Debates of Oct. 18th, 2023

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Members sang the national anthem]

Persons Day

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to recognize the fact that, on October 18, 1929, the highest court in Canada recognized women as persons under the law. That may seem strange to us, but it is indeed the case. That is why we celebrate Persons Day on October 18.

This day makes me think of all the women in our beautiful country who became pioneers to make sure that a person like me can rise in the House today. It makes me think of my grandmother, who owned a business in Montreal in the 1940s. She did not even have the right to have a bank account even though she owned a business.

Today, it is important to remember that our rights as women are never guaranteed. We need to always protect them and, most importantly, never lose ground.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is running our country like he is the captain of the Titanic. He justified his record-high spending because interest rates were at historic lows. He encouraged Canadians to keep borrowing because those rates would stay low. He may as well have said that our country's finances were unsinkable.

The captain of the crew of this ship ignored all the warnings about icebergs and look where we are today. Inflation and interest rates are hitting record highs. Canadians are now running to the lifeboats as the cost of food, fuel and home heating continues to climb. Too many people are losing their jobs, their homes, their savings and any hope they had for the future. It was hubris that sunk the Titanic, but it is the arrogance and entitlement of the Prime Minister that is sinking Canadians now.

Conservatives will right the ship by axing the tax on gas and groceries. We will end inflationary deficits. Let us give Canadians a lifeline and bring it home.

Street Art Seniors of Stouffville

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government's New Horizons for Seniors program provides funding for projects that make a difference in the lives of seniors and their communities. Last year, the Street Art Seniors of Stouffville, also known as SASS, received support from the New Horizons for Seniors grant. SASS is exactly the kind of initiative New Horizons for Seniors was created to support. It provides seniors with an opportunity to express themselves, supports their inclusion in the community, and addresses social isolation and ageism.

A few weeks ago, Street Art Seniors of Stouffville received a community impact award for elevating the spirit and quality of life in the community. It is a wonderful example of the incredible talent and innovative initiatives happening in Stouffville.

My thanks to Margaret Wallace, Jennifer Onlock and the team at the Latcham Art Centre for their leadership and hard work.

My thanks go as well to the seniors who took part and everyone who helped make this project a reality.

Mike Bossy

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste recently honoured the memory of Mike Bossy, one of the greatest hockey players in the history of Quebec, who sadly passed away too soon last year. It would be hard to find a candidate more deserving than Mike Bossy of the Maurice Richard award, which is bestowed upon Quebec's greatest athletes.

What he accomplished will unlikely be seen again. He was the first player since the Rocket to score 50 goals in 50 games, and the first rookie to score at least 50 goals in a year. His record nine consecutive seasons of scoring 50 goals or more stands unbroken. With four Stanley Cups and countless trophies to his credit, the New York Islanders right winger earned his place in the Hall of Fame.

The son of Ukrainian immigrants, Mike Bossy won a place in the hearts of all Quebeckers, both on the ice and over his long media career in French. In more ways than one, this star goal scorer has had a profound effect on Quebec.

Hats off, Mike Bossy.

Small Business Week

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to recognize all the incredible small business owners in the community of Orléans and across Canada as we are celebrating Small Business Week.

Whether it is local young entrepreneurs like Maissa Zemni of Makeup by Maissa Zemni; Elizabeth and Jordan, founders of Art of Bean Coffee Co.; or a small family business such as Beyond Café located on St Joseph Boulevard and owned by Ela, Vahid and Hasti Meschi, small businesses are the heart of our communities, the backbone and the engine of our local economy. Let us celebrate each and every one of them for their achievement and their hard work.

Let us continue to support our small businesses and the people behind them.

I hope that all of the small businesses in Orleans and Canada have a great Small Business Week.

Community Organizations in Louis‑Saint‑Laurent

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you on your election.

All across the country, requests for food assistance are skyrocketing. People who were donating food just a short time ago are now being forced to ask for help in turn.

Thankfully, community organizations continue to stand strong and are working miracles to help families in Quebec City and, more specifically, in my riding. I am thinking about Frigo Val Bon Coeur, Boîte à FringAL, Frigo-partage de Loretteville, Frigo Amélie et Frédéric, Société Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, Rayon de soleil, Comptoir Agoshin, Wendake, Accueil Saint-Ambroise de Loretteville, Solidarité Familles de Duberger—Les saules, Piolet and Popote Multi-Services.

These organizations provide direct assistance to people in need. From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank the dozens, even hundreds of volunteers who help the less fortunate.

I appeal to all charitable individuals who are in a position to donate. Every dollar counts. Every canned good counts. Let us give generously.

Persons Day

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, on this Persons Day, I walked over to the truly powerful Famous Five statue in front of the Senate building to reflect on the progress made since these pioneering women fought to have women declared as persons.

I think they would be proud. There is now parity of women in our Senate, parity of women in cabinet and the House of Commons is 30% women. Women have pensions, medicare, child care and dental care. There are almost 60% of women in the workforce, the highest in the OECD. We have made serious efforts to address violence against women, the original goal of the Famous Five and their temperance movement colleagues.

Today we remember the clarion call of the formidable Nellie McClung, “...never retract, never apologize. Just get the thing done and let them howl.” Today we honour and thank the Famous Five. We will get the equality thing done and let the misogynists howl.

Foreign Affairs

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to condemn the attacks conducted by Hamas on October 7 and I call on Hamas to release and safely return the Israeli hostages to their loved ones. I condemn the air strike on the Al Ahli Hospital yesterday.

What we are witnessing in Gaza is a humanitarian catastrophe. Over one million people have now been displaced, 3,000 have been killed and a third of them are children. I implore us to exhaust all tools that will allow humanitarian corridors to open for humanitarian aid to reach Palestinians. Now, more than ever, we need governments to work together to de-escalate the situation in Gaza and ensure the safety of innocent civilians.

My deepest condolences go out to every single person who has lost a loved one on either side of this conflict. Jewish and Palestinian communities are looking for leadership to see their humanity. That is our job as leaders.

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister has added more to Canada's national debt than all other previous prime ministers combined. The Prime Minister told Canadians that his government would take on debt so Canadians would not have to, but now Canadians are paying the price for the Prime Minister's massive deficits and inflationary spending.

After half a trillion dollars of inflationary deficits, the Bank of Canada was forced to hike interest rates 10 times in just 19 months, and now monthly mortgage payments have increased by 150% since the Prime Minister took office. To keep up with the Prime Minister's inflationary spending, Canada will spend $240 billion over the next five years to service our debt.

The Prime Minister is wrong. It is not the government that is taking on debt; it is Canadians. Canadians will not be fooled. They know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

Small Business Week

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate the 44th annual Small Business Week. Small business owners are the backbone of Canada's economy and the heart of our communities, and every October we celebrate their resilience and entrepreneurial spirit.

Over the last few years, the challenges of running a small business have changed dramatically, but entrepreneurs across Canada have recovered, innovated and adapted. Through it all, our government has been there to support them, from the Canada emergency business account keeping doors open during the pandemic to the Canada digital adoption program helping businesses compete in the digital era to programs helping under-represented groups fulfill their entrepreneurial goals, our government has been there for small businesses.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business, I am excited to roll up my sleeves and get to work with entrepreneurs and small business owners across the country.

Liberal Party of Canada

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, after eight long, miserable years, Canadians are sick and tired of the NDP-Liberal government. The Liberal ministers were happy for a photo op with grocery CEOs, and then they promised that prices would go down before Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving has come and gone, and the prices continue to climb. This is yet another broken promise by the Liberals. Canadians just cannot trust anything they say. First, the industry minister met with the grocery CEOs and said that he has a plan to lower food prices. Then he said that prices are stabilizing and that Canadians should look for this in their local grocery flyers. Now he seems to have no idea what is going on.

What the Prime Minister needs to realize is that, just like budgets, grocery bills will not balance themselves. All Canadians know that the Prime Minister simply is not worth the cost.

Cost of Living

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, housing costs have doubled, and people are struggling to pay their mortgages and make rent. This is something that affects small towns and big cities across Canada and Canadians both young and old.

In a series of town halls and meetings I hosted last week, the number one concern I heard about was the cost of living's leading to a genuine fear about the future. After eight years, the Liberal Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. Conservatives demand that the Liberals bring back a balanced budget, since we have painfully learned that budgets do not balance themselves.

Goldy Hyder from the Business Council of Canada recently said, “With long-term interest rates at the highest they have been in years, it is irresponsible to suggest that economic growth will be higher than interest rates for years to come. Governments can no longer run permanent large deficits without fear.” It is time to balance the budget to bring home lower prices for Canadians.

Persons Day

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we mark Persons Day by paying tribute to the Famous Five, I would like to highlight the contribution made by Thérèse Casgrain, another great Canadian whose struggle not only gave Quebec women the right to vote in 1940, but who fought throughout her life to improve conditions for women in Quebec.

Her political work, commitment and achievements are examples that inspire many of us to this day. When she became leader of the Parti social démocratique, she also became the first female leader of a political party in Canada. In 1970, she was appointed, as a person, to the Senate.

The Famous Five, Thérèse Casgrain and the women of that era who fought for our rights opened doors for us. Let us make sure we keep them open.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, despite the harsh colonial and genocidal policies my mom was forced to endure, she had the strength to have faith and to teach me about love and forgiveness, as many indigenous people have done.

I am comforted in knowing that my mom is finally at peace. If she had had access to great programs like those provided by Dechinta, I think she would have worked harder to stop intergenerational trauma from being passed on to her great-grandchildren. Organizations like Dechinta are important because they show the benefits of first nations, Métis and Inuit leadership in helping each other. Their funding is running out, and we must ensure sustainable funding for healing and cultural programs to continue without interruptions.

I call on all members to be champions of organizations like Dechinta in their ridings. Together, we can break systemic racism and act on reconciliation.

Violence Around the World

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in one of their great songs, Beau Dommage sings, “Tous mes cauchemars passent à six heures, à la télévision” or “all my nightmares appear on the six o'clock news”.

Sadly, those words ring true during these terrible times we are living in. Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh, Gaza, war is sowing grief and desolation everywhere. No one will come out a winner.

Who wins when children die? Who wins when the bodies of civilians are strewn across deserted streets, when hospitals or the sick and injured seeking care and refuge are bombed? Who wins? What god rejoices at the death of a child? What government will proudly avenge the death of a grandmother? What cause justifies these tears, this pain and this mourning? Who is proud of humanity?

Who would look at our spineless approach to the climate crisis next to our fiery determination to kill each other and say, “keep up the good work”?

I do not know how all of this is going to end and I have no desire to see the outcome of these dark days. I know that humanity must get its act together. I know that we must get our act together. I know one thing: We need to do better.

Small Business

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, small business owners are the unsung heroes of the Canadian economy. These entrepreneurs make up almost 98% of all employer businesses, employing nearly two-thirds of the private labour force, and they provide meaningful paycheques to millions of Canadians. However, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, I doubt that small business owners feel like unsung heroes. Higher inflation, higher payroll taxes, higher carbon taxes, a labour crisis, higher rent, more red tape and increased crime rates are hurting main street businesses across Canada. Business insolvencies continue to rise at alarming rates year over year and month over month. More businesses are closing than opening. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

This Small Business Week, I want small business owners to know that Conservatives are hearing their challenges and that we are committed to axing the carbon tax, lowering business taxes and fostering an environment where small businesses are able to grow, innovate and create powerful paycheques once again.

Persons Day

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for all of the women in this room and, indeed, across Canada. It is Persons Day.

On October 18, 1929, the Privy Council of England ruled that women are indeed persons under the law. This victory was the result of a long and courageous legal battle by Canadian women known as the Famous Five. This ruling allowed women to fully participate in political life. However, not all women were included. Indigenous, Black and Asian women were not included until much later, and women from diverse backgrounds faced discriminations that limited their ability to participate.

The struggle persists. Although we have made progress, women as a group, and, even more so, marginalized women, continue to be under-represented. Persons Day reminds us to continue the fight begun by the Famous Five until we achieve equal representation for all women and gender-diverse people, because there cannot be true democracy unless women's voices are clearly heard.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

As promised before the constituency week, the Chair would like to make a statement on order and decorum in the House. In a very simple way—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this government, the inflation rate in Quebec is the highest—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member will have an opportunity to start Oral Questions once I make this statement to the House. Question period will follow immediately after the statement.

[An hon. member]

It is question period.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I will ask the hon. member to please take his seat for a moment while I consult with the table.

Colleagues, the Speaker has the choice as to when to start question period. There will be a full question period that will follow after this declaration from the Speaker. It is important for us to make this declaration.

The hon. opposition House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the Chair of Standing Order 30(5) under “Time for Statements by Members, Oral Questions and orders of the day”. It states, “Not later than 2:15 p.m...as the case may be, Oral Questions shall be taken up.” It does not say, “may be taken up”; it says, “shall be taken up”. It is well past 2:15 p.m.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Following a consultation with the table officers, it is important to realize that we have deviated from the custom of commencing exactly at 2:15 p.m. due to Statements by Members.

The Chair will make this statement.

I do not intend to make this a habit. However, the Standing Orders allow me the option of starting Oral Questions after my statement.

The hon. opposition House leader.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you ought to know that when rules are not followed or when there is a derogation from a rule, and when that is pointed out to the Speaker, the Speaker then enforces the rules.

The Standing Orders are the property of the House. It is up to the House to decide when we are not going to follow a rule or when we are going to change a rule. This is a standing order that the House has adopted. You are a servant of the House; you should follow the standing order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out the Standing Orders. He is indeed correct; there are written Standing Orders. However, there is a long tradition in the House that the Speaker has the ability to—

[An hon. member]

Preside over Statements by Members.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Can I ask the hon. member to please allow me to finish, as I have the floor at this time? I will be happy to recognize the hon. member for a point of order.

It is really important that we understand that the Speaker does have this ability to make a statement. We will have full Oral Questions at the end of this statement from the Speaker. It is an important message, which I think members would appreciate hearing because it gives an indication as to how the Speaker is going to be proceeding in the months and years to follow.

Order.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every day in the House, the opposition has occasion to respond to the actions of the government and hold the government accountable for its actions on behalf of Canadians. That happens at 2:15 p.m. every single Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. That is not a “may”. That is not a “possible”. That is a “shall”.

There is nothing in the clause that creates question period in the Standing Orders that allows the Speaker to arbitrarily change the time in order to give a speech. I will note that the Speaker has a plethora of occasions to stand on his feet to make any point he wants or any declaration he likes. He does not need to do it in the middle of the sacred period during which we hold the government to account.

If I may, this is the first time in all of my years here that I have seen a Speaker interrupt question period to make a speech. I have never seen it.

Furthermore, the fact that you have risen to your feet in order to impose, apparently, a series of guidelines that are not approved by the Board of Internal Economy or voted on by the House of Commons, and that you are doing it in violation of one of the rules that are already in place, suggests a very serious and unusual departure from the normal way in which Parliament exists. The government is here to serve Parliament, not the other way around. We ask that you allow us to proceed with question period and that you make your statement afterward.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Carleton for his intervention. I would like to inform the House, though, that this is not the first time that the Speaker has interrupted the proceedings to make a statement from the Chair between the point of S.O. 31s and Oral Questions.

So that everybody can understand this very clearly, my immediate predecessor, for example, has done this on at least two occasions, and it has also been done by Speakers in the past. I am going to continue with this statement. I think it is important for all members to understand this.

I would like to reassure the member for Carleton and all members that there are going to be no new Standing Orders that would require the approval of members.

I would invite members to listen to this statement in order to be able to improve order and decorum in this House.

Order and Decorum in the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

As promised before the constituency week, the Chair would like to make a statement on order and decorum in the House.

In a very simple way, order and decorum are signs of respect for each other and for the institution, respect which is necessary for productive debate in a deliberative assembly. It is, in fact, fundamental to Parliament’s ability to fulfill its constitutional role.

I decided to stand for Speaker because, in the eight years that I have been a member, and prior to that as a keen follower of parliamentary proceedings, I have noticed a deterioration in the collective decorum in this place. It is important to note that this deterioration was not inevitable. It is not a natural outgrowth of the advent of social media. We can choose to conduct ourselves differently.

I suspected other members felt the same way and, during the many discussions that I held recently with members from all sides of the House, I have confirmed this feeling. Decorum and disorder was the one issue that was most often mentioned to me in the one-on-one exchanges that I had, and not just in passing. Perhaps most importantly of all, members felt that bad behaviour dishonours not only ourselves, as elected members of Parliament, but also Canadian democracy.

On October 3, 2023, when I was invited to take the Chair for the first time, I said:

We need to make sure that we treat each other with respect and that we show Canadians an example, because there can be no dialogue unless there is a mutual understanding of respect. There can be no ability to pursue arguments, to make points be heard, unless we all agree to extend to each other that sense of respect and decorum.

I meant it then and I mean it now.

Members should not be surprised by my statement today. Not long ago, on May 8, my predecessor rightly said in a ruling on decorum, which can be found at page 14090 of Debates:

The rules and practices governing order and decorum are intended in part to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a civil, courteous and respectful manner. In particular, members are expected to address each other through the Chair and to avoid making any offensive or disruptive remarks. For example, stating directly, or indirectly, that a colleague is a liar, or has lied, is unacceptable.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie—Mackenzie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would usually ask if this was a filibuster, but for the purposes of planning, I wonder if the Speaker might indicate to the House how long he expects to continue.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

First, that is not a point of order.

I will let members know that it will continue for the time that it will take. It should not be too long.

The House is a place where freedom of speech is primordial and where views are strongly held and vigorously defended. While the Chair must allow the widest range of individual expression possible, members are expected to be mindful of their words and behaviours within the realm of what would be considered parliamentary.

I wish to echo the words of Speaker Milliken, which can be found at page 3719 of the October 5, 2006, Debates:

But the exercise of that freedom of speech ought to be based on the underlying principle of respect to the House and to other members. Conduct should not cause a disruption to proceedings.

It would be an understatement to say that we have been plagued in recent weeks by what any observer would have to admit is an unusually noisy chamber, particularly during question period. Some of the disorder is being triggered by questionable language or provocative statements.

But much of it also appears to be generated by interruptions, interjections or other demonstrations...actions that seem to be designed to drown out or plainly disrupt those asking questions or those answering them. But when the noise reaches levels where no one, not even the Speaker, can hear what is being said, the House as a whole loses some credibility.

So I appeal to all hon. members for cooperation. I will continue to try to give members wide latitude in expressing their points of view, but I ask for all members' assistance in ensuring that we can all hear the member who has been recognized and who has the floor.

Going forward, I will be fair and will ensure that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can freely speak their minds, vigorously hold the government to account, challenge each other’s ideas and thoroughly consider public business. However, as your Speaker, I will equally be looking for ways of improving the overall decorum in the House and I will be dogged in that pursuit.

I commit to doing this as your servant, to enforce the rules that you yourselves have given the House on your behalf. I will do so with humility and with an outreached hand. Within our purview, all the Chair occupants will work collectively to ensure that the rules of order and decorum are respected, applied consistently and applied to the same standards.

As another of my predecessors, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, stated on December 12, 2012, at pages 13215 and 13216 of Debates:

My task as Speaker is to ensure that the intensity of feeling expressed around some issues is contained within the bounds of civility without infringing on the freedom of speech that members enjoy. The Chair tries to ensure that our rules are adhered to in a way that encourages mutual respect.

However, all members will recognize that ultimately the Speaker must depend on their collective self-discipline to maintain order and to foster decorum. My authority to enforce the rules depends on the co-operation of the House.

Our electors expect all members to make greater efforts to curb disorder and unruly behaviour. So I urge all members to reflect on how best to return the House to the convivial, co-operative atmosphere I know all of us would prefer.

Because of the collegial character of the House and the broad privileges enjoyed by its members, no one—not even the Speaker—can act unilaterally to improve the level of decorum in the chamber.

Despite my own strong individual determination to maintaining the dignity and decorum of the House, ultimately those efforts will come to naught without members themselves taking responsibility for their behaviour and conduct, and showing their own personal efforts in comporting their business in an appropriate and civil manner. I will therefore need your help in order to succeed.

From what I have observed over the years as a member, the following issues have deteriorated and need to be addressed.

First, excessive, disruptive and loud heckling must be toned down. Occasional heckling has always been a part of our proceedings, and a lighthearted or clever comment will often enhance debate rather than detracting from it. However, far too often, heckling is boorish and rude, designed to intimidate, insult or drown out others. Members have a right to be heard and to hear the proceedings going on around them. The frequent and time-consuming disorder that heckling creates must stop. Excessive interruptions must be curtailed.

Second, while I am committed to protecting the individual privilege of freedom of speech necessary for our debates, too frequently our ideas and thoughts are expressed in provocative terms leading to tense exchanges that harm the necessary collegiality for our work. We have, in the past, had members likening their colleagues to Mussolini or calling each other racists or shouting obscenities. Latitude in expressing one's point of view will be given, but questionable language and unnecessarily provocative statements will no longer be tolerated.

Finally, the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.

I would also include comments designed to draw attention to the absence of members as a means of embarrassing them, even though this is against our rules. As many of my predecessors have underscored, members must go to multiple places to fulfill their duties.

I will point out that there are examples of these sorts of comments on all sides of the House. Insofar as personal attacks can be limited, I will use whatever tools I have at my disposal to do this.

The above-mentioned issues tend to be displayed most prominently during statements by members and the daily question period. This is unfortunate, because it is when our proceedings receive the most attention from those watching, or from the public in the galleries, and from which clips are most widely circulated on social media.

These are the issues I will focus most of my efforts on resolving.

While the House is the master of its own proceedings and the Speaker its servant, the Chair has the authority to enforce rules of debate to maintain order and decorum so that the House can conduct its business in an orderly fashion. The Standing Orders of the House state explicitly that the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and decide questions of order. This duty, which extends to the other chair occupants, carries with it a wide-ranging authority covering matters as diverse as the behaviour and attire of members, the conduct of proceedings, the rules of debate and disruptions on the floor of the Chamber and in its galleries.

As such, any challenge to the authority of the Chair by refusing to respect a call to come to order, to withdraw language ruled to be unparliamentary, to cease irrelevance and repetition in debate or to stop interrupting a member who has the floor can be addressed through recourse to a number of options. For instance, the Chair may recognize another member or refuse to recognize a member until the offending remarks are retracted and the member apologizes immediately in person, or at a later time in writing, to the Speaker. As a last resort, the Chair may name a member, which is the most severe disciplinary power at the Speaker's disposal.

In the days and weeks ahead, as I proceed as outlined above, I will continue my discussions with individual members, as well as with House officers in the different parties, to see how we can join forces in our collective objective of improving the decorum in our proceedings.

I thank all members for their attention and invite them to reflect on the statement I have made today. I also wish to indicate that members are always free to come and see me if they wish to discuss the matter further.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, after eight long years in power, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost, especially not in Quebec, where the inflation rate is at 4.8%. That is a lot higher than elsewhere in Canada.

After eight years of inflationary deficits, the solution that the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals are now proposing is to drastically increase costs with a tax on gas and diesel, which drives up the cost of all products that are transported.

Will the government finally reverse its inflationary policies so that Quebeckers can buy gas and groceries and put a roof over their heads?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we will not take lessons from the Conservatives.

What the Conservatives are proposing to the Canadians who are watching today is to make cuts to services, investments and Canada's future.

Canadians know that we have a plan to help them prosper in the 21st century economy. More importantly, Canadians realize that the Conservatives are too dangerous for this country, and they trust us to move forward.

Housing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the member's lack of decorum and his emotionally charged approach to focus on Canadians, because I can actually take it. I can take the debate and have it out in the open.

He talks about cuts. Canadians are making cuts in their own lives. We now have a new phenomenon in Canada, which is the middle-class homeless. We used to just have young people living in their parents' basements; now we have parents moving into their children's basements.

Will the Prime Minister reverse the inflationary policies that doubled housing costs and are forcing seniors to move into their kids' basements just to avoid going homeless?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a AAA credit rating, the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and low unemployment. In addition, we will always be there to support the middle class, whether it is six million seniors with the old age security benefit, 11 million Canadians with the grocery rebate or four million Canadians with business supports. What we do on this side of the House is invest in Canadians to build a stronger economy day after day and year after year, and we will continue on that course.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, incompetent rating agencies mean absolutely nothing to the unhoused seniors who say that for affordable housing in metro Vancouver, the only thing that turns up is “nothing, nothing, nothing”. Nor do they mean anything, to quote from the CBC, to him: “Living in his broken-down car, homeless man says he has until Thursday to move.”

We have nurses and carpenters living in parking lots after eight years of the Prime Minister doubling housing costs. Will the Liberals stop driving up the cost of living so that Canadians can house, feed and heat their families?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, here is the truth for seniors. The global inflation problem is not going to be fixed by cutting dental support to 3.5 million seniors, and that is what the Leader of the Opposition would do. On top of that, to get to the tens of billions of dollars of cuts he is talking about, it would mean cuts to our health care system, and it would mean making sure, unfortunately, that the investments, like we saw in B.C., to transform our health system would not happen. What does that mean? It does not mean just poor health outcomes. It means more costs in the future, it means a less resilient country and it means a much worse future for our seniors. That is what he is peddling.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually the government that is promising over $10 billion of cuts right now, because it suddenly woke up and realized that it was bankrupt. When we were in office, we managed to balance the budget while growing health care spending every single year and, in fact, growing it faster than the current government. However, today the biggest threat to the health of Canadians is homelessness. People are losing their homes because the Prime Minister has doubled the cost of housing.

Will he realize, with people living in parking lots, that after eight years he is just not worth the cost?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, on this side of the House we do not balance budgets on the backs of Canadians. On the contrary, we invest in Canadians.

Let me give members one example: lifting almost 500,000 children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit. Every single time there is an opportunity to support Canadians, what does the other side of the House do? They vote against. That is not the way we will build a strong economy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Once again, I would like to remind members to please conduct themselves in a way that is appropriate. I will also ask members to please keep their voices down so that at least the Speaker can hear what is going on, if not the member who asked the question.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Foreign Affairs

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right about one thing: They do not balance the budget on the backs of Canadians; they run massive inflationary deficits on the backs of Canadians.

On another matter, our hearts were broken to see a hospital in Gaza struck by a missile. Disinformation peddled by Hamas and regurgitated by CBC was then amplified by the Prime Minister. Does he agree with President Biden that the offending missile originated with terrorists in Gaza?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been unequivocal in condemning the terrorist attacks of Hamas against Israeli citizens. We are also adamant that attacks on civilians are wrong. We call on all parties to observe international law.

Our hearts go out to the innocent Palestinian victims who have died as a result of this attack. We will continue to work with partners around the world to call for a humanitarian corridor.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the terrible conflict that is tearing apart the Gaza Strip, civilians are losing their lives or living in unspeakable distress. Humanitarian aid needs to get to the civilians on the Gaza Strip and aid has to get there unconditionally, no matter where it comes from. To do its work under these circumstances, Canada needs a strong voice. It needs a strong voice to convey the desire for peace on behalf of our Israeli friends, Palestinian friends or friends of peace in general.

In that spirit, will Canada join the initiative undertaken by the United States with Italy, Germany, France and the United Kingdom?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs was one of the first to go to these regions to show that we are there for our Israeli friends and our Palestinian friends. We were one of the first nations to speak out in a strong voice about the situation between Israel and Hamas. We are continuing to push for a humanitarian corridor. We are here to stand up for the rights of all innocent civilians.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were one of the first nations, but our nation has too little weight on the international stage to be the only voice. We need friends and we need credibility.

Since we have heard nothing about that, am I to understand that the Prime Minister of Canada, over the past 11 days, has not once talked to the President of the United States? As they say in Quebec's two neighbouring countries, “you must walk the talk”. We have a similar expression in Quebec.

To give these fine words and good intentions any substance and credibility, is it not time for the Prime Minister to start walking?

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this crisis is truly horrible for everyone involved. There are many innocent victims on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides. Since the beginning of this crisis, the Government of Canada, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, have been in contact with our allies and members from the region.

We are there to provide leadership and co-operation in resolving this conflict.

Grocery Industry

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before Thanksgiving, the Minister of Industry said that prices for groceries were coming down and that Canadians just needed to check out grocery flyers. Now the minister is backtracking and saying that, well, he is not sure because the grocery CEOs' plans are too secret.

If the minister cannot get answers, then we will. Will the minister of grocery flyers support our motion to summon the grocery CEOs back to Parliament?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised in a way by the question. We did something that has never been done in Canadian history. We called the five grocery CEOs to Ottawa and expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians about the price of groceries. I would urge all members of this House to give the same message that I gave: Make sure they help Canadians and help us to stabilize prices in Canada. That is what Canadians expect.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister's plan to ask them nicely is not working.

Let me summarize the situation. Earlier, the minister said that prices in the flyers are dropping but, now, he does not know how CEOs plan to stabilize prices because their plans are too secret. It is quite clear that the minister does not have a plan, so we are going to give him one.

We have moved a new motion to force the CEOs of the big grocery stores to appear before the committee again. Will the government support it, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the leader of the NDP asked me that question. Not only is this what we proposed, but I even wrote to the committee chair asking him to invite the CEOs of Canada's major grocery store chains to come and explain their plan to Canadians.

I am happy to answer his question, because we were the ones who asked the chair of the parliamentary committee to invite the CEOs to come and explain themselves to Canadians.

Foreign Affairs

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is saying that it has not been briefed on verified intelligence confirmed by the President of the United States that has led to the retraction of media reports around the world about yesterday's explosion by IRGC-backed terrorists, who killed innocent civilians in Gaza.

After eight years, is the relationship with our closest allies, our Five Eyes partners, so damaged that they do not even share with Canada what they have already told the rest of the world?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Gaza is a tragedy. The loss of Palestinian lives is absolutely horrifying. This is an unthinkable act, and it is imperative that innocent Palestinians be protected and that international law be upheld.

Finance

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Business Council of Canada is warning the Liberal-NDP government that it can no longer run large, permanent deficits without fear. After eight long years, the Prime Minister has added more debt than every government between 1867 and 2015 combined, creating 40-year highs in inflation and the fastest interest rate hikes ever. There is a massive fear of a looming mortgage default crisis if the Liberals do not balance the budget now. He is just not worth the cost.

Will the Prime Minister stand up today and support our common-sense, fiscally responsible motion to bring in balanced budgets so that Canadians can keep their homes?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about fear. There is also fear among Canadians that the Conservatives are going to cut programs they rely on.

This week, Canada child benefit cheques will arrive at Canadians' doors and in the member's riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. That means individuals will get up to $10,000 lowered from their child care fees. There are 400,000 families in Calgary Forest Lawn who will get the Canada child benefit cheques.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that interest rates were going to remain low and Canadians believed him, so they went out, bought homes and took out mortgages, but after eight years of Liberal inflationary deficits, interest rates are at a 30-year high, and many Canadian families are now finding that they cannot pay their mortgage.

In fact, the Business Council of Canada just said that governments cannot permanently run deficits without fear. Will the finance minister stop running her inflationary deficits so that interest rates will come down and Canadian families will not lose their homes?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to correct the record. There are actually 400,000 families in Alberta collecting the Canada child benefit cheques. Those cheques are coming out this week.

Under what the Conservatives are proposing, they would have those cheques completely removed. They would be cutting those supports for Canadians. I will remind members that, while we continue to support Canadians, here in Canada we are also running the lowest deficit among all G7 countries.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one cut that we are going to make. We are going to cut about 80 members from that side of the House when we form a common sense Conservative government. When we do that, we would address the concerns, such as the ship-worker in Vancouver who is paying $7,500 a month for a mortgage.

What do they say? They talk about an AAA credit rating. How out of touch are they? They are gaslighting Canadians.

Will they cut these inflationary deficits and get interest rates under control, yes or no?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member of the opposition speak about Seaspan. It is a very important member of the business community in my riding of North Vancouver.

I was very pleased, a couple of years ago, to join the Prime Minister to announce the commitment to build an additional 18 Coast Guard vessels, worth almost $16 billion, which will provide well-paid employment for the employees of Seaspan for decades to come.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to create good economic jobs. We are going to ensure economic opportunities for Canadians. We are going to ensure affordability at the same time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am going to ask, once again, for members to please refrain from taking the floor when they have not been recognized by the Chair and to allow questions to be answered so colleagues can hear them.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is going to be a wave of mortgage renewals in the coming months. The Royal Bank of Canada, for one, will be renewing 41% of its mortgages. Non-stop interest rate hikes will make that difficult. Inflation is driving mortgage costs up by 30% every month. After eight years of the Prime Minister, everything is broken.

Can he explain to people how they are supposed to pay their mortgage and not end up homeless?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Statistics Canada shared some good news: Inflation is down again here in Canada. Our government is working to help Canadians struggling to make ends meet. In fact, here in the House, we introduced a bill that parliamentarians are studying and that will stabilize grocery prices across Canada. The Conservatives are playing political games with measures that will help Canadians.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where she got that good news from. According to Statistics Canada, inflation in Quebec has jumped to 4.8%. Quebec has had the highest inflation rate in Canada for four consecutive months. Food price inflation stands at 6.7%. After eight years under this Prime Minister, supported by his Bloc Québécois friends, people are literally struggling to feed their families. Are these the sunny ways he promised eight years ago? This Liberal government is not worth the cost.

Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is shameful that, in Canada in 2023, people are having trouble feeding themselves?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, affordability also means putting a roof over the heads of all Canadians. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House. Just this morning, CMHC reported a 98% increase in housing starts. The programs we have implemented will help all Canadians have a roof over their heads. That is exactly what we are going to do.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights, Canada will be one of the global drivers of oil production in 2024. Forget about the green transition. Canada will be one of the largest oil developers on the planet.

The Conservatives applaud when we talk about this, but this is not their record. It is the Liberals'. It is under the Liberal watch that oil production is increasing by 10% in the midst of a climate crisis. It is under the Liberal watch that Canada will produce 500,000 more barrels of oil a day.

Is that really the legacy that the Liberals want to leave?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before the minister answers the question, I would like to ask the member for Calgary Signal Hill to please wait his turn to be recognized by the Chair if he would like to take the floor.

The hon. minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in every sector of the economy.

We have a very detailed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and grow a prosperous, low-carbon economy. We will continue to do that.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada will be a global driver of oil production in 2024, on the strength of Trans Mountain.

Thanks to Trans Mountain, Canada will shatter oil production records and, therefore, pollution records. However, taxpayers are footing the bill for Trans Mountain. It is costing us $30.9 billion, or roughly $800 per person, babies included. The Liberals are charging each of us $800 to pollute more, not including the cost of subsidies or natural disasters.

How dare the Liberals ask Quebeckers to pay more to pollute more?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I wonder why she has nothing to say about what the government has recently done. We recently announced the largest private investment in Quebec's history, known as Northvolt, precisely to manufacture batteries and electric vehicles.

My colleague should have focused on this issue, because Quebec will not only become a champion of the auto industry, but also a champion of the green economy. This is exactly what we are doing.

Housing

[Michelle Ferreri, Conservative, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over and over, the Liberal-NDP government promised interest rates would not go up, but after eight miserable years of the Prime Minister, Canadians know that is not true. Mortgage defaults and forced home sales are on the rise.

Lindsay is one of hundreds who wrote to me to tell me about her skyrocketing mortgage rate. She is paying an extra $1,250 a month. She does not have an extra $1,250 a month.

The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost, so when will he stop his inflationary spending so Canadians like Lindsay can keep their home?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to visit Peterborough, that member's riding, where I announced $42 million for the construction or renovation of over 1,100 units of housing. What is interesting is that the member voted against every program that made that funding possible, and then she tried to take credit for it. It is astounding what the Conservatives continue to do.

What Canadians need is a government to be behind them to see more construction built and to see the Canada child benefit continue to have an effect, as well as dental care and child care. They are against all of those.

Finance

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, the deficit continues to rise. In March, the finance minister said that this year the deficit was going to be $40 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just told us that she was off by at least $6 billion.

Earlier this month, in a Senate committee, finance officials could not even say what the Liberal-NDP government is spending on debt interest charges.

The Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost, so when will the Prime Minister come up with a plan to balance the budget so Canadians can keep their homes?

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Employment]

Mr. Speaker, I find it highly shocking that Albertans from the Conservative Party in the House are absolutely silent on a matter that really affects the middle class in Alberta. We are talking about the Government of Alberta trying to take Alberta pensioners out of the Canadian pension plan, destabilizing the pension plan for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

They talk a big game in this chamber, but when it comes to actually defending Albertans, they sit on the sidelines while we have their backs.

Housing

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of inflationary spending, the Prime Minister has literally killed young Quebeckers' dreams of becoming homeowners.

Imagine. A young person in Montreal has to earn $116,000 a year if they want to buy a house, and that is not counting the down payment of 20%. How many years will it take a young person to earn that kind of salary and save enough money?

After eight years, do the Liberals realize that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost and that middle-class young people can no longer afford a Prime Minister who is mortgaging their future?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what Montrealers do not understand is why the Conservatives are delaying the implementation of measures that will help build more apartments and houses across the country.

We have a bill and the Conservatives, even those who stated publicly that they would vote in favour of this measure, do not want to move forward. We are behind schedule and we cannot do our job because the Conservatives are holding up a bill in the House.

That is shameful.

The Economy

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals could have put the bill on the agenda for yesterday or today so we could discuss it, but they did not. They are the ones holding up the bill.

After eight years, the consequences of the Liberals' policies have been disastrous. Quebec has the highest inflation rate in the country. It is close to 5% for the fourth month in a row. Like all parents in Quebec, I am worried about the future of my children, who are facing the highest interest rates in 40 years. Food is too expensive, rents are unaffordable and interest rates are skyrocketing.

When will the Prime Minister stop mortgaging our children's future?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, the Conservatives always claim to have the strongest economic record and want to lecture us on the economy. The reality is that the last time they were in power, not only did they burn through the budgets left behind by the Liberals, but they also managed to never balance the budget, despite all their cuts to pensions, employment insurance, border security, the army, federal prisons, science and research.

On this side of the House, we support economic growth. The Conservatives may be good with an axe, but they are not so good with a calculator.

Housing

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, city of Toronto housing advocates have warned that unhoused people will die as the weather gets colder. Toronto's shelter system, the largest in Canada, is beyond capacity. Hundreds of people are being turned away every day, including refugees and asylum seekers. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have walked away from housing and left the city scrambling to house people in need. Toronto is pleading for support.

Will the Liberals step up to provide the funding required to the city of Toronto so no one has to sleep or die on the streets this winter?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked with the member for a number of years now, and I do not doubt for a moment her commitment to housing. She knows, because she voted for it, that we doubled the funding for homelessness through the reaching home initiative, and Toronto has received $290 million to combat homelessness.

We will continue to work with not-for-profit organizations that are on the ground doing the vital work to get people off the streets and providing them with the wraparound supports they need to make a transition toward something better.

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

Mr. Speaker, homelessness in Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam and Port Moody is up by 86%. Community leaders from the Tri-Cities Homelessness & Housing Task Group are calling for political courage. I agree. People being unable to find a home is past the point of a crisis, and with colder weather on its way, action is needed, but the Liberals are out of touch, and their lack of concern is appalling.

What are the Liberals going to do to get people into affordable homes before the winter?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, the current government was the first government in Canadian history to recognize that there is a human right to housing.

We continue to act in that vein through the national housing strategy, a strategy that has resulted in 70,000 people being taken off the street; 122,000 who were very close to being homeless are no longer in that position. Because of the vital supports they have been given, they are now housed.

We will continue to do everything we can, and we embrace partnership through working with provinces, municipalities and, I emphasize, not-for-profit organizations, which are key to all this.

Natural Resources

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping Atlantic Canada drive the tremendous economic opportunities that exist for clean energy in our region.

That is exactly why we advanced Bill C-49, in close partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We also have a mutual goal of getting off coal-fired electricity while expanding clean energy grids. Premiers Higgs and Houston were both in Ottawa this week to talk about their provincial plans to do just that.

Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources explain how our government is working in co-operation with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support that crucial transition while being mindful of affordability?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued advocacy for Atlantic Canadians. He and his Atlantic Liberal colleagues stood up against the Conservatives who opposed Bill C-49. This includes Conservative members from Atlantic Canada whose communities would benefit from the good, sustainable jobs and economic opportunities this bill would bring.

This week, Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to advance collaboration and progress on delivering clean, affordable and reliable electricity while phasing out coal by 2030, driving to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. This would fight climate change and create good jobs and economic opportunity across Atlantic Canada.

Foreign Affairs

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the State Department updated their travel advisory to Lebanon to the highest level, advising all U.S. citizens of the following: “Do Not travel to Lebanon.”

However, the Liberal government's overall travel advisory for Lebanon advises Canadian citizens to “Avoid non-essential travel”, which is not the highest level.

Why is the Liberal government always a dollar short and a day late when it comes to protecting the safety and security of Canadians overseas?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the hon. member. We are never late protecting Canadians. We will always stand up for the security and safety of Canadians here in Canada and abroad.

As the Speaker knows, yesterday the minister indicated that Canadians in Lebanon should make plans to leave. We are aware that the situation could be volatile there, and we want to make sure Canadians are safe. She has advised Canadians to leave the area.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been late. It was late in the fall of Kabul in August 2021.

Has the government not learned the lessons of 2006 and 2021 of Beirut and Kabul? Throughout the Middle East and North Africa, there has been an outbreak of protests and violence targeting western interests and western missions.

Will the government clearly communicate to Canadians the information necessary to ensure their safety and inform Canadians about security threats they are facing in the region in a timely manner?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, we have and we will continue to.

These decisions are made by officials on the best advice. We will continue, as we always do, to ensure that Canadians are safe when they are abroad.

Carbon Pricing

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of bad policy, this government continues to fuel inflation with uncontrolled spending. Today, we learned that Quebec has won Canada's inflation game for the fourth month in a row.

Groceries, housing, gasoline, everything costs more, courtesy of the Liberals, backed by the Bloc Québécois. Experts are not expecting things to return to normal anytime soon.

Can this government finally offer Quebeckers concrete solutions, put an end to out-of-control spending and abolish the carbon tax?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it always surprises me when Quebec Conservatives talk about the carbon tax because the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, which is a leader in action against climate change. We do not want the Conservatives to set us back. We do not want to stop taking action to protect our environment in Quebec. The Conservatives are completely out of touch.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, eight years of Liberal inflationary policies have driven Quebeckers further into debt. Young people fear they will never be able to buy a house. Some are even experiencing financial anxiety. Despite that, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois are adding a second carbon tax. We can never say it enough: It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister scrap his inflationary carbon tax?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about making cuts, but where does she want to make these cuts? Is it in housing? Is there too much money in housing? Is it in pensions? Do the Conservatives think that our seniors are getting too much money? Do the Conservatives think that we should not get involved in dental care? Is it in child care? Should we not be there to help our families?

Maybe culture is the target. They are so good at that, they spent their time making cuts in culture. Where do they want to make cuts? Let them show some backbone and tell us where they want to make cuts.

Pensions

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed a serious injustice when they created two classes of seniors by refusing to increase the old age pension for seniors 65 to 74. Today, they have an historic opportunity to correct this injustice that they created. They can ensure that every senior is treated fairly in light of the spike in the cost of living and the economic uncertainty.

Will they support the Bloc Québécois's Bill C‑319 and end the two classes of seniors by increasing the pension for all seniors 65 and over?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we have made a lot of progress to help seniors. These efforts have helped reduce poverty among people 65 and over. We restored the age of retirement to 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement despite constant opposition from the Bloc Québécois. Yes, we have increased old age security for the most vulnerable seniors.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. If seniors were satisfied with the federal government, groups representing them such as AREQ, the Association québécoise des retraité(e)s des secteurs public et parapublic, the Association féministe d'éducation et d'action sociale and the Table de concertation des aînés du Québec would not be on the Hill today. They are here to ask the government to support Bill C‑319. Seniors themselves are the ones telling us that Bill C‑319 will make a difference in their lives. They are the ones saying that only a fair pension increase for all seniors will get them out of their precarious situation. That is what seniors expect from the Liberals.

Will they finally listen and support Bill C‑319?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, we have restored the retirement age from 67 to 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement, despite opposition from the Bloc Québécois. We increased pensions for the most vulnerable seniors, who are more likely to live with disabilities and require health care.

Justice

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today, this House will vote on whether to protect the mentally ill against assisted suicide, but yesterday the justice minister falsely claimed that euthanizing vulnerable Canadians was good public policy and the only way to comply with Canadian law. Meanwhile, we are hearing more and more reports of Canadians crying out for help and being offered assisted suicide instead. Is this the sorry state of our mental health system? Millions of Canadians oppose the government's fascination with assisted death.

Will the government now bring a full stop to this madness?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, of course, there is not one among us in this House who does not have people they love who are deeply vulnerable and have been in a state of mental health crisis. Every single person in this House wants to make sure those people get the support and strength they need. That is why we are making critical investments there.

We also have to make sure, for the people who are trapped in mental illness and in deep, profound suffering, that we examine the best way to deal with those circumstances. That is why we are working to reconstitute the joint committee so that we can look at this process and look at how to responsibly deal with these issues in a way that respects and protects vulnerable people.

Veterans Affairs

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, each year on November 11, we gather to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our nation. Now, under the Liberal government, our military chaplains are being told they cannot even pray for the fallen.

During World War II, chaplains led prayer on the boats on the eve of the D-Day landings. Chaplains have provided last rites to dying soldiers in the field. The Prime Minister is now telling Canadians that, on Remembrance Day, they cannot even pray for those who fought for our country.

What is going on?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank our members of the armed forces and all the veterans who have served our country.

Every day in Canada, we must say thank you to these men and women who, in these times in particular, are defending what we do. On November 11, like many of my friends here and my colleagues, we remember. We will always remember the sacrifice of our veterans.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are discriminating against people of faith who want to pay tribute to our veterans. It is bad Liberal policy that is actually driving down morale in the Canadian Armed Forces.

It was reported that troops are leaving the forces in droves because of the lack of good, affordable housing. Sadly, military families are being forced to ask for donations to help offset the high cost of food and housing. After eight long years, the troops can no longer afford the Liberals or make that sacrifice.

When will the Prime Minister finally start supporting our troops?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take any lessons today from that side of the House. When the Conservatives were in power, they actually cut spending to fall below 1%. Let me be very clear: Military members and their families are our top priority. We are taking steps to ensure that they are supported. In budget 2022, we invested $55 million in residential housing for CAF members. We will be there for our troops. We will always support them.

Canadian Heritage

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Acadian community of New Brunswick and proud member of Parliament for Madawaska—Restigouche, I am pleased to have participated in the announcement a few moments ago confirming funding for Acadian community celebrations of National Acadian Day in 2024. My Acadian colleagues and I have always ensured that these major celebrations continue to receive support.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage update us on how this government supports the Acadian community and its culture, as well as National Acadian Day celebrations?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that my colleagues worked extremely hard leading up to today's announcement, and I thank them for their collaboration. Today's announcement is a reaffirmation of the Government of Canada's support for Acadian culture and history.

Today's announcement completes the funding package of $500,000, which is the amount required to celebrate National Acadian Day. The $250,000 announced today will make celebrations possible in every community.

This is excellent news. Together with the $2.8 million set aside for the Congrès mondial acadien, Acadia will be celebrating in style.

Public Services and Procurement

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no one is above the law, and that includes the Prime Minister. After eight years, he is the only one in Canadian history who has been found guilty of breaking not one, but two, ethics laws and now, with the arrive scam app, the RCMP is investigating criminality in the highest echelons of the government.

What was the Prime Minister's response? He shut down debate, and he shut down committees. Now he is hiding behind cabinet confidence. He is not worth the cost. Under dark clouds of suspicion, will the Prime Minister cooperate with the now several RCMP investigations?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite should know by this time, the Prime Minister does not dictate committees. It is the responsibility of members of the House to determine what the committees decide to move forward with. With that being said, we have faith and trust in the RCMP and those who are said to investigate any accusations of wrongdoing.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to any reports that come forward from the RCMP. Any form of misconduct will have consequences.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

May I remind the member for Brantford—Brant that he had the opportunity to ask his question and to please listen to the response without comment.

The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would love for reports to come from the RCMP, but the Prime Minister is hiding behind cabinet confidences and the NDP-Liberal coalition to keep Canadians in the dark about wrongdoing. That is why they were not able to launch that criminal investigation into the government. If members can believe this, there is a $1-billion so-called green slush fund that, through misappropriation and conflicts of interest, the government has had to suspend because $150 million in taxpayers' money has been mismanaged.

Now, whistle-blowers are looking for employment and reprisal protection, but we know that the government will do what it always does and throw a whistle-blower under the bus, just like it did with Jody Wilson-Raybould when she called out corrupt Liberals. Will they protect these whistle-blowers?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching at home should remember what the facts are in the House. The moment that we heard about allegations of misconduct, we immediately commissioned a third-party independent expert to investigate these allegations, who reported back to me. We have suspended, in good governance, the funds that would be disbursed to protect the interests of Canadians.

I can assure the member that we will take all measures required to make sure that proper governance is applied in all agencies of the Government of Canada.

Natural Resources

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has declared the Liberals' no more pipelines act as unconstitutional. Ignoring concerns from Canadians, the Prime Minister and his minister for carbon taxes seem hell-bent on destroying our natural resource sector. After eight years of the Prime Minister's anti-resource agenda, Canadians are suffering. Common sense Conservatives would advocate for our natural resource sector. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

When will the NDP-Liberal government do the right thing and repeal this disastrous bill?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians understand that, when the Conservative Party was in power, it gutted the environmental legislation that existed in this country in 2012. It undermined the confidence that Canadians had that the environment was going to be protected and that the rights of indigenous peoples would be respected, such that good projects could go ahead.

We have put into place a system of better rules to ensure environmental sustainability and respect for indigenous rights, which will accelerate the work we are doing to ensure that good projects move ahead.

With respect to the Supreme Court decision, there are some surgical tweaks that we will make to ensure that we move forward.

Diversity and Inclusion

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Jews in Canada represent just 1% of the population, and as Irwin Cotler reminds us, they are victims of 67% of reported hate crimes in Canada. Anti-Semitism is on the rise and Islamophobia is too.

I met with Jewish students yesterday who are afraid to be outed as Jews in their own community for fear of their safety. I have spoken with Muslims who are afraid to be outed as Muslims in their own communities for fear of their safety.

Can the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion let us know what role the government is playing in addressing the real anxieties of Jews and Muslims in Canada right now?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge just how difficult the past few days and weeks have been for both the Jewish and Muslim communities. I want them to know that all of us here stand with them and in solidarity with those communities.

On Monday, we announced the appointment of Ms. Deborah Lyons as Canada's special envoy on preserving holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism. As she stated, she will work closely with her counterpart, the special representative on combatting Islamophobia, to support both communities during this difficult time when feelings of anxiety, tension and fear are on the rise.

Diversity is at the core of who we are as Canadians. We all need to be united in standing up against hate and intolerance whenever and wherever.

National Defence

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, those who join the Canadian Forces do so because they believe in service to their country. Now, members are leaving their jobs because they cannot keep up with rising house costs. Those who keep us safe cannot afford a home, and the Liberals' and Conservatives' solution is to leave housing to condo developers, who keep costs so high.

The people who serve us deserve better. What is this government going to do to ensure that members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not become homeless?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for raising this. As an advocate, she has brought forward a lot of issues in the House.

However, let me be very clear. Military members and their families are our top priority, and we are taking steps to ensure that they are supported. This is why we are working with our stakeholders to align resources and acquire additional housing. In budget 2022-23 alone, we have invested $55 million in residential housing for CAF members.

Natural Resources

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the incredible irony here is that the portions of the impact assessment law that the Supreme Court found were in excess of federal jurisdiction were the sections created by Stephen Harper in wrecking our previous, predictable, strong environmental assessment legislation and the so-called designated project list, which was a very bad idea. The expert environmental law panel created under former minister McKenna, and then ignored by the government in bringing forward Bill C-69, has the answers the government needs.

Will this minister commit to reviewing those recommendations and putting them in place?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I think we can agree that the Conservative Party destroyed environmental legislation in this country and undermined the integrity of those processes such that it was incumbent upon the new government to bring into place better rules that would allow major projects to be built in this country. These would be projects that respect environmental rights and the rights of indigenous peoples. We have delivered on that.

We certainly respect the decision of the court, and we will be making amendments to the act. However, the Supreme Court was clear, and I will be very clear about this, that the Parliament of Canada enacted legislation to protect the environment, and we certainly will continue to do that.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Lindita Nikolla, Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Albania, accompanied by a parliamentary delegation.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move that the House concur in the following: “The Speaker, to use the old hockey analogy, is nothing more than a referee. If there is one thing I know, it is that nobody pays good money to go see the referee. They go to see the stars: you, the players on the ice.”

This was said by you, Mr. Speaker, upon taking the chair—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am afraid there is no unanimous consent for the motion from the member.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:44 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Carleton relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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

Vote #421

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion lost.

I would like to draw the attention of the House today to the fact that this was the first vote call by our table officer Jubilee Jackson. We congratulate Jubilee on a job well done.

The House resumed from October 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-319, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Old Age Security Act

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-319 under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #422

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

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

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

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-314, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-314 under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #423

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

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑244, An Act to amend the Copyright Act (diagnosis, maintenance and repair), be read the third time and passed.

Copyright Act

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑244, under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #424

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

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑325, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (conditions of release and conditional sentences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C‑325, under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #425

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

I declare the motion defeated.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Health; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

The House resumed from October 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-320, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (disclosure of information to victims), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Corrections and Conditional Release Act

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

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-320 under Private Members' Business.

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

Vote #426

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

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

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

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to change my vote on Bill C-325 from yea to nay.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 77 minutes.

Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That,

(a) the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying be re-appointed, in accordance with Recommendation 13 in the second report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying;

(b) five members of the Senate and 10 members of the House of Commons be members of the committee, including five members of the House of Commons from the governing party, three members of the House of Commons from the official opposition, and two members of the House of Commons from the opposition who are not members of the official opposition, with two Chairs of which the House Co-Chair shall be from the governing party and the Senate Co-Chair shall be determined by the Senate;

(c) in addition to the Co-Chairs, the committee shall elect three vice-chairs from the House, of whom the first vice-chair shall be from the Conservative Party of Canada, the second vice-chair shall be from the Bloc Québécois and the third vice-chair shall be from the New Democratic Party;

(d) the quorum of the committee be eight members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented, and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six members are present, so long as both Houses and one member of the governing party in the House, one member from the opposition in the House and one member of the Senate are represented;

(e) the House of Commons members be named by their respective whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than five sitting days after the adoption of this motion;

(f) changes to the membership of the committee, on the part of the House of Commons, be effective immediately after notification by the relevant whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House;

(g) membership substitutions, on the part of the House of Commons, be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2);

(h) where applicable to a special joint committee, the provisions relating to hybrid committee proceedings contained in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons shall also apply to the committee;

(i) the committee have the power to:

(i) sit during sittings and adjournments of the House,

(ii) report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the committee,

(iii) retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff, including legal counsel,

(iv) appoint, from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed appropriate and to delegate to such subcommittees, all or any of its powers, except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons,

(v) authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings and that public proceedings be made available to the public via the Parliament of Canada's websites;

(j) the committee submit a final report of its review, including any recommendations, to Parliament no later than January 31, 2024; and

(k) following the presentation of the final report in both Houses, the committee shall expire; and

that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems advisable, members to act on the proposed special joint committee.

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

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.

(Motion agreed to)

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms)”.

This piece of legislation was brought forward in the name of the member for Foothills. The bill will be up for third reading at some point, I am sure. I would like to thank all those involved, including the witnesses we had before the committee.

It is being reported back with amendment, but I wanted to offer my sincere congratulations to the member for Foothills.

Feeds Act

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-359, An Act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act (provisional registration and approval).

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be up again to introduce this private member's bill. As you mentioned, the title of the bill is an act to amend the Feeds Act, the Seeds Act and the Pest Control Products Act on provisional registration and approval.

I have had the opportunity in this House, over the last six to eight months, to talk about the ways that we could drive competitiveness in the agricultural sector. If members talk to farmers across the country, farmers will talk about the important tools, whether they be new seeds, new feeds or crop protection products, and how we could find ways to leverage the science and trusted jurisdictions elsewhere as part of the regulatory process.

The legislation proposes a 90-day provisional registration, where an applicant arriving at Health Canada, CFIA or PMRA would be able to show the science of jurisdictions elsewhere in the world where there is approval. It would allow those regulatory agencies to define what a trusted jurisdiction is. It would allow for provisional registration to ensure farmers have access to these tools in a more timely manner, without compromising public safety or the scientific process that we expect our Canadian regulators to undertake.

For the regulatory model that would follow, I envision a moment where there could be a pause on the provisional registration if necessary. However, this bill is supported by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and a variety of stakeholders groups across the country.

I would encourage any member of the House to second it. I would encourage any member to perhaps take their name to it if they are higher up on the bid. I will be calling on the government to introduce this legislation in budget 2024.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

International Trade

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, be concurred in.

I will be splitting my time with the prosecutor, the member of Parliament for Brantford—Brant, who will probably do a much better job prosecuting this issue than I will.

I want to start by talking about recommendation number 1 from the committee, with respect to looking into the arrive scam app. The first recommendation that the committee put together, in part, is this:

That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders, including through the use of appropriate digital and non-digital tools....

When we talk about digital tools, what we have learned is that there was some extraordinarily nefarious activity going on with the development of the “arrive scam”, “arrive can't”, app. We call it the “arrive can't” app, because every member in this chamber knows that the app was actually an unmitigated disaster for travellers. It did not work well. It caused enormous delays at the borders. Seniors were unable to use it. People had all kinds of trouble going back and forth across the border as a result of this app.

The international trade committee studied this over a series of meetings—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will just interrupt the member. I hear conversations going on in the House.

I would ask people who want to have conversations to go out into the lobby.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is what is important to look at: The arrive scam app was not just studied at the international trade committee, which is the subject of the report in the motion we are debating today. This was actually studied several times. It was studied at OGGO, which had a bunch of meetings, on October 20, November 14, November 17 and December 8, 2022. This is in addition to all the meetings that we had at the international trade committee.

I am sure members and all Canadians are wondering where I am going with this and why I am bringing these dates and other things up. It is because government officials came and testified at committee about this app on many occasions. They came to the OGGO committee on November 14 and October 20, 2022. We also had government officials from CBSA at the international trade committee.

Why is that relevant? It is relevant because it looks as though there was some pretty nefarious business going on with the development of this app. This was first reported to CBSA in September 2021 by the founders of a small, Montreal-based software company, who said that there was something rotten in Denmark.

At all these meetings, we had government officials who came to testify from public works, CBSA, Shared Services, Public Safety, customs and immigration, and the Treasury Board Secretariat. At all these meetings, the nefarious goings-on with the contract for the arrive scam app was never raised. It is unbelievable. Everyone knew there was a problem.

One may say that this was September 2021, so that maybe did not apply. It was a long time ago. They forgot about it and did not take it seriously, but they then submitted another report to the government with their concerns in November 2022. These meetings kept going on, and not once did the government raise this. In fact, we now know that when the Auditor General was looking into this, the government did not even let the Auditor General know that the contracting surrounding this app was not being looked into.

This is a typical Liberal cover-up. What is terrible is that this is not the first time. We could say that the first time the Liberal government made a mistake and did not disclose something, we could perhaps give it a pass. However, the Liberal government has engaged in this kind of corruption on a repeated and continual basis. We can go all the way back to the adscam, where there were bags of money being exchanged, and there was a public inquiry into it.

I would think that the Liberal Party and Liberal governments had learned that this is not the way to conduct business. However, in fact, this corruption continued. We only have to look at what has come up with McKinsey, SNC-Lavalin and the WE Charity.

We now have an extraordinarily long and wide track record of the Liberal government engaging in purchasing the agreements to develop this app in a way that appears to be criminal in nature. This is extraordinarily damning for the government. Once again, it chose not to follow the proper path but to go down a road of corruption. What makes it worse is that, in the course of studying this app, we heard a litany of witnesses at the international trade committee who said how terribly the app worked.

Even when it engaged in this kind of corrupt activity in the procurement of this technology, it did it in such an incompetent way that the app was way over budget. We heard that there were app developers who said they could develop it for a couple of million dollars. The government paid $54 million for an app that did not even work.

The backups at the border were unbelievable as people tried to use this app, and this happened over and over again with absolutely no compassion from the government. People who could not fill it in were given no compassion from the government. They were sometimes sent to quarantine hotels. We know what the bills for those quarantine hotels were. We know how people were treated in those quarantine hotels.

The arrive scam app is an unmitigated disaster from corrupt conception all the way through implementation to where we are today. It would appear that the government has not learned a single lesson about that because it failed to disclose an ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP with respect to this app. The Liberals did not disclose it ever at committee. They did not disclose it to the Auditor General. Why was that? It is because the government has a track record and a history of trying to not disclose things.

This has also been published in a story by The Globe and Mail on October 3 or 4. What I am waiting for is for the Prime Minister to say once again that the story in The Globe and Mail is false.

Members can remember when that happened when we were dealing with the SNC-Lavalin scandal and the story broke about how badly Jody Wilson-Raybould was treated by the Liberal government as she tried to do the honourable thing and be a whistle-blower. The Prime Minister said that the story in The Globe and Mail was false, except it turned out that the story in The Globe and Mail was one hundred per cent true.

Therefore, I would suggest that the story we have in The Globe and Mail about more Liberal corruption and more Liberal cover-ups is absolutely true. What a disappointing day this is for Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, to be honest, I am not completely surprised. I was a little bit taken aback that the Conservatives would bring forward yet another concurrence motion on a Wednesday. We have had these discussions in the past where the Conservative Party likes to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Why is it that the Conservative Party always chooses to use concurrence motions on government business days? The Conservatives never feel that they can use it on opposition days.

Today, we were supposed to be debating jobs, and the Conservative Party wants to talk about what I would classify as old, political, biased news, which it wants to try to highlight instead of the important issue of jobs. Why is that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I know some members are wondering about the noise. I did motion to the Sergeant-at-Arms, and he is taking care of it.

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is okay. I do not mind a little noise.

I am going to talk about this question in a couple of parts.

First of all, the government always thinks that debate is inconvenient, which is of no surprise because its leader said that he admired the basic dictatorship of China. Of course, in China, there would not be debate on a piece of legislation. Therefore, when the member gets up and asks why we are debating things, it is because, from the top down, debate is inconvenient and the Liberals would rather have things work more like a dictatorship. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy. This is the House of Commons, and we debate pieces of legislation.

Second, the member suggests that this is old news. This report just came out two weeks ago. That is not old. It is new. The Liberals are trying to cover it up, and we are not going to let them. The prosecutor is going to prosecute it, and they are going to pay the price.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, in addition to the current scandal involving ArriveCAN, which is being investigated by the RCMP, there is also the whole issue of its implementation and the fact that, once again, consultants were called in who called in more consultants, who called in even more consultants. This was done without using the internal workforce, without recognizing the expertise and skills of our public servants.

Does my colleague have anything to add about the importance of using internal staff before calling in consultants, more consultants, and even more consultants?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member. A huge problem for the government has been its use of consultants. We only have to look at how it used McKinsey for all kinds of things. McKinsey was responsible for the opioid crisis. The Liberals keep giving McKinsey more and more money, and this is what they do. They do not use the public service to get things done; they hire these consultants, their friends and buddies, and it is just corruption upon corruption. It has to stop. I hope the Bloc will be with us on this.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, in my colleague's speech I did not hear any mention about a bunch of other Canadians who tried on a weekend to see if they could build the app, and I think they were capable of it. I am not exactly sure of the details. I was wondering if he could talk a bit about that as well.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, only a Liberal government could design an app for $54 million that some people could design in their homes on a weekend, because the Liberals are so incompetent. What makes it worse is that their incompetence also comes with an incredible amount of corruption. A common-sense Conservative government working for the people would never let that happen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been looking through this report. Albeit not in its entirety, I certainly see that the government agrees with a number of the recommendations that are in it, and my question to the member is this: Why was this particular concurrence motion so incredibly important, rather than talking about jobs, which Conservatives are always talking about?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, once again, for a Liberal government whose leader admires the basic dictatorship of China, debate is inconvenient, and when the opposition picks the debate it is even more inconvenient, because the Liberals want to run the country like a dictatorship. We are not going to let them.

Bill C-50—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Diversity]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

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 said stage.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would just point out that the first round of opening speeches has not even been completed yet—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I believe that this is debate and not a point of order, therefore we will resume debate with the hon. member for Brantford—Brant.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

International Trade

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good citizens and residents of my riding of Brantford—Brant.

My colleague from Dufferin—Caledon expressed his disappointment and said that it is a sad day for Canadians. It is a profoundly sad day. In terms of my involvement in this particular study, I was brought on fairly late to the game to participate in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting, because its members wanted more questions asked in probing the RCMP investigation into this matter.

Before I get into the substantive part of my speech, it is important to start by reflecting on what the government telegraphed to Canadians in 2015. It telegraphed that it would be the most open, transparent and accountable government this country has ever seen.

What has happened over the last eight years? After eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. He and his government—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friends can laugh all they want, but this is the sad reality. These are the facts. There has been scandal after scandal. There have been ethical breaches. The Prime Minister is the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of ethical breaches not once but twice. It is not only him but also several ministers and other members of the government. We had the WE Charity, Aga Khan and SNC-Lavalin scandals, and the list goes on.

Over a year ago, it was discovered that this app, which was so essential to the government to keep Canadians safe, was a complete joke. It was highly ineffective, it was not scientific and, to make matters worse, it cost the Canadian taxpayers $54 million. We did not hear a peep from the government or the Prime Minister with respect to that price tag until it was revealed to Canadians in this House.

What did we hear from the Prime Minister? He said he thought that cost was “highly illogical” and reflected “inefficient” practices. He, in essence, conducted his own review. The Auditor General is certainly looking into this, as well as the RCMP now. His review showed that, even given the vast size of the public service, the government could not find individuals among its own consultants to create this app. The public service increased exponentially by the Liberal government, particularly during COVID and beyond. More importantly to the current investigation by the RCMP, the app was contracted for by a very small software company in Montreal, Quebec, known as Botler.

No, the government could not do it itself. It had to hire consultants. It has been revealed that there were three such consultants. I am going to name them, because it is important for Canadians to know what the individuals of these companies have done in terms of fleecing Canadian taxpayers. The three companies are GCStrategies, Dalian Enterprises and Coradix. The latter two essentially involve the same directors and CEOs.

There are three companies with a grand total of maybe six or seven employees, and they were hired by the current massive government to do the work it should be doing itself in finding individuals to perform the work. The companies do that at a substantial premium, anywhere from 30% to 40%. When Canadian taxpayers take a look at the situation, they are saying to themselves that they are already paying their taxes for the public service. They ask why they need to waste further money to have the government find software engineers in this country.

I applaud the bravery of this small software company known as Botler, because it spoke the truth. I want to quote a couple of passages, as reported in The Globe and Mail, that said, “they understand that speaking out could mean their federal funding will dry up and they are taking a big risk without knowing how it will turn out.” One of the directors said, “the issue is wider than Botler.”

This is something that affects every single Canadian, every single taxpayer dollar that is taken from very hard-working Canadians who are already struggling financially, which is given and spent through contractors, through improper means. I think that Canadians have a right to know what is going on with their hard-earned money.

When I attended, about a week and a half ago, committee during a constituency break week, it was revealed by the Auditor General, the same Auditor General who oversees all public spending and reports to this House, that she had no clue, no idea, that the RCMP were investigating criminality with respect to the contracting of the ArriveCAN app and other such apps.

When I asked her if the government had notified her in advance of her learning about this particular investigation, her answer was no. She was profoundly “disappointed”, her word, in the actions of this government, in not notifying her of a very relevant and essential part of her investigation.

It is not just, perhaps, ethical issues or improper awarding of contracts. There is now a criminal element to it. I brought to her attention that, according to Botler, this was not just misconduct at the highest level of the senior bureaucracy in this government but that it involved criminality, theft, forgery and fraud.

When prosecuted, people will be going to prison for two-plus years for fraudulently fleecing the Canadian taxpayer.

This is why not only is my colleague profoundly disappointed, but I am sick over this.

This is the government that is not accountable. This is the government that is not transparent. After that damning evidence came out, what did the Liberal-NDP coalition do? It shut down the committee. This was a two-hour meeting agreed to by every member of public accounts and it shut it down.

It says the reason was that the Auditor General could not share any further information. That was the furthest from the truth. Members of the Conservative team on that committee were just getting started. We had many more probing questions.

They are hiding something and Canadians have a right to know that. That is why I am putting on the record this criminality on behalf of this government.

That is why I rose today in the House and asked the question: will this government and will this Prime Minister co-operate with the RCMP or will he continue to hide behind cabinet confidentiality?

The motion would be amended as follows, by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, presented on Monday, March 20, 2023, be not now concurred in, but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on International Trade with instruction that it amend the same to include reference to;

(a) the $54 million hard-earned Canadian tax dollars wasted on the application,

(b) the inaccurate evidence government officials provided during the committee's investigation,

(c) the serious allegations of fraudulent contract practices that are cause for grave concern,

(d) the statement made by the RCMP that they are investigating criminality in the contracts that were awarded, and

accordingly, it recommends that the Auditor General of Canada update Canadians on where the money went.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I will get to what I really think about the Conservatives' tactics shortly, but I have a question for the member.

Given his background, I am sure he would realize that nothing prevents committee members of a standing committee from meeting to determine what they want on their agenda.

The member just moved an amendment to send this report back to get the committee to look at x, y and z. Why would his members not just raise that at the committee itself and get it onto the agenda if they felt it was something they could do? I guess it is because then they would not be able to filibuster Bill C-50 today. Is that correct?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, the answer is obvious, and it is because of the Liberals' political gains. Whenever it gets too hot or too close to the real truth, they just shut down committees and debates and prorogue Parliament. They have an arsenal of tools that prevent Canadians from seeing the light with respect to the rot in the government.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a member of the committee my Conservative colleague alluded to, and we asked the Auditor General about the progress of ArriveCAN. The first question I asked her was whether she had or had not received any information from the RCMP about the fact that it was also investigating the matter.

I have a question for my colleague. Why not wait for the final results of the investigation that the House of Commons asked the Auditor General to conduct, rather than interrupting the business of the House?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Bloc friend for the question, but it defeats the purpose by which we agreed to call the emergency meeting. It was agreed upon by all political parties, and although the Bloc did not vote to shut down the committee, the issue is that Canadians deserve to know the truth.

Canadians deserve to hear directly from the Auditor General the circumstances behind how she is now going to be expanding her investigation in light of the RCMP investigation. There were so many other relevant areas and questions to put to the Auditor General that were denied by the Liberal-NDP coalition.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my dear colleague from Brantford—Brant, in his capacity and expertise as a former prosecutor, how he reacted to some of the concerns that were raised throughout this process, including the facts that the RCMP were called in and that the Auditor General was working with the Canada Border Service Agency. It was the CBSA that called in the RCMP and failed to inform the Auditor General of a criminal investigation. Given his background, could he comment on that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, as a politician, I am profoundly disappointed. As a Canadian and a taxpayer, I am profoundly disappointed. As a former prosecutor, I think it stinks.

As said in Shakespeare's play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” There is something rotten in the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, when the member was talking about something rotten in the state of Denmark, I thought he was talking about the Conservative Party of Canada.

I would challenge the member as to why he has chosen to use the floor of the House of Commons, as opposed to using the standing committee itself. The member knows full well what he is asking for could have just as easily been raised at the standing committee. He is avoiding answering that question. I wonder if he could explain why it is that the Conservative Party is bringing forward this motion today when its full intent was to just have it go back to committee. It could have been raised at the committee in the first place.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really rich to listen to the parliamentary secretary talk about avoiding answering questions. They do that every day in the House. That is the bottom line. Something is rotten here. The Prime Minister is hiding something.

Will the member recommend to his leader, the Prime Minister, that he cooperate with the RCMP and waive all cabinet confidentiality?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I should inform the House that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is interesting to try to get into the minds of the Conservatives. I would suggest that it is dangerous. I am really amazed by the amendment the member has brought forward. Not only have the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that defies logic, but they have brought forward a concurrence motion to filibuster one of the issues that is so important today in Canada, no matter what region of the country.

Under the new leadership, I do not know if Canadians are prepared to risk having the Conservative Party ever become government after seeing the types of behaviours we have witnessed, not only today, but also previously. We are supposed to be talking about Bill C-50, legislation that is all about jobs, and the Conservative Party does not want to talk about that. They say that they want to talk about ArriveCAN.

We can see why the Conservative Party stands to says it wants concurrence on x, y and z. It is to prevent government legislation from passing, and then it is critical of the government for not being able to pass legislation or having to bring in time allocation. It is silly, especially when we look at the type of legislation we are bringing forward. Today, as I said, it was all about jobs.

I think of what the mover had to say about this concurrence report, and the seconder. What their speeches had in common, outside of using the word “ArriveCAN”, was the personal character assassination of the Prime Minister. In the speeches they delivered, they both talked about the Prime Minister. One talked about dictatorship, yet this is the party that brought in the Charter of Rights. The member across the way, when talking about ArriveCAN, talked about the Liberal leader being a dictator. I guess he is trying to feed the misinformation spin that constantly comes from the Conservative Party.

When the other member stood, all he wanted to talk about was scandal after scandal. That is the way the minds of the Conservatives think. We have seen that since day one. Even when I was in opposition before being in government, they made personal attacks on the leader of the Liberal Party. Nothing has changed. That is their focus. I have stood in my place before and said that, while the Conservatives are so focused on character assassination, we will continue to be focused on Canadians, the interests of Canada and building something solid for the middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

The principles, ideas and thinking behind the ArriveCAN app supported it in good part. It was the right thing to do. However, instead of the Conservatives wanting to have a healthy debate on issues that are impacting Canadians, they have once again chosen to prevent that debate from occurring. If we read the amendment, we get a good sense of what the Conservative Party is attempting to do.

For those who follow the debate, let me suggest that this particular concurrence motion, which was reinforced by the type of amendment they brought forward, did not need to be debated here. It could just as easily have been brought to a standing committee, because what the members of the Conservative Party are ultimately arguing is that they have some other issues and that they want the standing committee to deal with them.

Nothing at all prevents the House from concurring in the report. In fact, I believe that there are a number of the recommendations to which the government has responded very positively. However, the reality is that this was not the purpose of the Conservatives in bringing forward this particular report. We see the purpose in the amendment they brought forward, because they are not concerned about issues. Their concerns are how they raise the issue of character assassination, which is their real issue. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada today is all about. This is why, as a result, we have a minister who stands up and brings time allocation in regard to Bill C-50. Then the Conservatives say, “Well, there you go. Look at that; they're limiting time.”

I do say, “Shame on the Conservative Party of Canada.” On the one hand, its members try to be critical of the government for not allowing as much time as they would like to see in debate on legislation, yet they bring in concurrence motions. They adjourn debates and they try to adjourn the sessions. There are all sorts of dilatory motions and other actions taken by the Conservative Party in order to prevent debate from occurring. Nonetheless, they feel that they can come forward and say, “You know what? We don't think the government is doing enough to pass legislation”, and be critical of the government for not having a legislative order in place.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The government has in fact brought forward legislation, and we have had to; it was not by choice. Canadians said that it was going to be a minority government, so we work with New Democrats or the Bloc at times in order to be able to bring in things like time allocation. Without that support, we would not be able to pass anything, including legislation from the past that has supported Canadians in a very real and tangible way, from putting money in their pockets to building a stronger, healthier country for our middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We take this job seriously. We believe that the legislative agenda should be debated, instead of having the constant games that are being played by the official opposition.

The principles behind our border controls and ensuring that we can get traffic going between Canada and the United States is absolutely critical to Canada in many different ways. One can talk about everything from the social side of things in terms of the amount of tourism generated just because of family connections, which contributes to the economics of both countries, to the amount of merchandise that goes between Canada and the United States every day. I believe that Emerson, in my home province of Manitoba, is in somewhere around fourth spot in the nation in terms of two-way traffic between the U.S. and Canada.

I know the importance of trade. On many occasions, I have stood in the chamber and talked about how important trade is to Canada. We have to do what we can to enhance that trade and encourage and provide support so we can have the type of traffic that will meet the demands of today in a very real way. That was the idea behind ArriveCAN, and there are other thoughts and ideas that come. Some stay longer than others—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. I am sorry; I got sidetracked and did not pay attention. I am sure the hon. member will be able to add comments through all of this.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it has been eight long years of having the member stand up all the time for the Liberal caucus, to answer for the mistakes and the corruption in the government.

I have one specific question regarding the Auditor General. When the Auditor General was conducting the audit of the 50-plus million dollars spent on the ArriveCAN app, did the ministers involved in those departments direct the departments not to reveal to the Auditor General that they were under criminal investigation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the member is very much aware that there are all sorts of opportunities for him to exercise those sorts of questions and look at ways in which matters can be studied in standing committees and so forth. This is the challenge I would put to the member across the way. Today, we were actually supposed to be debating jobs and job security through Bill C-50. That is what we were supposed to be doing.

Like the Conservative member who just stood up did, at the end of the day, the Conservatives can continue to focus all they want on the whole area of character assassination. However, I can assure members that whether it is the Prime Minister, ministers or anyone else in the Liberal benches, we will continue to be focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and on how we can build a stronger, healthier country from coast to coast to coast.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, we could certainly talk about any number of other things, including bills that we feel strongly about. I agree with that.

That said, there was, and still is, a problem with ArriveCAN. We have an opportunity here today not only to raise the issues, but also to openly discuss solutions in the House.

Does my colleague agree with that vision? What solutions would he bring to the table so that disasters like ArriveCAN do not happen again?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there was a very good, healthy debate that took place at the standing committee. Considering all the reports that come out of standing committees, we would have to sit until midnight 100-plus days a year in order to be able to give the type of debate that many members would like to see on all the different reports.

If there is a need for a follow-up discussion and debate to occur, let us bring it back. The standing committees are still there. Nothing prevents a standing committee from saying, “Let us look at this aspect of a particular report.” Nothing prevents that from happening.

There are all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we can cover a wide spectrum of issues, but we have a finite amount of time on the floor to deal with the issue of legislation. It is so very important to ensure that it gets debated and voted on, and that it proceeds. It is in the best interest of Canadians. If members want more debate time, we are prepared to see more debate time. However, I can say that things like we saw today really take the air out of the room in terms of being able to have good, healthy debate on government legislation, when the Conservatives are so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona, questions and comments.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament, and the allegation that a department withheld vital information from the Auditor General during the course of an investigation is a very serious allegation indeed for this place. I think it behooves Parliament to hold the government to account and to try to get to the bottom of what went on.

I know that the member for Winnipeg North has taken exception to the idea of doing that through a concurrence debate. I also know that he has far more experience in opposition than he does in government. If the member were on the opposition benches, what method would he recommend that parliamentarians use to hold the government to account in light of this serious allegation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would use the forums of question period and opposition days. I would look at ways in which it could be raised in a number of different standing committees, depending on the severity of the issue. I believe that, in good part, we have witnessed that on this particular issue.

I would challenge members. There are so many issues. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of issues we could be debating on the floor of the House of Commons. We have a responsibility to ensure that we are dealing with the legislative agenda of the government and of private members, and even opposition day motions and things of that nature.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, let us just be frank about what is going on here. Today, the Speaker of the House of Commons basically told the House, including Conservatives, that we have to behave ourselves. Conservatives are upset about that. They tried to prevent him, on a number of occasions, from giving that statement today.

Now, they are using this tactic in order to slow down the House, because they are frustrated and upset. It is actually behaviour for which I would scold my five-year-old and my seven-year-old, but that is actually what is going on in the House of Commons right now, demonstrated by the Conservative Party of Canada. In the next eight or nine minutes, I will demonstrate why I believe this to be the case. For starters, the Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion to bring forward. I have had the opportunity, since we started debating this, to have a look at the motion. There are six recommendations in it. The government agrees with five recommendations, and accepts and acknowledges the sixth one.

The Conservatives could not have picked a worse concurrence motion. At least they could have picked something that is slightly more controversial. This is a concurrence motion on a report about which the government has already put in writing that it agrees with over 80% of it. This is about trade relations. It is important for the public who might be tuned in right now and watching this to fully understand what is going on here.

The government had put on the Order Paper that we would be talking about Bill C-50, sustainable jobs, today. That is what we were supposed to talk about. There is a whole other issue that I do not have time to dive into, about why Conservatives are not interested in sustainable jobs, but let us just park that for a moment and focus on their objective today. The government said that this is what we were going to talk about. The House commenced at 2:00 p.m. today. The Speaker, a brand new Speaker, tried to rise to give a statement about how he plans to conduct the House, in terms of decorum. He cited numerous references of other Speakers, including, at great length, what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said when he was the Speaker, and he just established a benchmark for what the Speaker expects from the House.

Conservatives heckled, made points of order and did everything they could to prevent the Speaker from even giving that statement, which I think was incredibly petty. Then we got to the point where we were supposed to go to Government Orders and start the listed item for today. There is an opportunity in Routine Proceedings to put forward a concurrence motion. This basically sucks up anywhere up to three hours of House time. Conservatives looked at the clock, and they knew that if we started this concurrence motion, the three hours would expire before the House needed to adjourn, and the government would not get to dealing with its business today. That is the Conservatives' objective. That is what they did.

However, the motion they did it on I find to be so perplexing. It is a set of recommendations in a committee report about our borders, particularly postpandemic. I did not really read it or even know it existed before the concurrence motion was put on the floor. There are many committees submitting many reports, and I was not aware of this one. However, I did take the opportunity to have a good look at it since then, in the last 40 minutes or so since we started debating this. Here is recommendation 1: “That the Government of Canada ensure the safety and security of Canadians by continuing with its ongoing efforts designed to modernize Canada’s borders.” It goes on to list how to do that. The important thing is that the government agrees with the recommendation and accepts the recommendation from the committee.

Recommendation 2 reads as follows: “That the Government of Canada enhance its efforts designed to increase domestic and international awareness that Canada has removed COVID-19–related public health measures.” There is nothing the Conservatives would want more than to do that. Again, the government agrees and says it is a good recommendation, that we need to make sure that the world knows Canada is open and ready for business and tourism, that this is a great recommendation and that we should move forward with this one. The government agrees with that recommendation.

Recommendation 3 is “[t]hat the Government of Canada ensure that international bridge authorities and commissions, as well as duty-free stores in Canada, are eligible for federal financial support if the Government decides to close—for any length of time— the borders that Canada shares with the United States.” This is the one thing the government responded to and said it acknowledges but that it might not be as simple as how it is being portrayed.

For example, the government did assist with the tourism sector quite a bit. The government also assisted with businesses, as we know. The government assisted in many different ways, including trying to reopen borders that Conservative supporters were trying to close. The government did a lot to ensure that we supported businesses throughout the pandemic. Although the government acknowledges the recommendation, it said that it is a bit more complex, as there are various sectors involved, and that this needs to be looked at more closely. It certainly did not outright reject the recommendation.

Then there is recommendation 4, which says, “That the Government of Canada enhance safety and security, reduce delays and backlogs, and improve processing times at Canadian ports of entry”. Once again, the Government of Canada agreed with that recommendation.

Also, I am sorry. There were not six recommendations; there were five.

We have the fifth recommendation, which the government agrees with. My point is that there were five recommendations, and the government agreed with all but one but did acknowledge that it was important and tried to explain what the government was doing about it.

What the public needs to know is that 99.9% of the time that somebody in this House moves concurrence on a report from a committee, they agree with it. They are basically saying that this report is so important that it is not enough to table it for the government, even though the government already responded to it: They need to force Parliament to vote on it so they can solidify the support of this House and not just the committee. That is what they are saying.

Why do I point that out? I point that out because the Conservatives put this forward as if they support it, because one only puts forward a motion of concurrence if one supports it, and then turned around moments later and put forward an amendment to basically wipe the entire report clean as if it did not exist, sending it back to committee. I could not put together a scenario in which the Conservatives would look more petty than we have right here, right now on the floor of the House of Commons.

I am sorry the Speaker told the Conservatives today that they have to behave themselves, that it is time to play nice, that they cannot be heckling and making up fake names for ministers, shooting them out like this is some kind of wild frat party. The reality of the situation is that maybe a little decorum is required in this House from the Conservatives, as day after day we hear personal attacks and name-calling.

The Speaker did the right thing by pointing that out. Then what do they do? They act worse than I expect of my children with the games they play and with what they are doing right now to delay talking about a very important piece of legislation on how we create, manage and ensure that sustainable jobs are here for the future of Canadians. How many times have we heard Conservatives talk about jobs and needing to make sure that we put the right groundwork in place for jobs? Just two days ago, a minister of the Crown went to my neighbouring riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington to make the announcement of 600 sustainable jobs. These are sustainable jobs.

This is the bill we are talking about. This bill is about how we ensure there are more of those jobs throughout our entire country. How do we continue to attract clean-tech jobs from Germany or Belgium, as we see with Umicore, and bring them right here to Canada?

I think this is very petty. It is very unfortunate, but for eight years I have been watching it occur time after time.

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

Madam Speaker, I would point out that the debate is on the amendment, which the member did not comment on too much. However, I want to focus on the amendment, which deals with the fact that the RCMP had to be called in to deal with this scandalous ArriveCAN app and the fact that the Auditor General herself was not notified by CBSA officials, despite the fact that she is actively auditing that department.

I am wondering if the member for Kingston and the Islands would join me in condemning the acts of the government officials who failed to notify the Auditor General of Canada about a criminal investigation occurring within that department.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the report does not even speak to that. That should show us how incredibly petty this is. The report does not even speak to it, yet the Conservatives are basically saying that we should delete this report and send it back to committee to study this new issue. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, the committee can decide of its own inclination if it should study the issue. It is completely unrelated to the report. The member knows it. He knows the procedure of this House better than the vast majority of the people here given his experience, and he knows exactly what they are doing. The fact that he just got up and asked me that question is kind of ridiculous.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is almost Halloween. Our colleague is trying to scare us, putting on a shocked schoolgirl act. The Liberals cannot believe the Conservatives' approach. In fact, they are one and the same. When one side is not obstructing, they are moving closure. I cannot remember how many gag orders there have been in the last two years.

We should be talking about important things, including Bill C-50, which deals with sustainable jobs. We could talk about housing. We could talk about the cost of living. We could talk about seniors. We talked about that earlier; we voted on an important bill. There is so much we could be talking about.

With the Conservatives filibustering and the Liberals imposing gag orders, one wonders where Canadian democracy is headed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is only one member who I think I compete with for the most animation in this House and it is that member.

He was just critical of the government having to move closure, but certainly he can understand, based on what the Conservatives are doing today, why we end up having to move closure. Before I got to this House and heard the stories about closure, I used to think it was anti-democratic. I did not understand the nuances of how the House worked and why it was necessary to do it. It is absolutely necessary because Conservatives play games like this.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands for demonstrating, however accidentally, how great a tool concurrence motions can be to bring to the attention of members of the government issues that heretofore they had no idea about and recommendations from committees they had not heard anything about. I think that is an important tool for members of this House to use to bring to the attention of members of Parliament, and indeed the government, things they have been working on at committee. Therefore, I am loath to disparage concurrence motions. I think they have an important role to play here.

However we got here, and whatever is going to happen at the end of the debate, the fact is that we are spending the next bit of time talking about this, including an amendment that raises the question of a department having hid from the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament, a criminal investigation into the very thing she was investigating. I wonder, given that we are spending the time anyway, if the member might take this brief opportunity to say something meaningful about the substance of that allegation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly flattered that the member sees this as an opportunity to make me aware of what he perceives to be a very important report. However, I do not know if it is worth tying up three hours of the House's time to do that. If the member really wanted to inform me about it, he could have just brought it over to me and told me that I should look at the report, as it is really important. He did not do that, nor did any other member. They tabled a report, just like everybody else.

We all have our own issues that we are passionate about. I am very passionate about the environment. I follow just about every report that comes out on it. The member knows that. The reality of the situation is that we do not get to see or read every report. If anybody in this House claims that is not the case, then I certainly would like to know about their skills in being able to do that.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Terrebonne.

Here we are again to talk abut the ArriveCAN app. There would not have been so many questions—logically—if there had not been any problems, including with the contract.

I will not argue the reasons why the Conservatives decided to bring the report to the House now and ask for three hours of debate. I will not go there. I am not in their shoes and do not intend to be, ever. Rather, my goal is to raise the problems that cropped up with ArriveCAN and help make concrete improvements to procurement practices and the customs and practices of the machinery of government.

It is a question of efficiency. It is also a question of saving money, the money that helps create programs and applications—ArriveCAN in this case. It is not money that grows on trees. It is money that comes from taxpayers. It is our money from our taxes. Let us not forget that we are nothing more and nothing less than trustees of the tax money that taxpayers pay the federal government every year.

As trustees, we have a duty to manage this money responsibly. Was the ArriveCAN app developed in a responsible way? We have a duty to ask the question, because what we see and what we know so far is that it was not done either responsibly or well. An application initially expected to cost $80,000 with updates ended up costing $54 million. That is some increase.

An app designed to make it easier for people to get through certain border controls on arriving in Canada is not a bad idea. This is the 21st century after all, and if we can cut through the red tape to help things run more easily at the border, so much the better. “More easily”, however, does not mean less securely. We need to ensure both.

The problem with ArriveCAN is much the same as with other contracts. In the case of ArriveCAN, two guys won the contract. They said they knew people, so they assigned some of the work to others. The committee realized that no one really knew whether everyone had gone through security screening or whether due diligence had been done. There are a lot of questions that have not been answered. We were told yes, it was done, but it was more of a yes to get us off their backs. We do not want that kind of a yes. We want a definite “yes, that was done”. However, we are still not not sure about that yet. We are talking about an app that stores personal information, and the government is not sure that the people who developed it had the necessary security clearance.

This is not the first time this has happened. My colleagues spoke a bit about it earlier. Think about the WE Charity, for example, or the contract awarded to a non-existent company. That company did not exist 10 days before it was awarded a contract. It was founded by two guys. As soon as they got the contract, what did they do? They gave the $237 million to Baylis Medical, which belongs to a former Liberal MP who lost his seat in 2019, if memory serves. A $237-million contract was awarded to a company that existed for only 10 days. I already said it, but the Canadian dream is not bad. Not just anyone would be able to pull that off. I am not sure whether Rockefeller himself managed anything like that.

Once again, we have two guys who got awarded a contract and gave it to others to develop an application, supposedly because the federal government could not find one person among its 340,000 public servants who specializes in application development. It is 2023. This happened in 2020. That is a problem, and that is what I want members to think about. How is it that 1% of the population works for the federal government and that not one person in that 1% of the population specializes in application development?

Our public servants are trained. They have security clearance. They are capable of doing the work we ask them to do at a lower cost and in a much safer way.

We are currently faced with a situation involving allegations of identity theft, fake resumés, contract theft and fraudulent billing. That is not trivial. Where are the controls that should have been applied when this contract was being awarded or monitored? Given the allegations filed with the RCMP, there is no trace of that. How is it that officials who knew that the RCMP was conducting an investigation failed to inform the Auditor General?

Nothing is clear or transparent about the situation with ArriveCAN and other contracts. This needs to be said loud and clear. People do not want secrecy, they want transparency. We are not asking for the app's source code. We want to know where, how and on whom our money is being spent and who is spending it.

With ArriveCAN and in the consultations we did in committee—the powerful Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as the committee chair would say—we heard from unions, university researchers and civil servants. We were astounded to learn that the unions had not been consulted, even though their members were the ones who were supposed to be making sure that things were working and following up with people at the airport. They were supposed to ensure that everything moved quickly so that things did not drag on and there were no delays. However, they were not consulted at any stage, either in the development of the app, the request for the exact need at the borders, or even the updates. At no point were they consulted, yet they were the ones who had to help passengers, use the ArriveCAN app and live with it on a daily basis. It seems to me that it would make sense to include the end users when developing an app.

As I have already mentioned, this was a private contract. There was no due diligence. Who are these guys? Who are the other parties involved in the contract? Are these people solvent? Are they reliable? We do not know. It seems to me that this expression has come up a lot in my speeches over the past four years. We do not know because we never get an answer. The people we are asking do not have any answers either.

No due diligence was done to determine whether the app could be created and managed internally. The government did not even ask whether anyone could create an app. A contract was awarded immediately. It does not take 15 years to ask whether we have in-house developers. Normally, when someone is hired, their skills are well known. With the millions of dollars we spend on IT in Canada, no one ever tried to find out whether there was anyone capable of developing apps. ArriveCAN has simply brought to light a whole host of problems inherent in the federal machinery, and those problems need to be dealt with at the source.

People might wonder why we are taking three hours to discuss a committee report. However, this committee report is just one small tree in a forest, and we cannot forget to see the forest for the trees. Here, the forest is the current federal government's inability to assume its responsibilities towards its own public servants, towards its citizens, and towards—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry, but the member's time is up.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the Auditor General indicated that, in the context of her work, two departments had not informed her that criminal investigations by the police were under way. I would like the member to tell us what she thinks about this fact that has come to light. What does she think about the importance of this report and the vote to refer it committee for this study to continue?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a worrisome situation. People who are called to answer questions from the Auditor General need to be transparent and honest and report any fraud that may have occurred. These people who are required to do so failed to do so and that means that there is an internal culture that needs to be changed, and fast, for the good of the entire population.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, what we are talking about, given the amendment, is a very serious allegation, which is that a government department was not forthcoming to an officer of Parliament, the Auditor General, whose job it was to investigate a specific program.

It reminds me of when the Harper Conservatives were in power and they denied information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who was looking at that time to satisfy a request to look into the effect of cuts to government services that were being planned at the time. The PBO had to take that government to court, which found that in fact that information should be handed over. At that time, the Liberals were very interested in that issue and the accountability of government to parliamentary officers.

Why the sudden change of heart?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, is it a partisan problem or a problem of culture? We have already talked about Bill C‑290. We have already talked about whistle-blower protection in the public service. We have already talked about the internal culture that compels silence when people want to see improvements.

Does the problem stem from a level of government, blue or red, or does it come from a culture of silence? The discussion we are having today raises that question. This is not just about ArriveCAN, it is this culture that we need to dismantle for the greater good of the population.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will leave it to others to comment on the propriety of the procedure put forward by the Conservative Party, but, in essence, it is a very interesting question.

When it comes to public money, we must be as transparent as possible. Above all, we must ensure that the officers of Parliament, who are independent, have all the tools and information they need to shed light on what happened. When we learn, for one, that software developers report they were able to reproduce the application at a fraction of the cost that was charged to taxpayers, this shows, in my opinion, the clear need to shed light on this issue.

Does the member believe that sending this report back to committee with the proposed amendment will get to the bottom of what happened?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope this sheds some light on what happened, either in whole or in part. We also cannot forget that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is studying the matter from another angle. Together, the two committees will certainly be able to shed light on the matter. More than anything though, we must find concrete long-term solutions and implement them.

As I was saying earlier and as my colleague was saying, we are talking about public money, of which we are merely the trustees. We have to be responsible when it comes to these funds.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are only 30 seconds left in the debate. The hon. member for Terrebonne may begin her speech, but I will have to interrupt her rather quickly.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, since I have only 30 seconds, I will simply say that there is a real a problem with the current government's emphasis on belt-tightening and with its plan to ask companies to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. Meanwhile, way too much money has been wasted on apps. Accenture received $208 million to manage a program that is not even being managed properly.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will have nine minutes and 30 seconds the next time this matter is before the House.

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings on the motion at this time. Accordingly, the debate on the motion will be rescheduled for another sitting.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed.

Child Health Protection Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-252. I believe it is a continuation of what the government talks a great deal about, which is a healthy eating strategy overall. We need to recognize that excessive amounts of sodium, sugar and saturated fats lead to things such as obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.

What I like about the legislation before us is that the member focused the attention on advertising to children 13 and under, which I believe would have a profoundly positive outcome. I want to applaud the member for taking this initiative. I believe it will make a difference in terms of healthier eating habits for young people. As they grow older, we have a healthier society.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to try a little experiment with you, although I am not sure whether you prefer sweet or salty snacks. Let us assume the latter.

Imagine you are sitting in your living room, curled up beside your partner, and watching a movie. He hands you the chip bowl. He left the bag of chips on the table in the living room in case you finish the bowl he just prepared. He hands you the bowl, all smiles, and you take a chip, all smiles. He takes one too, and you look at each other tenderly as you snack on the delicious chips. Is your mouth watering? Do you want to go to the corner store and buy a bag of your favourite potato chips? You probably do.

That is an example of the effect of advertising, to make people want to buy something they do not really need, usually not at all, something they may not even really want. That being said, the image of the story I just told could very well still be in your mind, and you may suddenly feel a craving for potato chips and need them immediately.

We are adults and we are able to see reason. We know what advertising is and the purposes of advertising, but we still sometimes fall for it. The difference between us and children is that we are aware of the effects of advertising and we can think logically. Children have not yet acquired the ability to question themselves and to think logically about the subject of the ad. They only see the good things. They do no ask themselves whether what they are seeing is good for their health and they do not ask questions when they see an advertisement on the street, along the highway or in a big box store.

There is also advertising on television, video games, social media and the videos that children sometimes watch. There are a lot of advertisements directed at children and, despite the laws, advertisers find new ways to ensure that children see their ads every day. Advertisements are also often sources of misinformation by omission. Think about the advertisement for that famous cereal with its delicious spoonfuls of honey. It is a delight to eat and provides nine essential nutrients. It is incredible just how nutritious and delicious that cereal is. What the ad does not tell people, however, is that the amount of sugar in one bowl exceeds the daily recommended intake and that the bowl in the ad represents three servings for a child. The ad also fails to mention that the essential nutrients a person would get from eating a real complete breakfast are far greater than the nine essential nutrients the cereal provides. The ad capitalizes on the pleasure of eating sweet things.

Why is it important to legislate on advertising targeting children?

Let us start with what I mentioned. Children do not have the maturity or the necessary knowledge to have perspective when they see an ad and to question the truth of that ad. Then there is the fact that sugar can be addictive. Our brain releases dopamine when we eat sugar. It is pleasing. We become hooked on that dopamine over time to the point where we always want more. The ad does not tell us that.

It does not tell us that children who do not adopt healthy eating habits from a young age will live with many health problems as they grow up. The ad leads our children to make bad food choices that will have repercussions on their health their entire lives and, by extension, on the health care systems because of weight-related comorbidity, obesity and inactivity that are the result of bad food choices. These bad food choices cause children to have less energy because they are not well fed.

Of course the parents are partly to blame, but they may be tempted to indulge, offer a treat, make an exception. Far too often the exception becomes the rule and that is how sugar becomes associated with the idea of a treat or a pleasure, as though there is nothing else that could be a treat or a pleasure.

The consequences of consuming foods that are high in sugar, saturated fat and sodium are not felt immediately, rather, they manifest over the long term. That is why we use them as treats, because they do no harm at the time. However, when consumed repeatedly, then they become problematic.

In the short term, the various effects of consuming sugar are no less unpleasant and damaging than the long-term consequences. These short-term effects impact both children's bodies and their social lives. Sometimes, children's behaviours change. They may become less agreeable and consequently be ignored by others.

Other consequences include fatigue, irritability, impatience, trouble concentrating, dizziness, headache, feeling hungry. Even after having just eaten, children may still feel hungry because they did not get any nutrients. They can also experience arrhythmia in some cases, or temper tantrums. Children may have a tantrum because they are not getting what they want and they are going through sugar withdrawal. Some even get aggressive.

Where is this sugar? It is everywhere, from croquettes to popsicles. As soon as I say the words I see advertising images in my head. Sugar is everywhere, and some ads target young people so directly they become almost impossible to avoid. That is the problem.

I would also mention that these foods can cause obesity. The industry is deliberately targeting young people because they are less equipped to detect its strategies. At their age, they cannot make informed choices.

In 2019, the Government of Quebec created an action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and encourage people to drink water instead. Things have reached a point where we have to promote water, when water is fundamental. Water is all we need and all we should have. However, we have ended up in a different place. The Government of Quebec makes the connection between sugary drinks and how they are marketed, and the resulting health problems.

The report states the following:

Given the findings of epidemiological studies on the health risks associated with the consumption of sugar or sugary drinks, as well as data on the consumption of sugary drinks in Quebec and their marketing, more efforts are needed to prevent the daily consumption of sugary drinks within the population, especially among certain groups (e.g. young people).

In the same report, the Government of Quebec says it wants to:

De-normalize the consumption of sugary drinks and marketing practices that promote their consumption....

Today I am talking about sugar, but it is one example of food advertising and marketing that should not be directed at young people. To direct advertising at children is nothing but crass profiteering; it is perverse. It targets people whose minds have not matured. It experiments on young human beings who have their whole lives ahead of them as if they were Pavlov's dogs.

Advertising directed at children under the age of 13 has been practically outlawed in Quebec for 40 years. Section 248 of the Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children. On the surface, therefore, the bill seems to offer no advantage for Quebec, which has already legislated on the matter. Quebec's legislation is among the toughest in North America. However, federal legislation is still important because some Canadian provinces lack the kind of protective legislation provided by Quebec.

In Quebec, certain players are using nostalgia for the past to try to convince people to put advertising to youth back on the agenda. They are saying that it is difficult to fund the great programs for youth as we did in the past. They claim they need youth-oriented advertising in order to invest in youth programming. We used to talk about greenwashing. In this case, it is “ad-washing”. I am not sure how to put it.

The Bloc Québécois will determine whether the proposed strategy is compatible with the strategies adopted in Quebec and with the Consumer Protection Act. We will propose amendments to ensure that the two acts are similar. I would remind the House that Quebec and the provinces have legislative jurisdiction over this area.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-252, the child health protection act.

For many years, the NDP has been calling for a law to stop junk food advertising aimed at children, and 11 years ago we called for such a ban, but no action was taken by successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am hopeful that with the support from all parties, we can pass this bill and stop the barrage of junk food ads directed toward kids.

I am also hoping that we go further than that, by putting in place a national school food program that gives every child the nutritious food they need to thrive.

The evidence is clear that banning junk food directed at young children leads to better health outcomes. Quebec has had such a ban in place for over 40 years and the results speak for themselves. Fast food consumption in Quebec has gone down by 13% since the law was put in place. In addition, Quebec has the lowest obesity rates among five- to 17-year-olds and the highest consumption of fruits and vegetables in Canada.

It is a true nutrition success story that should be applied across the country. Not only will a law to stop junk food advertising benefit our kids' health, it also makes financial sense.

This is a preventative step that in the long term will mean fewer visits to the ER for preventable diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure. At a time when our health care system is strained and faced with an aging population, it is a no-brainer for us to reduce the pressure on the system by passing this bill into law.

It is immoral for the CEOs of big food companies to be profiting off pushing junk food to young children. As much of 90%, in fact, of the food ads children see are for unhealthy food products and these ads are increasingly sophisticated. Companies are making money off selling products to young people that are harmful for their health.

This is wrong and it has to stop. Just as we have done with big tobacco companies in severely restricting advertising of their products, we must do the same with big food companies that are irresponsibly marketing junk food to young children.

While the ban on junk food aimed at children is an important first step, it is not enough. We cannot have a conversation about ensuring that our kids are getting proper nutrition without talking about poverty. Poverty makes it so much more difficult for families to make the healthy food choices they would like to make but are unable to because of the lack of money.

I recall a story. As a young early childhood educator, when we instituted a no-junk-food lunch policy, a mother shared with me that it was cheaper for her to buy a bag of cookies that lasts two weeks than a bag of apples that lasts a week.

We cannot talk about healthy food choices without addressing issues of poverty, especially in this affordability crisis we are living in, with persistently high grocery prices. Far too many people simply cannot afford healthy food to sustain a balanced diet. Eating healthy is expensive and preparing healthy meals can also be very time-consuming.

When one is working two or three jobs to make ends meet, which is not uncommon in this country, particular with the affordability crisis, time becomes a luxury one cannot afford, leading one to choose convenience foods that are quick and cheap but unhealthy.

I see it in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, which has the highest child poverty rate of any riding in the country.

Too many kids are going to school on an empty stomach. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. Food banks are reporting record usage, and the temporary pandemic benefits that kept families afloat have expired and have not been maintained. Poverty is a form of economic violence. I have likened choosing to keep people poor to one of the worst human rights violations, and poverty is something that is faced by many of my constituents, including children, which robs them of the best possible start in life.

That is wrong, and it is a direct result of deliberate policy choices.

I believe we need to make different choices to eliminate poverty and ensure that every child gets the nutritious food they need. It is a choice, and the lack of political will to eradicate poverty, especially for children, is unacceptable. One of these choices is implementing a national school food program. Providing every child with healthy school meals would be a game-changer that would go a long way towards improving nutrition in this country.

It is long past time for us to put such a program in place. Canada remains the only G7 country without a national school food program or national standards. In 2019, the Liberals promised in their federal budget to work towards implementing a program, but after four years, they have still not delivered.

I call upon the government to keep its promise and finally allocate funding for a national school food program in the upcoming federal budget. It would make a profound difference in the lives of children, including many children in my own riding of Winnipeg Centre, whose learning is harmed because they are not getting the healthy food they need. I am a former educator, and in my classroom I had a toaster, bread and other food, which I bought with my teaching salary as a classroom management program because I knew the kids in my classroom could not learn or stay focused on an empty stomach.

Another choice is introducing a guaranteed livable basic income for all people in Canada. Yesterday, on the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, I joined Senator Kim Pate in support of her bill, Bill S-233, and my own bill, Bill C-223, the national framework for a guaranteed livable basic income act, at a press conference. In its study of Bill S-233, the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance heard overwhelming support from experts and advocates for the social, economic and health benefits that a guaranteed livable basic income would provide.

Providing a guaranteed livable basic income is an idea whose time has come because we know the pandemic revealed the deep cracks in our social safety net, and those cracks remain. In every corner of this country, the human rights of people living below the poverty line are violated on a daily basis. I have called poverty one of the most violent human rights violations, one that robs people of their dignity and their humanity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, no one should be forced to sleep in tents, on the streets or in bus shelters. By providing everyone over the age of 17 who needs it with an unconditional cash transfer, a guaranteed livable basic income would lift millions of people out of poverty.

Poverty is expensive. In fact, poverty costs our country at least $80 billion a year. It costs our health care system, and one of the benefits of GLBI would be improving just that.

To conclude, I want to thank the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing the bill. I call on all members to support it, and I call on all members to support measures, including a national school food program and a guaranteed livable basic income, which would ensure no child in this country is ever hungry again.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am changing or the member for Winnipeg Centre is, but this is second time this week I completely agree with everything she has said.

I genuinely appreciate her comments today, in particular about a basic income, but also about, more generally speaking, the food sharing program we absolutely need to bring into our schools throughout the country.

I want to congratulate the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for introducing this very important bill. Once again, we see Quebec, which has had this legislation in place for decades now, has led the way, like it quite often does on other issues socially, or the environment, for example.

This is critically important. It is important that our children, who are in the age of developing and whose minds are still developing, are not subject to a bombardment of detrimental and unhealthy choices at such a young age. I have two children under the age of 13, and I think of how easily they are influenced by what they are seeing. The forms of media have changed so much since I was a child. Nowadays children are watching much more YouTube and more custom and tailored shows. We are seeing these advertisements come across in a way I certainly was not exposed to. When I was younger, we would sit in front of a TV on Saturday morning to watch cartoons. These ads would pop up, and our parents could be kind of looking our shoulder to see what we were watching. It is much more difficult now.

I also completely agree with the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre about this being a preventative step. This is about helping to prepare children so they can have the best shot at life in terms of health.

I am going to keep my comments very short. It is very refreshing to see the entire chamber support this initiative. The only thing I wish I could ask is that this be extended to grandparents too, because my mother, my children's grandmother, quite often purchases unhealthy stuff. Maybe that will be tackled at a later time.

Congratulations to the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for bringing this forward. This is a very important initiative, and I look forward to it making its way over to the Senate next and becoming law so we can move forward on this very important initiative.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is great to be able to enter into debate on the important issues that matter to Canadians.

If the House could indulge me for just a moment before I get into the substance of Bill C-252, I want to pass along a big thanks. This Saturday marks four years since I was first elected as the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot. It is a great honour for me, along with the class of 2019, to be able to take my place in this hallowed chamber to stand up for the good people of, in my case, east central Alberta.

First, I pass along my deep thanks and appreciation to my wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three boys at the time and now I do: Matthew, Emerson and Winston. I could not do this without them. I thank the rest of my family as well for their support over the last four years.

Of course, one does not start one's political career on election day. There is work that goes into politics prior to that. I give a massive thanks to those who have helped in various campaigns and to those on my EDA and political association. I thank those who, since I first got involved at the age of 15, have been on this political journey with me. I have the honour of being a part of it.

I, like so many in this place, am so deeply appreciative of the work that office staff do to help make sure that we can accomplish the good work we do in standing up for our constituents in this place and back in our constituencies.

Of course, I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. For the last two elections, I have been honoured to receive a mandate and serve the 110,000 people. They are on about 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful, east central Alberta real estate. It is cowboy country. It truly is an honour.

I will continue to stand for those rural values and for democracy each and every day. I look forward to, after the next election, standing behind who I hope will be the new prime minister who brings home common sense to our country. I thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for a great four years. I look forward to continuing to fight for many more years to bring common sense home to Canada.

We are debating a bill and its subject matter is something that I would be very surprised if anyone disagreed with. We want to ensure that there are healthy diets for kids across our country. As a father of three young boys, my wife Danielle and I take great pains to work and budget to ensure they have healthy meals. Especially in light of the cost of living crisis we see in this country, that is becoming an increasingly challenging circumstance.

It has been talked about substantially in this place over the last number of years, and especially with Thanksgiving just over a week ago. We saw how the dramatic increase in prices has put significant pressure on so many families. When it comes to ensuring that there is fairness, we need to empower people to understand exactly what they are eating.

We need to have regulations in place that support food safety and transparency, and that the ingredient list actually includes that. For example, something could claim to be organic. We want to have truth behind the whole process of our food supply chain. I know we dealt with it in this place, the fact that the Liberals wanted to label ground beef as being unhealthy, but not potato chips or candy bars.

I hope we would all agree in this place, though I sometimes wonder with some of the activist actions that have been taken by other parties, that we want to ensure healthy diets for everyone, especially for our young people in those formative, developmental years. We need to ensure their tummies are full when kids go to school in the morning. There are examples of this.

I have heard from many across my constituency and across the country. I would specifically give a big shout-out to Altario school. It is located about 45 minutes from my hometown of Consort. Principal Van Lagen has done an incredible job. The school has a greenhouse where it sells vegetables to the community. There is a farm at the school. The school sell animals and produces high-quality food for the local community. This little town of only several dozen people in the community of Altario is able to feed more than the number of people in the community.

We talk about the need to ensure that there is a healthy diet for all—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the hon. member to move his earpiece or shut it off, because it is affecting the interpreter's ability to translate.

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is probably no one in this place who would disagree with the fact that I do not need to speak louder. I want to give a shout-out to our great interpreters and everybody who makes it possible for us to do the good work that we do in this place, including helping with some of those little technical issues.

I will get into some of the substance of the bill in just a second, but I was talking about Altario and the work people do there teaching kids. I saw an application letter that Principal Van Lagen shared the other day. It was incredible, because the applicant, who I believe was in grade nine, was applying to be the manager of the school farm. Can members imagine that? They are teaching kids and giving them those practical skills so they not only know how to eat healthy but also can be a part of that agricultural sector, which is pivotal in our nation.

When we come down to the root of this, we want Canadians to have access to healthy meals. I hope that every member of the House agrees with this, but when it comes to the practical reality of what the bill before us would accomplish, there are a few concerns I would like to highlight. One concern is that we need to make sure that we are, at every stage of the process, empowering parents to make the best call for their family in whatever their circumstance is. Whether they are part of an Inuit family in the north, a rural family in the area I represent or an inner-city family, every person needs to be empowered to make decisions that are best for them, and empowering parents needs to be at the root of this.

We also need to deal with things like food inflation. I will not speak at length about this, because I have in the past, but we need to address some of the challenges that are leading to food inflation, like the carbon tax and regulations that are adding some additional costs for farmers. That has to be addressed. Ultimately, we need to empower people to be prosperous at every step of the process. The best way we can ensure that people are healthy is to have an economy that is working for everyone.

I held a series of town halls, which I spoke about in a statement before question period today, and there are a lot of concerns that the folks from rural Alberta shared with me about how frustrated they are with the Liberal government. However, the number one concern brought forward at every town hall was the cost of living and the fear that people have for their future. I will highlight a couple of things that I believe need to be put on the record.

Legislation needs to be able to achieve its stated goal. Legislation in the province of Quebec, although it has regulations that address issues similar to ones in the legislation before us, has not done so. I am certainly concerned that the House would pass something that may not be able to be actualized in terms of a public policy objective. The regulations that are proposed in the bill are difficult to enforce. There is not very much clarity that it would be possible to see them brought about.

Something that has been highlighted specifically by a number of constituents, especially those who work very hard to do things like fundraising for school sports, is about sponsors, as in the case of Timbits hockey, for example. I would hate for the bill to accidentally limit the ability of Canadians to play soccer or hockey because of not allowing a company to sponsor kids to be able to do just that. It could be an incidental, and I hope not an intentional, part of the bill.

I have heard a great deal of support for the bill, and certainly there is widespread agreement that we need to have a plan to ensure that kids' and seniors' tummies are full. There is nothing more heartbreaking than when we hear a senior talk about having to limit their dietary intake. One tragic story is that a senior thought the only thing they could afford was pet food. We need to make sure we have a plan to address health and nutrition at every stage of the process.

Certainly, when it comes to the laudable objectives of the bill, healthier kids, it is great, but when it comes to actually delivering on those results, I am concerned that the bill falls far short of the mark that would deem it worthy of support in this place.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I wish to congratulate the hon. member on his upcoming four-year anniversary this Saturday. I just celebrated the 15th anniversary of being elected this past Saturday, and I will take this moment to thank the good people of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing for having put their trust in me for five elections.

The hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel has the floor for her right of reply.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise this evening in this House to bring forward once again my private member's bill, Bill C-252, which aims to prohibit the marketing of certain foods and beverages directly to children.

I would like to begin by sincerely thanking all my colleagues here for offering their opinions and contributing to the important conversation on Bill C-252, which has sparked very interesting conversations. It is abundantly clear from many of the exchanges that the issue of marketing of certain foods and beverages to kids is one that many of us care deeply about and is a practice we want to see stopped. I am grateful for the overwhelmingly positive and supportive comments made by my colleagues about Bill C-252 and remain confident that we will be able to pass this bill over to the Senate in the coming days.

I would like to take a second to acknowledge the importance of the leadership that Quebec, my home province, took on this issue in the 1980s and to acknowledge Senator Greene Raine's efforts in 2016 with a previous and different version of this bill. Simply put, we have had plenty of time to discuss the essence of Bill C-252 and its impacts. I respect all my colleagues for their work and their perspectives and enjoyed the opportunity to hear them speak to this issue at length.

Truthfully, we are past the time for debate and are very much at the time when action is necessary. In the intervening years while we have been waiting to act, things have only gotten worse. If we continue to remain idle on this issue, kids' health and the consequences of marketing foods rich in salt, sugar or saturated fats to kids will not improve.

Inaction will mean that our children will continue to be manipulated by this multi-billion dollar industry. Relying on powerful multinational companies to self-regulate and reduce their targeting of children has only been proven unsuccessful. Our children remain at risk and will continue to be unjustly influenced and led to develop poor eating habits that we scientifically know to be detrimental to their health. Rates of obesity will only continue to rise, and the burden on our health care system will only grow.

We can see plainly that we have more than passed the time for action. We must fulfill our duty as parliamentarians and, for many of us, as parents to protect our children's health. We must heed the calls of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, which have been resolute and unequivocal on the very clear harm that the marketing of certain foods and beverages to children can cause to their overall well-being.

As members may be aware, Norway's government just voted this past June to adopt very similar legislation. Norway is not alone in this endeavour, and a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom and Spain, are also developing similar legislation after years of seeing the ineffectiveness of industries' self-regulation. The international community is moving in the right direction and taking steps and legislative measures to tackle the issue of marketing to kids. Let us draw a lesson from Norway and other countries that place the importance of children's health before the monetary interests of multi-billion dollar industries. Let us pass Bill C-252, but let us do it now.

I would like to thank the stakeholders and researchers who have advocated for the passage of Bill C-252 and to sincerely thank my colleagues in the House and at the health committee for their comments and questions. Voting in favour of Bill C-252 means supporting concerned parents across Canada who currently have to battle against the influence of a multi-billion dollar industry. It means supporting parents who are trying to teach their children to develop healthy eating habits. It means accepting the best science available on this issue and listening to the growing chorus of researchers and health care professionals who have been telling us for years that this legislation is needed. It means joining the international community in its growing efforts to improve the well-being of children across the world. In short, voting in favour of this bill means prioritizing children's health and the well-being of kids from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and across the country from coast to coast to coast.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the 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.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 98, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, October 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to address the House on the critical issue of the opioid crisis. So many of our communities and families have been devastated by this metastasizing crisis, in terms of the use of dangerous opioids in our communities.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is very clear that the approach to this issue is not working. We have heard many people say that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost, but that is particularly the case in terms of the human cost, not just the financial cost.

We hear members of other parties speak about the science, allegedly, and about their approach, which they posit is better than alternatives. However, it is clearly not working. We can see, in all of our communities, the real substantial human cost associated with the government's failed response to the opioid crisis.

Conservatives are proposing an alternative, a common-sense approach that opposes giving free drugs to those who are struggling. Instead, it seeks to bring home our loved ones drug-free. I would say that is a common-sense response.

The Liberal-NDP response, after eight years of providing more taxpayer-funded drugs to people, is not common sense, is not working and has an incredible human cost.

My question was about aspects of the background of the opioid crisis. Here is the background on this: A company called Purdue Pharma developed a new opioid product, OxyContin, which it intentionally marketed to as many people as possible. The company called it the drug to start with and to stay with. They ran a very effective marketing campaign. The goal of that campaign was very similar in its premises to the arguments for safe supply made today: This corporate seller of drugs, Purdue Pharma, pushed the idea that all one had to do was remove the stigma and make drugs available, and then everything would be fine.

Of course there was no stigma around this product when it was initially released, because it was a new product. The company sought to market OxyContin as being less risky, when in fact, it was more risky than opium and certain other available opioids. There was clear dishonesty and manipulation in the marketing of this product. There was no stigma at the time, but clearly the effect of making this dangerous drug available to more and more people was that many people became addicted. Because of the tolerance-inducing nature of opioids, people moved on to harder and more dangerous drugs, eventually moving on to things such as fentanyl in many cases.

As a result of the lies that were told at the time by Purdue Pharma and the fact that McKinsey, the consulting company that is so close to the government, was involved in supporting Purdue Pharma and that marketing campaign, these companies have been required to pay massive compensation in the United States.

However, when I put an amendment before this House, calling on the government to sue for all damages associated with the opioid crisis, it voted no. The government said it would eventually join provincial class action lawsuits to sue for some of the damages.

The federal government is not even contemplating suing for many of the different damages associated with these drugs. I believe that this is why it opposed my amendment. Why is the government still siding with big pharma, which is trying to sell drugs to people, instead of siding with the victims and helping us to bring them home?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be in the House tonight for an adjournment debate with my hon. colleague. I agree with the member that the unfettered marketing of opioids to people in the United States and in Canada has led to extreme amounts of harm. Our government is here to ensure that we achieve accountability with Purdue Pharma.

We are currently working with provinces and territories on the substance use challenge that our country faces. I do understand that the member has a different opinion on how to deal with substance use and addiction. However, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

Substance use harms extend far beyond overdose deaths. The complicated and very multi-faceted nature of substance use harms and the intersection of the overdose crisis with several complex social issues such as mental health, homelessness, experiences of trauma and multi-generational impacts of colonialization means that the most vulnerable people in Canada are the most impacted by this crisis.

That is why we need a comprehensive, integrated and evidence-based response that is grounded on the four internationally recognized pillars of substance use policy, which the member opposite and the Conservative Party do not seem to understand. They are prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement. It is not one or the other, and not one against the other, but all four of those principles.

The toxic drug supply is killing people. People do not know what they are consuming. People fear criminalization, which leads them to use alone and die alone.

In 2018, the Province of British Columbia commenced a proposed class action suit on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against 50 opioid manufacturers and distributors for allegedly acting inappropriately in the sale and distribution of opioids in Canada.

In addition, British Columbia commenced a separate proposed class action in December 2021 on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments against McKinsey & Company, which allegedly acted inappropriately in the course of providing consulting and advisory services to opioid manufacturers and distributors in relation to marketing and promotion of opioids in Canada.

The Government of Canada supports provinces and territories in their efforts to recover health care costs from any company that acted inappropriately in the marketing and distribution of opioids, and we will be a party to these litigations should they be certified.

I appreciate the interest of the opposition on this issue and his agreeing that it is an important thing to do. The accountability is absolutely necessary but they can see that we are already acting on the issue. I fully invite the member and his party to continue supporting us in ending the crisis instead of continually raising stigma. This litigation is an example of the significant co-operation that exists with provinces and territories as we work together to address the overdose crisis.

That is what this crisis is calling for, co-operation across party lines and across orders of government in collaboration with all of our partners. The health and safety of Canadians is our government's first and top priority. Since the start of this overdose crisis, we have taken significant actions and made commitments of more than $1 billion to respond.

We cannot end this crisis alone. It is our collective obligation and responsibility to work together as parliamentarians with provinces and territories and our community stakeholders to do what they can and what we can to respond to it.

What I would like to know is why the party opposite is continuing to oppose harm reduction. What would the member opposite say to the over 50,000 people whose overdoses have been responded to and reversed? They would otherwise be dead.

Does this party realize that the more than four million visits to safe consumption sites across this country represent four million contacts with a health care provider?

On this side, we want to save lives, not overly stigmatize addiction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, there were aspects of that response that were, frankly, bizarre.

First of all, let us be clear. This NDP-Liberal approach is just not working. The member said that one is not entitled to one's own facts, even if one can have one's own opinion. That is true, of course, but all one has to do is look at the impact, the drug abuse, the disorder and the crime we are seeing in the streets, to see the impact of this failed NDP-Liberal approach over the last eight years.

He mentioned stigma. In fact, he accused me of trying to raise stigma. Let me be very clear. I do not think we should stigmatize individuals. I think individuals need help. We need to work on providing individuals with treatment and recovery. That is what our approach emphasizes, the common sense approach of treatment and recovery.

I do think we need to have an appropriate fear associated with dangerous substances. These are extremely dangerous substances that the government has decriminalized in B.C. and is giving away, with taxpayers' dollars, to people who are struggling. That is what is wrong.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say this again. We are all entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. This is not a Liberal-NDP approach to solving the addictions epidemic by helping people who are suffering from addiction. It is an evidence-based response. It is one that is internationally recognized by all stakeholders.

I would encourage the member to perhaps schedule a meeting with Moms Stop the Harm or any of the many organizations that are advocating for more support for people living with addictions. Indeed, we must stand for the four pillars, all four, as I said, not against them, not choosing one or the other and not cherry-picking which ones we like best. All four pillars of addictions response are important, and not cherry-picking them is of the utmost importance.

We continue to be committed to ensuring that individuals and organizations who are legally marketing or supplying drugs are held accountable, while also supporting pathways to care for people who are experiencing or are at risk of harm from substance use. The people who use substances, their families and the communities around them need us. We must use every single tool at our disposal to provide compassionate care and maintain community safety.

The Environment

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening in Adjournment Proceedings to discuss the question that I first raised on May 18 of this year. It was a question for the Minister of Environment on the topic of the Ontario Greenbelt and the potential for water policy and water governance to provide assistance and additional tools to the minister.

As many members in this place will know, since I asked that question in May, Premier Doug Ford of the province of Ontario has admitted he made a mistake. That is putting it mildly, but the point of my question remains relevant; it is not moot. I am afraid the point of my question was missed by the hon. Minister of Environment when he responded to me. I was suggesting to him that water governance and water law and policy present an opportunity for usable tools.

The Minister of Environment has not been looking at water governance very much and keeping it up to date, so I pointed the Minister of Environment in the direction of the Great Lakes annex, which is a legally binding agreement between Canada and the United States, as well as eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces. It is an extraordinary and robust document that actually gives us legally binding tools.

At the time, the Minister of Environment raised other ways that he might be prepared to protect the Greenbelt, so in general we agreed, but I think it is appropriate now, in October, to raise issues about where we are in water governance and water policy, particularly the long-promised Canada water agency. We have made progress. We have heard a number of announcements and they have gotten increasingly specific. We now know that the Canada water agency will be based in Winnipeg, but after double-checking the Government of Canada website before our debate tonight, I found the same language: “Legislation will be introduced in 2023 to establish the Canada Water Agency as a stand-alone Agency.” Months have passed and we still do not have that stand-alone legislation before this place. We are still in 2023, so the Liberal government has part of October, all of November and part of December to table that legislation. I would like to remind the government of its importance.

When we look at water governance and water policy, what we should look at, which has been referenced through all manner of expert reports and blue ribbon panels, is the need to engage federal, provincial and municipal orders of government. As I said before, we need to look at them in terms of the basins in Canada and the U.S., the shared basins. We have to look at international law. We also have to really engage, which we have not yet done, indigenous nations and peoples in water policy and water governance. We have to do all of this with a climate lens.

We are the only country in the G7, I was surprised to find out the other day, that does not have any water agency to predict water events such as floods and droughts. This is about being aware that the climate crisis has a specific and immediate impact on water.

In the time remaining, I would like to use this opportunity, as I tried to do back in May in question period, to remind the government that water policy, water governance and the engagement of different orders of government are critical for moving forward. We have opportunities to coordinate and to ensure that we update our existing set of international agreements in order to take more into account of the climate and indigenous roles in the protection of healthy waterways, which is in all of our interests as we try to adapt to an increasingly warming world.

I imagine I will have a lot to discuss with the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, I sincerely look forward to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands' return to the House. I hope that my friend is doing well. I hope that she is recovering and feeling good. I look forward to having this discussion, hopefully, in person when she returns to the House of Commons.

I would like to focus the first half of my answer on the greenbelt. It is a moment to celebrate. It is a moment to rejoice. Indeed, victory on the greenbelt is a big win for Ontario. There are lots of groups that we have to thank for this.

I have the opportunity now to do something that I have never done before, which is to read directly from my householder that is going out to my constituents in Milton. The question resembled a question that I asked myself and my constituents were asking me, so I answered it in a monthly community newsletter. It is titled, “Victory on the Greenbelt: A big win for Ontario”, and it states:

Back in March, Canada's Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, [the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie] announced that our government would be investigating the real and potential environmental, economic, social and health impacts related to developing parts of the Greenbelt. Due to the Premier’s recent cancelling of his provincial government’s plan to develop parcels of the Greenbelt – we subsequently announced that we are suspending the urban park study indefinitely as it’s no longer necessary. This is great news. This reversal reflects the collective efforts of citizen advocates, independent journalism, researchers, environmentalists, conservation authorities, and municipalities who tirelessly voiced their objections. Their commitment has reaffirmed the significance of maintaining the Greenbelt’s integrity – this is a big win for our province, and I want to express my personal gratitude to these stakeholders and everyone who used their voice to safeguard this most vital natural resource.

I would add the leader of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, to that list.

The plan to develop luxury homes and create brand new neighborhoods in Ontario’s hinterland, as proposed by Premier Ford’s government, was never a sustainable approach for addressing our housing affordability concerns. The federal government will remain steadfast in our mission to protect the natural environment, including Ontario’s Greenbelt, toward a greener, more sustainable future for all Canadians. I will continue to call for responsible urban planning, sustainable development, and the preservation of green spaces to ensure the well-being of current and future generations, and I look forward to more details of how Premier Ford will strengthen the protections of all Greenbelt and ecologically vulnerable land in our region.

I would like now to turn to our work on water. I was very pleased that in budget 2023, we saw a historic $650 million go toward the maintenance and restoration of much of our Great Lakes. That is so important, not just because I love the Great Lakes and I spent a lot of time paddling on the Great Lakes, but it is important because Canada is really the water keeper of the world, particularly with respect to fresh water. These 24 new projects that we just announced on September 28 will restore water quality and ecosystem health in areas of concern. They will prevent toxic and nuisance algae. They will engage with indigenous peoples in Great Lakes restoration and protection.

That $650 million over 10 years that I referenced includes an investment of $420 million for the Great Lakes, which was announced by the Prime Minister, with a focus on accelerating Canada's implementation of the Canada-United States Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. It also includes $22.6 million over three years starting this year to support better coordination efforts to protect fresh water right across Canada.

Last, but certainly not least, is the new Canada water agency. It is the federal focal point for all fresh water. We will be working in partnership with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories and stakeholders to strengthen collaboration efforts on fresh water. It will deliver on key elements of the strengthened freshwater action plan.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I hate to disillusion the parliamentary secretary in terms of the levels of support the government is giving to water, but on the notion that $650 million is historic for the Great Lakes, back in the days when former prime minister Brian Mulroney made real strides in protecting the Great Lakes, that would be a small amount compared to the billions a year that was being spent.

We had an inland waters directorate in Burlington, Ontario, with several thousand staff. We need to rebuild our capacity in inland waters, fresh water and freshwater science, and that will take a stand-alone agency to create the Canada water agency. That legislation is due any minute.

Does the parliamentary secretary have an update for us? I would be grateful to know.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Again, Madam Speaker, I look forward to discussing this in person upon the return of my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Indeed, the federal government is making Canada's largest-ever investment in protecting the nation's sources of all fresh water, which includes the Great Lakes. Commitments recently announced by the government during U.S. President Biden's visit includes some of the over $650-million investments, but it brings us very close to the $1-billion commitment that we have aimed to achieve. There are other efforts that we can include in that long list of things that we are going to invest in.

I would add to the remarks I made earlier with respect to all of the investments that we have made over the past couple of years that I am enthusiastic about any further efforts to conserve and protect Canada's greatest natural resource. I know that work with the Canada water agency is under way. Indeed, the Prime Minister named the first-ever parliamentary secretary for water.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:49 p.m.)