when there is nowhere for them to go. It keeps me up at night thinking about how many seniors have already lost their affordable homes due to the predatory tactics of corporate investors. Seniors have been displaced across the country so that some corporation can make a profit through a real estate investment.

Is another seniors study going to stop predatory real estate investors? Is it going to reduce the price of food? Is it going to increase income supports for seniors? Is it going to finally bring pharmacare to this country? I do not think so.

Doing another seniors study is just an unmet promise by the government to do something that it has not done in the past. It will not address meaningfully the lack of income security that supports us as we age. Instead of another study, I believe we need more courage by the government and better prioritization. The government needs to move from love of the lifting of corporations to love of the lifting of people. It needs to make sure that there is support in place for people as they age, so that they can live all their days in dignity.

Right now in this country, too many seniors are facing struggles because they cannot afford to make ends meet and, unfortunately, COVID has left even more of them behind. How did we get to this point, where there is no proper infrastructure in this country when it comes to the care of our citizens? We do not have systems in place that really focus on making sure that people are cared for as they age.

The care economy is a growing concern in this country, and it already supports one in five workers, mostly women and immigrant women who are exploited in workplaces like long-term care homes. That reality needs to be addressed immediately. We do not need another study to know that the government should be prioritizing long-term care and the workers within it.

I spoke earlier about a study that was done last year by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That study looked at the impact of COVID-19 on seniors. Let us ensure that study comes to the House.

There are solutions that can be found right now, and it will take only the government's action to bring some simple fixes, some, like the ones my colleague from the Bloc brought up earlier, that would make changes in the House and make income supports available for seniors.

In closing, I want to see action from the government, not another report on a shelf. For that reason, I am not sure I can support the motion as is, but I propose the following amendment and look for all parties' support of this addition. I move that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “interest rates”, the following: “guaranteed livable basic income”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), no amendment may be proposed to a private member's motion or to the motion for second reading of a private member's bill unless the sponsor of the item indicates his or her consent.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Etobicoke North if she consents to this amendment's being moved.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after months of consultation with numerous groups and many attempts with the NDP to even have a conversation, this motion is actually on RRIFs and we did not even hear that discussed, so the motion stands.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 93(3), the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague, the member for Etobicoke North, and thanking her for choosing such an important and timely subject.

In recent years, many of my constituents have contacted me, as their MP, about this issue. This motion gives me an opportunity to speak to the issue and discuss it here in the House of Commons.

I was here for the first hour of debate. I listened to all the speeches and I heard a number of criticisms about the motion. Most of the criticisms were about things that were supposedly missing. I feel those criticisms are unjustified and fail to address the nub of the issue.

It is true that, if I am not mistaken, the motion does not mention the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan, old age security or the guaranteed income supplement, but that is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about those aspects of the support system for Canadian retirees.

I would like to take a moment to speak about the nature of our support system for retirees. It is a mixed system, a system that reflects our ways of doing things and our lifestyle here in Canada. It is reflected in our federative political system, which is a nuanced, multi-dimensional system.

For example, we have a mixed economy that is based on free markets. However, the government does intervene for various reasons. We therefore have a mixed system, which consequently is perhaps more stable and efficient than other economies around the world. In particular, I think that it is more efficient and fairer than the American economic system.

We also have a health system that is somewhat mixed. It is obviously a public health system. However, there is some space on the periphery for private insurance plans to cover the cost of medications, for example, although we are moving towards a national pharmacare system. It is therefore a system that allows for private insurers to cover certain services such as osteopathy, eye exams, psychotherapy and so forth. Once again, it is a multi-dimensional system. In Canada, we have the capacity to find a middle ground. That is Canada's brand, and it makes Canada a force in several respects.

As a complement to public pensions, Canadians also have access to private savings vehicles supported by the tax system. The tax policies of both levels of government make it possible to invest in a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, and in a registered retirement income fund, or RRIF. Some of these vehicles enable individuals to manage their own retirement investments.

Even those who do not keep an eye on their portfolio every day—and I think that is most people—still have some knowledge of what is happening in the financial markets. If someone has an RRSP or a RRIF, they obviously keep an eye on the financial markets, even if they are not an expert and they do not work on managing their portfolio every day. In short, those who have these financial instruments are in a position to make fairly informed decisions that will help them maximize the value of their assets to the extent possible.

Many people have written to me to share their concerns about how the current rules, which require them to withdraw a minimum percentage of their portfolio after the age of 71, will leave them less well off financially in the long-term. That means they will not necessarily have the support they hoped to have when they are older and further into their retirement.

Many have told me that it makes no sense to be required to withdraw a minimum amount from their funds and that they would rather not do that right now because the financial markets are down. Taking out their money is worse than not being able to take advantage of a situation where they might be able to benefit from a capital gain. Worse yet, they are being forced to take a loss. Many of my constituents have written in to urge us to suspend this requirement to withdraw a percentage of the funds in their portfolio.

A few years ago, such a request was not justified because the financial markets were more or less stable. However, I believe that everyone in the House can see that the economy has been more volatile these past few years than it was in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. It is a fact we can see with our own eyes if we watch the news or follow the markets a bit.

Stephen Poloz, former governor of the Bank of Canada, just published a book entitled The Next Age of Uncertainty: How the World Can Adapt to a Riskier Future. It is only available in English for now.

Even the former governor of the Bank of Canada has said that the world is more unstable than it once was and that, as a result, financial markets will show a much wider variation or spread in the value of investments. This is a reality we need to come to grips with.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this may be the time to really look at this issue again. I know that in the past, governments have made adjustments to the amounts and percentages that have to be taken out of one's portfolio. However, I believe that the current economic and financial situation calls for a review of this issue to see whether we need to make changes that would allow pensioners to retain the value of their assets for much longer than if everything stayed the same.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak in the House on M-45, brought forward by the member for Etobicoke North. It is good to see she is in the House today as well—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Members cannot say whether anyone is in the House or not.

I will let the member back up and give him the full 10 minutes.

The hon. member for Yellowhead.