Peter Julian

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay does care. That is why he was voted by all parliamentarians just a few years ago the best constituency politician in the country, because he cares about his constituents in Timmins—James Bay. It is true—

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we will be going to the polls. We will have millions of Canadian seniors who would have benefited from the NDP dental care program and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who would have benefited from pharmacare. Conservatives would have to justify, in their ridings, why it is that they want to slash all those programs. They were a terrible government.

I would caution my colleague, who I have a lot of respect for, that all he has to do is consult the fiscal period returns published by the Ministry of Finance. It is not a hotbed of democratic socialism or social democracy. It has shown, over the last 40 years, that the best governments at managing money in Canada have been NDP governments.

We are better than Conservatives and better than Liberals. We make sure the priorities are providing supports, providing education, providing health care and providing services to Canadians. We do not give money away. We do not blow the wad on billionaires and banks. That is what Conservatives do, and that is why they were thrown out in 2015.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Winnipeg North and I would agree that the Harper regime was absolutely the most ruthless, cruel, terribly incompetent government we have ever seen. It was appalling.

I was in the House during that time. It is unbelievable how cruel Conservatives were to Canadians and how incompetent they were. In terms of financial management, Conservative financial management is an oxymoron. They are terrible when it comes to managing money, terrible at treating Canadians. It was an absolutely abysmal regime. It was nine years of cruelty and nine years of incompetence. It was an appallingly bad government, and it was thrown out because of all those things.

I know Canadians will remember that the next time they go to the polls. The reality is that anything good the Liberals have done has been because of the NDP forcing them to do it, whether it is dental care, anti-scab legislation, pharmacare or affordable housing. It is all thanks to the NDP.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in talking about the last 18 years, it has been the best of times and the worst of times. It is the best of times, as one is well aware, for the billionaires and for profitable corporations in Canada. We saw this under the Harper tax haven treaties, the infamous treaties that cost Canada $30 billion each and every year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is the best of times for the oil and gas CEOs, who have received massive subsidies over the last 18 years, nine years of the dismal Harper regime and nine years continuing under the Liberal government.

It has been the best of times for the banks, with $116 billion in liquidity supports under the Harper regime and with $750 billion in liquidity supports under the Liberal government. We have seen that it has been the best of times for the billionaires and the wealthiest among us.

It has been the worst of times for everyone else. We saw, under the Harper regime, how food bank lineups doubled and how the cost of housing doubled. Since many of those policies were continued under the new Liberal government, of course, because they are bad policies, we saw food bank lineups double and housing prices double. Conservatives, unfortunately, just seem to have amnesia about how dismal the nine years of the Harper regime were. It created the conditions for the situation we see today.

However, this speech is not about the Conservatives and their lamentable record, with the most appalling government we have ever had in our history. It is not about the Liberal government not stepping up for Canadians. It is about, really, the hope that the NDP engenders because, being the adults in the room, under the leadership of the member for Burnaby South, the NDP got to work in that situation to ensure that Canadians actually had the wherewithal to put food on their tables and to keep roofs over their heads.

We have talked, in the past months, about many of the NDP initiatives. There was the anti-scab legislation that protects workers, for the first time in the federal regime. It is about workers being protected from replacement workers taking their jobs during strikes or lockouts. We talked about the dental care program. It is important to note that 150,000 seniors, just in the first few weeks of the NDP dental care program, have benefited from getting services. Those are seniors who, many for the first time in their lives or the first time in decades, have access to dental care. That relieves the pressure on our acute health care system because those seniors will no longer have to go to the emergency wards of our hospitals across the country to get emergency dental treatment.

The pharmacare program that the NDP has brought in, which has passed in the House and which hopefully will pass in the other place shortly, will make a difference for six million Canadians with diabetes, who often pay $1,000 or $1,500 a month for their diabetes medications and devices, and for nine million Canadian women who have to look for contraception. Finally, women's reproductive health freedom will be maintained because it will no longer be a question of whether they can afford access to contraception. There will be nine million Canadians benefiting from those measures, as well, from the NDP.

I could go on and on about other pieces of legislation the NDP has brought forward. We are ensuring a transition to clean energy to fight back against the climate crisis, and ensuring protection from food price gouging and gas price gouging by the enhancements that the member for Burnaby South offered to the Competition Bureau. All of those things are going to make a difference in people's lives. There is no doubt about that. The budget is part of this drive by the NDP to actually address what were systemic failures of the Harper regime, sadly continued by the Liberal government rather than putting into place the kind of fair tax system that Canadians do want to see and the structured services that actually benefit Canadians.

Under the Harper regime, we saw how those services were slashed, badly, to allow billionaires to take their money offshore. That was the priority of the dismal, horrible nine years under the Harper regime. It was the worst government in Canadian history and the most unbelievably cruel government in Canadian history.

The former Harper government forced veterans to travel long distances to access whatever services they deigned to allow veterans to continue to access, forced seniors to work years longer before they could even access a pension and slashed services, including health care services, left and right, indiscriminately, so that Mr. Harper and the group around him could give massive handouts to the banks, the billionaires and offshore tax havens. Unfortunately, Liberals continued those practices until the NDP stepped up in a minority parliament, first under COVID, forcing the government to actually put into place measures that would benefit Canadians in getting through the pandemic and now, over the last year or two, ensuring services that actually benefit Canadians. This budget bill is one of those examples.

I will note that Conservatives have had absolutely nothing to offer except nuisance amendments, and they will keep us voting for a number of hours just to basically delete portions of the bill, not in any methodical way, not in any thoughtful way and not to benefit any Canadian, but just to delay House time because that is what Conservatives seem to do. They seem to obstruct and to block. Never has a single Conservative MP stepped up for their constituents in order to make sure that there were better services in place. We saw that under the dental care debate, in the pharmacare debate, and we saw that numerous times. We are seeing that today, with respect to the affordable housing provisions that the NDP has forced the government to add.

In this budget bill, there is funding that includes universal single-payer pharmacare for diabetes, which would help six million Canadians. Just to be clear, we are talking about 18,000 Canadians in each and every Conservative, Liberal, Bloc and NDP riding in the country. Eighteen thousand of our constituents, on average, in each riding in the country, would benefit from the provisions of what the NDP has forced into the budget implementation act. How could a member of Parliament vote against 18,000 of their own constituents? That is something they will have to reconcile with their constituents when they go back home.

There are also NDP provisions around building more affordable housing. Forty years ago, members will recall that the former Liberal government ended the national housing program. Since then, we have seen a steady deterioration in affordable housing. The cost of housing doubled under the dismal, terrible Harper regime, and it has doubled again under the current government. The NDP has forced provisions to ensure that we are actually building more affordable homes and preserving affordable housing. Affordable housing generally is 30% of income. It is not in assuming that Canadians can pay whatever cost the market gives them.

This budget bill also would establish a national school food program for children who are going to school hungry. It would reverse cuts in a number of areas, including the cuts to health care that the Harper regime put in place and the cuts to indigenous services that the Liberal government was proposing. It would establish a dedicated youth mental health fund and would double the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I wanted to praise the member for Courtenay—Alberni, just for a moment, for his good work in bringing that to reality. This would make a big difference for volunteer firefighters right across the country, and search and rescue volunteers, who have not benefited from the tax credits that are in place.

This is not an NDP budget. An NDP budget would actually ensure fair taxation. It would ensure that the billionaires and the wealthy corporations pay their fair share. It does make a number of steps that would make a difference.

I do want to address one critical issue that I know the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam has raised repeatedly in the House of Commons, as has the entire NDP caucus, and that is about a disability benefit that only provides a very small measure of support for people with disabilities. Earlier, I mentioned the massive amounts that have been poured into billionaires and offshore tax havens, banks, and oil and gas CEOs. Both Conservatives and Liberals, over the years, have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the wealthiest and most privileged among us. It is a terrible legacy that the government has refused to put in place an adequate income for people with disabilities. That must change. The NDP will continue to fight for people with disabilities and will continue to fight to put in place an adequate income for people with disabilities.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, June 11th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I do like my colleague, but we lived through the Harper regime. More Conservative members means more hardship for all Canadians.

We have seen the Conservatives block dental care, despite the fact that hundreds of people in Lévis-Lotbinière are already benefiting from the NDP program. The Conservatives also wanted to block pharmacare. Today we have these foolish amendments moved by the Conservatives, who are blocking measures to ensure affordable housing, food for children, student loan forgiveness and the tax credit for volunteer firefighters.

I have a very simple question: Why are the Conservative members constantly blocking everything that could help Canadians?

[The Public Complaints and Review Commission Act, June 10th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C‑20 at third reading.

We worked hard on this bill at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. We are finally at third reading, about to send this bill to the other place. It is extremely important that we do just that.

Our role as members of Parliament is to improve bills. It must be said that this bill was introduced by the government. This was its third attempt. Before now, it did not really put in the work to set up a review and complaints commission. We have seen this in previous bills. The government introduced bills so late in the parliamentary session that they never passed. There is a clear need for a complaints commission. Everyone is calling for one. So far, the government has failed to make it a high enough priority to get it through all stages of the parliamentary legislative process.

The bill passed second reading and was referred to committee for study, where there were several delays. It was not the government that caused these delays, it was actually the Conservatives who, on several occasions, prevented amendments from being considered and witnesses from being heard.

Happily, after spending hours considering each amendment, the bill was passed. All the witnesses said that it was really important to improve this bill. At the same time, it needed to be adapted. I want to say that finally, after several delays, my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and I have succeeded, by working together, in getting this bill passed and improved.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk specifically about how the NDP worked to improve the bill. The NDP got approximately ten amendments passed, all of which are quite crucial. We worked with the other parties, the governing party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party, to pass amendments that had been submitted by the other parties.

Even though the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security had to meet several times, and the Conservatives moved a completely separate motion rather than hear from witnesses and hear such important evidence, even though all these delays slowed down the study of the bill, we are now getting to the final stage. We even hope the bill will pass unanimously this evening and be sent to the other place.

First, this complaints commission will cover more than just members of the public. Internal employees should be well represented. We put forward an amendment, NDP-6, to ensure union representation. When you work in the labour movement, it is important that unions be represented. Workers must have a representation process.

We amended clause 28 of the bill, allowing union representatives of Canada Border Services Agency and Royal Canadian Mounted Police employees to jointly set service standards for the review timelines specified in that section of the bill. We set a one-year deadline for resolving these representation and timeline issues. It is a victory for union representation and assurance of union representation in the service standards initiative.

We did not stop there. We also pushed for greater transparency and accountability. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, including the Breaking Barriers coalition, which wanted to see more transparency and accountability in the bill. We asked that copies of the reports submitted be distributed. The transparency issue was raised in amendments NDP-7 and NDP-14. We wanted all this information to be available, and we worked hard to get these amendments passed.

We also wanted to contribute to the reconciliation process with indigenous peoples, and we submitted amendments NDP-9 and NDP-9.1 to include all reconciliation issues in the bill.

We also wanted to give complainants more time to bring forward complaints, which is key. Initially, before it was improved in committee, the bill said that complaints had to be brought within a year. We wanted to extend that period to accommodate organizations that testified, such as Amnesty International, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and all the other organizations, including the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group.

We wanted to ban the use of non-disclosure agreements, an issue that was brought up in connection with the Hockey Canada scandals. We wanted to ban non-disclosure agreements, which prevent victims from speaking up. Amendment NDP-23 on that subject was agreed to.

We wanted to definitively prevent intimidation and know why a complaint was withdrawn. The monitoring group suggested that a complainant could provide reasons for withdrawing a complaint, which would be another way to better protect victims. Other proposals of ours were adopted, making the version of the bill amended by the committee more transparent than the original version.

There were other extremely important improvements. I would like to list the organizations that played an important role in improving this bill: Amnesty International Canada, both the francophone and anglophone wings; the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; the Canadian Council for Refugees; the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association; the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council; and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. Because of them, Bill C‑20 will pass at long last, but with extremely important improvements.

We are now hopefully coming to the end of the House saga around Bill C-20, a bill that would establish the public complaints and review commission, which is so important for both the CBSA and the RCMP. We want to have in place a public complaints commission that does its job. We want to make sure those who serve our country at the RCMP and CBSA are subject to the appropriate oversight but at the same time have protections as well.

The bill, as improved by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, would achieve that mandate. We have managed to improve the bill and provide for more transparency and for a better set of checks and balances to ensure victims have more rights and that labour representation is acknowledged and upheld in the bill itself. Also, providing for a longer complaint period is something that is extremely important, as well as banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to silence victims.

There are so many organizations that provided valuable testimony. I am hoping the bill will pass tonight by unanimous consent, despite the delays that took place through the committee process. The reality is that this bill is much better coming out of committee than it was going into committee. It is necessary. It is important to put this into place. I am hoping that all members of Parliament will vote to send it to the other place this evening.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really great question from my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I know that he has done a lot of work to protect children. As a father, it is important for my colleague to ensure that children are not inundated with toxic content that encourages them to self-harm or to commit suicide. It is appalling to see what is out there.

My colleague is right to talk about the Liberals' abject failure. Everyone heard the Prime Minister say in 2021 that he was going to introduce a bill within 100 days to counter all the attacks, the hate crimes and the attacks on children that we are seeing. It took another two years.

Furthermore, the Liberals did not touch on the real profit maker for the web giants: the algorithms. Algorithms rake in incredible profits for these companies. They did not seem to want to look at this key element, and we can speculate as to why. However, we want to get answers to this question, and that is something we are going to do in committee.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we would like the bill to go to committee for a thorough study, because it is important in the context of this bill.

That said, we know that hate crimes are on the rise. We are seeing more and more anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. That is why it is important to have clear definitions in the bill.

At this stage of the bill's consideration, we are being asked to vote on the principle of the bill. The bill seeks to reduce online harm, and we agree with that principle. However, there are still many questions and details to be studied. We will have the opportunity to amend the bill in committee to remove certain parts or add others. There is still a lot of work to be done. The NDP wants to refer the bill to committee so that we can begin that work.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is why we need to have the rigorous committee process. I know Conservatives will try to throw out lines and ask, “Does this matter? Does this matter?”

With regard to the important aspect of definition, if we just look through part 1 of the bill, it is very clear. As for the definitions that apply, the member knows, as I am sure she read the bill, what definitions apply. In terms of what happens around the Criminal Code, we have concerns about the definitions and we need to be very clear about that.

Conservatives will take that issue of clarity and try to exploit it. I think it is important, as adults in the room, as legislators, as parliamentarians, that we go through that rigorous committee process and that we ensure that questions are answered. I do not believe that the kind of speculation that Conservatives do is helpful at all. Let us get the work done around the bill. It is definitely needed to combat online harms. Let us make sure the definitions are clear and concise.

[Online Harms Act, June 7th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, but what I am saying is with regard to the rigorous examination of this at the committee stage. When I say “quickly”, I am not talking about, in any way, short-circuiting the important work of committee. That needs to happen.

One of the major concerns I have seen, as the member points out, is that we have identified content that harms a child but the problem is that, because algorithms are not touched by this, and algorithm transparency is not touched by the bill, it could well mean closing the barn door after the horse has already left, and that the despicable content that harms a child has been promoted widely by algorithms. It is then ultimately taken out of circulation.

However, with the algorithms, it is amplified so quickly and to such a huge extent that this is, I would suggest, a major shortfall in the bill. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation around algorithm transparency. I have a bill in front of the House on algorithm transparency. The reality is we cannot act quickly to save a child if the algorithms have already promoted that harmful content everywhere. That is a major concern and a major shortfall, I believe, in this legislation.