Debates of May 8th, 2023

Order Paper

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I wish to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 55(1), and at the request of the government, I have ordered the printing of a special Order Paper giving notice of a government motion.

I therefore table the document in question.

The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion that Bill S-227, An Act to establish Food Day in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Food Day in Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be the first to rise on this sunny Monday morning. Spring is here and we are happy. There is sunshine and warm weather, and we are happy.

Since this bill talks about establishing a food day, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the many people who run the food banks in my riding. The work they do is truly important, even crucial. Today, I want to name and recognize them.

Alternative Centregens is an outstanding food bank in my riding. The Centre d’action bénévole de Saint-Hubert is also very important. There is La Croisée de Longueuil, L'Entraide Chez Nous, the La Mosaïque community outreach centre, Partage Saint-François-de-Sales and Le Repas du Passant. There is also Chrismene Joseph, who does a wonderful job with CESUMAS. There is Aide aux familles in Saint-Hubert, where Yvonne Ornau works. I am often in touch with her and we support her. These people do an important job every day and they help communities. We know that things were really difficult with the pandemic.

Les Cuisiniers Différents is another very special food bank. It is staffed by young adults living with intellectual disabilities. They make meals for struggling schools, and the organization is a crucial resource. Chantal Pagé, who I speak with almost every week, is one of the main go-to people in my riding on community issues. I want to send her a warm hello.

I think that everyone who has heard me speak on housing knows how much importance I place on the well-being of others. It is so important to me that I would be willing to declare every Monday national food day. I think that food is a central part of our lives, along with housing, another matter I have often addressed in my speeches.

Food is central to all things. Food is an essential need. When people are hungry, everything gets harder. Yesterday, some of us might have eaten steak and fries, a piece of salmon or a chicken breast grilled on the barbecue. Unfortunately, for many people across this country, these food items are out of reach. Sometimes, the things we take for granted are considered a luxury by others. Sadly, in Canada, having enough food to eat is still a luxury. This can never be said too often. We have to work on this problem.

I think it is important to keep in mind a few extremely important points about food. First, I think that everyone should have access to a sufficient quantity of healthy food.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, a specialized UN agency, the right to food means that “the state [and that is us] has an obligation to ensure, at the very least, that people do not starve.” That seems obvious, but it is not that easy to achieve. In Canada, we are not there yet. “As such, this right is intrinsically linked to the right to life. However, states are also under an obligation to take appropriate measures to ensure the realization of the right to adequate food for everyone within their jurisdiction. In other words, all people, at all times, should have physical and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food.”

This seems to be a self-evident truth, but, as I said earlier, we are not there right now.

All of this is to help people lead “an active and healthy life.” Food is deemed to be adequate when it is also “culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods.” The issues here are still quite significant. Finally, the “accessibility of such food [should] not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights”.

I spoke about this earlier, when I said that food insecurity is also a problem in Canada and Quebec. It is a problem now, today.

According to Statistics Canada, “[d]uring the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic [in Canada] in fall 2020, about 1 in 10 Canadians aged 12 and older reported experience of food insecurity in their household in the previous 12 months.” For a country like Canada, I find that absolutely unacceptable.

“HungerCount 2022” reports that, in Quebec alone, 2.2 million requests for food hampers are processed each month. That is a 20% increase since 2021. In addition, 34% of people receiving food assistance are children. In Canada, 485,000 children do not have enough to eat.

Establishing a day like this could help highlight that, even here, in our country, people are going hungry and do not have the kind of access that would enable them to meet their basic needs, such as food and decent housing, and that we must absolutely find a solution to these problems that are hurting a whole segment of society. We are talking about half a million children.

About two-thirds of some 1,200 organizations that provide food hampers report that they have been short on food supplies from their usual sources over the last year. Faced with the current supply chain problems, the food banks' usual donors, such as food producers and processors, have begun to manage their supplies more efficiently, which, in itself, is good news for the environment but ultimately leaves them with less surplus to give away and leaves us with empty food banks.

As we know, the agricultural and agri-food sector is a priority for the Bloc Québécois. We are constantly talking about food sovereignty, in particular by promoting the supply management system, which is a good example. Over time, the Bloc has raised a number of issues to promote food sovereignty in Quebec and Canada, particularly the need to secure our food chains, foster the next generation of farmers, promote local agriculture and processing, help farmers and processors to innovate, especially when it comes to building resilience to climate change, protect critical resources and agriculture and processing facilities from foreign investment, promote human-scale farms by encouraging buying organic and, especially, champion buying local.

All these measures will help people eat healthy and enable food banks to continue doing their work, although they must be given the means to do so. This is why I find the preamble of the bill quite interesting. First, it makes the link between a state’s sovereignty and its agricultural system. Clearly, for me, as a Bloc member, as soon as we talk about sovereignty, I am interested. The bill is also interesting because it addresses the fact that this system is more than just a commercial industry. We are talking about people's health and well-being, and that should not be a commodity.

Let us get back to the concept of food sovereignty, which is defined by a people’s right to responsibly choose its positions, the policies to define them and, above all, the means to implement them. This can be addressed from several angles. From a social perspective, fostering social cohesion in our communities, land use, and respect and recognition for the work of farmers and processors—those who feed us—may cut food waste and promote the sharing of knowledge and know-how we need to develop our own food sovereignty.

In terms of the environment, we need to work on developing innovation programs so that producers and processors can conserve more resources. Finally, from an economic perspective, food sovereignty is a more protectionist vision of agriculture, which enables poorer countries, for one, to develop their agriculture, implement fair trade rules and improve food quality standards. Clearly, this has many positive aspects.

Of course, for trade to be mutually beneficial, it must first be fair. A trade system that results in exploiting poor countries and dumping in rich countries is not sustainable. We cannot allow free trade that results in a race to the bottom. That is not what this is about.

In closing, this food day is a great idea. The Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill. This day should be accompanied by a range of meaningful measures. Simply having a day is not enough. As I pointed out, we still need to implement an action plan to feed people, to adequately support farmers and, above all, so that I can stop feeling guilty about having steak tartare for dinner while 485,000 children in this country do not have enough to eat.

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

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to be here today to speak to Bill S-227, an act to establish food day in Canada. I thank the member for Perth—Wellington for sponsoring it in this place.

This bill is very similar, with some minor changes such as the date, to Bill C-281, an act to establish a national local food day, which was introduced in the 42nd Parliament by the former NDP MP and national parks critic Wayne Stetski. MP Stetski's bill was itself a reiteration of legislation introduced in the 41st Parliament as Bill C-449, an act respecting a national local food day, by former NDP MP and agriculture critic Malcolm Allen. Therefore, it is good to be here debating this bill, which has such a rich history in this place.

It is incredibly important to ensure that Canadians have access to healthy, affordable food and a sustainable food system. These are national priorities. I agree with the former speaker that they need a lot more support and investment. It is important to support our local agriculture markets as they are essential to us moving forward with this goal.

As I was preparing for this speech, I was thinking a lot about what we experienced during the beginning of the pandemic. I remember a lot of communities and organizations contacting me to talk about food and how worried they were with the big changes that were happening across the planet and with their food security.

My riding is just under 60,000 square kilometres. I have a lot communities on islands, and they were very concerned. I remember when there was a COVID outbreak in Alert Bay. The butcher there became very ill and had to be away for 14 days. That made it very hard for people to access the meat and protein they desperately needed.

Therefore, ensuring that we have local responses and that we honour the importance of assuring that if something happens there is enough food to sustain us is incredibly important.

I am also pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the rich farmers' markets across my riding. What I find profound about all the farmers' markets is that they are evolving quickly, and they celebrate locally grown food, which I really appreciate. It means I can go online and look at all the resources our farmers' markets bring. They connect us locally to people who are producing different types of food. The websites are available on that one site, so people can look at what they can locally connect to directly, and that is important.

When we know who feeds us locally, it means we can access their products. It is good for the environment and it supports local businesses. I come from a rural and remote riding, and keeping money in our region is incredibly important. These folks work very hard, so I appreciate how it connects us to local providers and allows us to buy locally to protect not only those local business but also our planet. We must always remember to celebrate the people who make food for us and who are very close to us.

I think of my visit to the Blueberry Commons' farm co-operative, which does some great work around connecting with children in schools, providing food for people and creating a local business that is going to make sense. It is also looking at how it can add housing to this co-operative. When it looks at its community, it sees how high the need is for affordable housing. It is quite incredible when we see these kinds of groups coming together and identifying how they are going to support not only keeping food healthy, local and affordable for people, but also ensuring that affordable housing is included going forward.

I think about the Namgis community garden. When I went there I was amazed by the establishment it had created and by the many young people who would go there to learn how to garden from the more mature members of the community. This brings the community together. It was very profound to see the number of young people who were getting jobs because they were working with local businesses and people saw an opportunity to hire them. As they said, it was a good problem to have.

I think of Big D's Bees. We have strong support for bees in a lot of places throughout our riding. Big D's Bees does a lot of work to ensure we have good honey, but we are also showing our solidarity with the bees, which are struggling so much.

Amara Farm is another one, one of my favourite farms in my region. They do a lot of incredible work to create produce, and also work very hard to make sure that the farmers' market is successful.

The reality is that when we talk about this bill, we have to acknowledge how many people are going hungry. Twenty per cent of Canadians have said that they were very likely or somewhat likely to obtain food from a community organization in the next six months. We know that people are struggling to make ends meet, and it is getting harder and harder.

One of the hardest challenges for families that are struggling financially is finding affordable, accessible food that is healthy for their children. We hear about this all too often: children going to school hungry, children struggling with health issues because they cannot eat the proper food.

I know that my friend, the MP for Vancouver Kingsway, has put forward Bill C-212, an act to develop a national school food program for children. This is absolutely important. We know that too many children go to school hungry. We need to make sure that we are supporting those children without any embarrassment or shame, so that they can get the health and nutrition they need, so that they can be better educated and take care of that education. I really appreciate the focus on those kinds of things.

When we talk about this, we also know we are watching some of our grocery chains in this country, specifically Loblaws, which are seeing outrageous profit during this time when so many Canadians are going hungry. I remember when our leader asked Galen Weston how much profit is too much, and of course he was unable to answer that question. I wonder why. We know that feeding people is less important than making sure there is profit for people who have a stake in that business.

As the cost of food goes up, as we know, more and more food is being shipped across the planet. We need to find ways to look at this and have a more sustainable future that includes healthy food for people, but also includes accessing local food before we go outside, especially when we look at things like the carbon footprint and what that means for us as food travels around the world.

I have only a couple of minutes left in my speech, but I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the great heroes of all of us across this country, and that is our local food banks. Not too long ago, I was in Gold River and I was talking to one of the members of the town council. She was talking about how the Gold River Food Network is doing everything it can, but it is getting harder and harder to feed people because so many people are accessing it. They noted, specifically, that there are a lot of seniors accessing food banks. That is quite concerning, that people who are living on a fixed income are struggling more and more. If they do not have healthy food, their health outcomes are worse.

I also think of the Campbell River Food Bank, which does a lot of work in that community, but also holds a lot of food for other food banks on some of the islands near our region. As they see the increase in just the Campbell River area, they are having a harder and harder time taking in that extra food that they hold for those other communities. Storage is becoming a huge issue. If they cannot store the food, then it gets harder to get food out to other communities, and that really concerns me.

I also think of the Powell River Food Bank. I went to meet with them, and one of the stories I will never forget was about the embarrassment of a wife coming in and asking them to please not tell her husband that she had to go to the food bank, because they just did not have enough food. She had paid all the bills and there was nothing left over.

In this time when food insecurity is increasing, it is incredibly important that all of us in this place take responsibility and understand that we must support healthy food for people. We must look at what is happening in our local communities and lift those businesses up, lift those farms up so that they could provide the best food.

I look forward to supporting this bill, and I hope that we have a special day to recognize and celebrate local food. I also hope that all of us will celebrate it every day by buying products that are close to home.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, and today the voice, hopefully, of many Canadians, to this chamber. I want to begin by thanking Senator Black for bringing forward this bill to acknowledge a food day in Canada. He comes from the other place, and I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague, the member for Perth—Wellington, for shepherding it through this place.

I also want to thank him for some delicious craft beer that resides in my fridge, as he recognized that the Leamington Flyers prevailed over his St. Marys Lincolns in the western conference finals of the junior B hockey league. I also want to acknowledge that last night the Stratford Warriors, also from his riding, tied the series for the Sutherland Cup at 3-3; he and I will continue discussions on that matter later.

However, today is about food and the important place that food has in our lives, both for our physical needs and also for our social needs. It has such a major place as we celebrate with families, as we celebrate occasions and as we celebrate social events. Today, I want to spend most of my time talking about the physical aspect of how food nourishes us.

As previous members have acknowledged, many of us have access to local food, and that is great here in Canada, but the reality is that most of the food that we consume as Canadians comes to us through one of two complex food value chains: It is either food that we purchase at the grocery store, through the retail value chain, or it is through the food service aspect. After a number of us have spoken here to this bill, we will go to the lobbies and enjoy some food prepared here through the chamber. As we celebrate weddings and other social events, we have the food service industry serving us there through our hospitality venues, as well as through our hospitals. That is the other complex food value chain that often supplies us with food.

I am a farmer, and on our farm we have produced many vegetable crops and grain crops. However, I have spent much of my life also involved with the transfer of raw products from our farm to the next step, that second step, as it goes from farmers to food manufacturers or food processors, and then on to retailers, distribution centres or food service companies.

Several generations ago, most people understood the food value chain. What I really like about this bill is that it focuses on our food value chain and it gives us an opportunity to talk about it, so that we all collectively understand where our food comes from. In this chamber, we hear at times debate around supply management, where we talk about open markets or contracts or the spot market or informal alliances. In the general public, I do not think it is that well understood. Why does agriculture not just get together and have one simple way of transferring food or the value of raw product to the next step? Obviously, it is very simple to understand at the local markets or the roadside markets. In my home riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington, we are blessed with many of them throughout the summer, and with our greenhouse industry, we often have access through many months of the year. However, as I said earlier, most of the food comes to us through a complex web of interrelationships, and that is where I have spent some time off the farm. I will speak a bit to that.

I am a proud Conservative. I sit on this side of the chamber, for now. However, I have also spent 20 years or more collectively bargaining. I am very proud of that, representing producers and their relationships up the value chain. How can I do that? I very much firmly believe in the market mechanism as the most efficient mechanism for transferring value of goods and services, but markets work only when there is a balance of power in the marketplace. Different mechanisms, different structures and at times different regulations are required to provide that balance of power. What I have noticed over my time in the food industry is that there are four factors that actually determine the amount of structure and the style of relationship between producers, farmers and the next step up, be it food manufacturers or processors.

Let us begin with them. The first one is the perishability of the product we are talking about. If we were to talk about the price of a glass of milk, or a tomato, which I have produced, or a bushel of grain, and if we were to sit down across the desk to determine the value and not agree, we might want to come back in two or three weeks' time and talk about the value of those products again. That glass of milk is going to have some problems two weeks later, if it is not properly cared for. The tomato might hang in there and have some value, but it would certainly be reduced. For the bushel of grain, be it wheat, corn, soybeans or canola, if stored properly, we can talk about it in six months, and it would be fine. Therefore, perishability determines the dynamic or the power we have to talk about it. Even with different products, we can talk about beef versus dairy. Both are products that come from bovine species, but they have totally different marketing aspects when it comes to perishability.

A second factor is the complexity of the biology or the complexity of the technology. We can take a dairy herd as an example. A dairy herd takes years to build up to a productive asset, as does an orchard or a vineyard. They are not things one plants in spring and harvests that fall, immediately; it takes time. Therefore, if there are errors, mistakes or marketing challenges, that can really mess with that operation for years.

My farm, Lycoland Farms, is an annual crop producer, so we get a new chance every spring, and we are at the point where we do a fair bit of double cropping, so often we are able to plant two crops a year. That dynamic, the complexity of the biology, determines how much structure and regulation might be required in transferring value.

A third factor is the balance of buyers and sellers, and we have talked a lot about that in this House recently. How many buyers are there for how many sellers? Is it a monopoly or an oligopoly buying, or are there a number of options I can sell to as a producer?

I think of different instances here. The grain markets are becoming more concentrated, but the reality is that I have several elevators I could transfer my corn or soybeans to, and I am not bound to take it to one if we disagree on the local basis levels. I look at our greenhouse industry, a very complex and highly technical industry, and there is a large absence of marketing structures. As they specialize more, they are starting to move toward contracts, but the reality is that in that industry, several years ago, there were over 60 marketing agencies willing to transfer the value of greenhouse product to the retailers, to the market. That has shrunk down somewhat, but there are a number of options. That balance of buyers and sellers, monopolies and oligopolies, plays into how much structure a market needs to function effectively.

Last, there is the international scene. How is agriculture treated in other countries? Canada is a trading nation, so we cannot eat all the wheat we produce or all the pork we produce, and our orange juice production and our coffee production suck. We need to trade, and how other countries treat agriculture is also extremely important in our relationship.

Those four factors, over time, play into how an industry transfers value, and this is largely between the primary producers one step up in the value chain. These factors are not static. Innovation, changes in technology and changes in how other countries interfere with or support their agriculture become very important.

I am reminded of 2008, when the grain markets rose significantly. That actually led to the Arab Spring. When the average consumption of a country's population drops below 1,800 calories per citizen, often civil unrest follows, so countries around the world are interested in their agriculture and their food supply. Food sovereignty is important to every nation in the world, and that plays out in many different ways.

In the few seconds I have left, I just want to touch on two points. First of all, there is a myth that it is field-to-fork that brings the food to our plate. I, as a primary farmer, have so many suppliers. I have relationships with input suppliers, seed suppliers and farm machinery suppliers, so our food value chain extends before the farmers. I do not want to leave anyone with the wrong impression.

In conclusion, the legacy of Anita Stewart from Perth—Wellington is to be honoured, and that is a point of pride for our agriculture communities and for our whole food value system. I am honoured to address that today.

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

Madam Speaker, having grown up in the Prairies, whether in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, or in Alberta when I served in the Canadian Forces, I have had the opportunity to really get a good sense of what our Prairies are, even going into British Columbia. Food, as it has been talked about, is not something that is critical. It is even more important than critical, as life is dependent upon it.

I thought I would try to give a bit of an image of driving in the Prairies. I can think of highways such as Highway 2 driving out in the Carman area or down Highway 1. One can see beautiful bright yellow fields, blue fields or golden fields, virtually wherever the eye can see. One of the most impressive sites is when driving on Highway 2 and one can see a line of five or six huge four-wheel drive combine tractors in the field bringing in the food. It is so impressive that one must realize it is a bread basket for the world.

We export so much product, and our farmers have done such incredible work with the diversification of our farms. Canola, in particular, is one of my favourites. It comes from the University of Manitoba. There has been fine work done through science. It has been expanded to incorporate the Prairies, with some of the products going out of Saskatchewan into countries such as India. There are so many products.

Canada does play a very important role when it comes to food security, not only for today but into the future. I would like to emphasize the imagination of individuals to take a look at the vastness of the Prairies and the work that our farmers do in ensuring that we have those basic crops, which are so essential to the existence of life.

For diversification, it has been so important that the government support our farming community through the prepandemic, pandemic and postpandemic years, which it did with budgetary measures allocating hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as by looking at ways to enhance trade opportunities and ensure local food security through supporting the many different organizations out there. There is so much in that sector.

This is a government that has a genuine interest in making sure that our agricultural and food sector industries are strong, healthy and viable. I believe that food day would fall on the first Saturday after the first Monday in August, so that this year it should be on August 5. When we designate days, weeks or months, we will usually hear fairly encouraging words about the topic of the legislation or resolution that is being debated. There is absolutely no doubt that education is a major component to any sort of recognition of a day. We have some amazing organizations out there.

I have referred, for example, to Peak of the Market, which is located on Route 90, a nice, easily accessible highway in the past. I had the opportunity a few years back for a tour of Peak of the Market with the minister of agriculture. Food circulation is of critical importance, but I had the opportunity to have a wonderful tour, where I recognized the white potatoes, red potatoes, vegetables and storage capabilities available. There are all sorts of things that take place here. It is, for all intents and purposes, an organization to promote Manitoba-grown products and vegetables. It has had such a huge impact.

People have referred to food banks. Peak of the Market donates thousands of pounds every year to food banks. Peak of the Market is out there promoting and encouraging people to buy local and to promote that product beyond the borders of Manitoba.

We have great strawberry farms. Every year, when I was in the Manitoba legislature, we would get a basket full of strawberries grown in Portage la Prairie. Last summer or the summer before, I was north of the Interlake and was able to see cattle farms and even a beef farm. If people go to the southeast, they will see chicken producers. They have the barns where they are born, grown to 28 days old and then processed to provide food, whether it is for Kentucky Fried Chicken, hotels or grocery stores.

We can look at the hog industry, an industry that I have talked at great length about in the past. The hog industry in Manitoba is huge, and it continues to grow. It is not just in Manitoba. HyLife is a great contributor to the Canadian economy with its significant footprint in the province of Manitoba, where it processes thousands of hogs every day, which ultimately get exported to Asia. This created jobs and provides essential food. It is endless. We can talk about the hog production plants in my home city of Winnipeg or in Brandon. Thousands of hogs are being produced for local consumption and export. They are the best-quality hogs.

I would argue the best-quality potatoes are found in the province of Manitoba. Some of my Prince Edward Island colleagues might question me about that, but, from my perspective, I believe Manitoba does produce the best.

There are industries we need to look into more for possible opportunities. I had an opportunity to look at the aquafarms in a very small way, but it is an interesting opportunity and something we should be looking at. It provides all sorts of opportunities from an educational point of view. We may be able to have aqua farms even in cold climates with greenhouses. The science behind food enables us to get more engaged.

It is important, when we look at the food industry, that we need to recognize the degree to which our farmers have sacrificed. I referred to the farming of wheat. We can talk about the dairy farmers and the cattle industry. They are there today because of our agricultural products and food industry have one purpose at hand, and that is to ultimately provide the quality foods we see on our grocery shelves and being served to us, as one member said, whether it is in the MPs' lobbies or in our many wonderful restaurants throughout all of our communities. It is wonderful to recognize the importance of food and all those involved in ensuring we have food to eat.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate today to talk about Bill S-227, which was brought forward by my friend from Perth—Wellington. I thank him very much for bringing this forward.

As many people know, I grew up on a dairy and beef farm in southwest Saskatchewan, so agriculture had a huge impact on my life when I was growing up. I will take a few minutes today to talk about how important agriculture is, was and will continue to be in our country.

First and foremost, we have the best agricultural producers in the world. What we do here in Canada when it comes to agriculture is so fundamentally well done by the people who are in the fields, raise cattle and produce milk. I am very happy to have lots of friends in the agriculture sector still, and to be a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which unanimously passed this bill back to the House for third reading. I was so happy we passed it quickly so the legislation can pass and be made law, and so we can celebrate food day on August 5 of this year, as my colleague from Winnipeg North said.

One thing we are doing in Saskatchewan, which is one thing this bill would help with, is improving the education on how our food is produced. In Saskatchewan, we do something called “agriculture in the classroom”, which is about having students learn about where their food comes from and that it does not just appear in the grocery store or on their plate when mom or dad cooks it at home. It teaches them where it starts, which is the fields, the farms and the cattle ranches in our country.

Agriculture in the classroom is not just about the students. It gives educators the opportunity to gain real-life experience on the farm. One of the educators who took part in this in 2022 said:

This was the most transformational excursion I have had the pleasure to go on. I loved learning about how farmers are taking active measures to ensure that our food is produced in the most environmentally friendly way.... I really appreciated the connections I made with several of the participants and look forward to using some of the resources in my classroom now that I have a great awareness of what is available for my grade.

This is a quote from Sherry Lesser, a 2022 agriculture expedition teacher.

This bill would bring together rural and urban citizens and allow them to start the conversation about how we produce food in this country.

As I said, I have been on the agriculture committee for several years, and one thing we really need to make other Canadian citizens aware of is just how much has been done to improve sustainable agriculture, though I think all agriculture is sustainable. Our farmers should get credit for what has been done in the last 20 to 25 years. They should get credit for zero tillage, which has now practically been incorporated. They should get credit for crop rotation, where different crops take out different nutrients from the soil.

People have come to present to committee, and the agricultural soil in Canada is in the best shape it has ever been in. This is because we leave more in the ground and have the ability, through technology, to make our soil as healthy as it has ever been.

I had the experience of attending Ag in Motion, one of the biggest agricultural shows in North America. It takes place just outside Saskatoon. Yara, which is a fertilizer company, had a research plot there, and I was able to go on a tour with the company, which field-mapped the plot. Technology has done great things for agriculture. Yara had a little machine that scanned 30 leaves in this plot and then gave a reading, down to the decimal point, of how much fertilizer needed to be added to that part of the field.

Technology has come such a long way. We can now have a field map, with GPS, and the tractors now have GPS as well, so farmers can be so precise on how much fertilizer they put in the fields. It is amazing how much more sustainable our practices are. If one talks to any producer, one will hear that they want to lower their inputs as much as possible, because fertilizer and fuel cost a lot of money and that hits the bottom line. I am so proud of our producers and how well they have done in using that technology to make farming even more sustainable.

Of the total emissions for Canada, agriculture represents 8% to 10%. In any other jurisdiction in the world, the agriculture sector accounts for 25% of emissions, or more. That is how well we are doing in Canada: Our emissions are three times lower than in any other jurisdiction in the world that has agriculture as major part of its economy. That is what we have to keep in mind when we are talking about sustainability and agriculture. We have to let people in this country know how well our producers are doing when it comes to agriculture and sustainability. It is something we should be proud of, and the government should be there to promote what our producers have done.

We are definitely going to be at the forefront of being sustainable and feeding the world. As our population grows, our outputs and yields have to continue to grow. As we have lowered our emissions, the hard-working men and women in agriculture have also increased their yields. It is fantastic to see how much more we are producing with less, and that is something for which we should give credit to our producers. They made a lot of these innovative changes without any government intervention.

Getting back to Bill S-227, we can talk about education in the classroom, which is vitally important. I always talk about my rural, agricultural background, but I am an urban MP. I represent the west side of the city of Regina, so I am an urban MP. I always say I kind of blend the rural and the urban together. That is something this country should do more of. I think that people in downtown Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, our bigger cities, need to have conversations with rural people and talk about where our food comes from and how sustainably it is produced. That is something that will bring this country together more. At such a time in our country's history, we need more things that bring us together instead of dividing us.

Many people are one generation removed from the farm and still have that connection to rural areas, whether in Ontario or Quebec. I think there is a particular pride in being from a rural part of this country. When I am door knocking in Regina—Lewvan, many of my constituents either still have a farm in their family or are one generation removed. They talk about producing and what they are growing, with pride showing on their faces. I can see the smiles and memories that come back from when they were living on the farm, especially during harvest and seeding, when people really have that experience of coming together as a family.

We are going to see a lot of hope and optimism in May. Lots of people are hitting up fields right now in southern Saskatchewan. I wish everyone who is planting this year the best of luck. I hope it rains at the right times and that we have an amazing crop this year, because that is what we look for. There is a lot of hope and optimism in May in Saskatchewan, with people going out into the fields, but there is a lot of pressure too. It is big money, millions of dollars, that people are putting on the line to grow, fuel and fertilize so they can feed the world. With that hope and optimism also come a few worries.

Another thing I would like to do with respect to food day is to acknowledge that where our food comes from is a great way of life. Growing food and growing what we actually eat ourselves comes with a pride that cannot be explained. We raise our calves and send them into town. When we get that meat and eat it, we talk with our kids about how that meat went from being a calf to being part of our diet. There is something that comes with that, and it is a point of a pride when talking to kids.

Class field trips are something I remember. I remember going to a Hutterite colony when I was in grade 6 or grade 7. I learned about how everything is produced in that one setting. It starts in the field, where they have a bunch of plants. They also package and sell some of their own meat. We have not done that for a while, but my wife is on the student council at our school, and we are starting to do more trips to Hutterite colonies to have kids learn things first-hand and be on the farm. They can see how that production happens. It is interesting, because now, when my kids go to the grocery store, they look at the packaging of the meat a bit differently. They see where the meat was produced and packaged.

Food from field to fork and plate is something we can all learn a lot about. We should take great pride in our agriculture producers and how well and sustainably they produce the food that fuels this country. Canada will always have the food, fuel and fertilizer the world needs. We have to support our farmers. I am very happy to support my friend with this private member's bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

I will have to interrupt the member at some point.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that I will not have as much time as I had hoped for my speech on Bill S-227, which is now at third reading.

This is an interesting bill. It would create a food day in Canada. I am a little uneasy about seeing the word “Canada” in the name. That said, the idea of the bill is to create a day, in this country, in Canada, to celebrate local food and local products. That seems perfectly reasonable. Obviously, I would prefer a Quebec day, because there are great farmers in Quebec who make fantastic products. However, we will make do with food day in Canada. One day, we will try to propose a Quebec day as well. That would be even better.

This is a bill that interests me because people often tend to forget that there are farmers in Quebec and that a lot of farming happens there. Quebec's agricultural sector is highly diversified, with all kinds of products. Many people are unaware of this and do not appreciate this sector enough.

My riding is 10 minutes from Montreal. We are right next to the big city. There are towns with a population of 40,000 or 20,000, suburban towns with many inhabitants. There is also a lot of farmland in my riding, which not many people realize. Not everyone is aware of all the different farming operations in our area. I will name just a few.

My riding can be reached via Highway 30 or Highway 132 along the St. Lawrence River, or via other major roads like the Chemin des Patriotes or the Chemin du Rivage along the Richelieu River.

The thing that will stick out to anyone driving through my riding is the sheer number of fields they drive past. Once they drive out of the town limits, they may see nothing but fields for more than an hour. They may begin to wonder if there is anything around besides fields. There certainly is an enormous amount of land set aside for field crops such as wheat, soybeans and corn. Corn is a very popular local crop. My riding is also home to dairy farmers, the people who provide the milk, yogourt, cheese and other dairy products we consume every day.

A lot of those kinds of products come from my region, including grains that can be made into bread, cereals and other important staples, as well as corn and soybeans, which are also used to make many things.

We also have maple syrup producers. I like to say that Saint-Marc-sur-Richelieu is the capital of sugar shacks. There are many sugar shacks to visit in my region because there are so many maple syrup producers.

All the maple syrup producers in the Verchères riding got together recently for a sugar shack community supper. Everyone brought a can of their syrup. The idea was to taste each other's product to determine whose is the best. I guarantee that anyone who visits my riding will see for themselves that we make the best maple syrup.

I have talked about the dairy sector and maple syrup production. I see that I am already out of time, and I have only talked about two or three products made in my region. I hope I will have a chance to talk more about it later.

Above all, let us be proud of our local producers, because we make high quality food here. It is important to eat local food and support our farmers.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington for his right of reply.

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

Madam Speaker, it is indeed with great satisfaction that we finally reach the end of debate before passing Bill S-227, an act to establish Food Day in Canada.

I would like to begin by thanking the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for his assistance in helping me to accelerate the process, so we could pass this bill today. I would also like to thank all hon. members from all parties, senators and staff who have supported this bill and helped us to reach this final stage today. I particularly want to thank the hon. Senator Rob Black, who first introduced Bill S-227 in the Senate.

I would also like to thank and acknowledge the Stewart family members, who are making a strong legacy in their mother's memory in passing this bill, as well as Crystal Mackay from Food Day Canada and her family for their support. I would also like to thank and acknowledge my own family, including my wife, Justine, and our three ABCs, Ainsley, Bennett and Caroline, for their support as well. They tell me that they have heard more than enough about Bill S-227 at the dinner table and that they could give speeches on it themselves.

This summer, 20 years after Anita Stewart organized the first Food Day in response to a national crisis that devastated our beef industry, Food Day Canada will be officially recognized across Canada. This bill is particularly important as we focus on such issues as food sovereignty and food security. What is more, we could use Food Day to promote food literacy for both the young and the young at heart.

Coming to know where our food comes from and how it is produced, processed and prepared could be a learning process for all Canadians. This summer, and for every year to follow, we will, together, recognize the work of farmers, fishers, processors, chefs and everyone along the food supply chain; they not only feed us but also enrich our vast and diverse national culture.

I will close with the advice left to us by the late Anita Stewart, who founded Food Day in Canada almost 20 years ago and is, indeed, the inspiration for this bill. She wrote:

We need to have at least one day when no living Canadian can ignore the fact that Canada has some of the finest ingredients and culinary talent—from researchers and producers to home cooks and...chefs—on the planet.... [A]bove and beyond all else, Canadian cuisine is about celebrating our magnificent differences, our roots and our ethnicity. It’s about possibilities, and how we as a people continue to welcome immigrants from all over.... It’s about branding ourselves “Canadian” and giving our producers an unmistakable edge that no other nation can emulate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.

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

Madam Speaker, I think you will find it is the will of this House to pass the bill unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Foreign Interference and Alleged Intimidation of Member

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising to contribute to the question of privilege that was raised by my colleague, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, last week.

To put it bluntly, I was flabbergasted. I am responding in particular to the government House leader's intervention on this point. I was completely flabbergasted when I heard the arguments he advanced, Madam Speaker, appealing to you to reject standing up for a colleague who had been threatened.

The government House leader had two main themes, which I will take in turn. First, he asserted that the Globe and Mail report last Monday constituted “uncorroborated statements”. That is just not so.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister convened a briefing for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills with the national security and intelligence adviser and the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, or CSIS. As we heard from my colleague that afternoon, he was able to confirm, at that briefing, the details of the Globe's reporting. That very confirmation came from those senior national security officials and was relayed to the House by the hon. member. The Globe's reporting was, therefore, corroborated before the question of privilege was raised.

Many questions were asked, last week, about when the Prime Minister and the public safety minister, among others, received that CSIS report. However, we might have reason to be skeptical, as the House was told it was last week. To be clear, no one in the government, other than the government House leader, has denied the existence of this report. To my knowledge, Beijing's embassy and the government House leader are the only ones denying Robert Fife and Steven Chase's reporting from last Monday. That fact alone is astonishing.

That also contrasts markedly with the outrageous claims the government House leader's own parliamentary secretaries tried to make on Thursday morning. They claimed that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills had actually been briefed about these threats two years ago.

The level of gaslighting from this government and from the government House leader's own team is, quite frankly, disgusting. Nonetheless, if my counterpart insists that it would be impossible to establish the existence of the CSIS report, despite his government's statements, I would refer him to the words of Speaker Milliken on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates:

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House.

The motion that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills set out in his notice to you, Madam Speaker, proposes to refer the matter to that very committee for investigation. Of course, as we know, it is not up to the Chair to make a final ruling on the actual question itself but only to say whether there is enough evidence put before the House.

Ultimately, it will be the House making that decision. If the House decides to proceed with it, then, of course, the standing committee would do all the investigation work. In other words, it is not up to the Speaker to do all that but just to choose to give this question the priority that we believe it deserves. Perhaps the government House leader is afraid of what answers might come tumbling out when officials and others start getting cross-examined at committee.

Let us not lose sight of the burden that my colleague has to establish here, that is, a prima facie case. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 142, refers to such a case as being “on the first impression or at first glance”.

Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, at page 221, says:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House

On November 9, 1990, Speaker Fraser, at page 15177 of the Debates, favourably cited the definition of prima facie as “evidence which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence”. This is found at page 1071 of Black's Law Dictionary, fifth edition. The Globe and Mail report has neither been contradicted nor overcome. It has, in fact, been established by the subsequent and widespread acknowledgement of the CSIS report's existence, including by members of the government.

Next, I want to answer the other argument advanced by my counterpart that the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills failed to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity. First, we take members at their word. That is an age-old principle in this House, so if the member says that Tuesday afternoon was the first opportunity he had to raise the matter, then we must accept that fact. I can say from experience, Madam Speaker, that a submission for a question of privilege does not just pop into one's brain. Researching precedents, establishing the facts of the case and putting it together to submit it all take time.

The fact that my colleague was able to do all that within 24 hours, from the time he first learned of the existence of the CSIS report to the time he rose to raise this question, is remarkable. Rather than being used as a flimsy justification to dismiss the question of privilege on a technicality, the timeline is in fact evidence of the seriousness of the situation and the haste with which my colleague brought it to the attention of the Chair.

Second, the fact that the matter was raised the following day is, I would argue, perfectly reasonable in any event, and especially so when we think about the context. For starters, over the course of that 24 hours, the hon. member was able to secure a briefing from senior national security officials. Had he made his intervention on Monday, as the government House leader seems to prefer, it would have been on the basis of uncorroborated allegations, the very other thing that the government House leader claimed distress about. In other words, my colleague did not receive official confirmation that the report existed until he was briefed by the Prime Minister and his security officials on Tuesday; he raised the question of privilege the very same day.

However, speaking of distress, put yourself in the shoes of our colleague, Madam Speaker. You get a phone call from a reporter asking you to provide comment on an article that is about to run concerning a two-year-old intelligence report on the targeting of you and your family by a brutal Communist dictatorship. You go on to read about the details on the front page of a national newspaper. I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but my mind would be reeling. The dignity and composure with which our colleague reacted to this news through a measured and thoughtful approach should be commended, not disparaged as the government House leader sought to do.

Last fall, the government House leader urged the procedure and House affairs committee to consider making Parliament a more humane place, where we show compassion for one another. There was, sadly, nothing humane or compassionate about the comments he or his parliamentary secretaries put forward last week about a dictatorship's targeted threats of a colleague.

Third, the interpretation of raising a matter at the earliest opportunity should be, and has been, viewed contextually. It has never been held to require a same-day complaint. There are lots of examples, so let me offer two precedents to bear in mind.

On February 6, 2004, Speaker Milliken, at page 244 of the Debates, made a prima facie finding in an immediate response to a question of privilege raised that morning, the fourth sitting day following the opening of the session. It sought to revive a privilege reference to the procedure and House affairs committee, which prorogation had extinguished. Despite plenty of forewarning and a week to raise it, the delay was not held against the member.

On March 12, 1996, Speaker Parent was asked to rule on a question of privilege regarding a member's October 26, 1995, press release appealing to members of the Canadian Armed Forces to desert in the event of Quebec voting to secede from Canada. In ruling on the matter, which was raised over four months after the press release was issued, the Chair held, at page 562 of the Debates, “The House today is being faced with one of the more serious matters we have been faced with in this 35th Parliament. As a matter of fact, in my view it is so serious that the matter’s being raised at the first opportunity, which I have brought up in passing, is moot.”

I dare say that the matter of Beijing's meddling in the Canadian state and democracy, now including votes in the House of Commons, is also one of the most serious matters, if not the most serious matter, discussed in the current Parliament. Indeed, the conversation has stretched across Parliaments when one considers the landmark ruling that the current Speaker made in the last days of the previous Parliament relating to the Winnipeg lab documents concerning fired scientists with links to the Communist regime.

The government's argument about delay is equally specious and infuriating, but should it constitute grounds for you, Madam Speaker, to dismiss my colleague's question of privilege, it will surely give the House a lot to think about. Those arguments are almost demeaning to your intelligence, frankly, and it is disturbing to think that ministers even believe they could try to convince you to provide cover for them over one of the most serious threats to come before this House on the flimsiest of technical grounds.

Although I have confidence in you, Madam Speaker, being able to see through the government House leader's representations, I simply could not allow them to go unanswered.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do appreciate the additional information from the hon. opposition House leader, and we will be taking that into consideration as the decision to respond is made.

Government Business No. 25—Proceedings on Bill C-21

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms), be disposed of as follows:

(a) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order, to:

(i) address unlawfully manufactured, unserialized and untraceable firearms, electronic in nature or otherwise, including their parts, that can be purchased online and/or assembled at home by amending the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act,

(ii) address the illegal acquisition of cartridge magazines by requiring a Possession and Acquisition License to purchase cartridge magazines,

(iii) amend the definition of “prohibition order” and provisions relating to prohibition orders (sections 109 and 110) to include prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, crossbow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, firearms part, ammunition, prohibited ammunition, or explosive substance, or all such things,

(iv) amend the definition of “prohibited firearm” in the Criminal Code to include a further technical description for an assault-style firearm and criteria that includes any unlawfully manufactured firearms,

(v) allow for an amendment that will ensure a statutory review of the technical definition proposed in paragraph (iv) above,

(vi) amend the Criminal Code as it relates to the proposed definition of prohibited firearm,

(vii) add a definition of “firearm part”, which means to include a barrel for a firearm, a slide for a handgun and any other prescribed part, but does not include, unless otherwise prescribed, a barrel for a firearm or a slide for a handgun if that barrel or slide is designed exclusively for use on a firearm that is deemed under section 84(3) not to be a firearm,

(vii.1) add new offences, and exceptions to the offences, relating to a firearm part or relating to computer data and provide for their enforcement and provide for the court to impose restrictions in relation to firearm parts;

(vii.2) expand the concept of orders under section 117.011 to include orders in respect of access to a firearm part,

(viii) add a new definition of “semi-automatic”, which, in respect of a firearm, means that the firearm to include a firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge,

(ix) add a non-derogation clause affirming the rights enshrined under section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

(x) allow for the addition of a regulation-making authority and definition respecting unregulated firearms,

(xi) make any consequential or technical amendments;

(b) during consideration of the bill by the committee:

(i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings,

(ii) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(iii) not more than 20 minutes be allotted for debate on any clause or any amendment moved, to be divided to a maximum of five minutes per party, unless unanimous consent is granted to extend debate on a specific amendment, and at the expiry of the time provided for debate on an amendment, the Chair shall put every question to dispose of the amendment, forthwith and successively without further debate,

(iv) the committee shall meet between 3:30 p.m. and midnight on the two further days following the adoption of this order,

(v) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m. on the second day, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,

(vi) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Acting Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1);

(c) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at report stage and on that day the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and, not later than 11:59 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment;

(d) not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the bill at the third reading stage and on that day the ordinary hour of daily adjournment shall be midnight, and that, not later than 11:59 p.m. or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment; and

(e) on the sitting days the bill is considered at report stage and the third reading stage, after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I would also like to acknowledge the impact colonization has had on indigenous peoples, with overincarceration and overrepresentation in the foster care system, and the impact it has had on missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and two-spirit people.

I am pleased to begin debate today on the motion before the House and speak about the importance not only of this motion but of passing Bill C-21 in a timely manner.

Last week, we introduced a number of important amendments that reflected conversations had across this country with Canadians and indigenous peoples. I will acknowledge that we needed to step back and ensure that we got Bill C-21 right, and the time we took was important to do that.

We have introduced a new amendment to ensure that we do not derogate from the section 35 charter rights of indigenous peoples. We have introduced a technical definition to prohibit firearms that inflict the most casualties in the least amount of time, while respecting hunters, as well as a suite of measures to address the rise of ghost guns.

It has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I must interrupt the member.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, we are not getting any interpretation in French.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We are having problems with the interpretation.

It is working now. Perfect.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has been clear since the bill was first introduced that the Conservative Party had no interest in advancing this transformational legislation. Rather than asking relevant questions of officials, last week Conservative members of the committee spent over three hours of the committee's time parroting the speaking points of the gun lobby. In addition to their previous obstruction tactics, this made it clear that the committee was going to be bogged down with unnecessary delays and that it would take not months but years, at that pace, to see the bill reported back to the House.

In fact, the NDP member for New Westminster—Burnaby asked twice for unanimous consent to add 20 hours to the clause-by-clause study of the bill and was twice denied by the Conservative Party. I did the calculation. We are meeting for three hours at the public safety committee tomorrow. In this motion, we are seeking eight and a half hours for two days, which is the equivalent of the committee meeting until June 15 if we were to hold regular meetings.

Non-partisan government officials received death threats due to their appearance at committee as they provided technical advice on the bill, which underscores why it is critical to complete clause-by-clause promptly.

That is why this motion is important today. When I talk about death threats and intimidation, that is something I have been subject to from the gun lobby since 2019, when I first spoke out during the debate on Bill C-71. I have received threats and intimidation, and these are a lot more than “mean tweets”, as the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights calls them. Twice my riding was targeted by the gun lobby, when it visited my riding in 2019 and 2021, and twice the constituents of Oakville North—Burlington have stood up for gun control and the work that we are doing in this House and sent me back to Ottawa in spite of the intimidation tactics that the gun lobby has tried to use against me.

Working in this place as an MP is a privilege I do not take lightly. I have had the opportunity to work on many issues since I was elected, and one that I am most proud of is the actions our government has taken to prevent gun violence. I was elected to this place for the first time in 2015. When one is elected as an MP, a number of things happen very quickly. One learns about the functioning of the House, as one of 338 Canadians who have the privilege to take a seat at the centre of democracy. I was not expecting to be placed on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, but I am grateful every day that this is where the whip chose to put me. I have worked hard to learn the file and advocate on difficult subjects, knowing that the issues the public safety committee deals with are ones that fundamentally shape our country, and that our work on it is fundamentally about building a better, safer and fairer Canada: questions surrounding systemic racism and the oversight of law enforcement; how to build a corrections system that upholds human rights and prioritizes rehabilitation; implementing needed safeguards to protect our national security from hostile foreign actors; and, yes, gun control.

Today, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security since 2016, I would like to share the context of where we were, where we are now, where we can go with the passage of Bill C-21, and why it is important to expand the scope of the bill and pass it in a timely matter.

In 2019, Bill C-71, an act to amend certain acts and regulations in relation to firearms, received royal assent. Through Bill C-71, our government introduced mandatory lifetime background checks for anyone who applies for a licence to purchase and own firearms, increasing the previous regime from a five-year background check. It also updated the Firearms Act to the modern age by requiring the chief firearms officer to look at a firearms licence applicant's online behaviour for signs of violence when making a determination on whether an individual is eligible to hold a licence. The legislation also required people in businesses to have proof that they are selling non-restricted firearms only to those who are lawfully licensed to possess one. It ensured that when a court issues a prohibition against a person from owning a firearm, the weapon is forfeited to the Crown, instead of giving an individual the ability to give the firearms to a friend or family member. This ensures that those who should not have access to firearms do not.

These measures improved public safety and ensured that those who enjoy the privilege of firearm ownership meet the test of a rigorous licensing regime. At the time, the Conservatives delayed the bill at committee and eventually voted against it in the House.

While many refuse to talk about it, gun control is a women's issue. The Canadian Women's Foundation notes that the presence of firearms in Canadian households is the single greatest risk factor for the lethality of intimate partner violence. Access to a firearm increases the likelihood of femicide by 500%. The Ontario coroner's death review panel said that 26% of women who were killed by their partner were killed using a firearm.

In speaking with groups like the Lethbridge YWCA, they have told me that every single woman who came to their shelter had been threatened by a partner with a firearm. These are among the nearly 2,500 women victimized in this way over the past five years. Intimate partner violence accounts for nearly 30% of all police-reported violent crime in Canada. That number has risen during the pandemic. In my riding and across the country, local organizations like Halton Women's Place are helping shine a brighter light on the dangers of gun violence.

Over the last eight years, we as a country have also become more aware of the role that coercive control plays in abusive relationships. When we add firearms to the mix, it is a recipe for continued physical, emotional and psychological abuse. In fact, coercive control, when a man uses a gun to control women without ever pulling the trigger, is real and happening right now.

An Oakville resident sent me an email that stated, “Let me just say that you can endure the physical and emotional abuse, but when he pulls our a double-barrelled shotgun, loads it and tells you he is going to kill you, then you know true terror! Thank you for looking out for the victims before they become statistics.”

Our government has been advocating, and will continue to advocate, for women, and through Bill C-21, we would be taking additional steps to support survivors of intimate partner violence who have been threatened with or on the receiving end of violence with a firearm.

Bill C-21 would introduce new red and yellow flag laws, allowing courts to remove guns from and suspend the licence of people who pose a danger to themselves or others and would ensure that those individuals subject to a protection order have their firearms licence revoked. Bill C-21 would mark an important next step in removing guns from the hands of abusive partners.

In addition to the creation of these new red flag provisions, Public Safety Canada will establish a program to help raise awareness among victims about how to use the newly proposed provisions and protections. A guide about how to submit an application to the courts and the protections available could be developed, and the program could fund services to support individuals' applications throughout the court process. It would support vulnerable and marginalized groups, including women, people with mental health issues, indigenous groups and other racialized communities, to make certain that the red flag laws would be accessible to all, particularly those who may need it most.

The government will make available $5 million through a contribution program to ensure support and equitable access.

Enhanced licensing and the creation of additional tools for survivors of intimate partner violence is just one way our government would implement stringent gun control that prioritizes public safety, while still respecting those who own and use firearms.

I would like to take a moment to take us back to April 2020 and the tragedy that unfolded in Portapique, Nova Scotia, where 22 innocent lives were lost over the course of a weekend rampage. We were all shocked and heartbroken. As we learned the identities of the victims of these terrible crimes, we were reminded of the tragic impact that gun violence could have on all of our communities, urban and rural, from coast to coast to coast. Mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbours were taken from us in a terrible violent way, and far too soon.

Gun violence is not a new thing in our society, but it is made all the more deadly with the proliferation of firearms that are more powerful than ever before. Assault-style firearms, those that were not designed for hunting or sport shooting, have become more and more prevalent in our Canadian retail market. For as long as these guns have existed, they have been capable of inflicting tremendous damage when they fall into the wrong hands.

For decades, chiefs of police, advocacy groups, grieving families and everyday Canadians have called for a ban on these types of firearms, guns that were designed to kill people, intended in their purpose to kill people in the fastest time, and have been used in Canada to kill innocent people.

Canadians have been calling upon successive governments for reform, for stronger gun control. In May 2020, we took additional action through an order in council to ban over 1,500 models of assault-style firearms, including the AR-15.

As retired U.S. Major General Paul Eaton has said, “For all intents and purposes, the AR-15 and rifles like it are weapons of war.” These weapons were designed for the battlefield and have no place on Canadian streets.

Through Bill C-21, we are building on the work done in 2020 to offer a prospective technical definition to ensure that in addition to the weapons banned in 2020, no future similar weapons would ever be able to make it into the Canadian market. It responds to recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.

Doctors for Protection from Guns called the definition “A victory for science, public health, and Canadian values...to permanently ban future models of assault weapons.”

Dr. Najma Ahmed said, “As a trauma surgeon I can say there is no greater damage done to the human body than that from semi-automatic assault weapons. I invite any Member of Parliament who denies this reality to join me in the operating room.”

This scoping motion before us today would ensure that this technical definition could be included in Bill C-21.

That brings us to where we are today. Bill C-21 puts forward some of the strongest gun control measures in over 40 years. These new measures include implementing a national freeze on hand guns to prevent individuals from bringing newly acquired hand guns into Canada and from buying, selling and transferring hand guns within the country, a freeze which through regulations has been in effect since October 2022; taking away the firearms licenses of those involved in acts of domestic violence or criminal harassment, such as stalking; and fighting gun smuggling and trafficking by increasing criminal penalties, providing more tools for law enforcement to investigate firearms crimes and strengthening border security measures.

Over 75% of firearm deaths in our country are by suicide, and there are provisions in the bill to help medical professionals and others ensure that firearms do not remain in the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others.

The new amendments that are outlined in the scoping motion before us include tackling ghost guns, guns that are privately manufactured, or 3-D printed. This is probably one of the most important things we can do for law enforcement in Bill C-21 to support them with the emerging prevalence of ghost guns.

Members of the public safety committee visited the RCMP gun vault and were able to see how quick and easy it was for criminals to 3-D print firearms illegally. Police services across the country have told me how worried they are about ghost guns infiltrating our communities.

Investigators like Michael Rowe of the Vancouver Police Department, who appeared at our committee during our study on guns and gangs, emphasized the need to create legislative solutions to address this gap so police would have the tools to apprehend those creating these ghost guns.

During his appearance at committee, Inspector Rowe said:

...one of the trends we're seeing out here in Vancouver right now is the use of privately made firearms or “ghost guns”. During the gang conflict, we're seeing more ghost guns, specifically in the hands of people who are involved in active murder conspiracies or people who are believed to be working as hired contract killers. Ghost guns can be 3-D printed or modified from what's called a Polymer80 handgun...

Modern 3-D printing materials can produce a durable firearm, capable of shooting hundreds of rounds without a failure. For example, one of my teams recently completed an investigation in which we executed search warrants on a residential home. Inside this home, we located a sophisticated firearms manufacturing operation capable of producing 3-D printed firearms. They had firearm suppressors and they were completing airsoft conversions—converting airsoft pistols into fully functioning firearms.

The amendments before us in Bill C-21 are in direct response to Inspector Rowe's ask, which was:

...I'd respectfully like to submit that a potential solution would be to bring in legislative remedies to regulate the possession, sale and importation of firearms parts such as barrels, slides and trigger assemblies. This type of legislation would give us, the police, the necessary tools to be able to seize these items, get active enforcement action and more effectively target the manufacturing of privately made firearms.

Our proposed amendments to Bill C-21 would do just that.

Police services across the country are sounding the alarm on this problem, and the amendments we are introducing to address ghost guns is another reason Bill C-21 is such an essential piece of legislation that would increase our public safety.

I would like to share the words of Noor Samiei. Noor was there that night at the Danforth shooting. She lost of best friend, Reese Fallon. Noor, Reese and their friends had graduated high school and were out to celebrate Noor's birthday with friends.

Here are Noor's words:

“What started off as a night of excitement in celebrating my 18th birthday ended in sheer horror and misery. It has been almost five years since the Danforth shooting, and I still struggle to find the words to speak about what my friends and I experienced that night.”

“There will never be enough words to adequately convey how beautiful Reese was. As cliche as it sounds, she was unlike anyone I've ever met before.”

“Another word for friendship is love. Friendship is one of the sweetest and most purest forms of love. Reese was love personified. She radiated so much light and shined so bright in any room she stepped foot in. She had a love so strong that nothing or no one could take that away.”

“While some may argue we were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it does not take away from the fact that it was a legally imported handgun that was later stolen from a gun shop in Saskatchewan. That's why legislation is vital and crucial.”

Canadians are calling on us to take action.

Bill C-21 would save lives, because the status quo is not good enough for Canadians. The status quo led to people like Reese not being here today. The status quo led to the slaughter of women at Polytechnique, the shooting rampage in Nova Scotia, the devastating taking of life at Dawson College and the mosque in Quebec City. The status quo has led to firearms deaths from coast to coast to coast.

In my religion, we are taught that the gift of grace has been given to us by God so that we may give it to others, even if we do not think they deserve it.

We do not deserve Noor's grace, but we are given it anyway.

Let us do something with that gift. Let us pass this motion before us, so we can efficiently deal with Bill C-21 in committee and the House and save lives.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would point out a few things in the member's speech. All along, this party across has been trying to crackdown on illegal firearms coming in across the border. We have been trying to deal with criminals and keeping those guns out of the hands of criminals.

The Liberal Party stands up and says that it is doing great things, but meanwhile it is lessening consequences for firearms-related crimes. I think many Canadians have seen this is a hypocritical thing to so-call crackdown on firearms when, on the other hand, it lessens consequences for firearms crimes.

The question I am going to ask the member is about something she said in her speech. She referred to shotguns. We have already found out that Liberals have been trying to ban hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. She alluded to the fact that shotguns were bad. For clarity, I want to know from the party opposite, are you trying to ban all firearms in Canada?