Debates of June 17th, 2026

Indigenous Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition, initiated by Ms. Sharon McIvor, calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate without further delay and to end sex- and race-based discrimination in the Indian Act, as well as the second-generation cut-off, now. A similar petition with the same language, e-petition 7200, was sponsored by the member for Nunavut and filed with the Clerk on May 7, though the member did not rise to present the petition in the House. That petition was signed by 14,298 people.

The petitioners note that the second-generation cut-off and the 1985 cut-off rules in the Indian Act, which determine eligibility for status, will result in the legal extinction of status Indians, according to Statistics Canada, and cause harm and divisions in families and communities. In the 40 years since, consultations resulted in repeated calls from first nations for its removal. They know the Senate amendments to Bill S-2 would effectively remove the second-generation and 1985 cut-offs and return to a one-parent rule for transmission of status, which were overwhelmingly supported by the majority of witnesses at the Senate committee, including first nations' leadership and organizations, women's organizations and affected individuals, many of whom took part in the government's collaborative process on the second-generation cut-off.

The petitioners know that Parliament has a responsibility to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by eliminating sex and race discrimination, and the legal extinction scheme in the Indian Act. They, therefore, call for the adoption of Bill S-2 as amended by the Senate without delay.

Criminal Code

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition initiated by the Bolger family in honour of their late father, Jim, who was tragically struck by a reckless driver in Timmins back in September. The petition calls for a review of Criminal Code offences related to dangerous driving that cause death or bodily harm, stronger sentencing provisions and tougher penalties for repeat offenders.

Jim's legacy will live on, not only in the hearts of those who loved him, but also in the lives that may one day be protected because of this effort.

Electoral Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank a local grassroots activist for proportional representation who has asked me to present a number of these petitions on the subject of our current first-past-the-post voting system. I want to thank Shelagh Levey for collecting so many signatures. Her petition calls for an immediate adoption of a fair voting system, such as what is in place in most democracies around the world, before the next election.

Rodenticides

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is an e-petition signed by nearly 2,000 Canadians calling on the government, particularly the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, to conduct a thorough review of the use of anticoagulant rodenticides, as well as neurotoxic rodenticides, the damage to the environment and the threats to pets and health.

Telecommunications

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present my first petition on behalf of the petitioners in Mission who are concerned about the proposed telecommunications tower at 32935 Cameron Avenue. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to review the proposed location and work with the proponents and relevant authorities to identify alternative sites that better reflect community interests and appropriate land use.

Health

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadians living with long COVID who are concerned that federal programs do not adequately meet their needs. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to launch a national inquiry into Canada's pandemic response and the long-term impacts of long COVID.

Veterans

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on behalf of veterans in the Fraser Valley. They note that the absence of an office in Abbotsford limits access for a large and growing veteran population, which can lead to delays in processing disability benefits. They call upon the Government of Canada to open a veterans office in the Fraser Valley.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise, for the 14th time, on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada.

Petitioners are deeply concerned by what they have read in the local newspapers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. Our once-safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent, repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.

The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1164, 1165, 1166, 1167, 1168, 1169, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 1180, 1181, 1182, 1183, 1184, 1185, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190 and 1191 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Admissibility of Government Business No.13—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the member for York—Durham on June 16 regarding the admissibility of Government Business No. 13.

In his point of order, the member for York—Durham argued that this motion introduces an unprecedented measure by imposing a retroactive deadline for the submission of committee amendments during consideration of Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access. In the member's view, imposing a retroactive deadline for the submission of amendments and making it impossible for members to submit further amendments at either committee or report stage is contrary to the fundamental principles of parliamentary law that protect the rights of the minority and ensure appropriate review of legislative measures. He called on the Chair to rule Government Business No. 13 out of order.

The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon made similar arguments. She said that the motion grants an unfair advantage to government members, who were able to submit amendments before opposition members knew about the retroactive deadline. She further contended that the motion deprives members of their right to debate and amend the bill.

In response, the chief government whip submitted that the motion falls under the House’s power to regulate its own proceedings and internal affairs. He argued that the House can adopt motions to govern the consideration of a bill and give direction to its committees. In his view, Government Business No. 13 is a legitimate exercise of this power and is entirely within the House’s powers to organize its legislative agenda.

To decide this matter, the Chair must first review the provisions of the motion before the House. Government Business No. 13 is essentially designed to expedite consideration of Bill C-22. It imposes on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security a time frame for completing its consideration of that bill, including by limiting the amendments the committee can consider to those that were submitted before 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026. As some members pointed out, this deadline had already passed when the motion was published in the Notice Paper. The motion provides that report stage is deemed to have been completed automatically. It also limits debate at the third reading stage and requires voting to immediately follow, with no possibility of deferral.

The Chair would like to begin by noting that it is not unusual for the House to adopt orders governing the various stages of consideration of bills, for purposes that include restricting how much time is allotted for debate and how committees dispose of amendments.

The legislative process, as set out by the Standing Orders, is not immutable. It can be adapted to the needs and choices of the House.

As Speaker Milliken stated in a ruling on a motion to manage proceedings on a bill that he delivered on February 23, 2007, which can be found on pages 7242 and 7243 of the Debates, and I quote:

The most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them. A few rules are laid down in the British North America Act, but the vast majority are resolutions of the House which may be added to, amended or repealed at the discretion of the House. It follows, therefore, that the House may dispense with the application of any of these rules by unanimous consent on any occasion or, by motion, may suspend their operation for a specified length of time.

Section 14.26 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, describes the content of these motions when they deal with bills as follows:

These motions may also govern the time allotted to the various stages of the legislative process as well as the putting of questions and the holding of related recorded divisions. They may contain provisions concerning consideration in committee of a bill, including setting deadlines for the submission of amendments, when clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill is to begin and end, how amendments are to be voted on and how the committee's report is to be presented to the House.

In recent years, the House has, on many occasions, adopted motions that set aside or temporarily changed the usual rules in order to dispose of a bill more quickly, sometimes in a more drastic manner than the current motion does. For instance, we have seen motions that provided for skipping committee consideration and report stage altogether.

The main issue this point of order raises is the retroactive imposition of a deadline for submitting amendments. The provisions of programming motions normally apply once they are adopted and are not intended to constrain past events. The Chair shares the concern that some members could have benefited from privileged information, enabling them to submit amendments while other members were unaware that they would not have that chance. In the absence of evidence, this remains a supposition. However, there is reason to question the potential inequities of this approach, but the fundamental question is whether including such a limitation makes the motion inadmissible. In other words, does this provision go beyond the limits of what the House can do in a motion of this kind?

It is true that Government Business No. 13 limits the time available to consider Bill C-22 and the opportunities to amend its contents, but these are decisions the House is empowered to make. If members find that these restrictions are too harsh or that the motion grants an inappropriate advantage to the government, they can propose amendments during debate to change its terms. It is through such decisions that the House specifies the balance to be struck between the government's right to advance its legislative agenda and the opposition parties' right to debate that agenda.

However, this balance is quite relative. As Speaker Fraser said on December 15, 1988, in a decision on the admissibility of a government motion to suspend the application of various standing orders governing the consideration of bills, which can be found at page 78 of the Debates, “Both the minority and the majority have rights; however, primacy cannot be given to both.”

Additionally, the Chair notes that the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has already begun its clause‑by‑clause consideration. Based on the wording of the motion, it appears that some amendments have already been submitted as part of this process. If the motion is adopted, the bill would be considered in accordance with the terms of the motion. The committee will have the opportunity to vote on a certain number of amendments, but perhaps not on all the amendments members would have liked to present. After that, there will be a debate and vote at third reading. It is up to members, not the Chair, to decide whether they wish to consider this bill under the process proposed by Government Business No. 13, to change that process or to defeat the motion and follow the usual process.

In conclusion, the Chair is of the view that Government Business No. 13 is in order and may be moved for debate.

That said, given the reservations I expressed a little earlier, I encourage the government to keep fairness in mind when it prepares these programming motions. While the government can legitimately propose to accelerate the consideration of bills, we are all legislators, and the legislative process functions best when there is debate and opportunities for amendments, and when everyone demonstrates openness and restraint. It is also vital to remember that, one day, the roles may be reversed, so it might not truly be a good idea to keep limiting the legislative options available to members through this type of motion.

I thank all members for their attention.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 49 minutes.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent among the parties to agree to switch the first two speaking spots between the Conservatives and the Liberals, with the understanding that all regular rules, including allotted time allocations for those spots, be provided accordingly with that switch.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, 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,

(i) the committee shall meet, within one hour after the adoption of this order, for the purpose of completing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,

(ii) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill within 30 minutes of the beginning of the meeting, all remaining amendments that were submitted to the committee by 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026, 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,

(iii) the committee shall have first priority for the use of House resources for this meeting,

(iv) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House at any time after the completion of clause-by-clause consideration, and the Clerk shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House;

(b) the bill may be considered at report stage at any time following the completion of paragraph (a)(iv) of this order, and, when the order is read, it shall be deemed to have been concurred in, as amended, at the report stage;

(c) a motion for third reading may be made immediately after the bill has been concurred in, as amended, at report stage;

(d) motions to proceed to the orders of the day to consider the bill, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and any such motion when moved by a minister of the Crown, shall be deemed adopted;

(e) when the House begins debate at the third reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party, a member of the New Democratic Party, and the member of the Green Party, may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;

(f) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the third reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; and

(g) when the bill is considered at report stage and at the third reading stage, after 12:00 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent, except from a minister of the Crown, shall be received by the Chair. (Government Business No. 13)

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my last speech in this place. Having been here since 2015, I am retiring as of the end of the summer, and I appreciate this opportunity.

I am going to begin with some comments about my husband, very briefly, though. He is my rock. At the age of 14, I wrote in the front of my Bible, “I want to marry someone who puts God first, me second and our children third.” Well, God outdid himself, and I had the opportunity to marry a man to whom, in my card for Father's Day, I wrote, “You are everything I ever dreamed of”, and then on the inside, it said, “plus a whole lot of things that never even crossed my mind.” We were married, have had quite an amazing life thus far and expect that to continue.

Marty has a heart for ministry, so we went into ministry at a point later in our lives, and he was church planting, very entrepreneurial. There was a wonderful family from church we decided to take out for pizza one day, and they had a little girl named Katie. She jumped out of the car when we got to the restaurant, ran up to Marty, jumped and said, “Look, God, I got new shoes.” I had to explain to Katie that he was not God.

I say that because I want to extend it over now into my appreciation for the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, the current leader of His Majesty's official opposition. He is not God, but he is amazing. He has gifts that this country needs. He has the ability to process like no one I know. We experience this in our caucus meetings all the time. I will stop there, but his heart is what drives him, as does his love for being a servant leader and caring about people. When my mom passed away, he phoned me. When this happens to anyone in our caucus, he makes that call, and no one ever feels rushed when he is talking with them.

With what happened at Tumbler Ridge, he was there not just for the service. I do not know if he would be appreciative that I am sharing this, but it is just who he is. He stayed until every one of those people had an opportunity to meet him and talk with him. He is gifted at understanding what needs to happen in this nation to give people their country back. I have been so honoured to be part of this caucus, and I wish nothing but the best for him as he moves forward with the most amazing group of people who serve in this caucus together. They all want to be named, but I am not going to go there.

We are a team. What I love is something I learned when I was the only female on a board at a college where I was the athletic director. I learned, when I went to those meetings, to do my thing, make sure I am heard, argue as much as necessary and then go for coffee. That is what this team does, and it will be the best thing to ever happen to Canada in well over a decade, if not longer. I apologize to Mr. Harper, but I think it is going to be even better. I am so appreciative of my leader and my colleagues.

Then there is my staff. I would love to name them all. I have been so blessed to have people in my office who love the things that I love, support the things that I support and go the extra mile over and over again to make sure I am prepared. I could not do my job without my staff who are in my riding and, certainly, those here on the Hill as well. I am so grateful for every one of them who has been a part of my team.

I want to thank the pages and all the folks who help us out in the lobby and put up with us on a daily basis. They are remarkable. I have a special place in my heart for our PPS, our protective services. When I was not allowed to do my job on the Hill because I would not share my status in regard to the COVID-19 vaccine, I was not allowed to be in the House, but I decided to come in finally. The Sergeant-at-Arms figured that out and escorted me. I was going to be apprehended, I believe my whip said. I did not know what that meant, but the Sergeant-at-Arms just escorted me down the Hill, and I said that I did not hold him responsible for what he had to do.

Nobody recognized me. They had phones outside the door here, over there and downstairs. They were trying to find me. They could not find me, because in every campaign, I look a little different. I said, “You have to do a better job of this. You have to protect us.” The next day when I came to work somebody shared that there was an 8 1⁄2 by 11 laminated picture of me from Facebook on every desk in the precinct. To this day, they know who I am and that is great.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to split my time, just so you know.

The things I want to share are the things that I loved having the responsibility for here.

I have been on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs since I came to this role. I have such a deep appreciation for our veterans. I am just a civilian; I had to learn, and I still do not know everything I need to know. They are so gracious to me. It means the world to me that I have had the opportunity to be part of the study, “Invisible No More”. Our women who joined the Armed Forces faced great duress because they were not really welcome there. Now Bill C-11 means that they do not get to make the choice of where they are going to take their cases, whether to the civilian court or to the Canadian Armed Forces court. However, I love them and I appreciate the opportunity I had to be part of that.

There is a group called the Mefloquine Rally warriors who were injured by that drug, when it was taken for malaria back in the days of Somalia. Something terrible happened on that deployment. They have suffered, and the government has not recognized that. They will continue to fight until that recognition is given. It was done improperly; there was no study of this unlicensed drug. It is a huge issue, and I want them to know that I am with them and will continue to be with them. I have been to every event that they have had over the course of the past 10 years. They will not give up on asking for an apology, a return to the Somalia inquiry and the care that they should have.

Service dogs is another area that is very special to me. Saskatchewan is a lovely province. Shame on all who have not been there yet. It is interesting, we only have 1.3 million people in that entire gorgeous province. Somehow even CBC forgets that we have weather when doing the weather report. We do have veterans. There are over 150 who are couch-surfing or living on the streets in places like Regina and Saskatoon. However, there is nothing there for them officially because our province is too small. We have begun something called the Yorkton Veteran Foundation that is going to change that, and I am very excited about that in our future.

The other thing that I will share today is that I have had the incredible opportunity in this place, to do not one, not two, but three different private members' bills. For those at home, a private member's bill is something that an individual member gets to speak on and bring forward to possibly be passed. It may or may not be part of the member's party stance or something that is needed according to other people, but it is something very important to that member, their riding and the people they serve. Many members get their name pulled out of that hat, but never get the opportunity because they are too far down the list. My predecessor was here for 22 years, and I do not believe ever had that opportunity.

My passion is caring about violence against women. The first bill was Bill C-225, protection of pregnant women and their preborn children act, Cassie and Molly's law, in 2016. I phoned this young man named Jeff Durham from Windsor and asked if I could be helpful to him. He did not understand how what happened to his wife, who was seven months pregnant, meant that the law did not recognize her baby. Now, we know there are issues around this topic in other ways, but this was a situation where she was confronted by an intruder in her home, someone she and her husband knew. He worked alongside them. He panicked. He did not want what he was doing to be found out, so he attacked her and killed her. She was more than seven months pregnant, seven weeks from having her baby. They had already named her Molly.

The individual was charged, went through the whole system and was facing his sentence. Jeff could not believe that, through this whole thing, there was no mention of Molly. It was like she did not exist, period.

This was a mom who was excited about having her baby. She was not with Jeff anymore but they lived in the same block so that they would be close. They were setting up their baby rooms. I did what I could to bring that forward as Cassie and Molly's law.

Of course, in the House, it did not pass but it brought huge attention to the fact that pregnant women are the most vulnerable when it comes to femicide, yet, in the House, they are never included in that conversation. I find that deplorable.

I then did one on sex-selective abortion. One has to ask why. The Morgentaler decision was made, that it was too onerous for women to seek an abortion. They struck down what was there, but the Supreme Court said that there must be new legislation and that it must come with a determination of when that fetus is considered viable. None of that has ever happened.

When I brought this forward, it was because I do a lot of trade shows and whatnot. I always have forms for people to sign, one on firearms and one on palliative care. We have a member over on that side of the floor. I wonder if she will get it done. I then had one on protecting pregnant women. A lot of women came and talked to me and said they wanted access to abortion. I said, “Fine.”

The truth is that 84% of Canadians want access to abortion. I said that there was a DART & Maru/BLUE poll that was done. The National Post headline said that Canadians are not as divided on this issue as politicians and media would like you to think.

They went further and asked if respondents thought it was okay to have a sex-selective abortion. The answer was no, that there should be a law against that. This came from the same 84% of people, as 16% of people did not fit into that category. They are for the abortion-at-any-time-for-any-reason law. Did we know that Canada has nothing? We have no laws. We are the only democratic country in the world that has nothing. Our only friend in that field, other than democratic countries, is North Korea. This is appalling.

That decision enabled me to bring forward the sex-selective abortion act. Women and nurses, who are pro-choice, as the vast majority of these people are pro-choice, want choice but they do not want baby girls to be killed simply because they are girls.

I was in a feminist class. I was going to talk about being a woman in politics. As we walked in, the teacher said they had changed their mind, that they wanted to talk about that but that they had heard I had just put forward a bill on sex-selective abortion and they would like to talk about that. I thought, I am in a feminist class. What is that going to feel like? They were absolutely appalled. Of course, it did not pass. That is fine.

I then had one more opportunity under our leader, and I brought forward the violence against pregnant women act, regarding, again, a situation where a third party attacks a woman, knowing that she is pregnant, causing physical or mental harm. The only thing it was calling for was that it would be considered an aggravating factor.

Joyce Arthur, who is the queen of the pro-abortion movement, said she could vote for it if it did these things, and it did them. It was two sentences. As soon as it was tabled, the previous prime minister and all of the women on the other side of the floor did a Twitter attack on me. When I had presented it in the House, in the first minute, when one just describes it, three colleagues from that side of the floor, women, clapped for it.

I have to split my time apparently. I am already at 15 minutes, but I am told I can keep going.

When they clapped for this particular bill, it told me that people on that side of the floor, whom I know, have friendships with and meet with on a regular basis, value protecting pregnant women and want to see recognition that when a woman is carrying a child, they should have protection.

In this case, Sherry and Chan Goberdhan lost their daughter, Arianna. Arianna had a very frightening marriage. Her estranged husband wanted her to come over. She was due to deliver, and her mom said, “Don't go.” She said, “It's okay, he just wants to talk.” He proceeded to stab her in the abdomen 21 times. When he was in prison and wanted to have a relationship with another woman, he took the picture of their wedding, removed her picture and put his picture up. There are terrible people in this world who attack women and are in relationships where they are brutal.

However, this case had absolutely nothing to do with anything that the pro-choice community does not want to see. It is for the protection of women when they are having their children. If we are truly concerned about feminism and women being attacked, on that side of the floor and on this side of the floor, it is something we could have all agreed on, but we do not, and that is fine. That is the reality of the makeup of the House.

I can tell members that, from that study, and with 84% of Canadians wanting choice, when people saw that Twitter war, they went berserk online. We will not find any of the comments any more. They have been scrubbed. They are not there. However, they said, “What is wrong with you that you don't understand this is about women needing protection? Why do you always bring up abortion?” Well, I can tell members why. It is because it has become a tool on that side of the floor, actually the whole House, other than our party where we get to vote according to our conscience, that will not allow anyone to be part of their caucus if they have the same values here.

Although, when the three women clapped, I thought, “Okay, this is good.” They actually ended up being three of the members who stood up in the House and tried to accuse me of bringing forward an anti-abortion law. That tells us the kind of stress women on that side of the floor have, and people who value family and value women have, when women are being coerced within a terrible relationship or are facing a situation where they are being abducted, and the perpetrator is not accused of anything until they hurt that woman and possibly injure or kill the child as well.

It is tough to stand here today and say this on the day that I am leaving. I know it is divisive in some ways, but this place needs to represent Canadians and Canadians' views. Never before—