House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 239
CONTENTS
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 239
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Wednesday, October 25, 2023
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
[Statements by Members]
[Translation]
It being Wednesday, we will now have the singing of the national anthem led by the hon. member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.
[Members sang the national anthem]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[Translation]
Homelessness Awareness Night
Mr. Speaker, it was a unique experience for me to participate in the 22nd edition of Homelessness Awareness Night in Sherbrooke on Friday. Over 200 people were there to raise public awareness of the growing vulnerability of those who have no choice but to live on the streets.
Many organizations also demonstrated their support for the cause. I want to thank the Salvation Army, Chaudronnée de l'Estrie, CAP, Coop de solidarité l'Autre-Toit and all of the other organizations that help to fight hunger, prevent trauma and eradicate extreme poverty. I walked, ate some delicious chili and talked about the reality of homelessness with Michel‑Alexandre, Jérémie and Alexandre.
Events like this one show that the people of Sherbrooke are concerned about homelessness and that they are prepared to take action to fight it.
[English]
Special Olympics Canada Winter Games
Mr. Speaker, the Olympics are back in Calgary. I was there for the 1988 Winter Olympic Games, and I will be there in February for the Special Olympics Canada Winter Games.
Qualified athletes from across Canada will compete in eight sports with inspiring enthusiasm. The athletes, together with their families, friends, coaches, officials, mission staff and over 4,000 visitors, will generate significant economic activity for our community.
However, to make this event an absolute success, we need our community to help. Olympic medallist and games co-chair Cheryl Bernard and her team are looking for 1,200 volunteers to help roll out the red carpet and make the events run smoothly.
People can find all the details on their website, calgary2024.specialolympics.ca. There are so many ways to be a part of the volunteer experience. I encourage all Calgarians to consider volunteering so that we can make the games a great success.
Canadian Italian Business Professional Association
Mr. Speaker, for over seven decades, the Canadian Italian Business Professional Association, CIBPA, has been a leading voice in our community, playing an instrumental role in recognizing the achievements of more than 1.5 million Italian Canadians across Canada.
CIBPA's inception marked a significant moment in the Italo-Canadian journey. It was founded to address difficulties experienced by Italian immigrants seeking to establish themselves in Canadian society.
This Friday, CIBPA Toronto celebrates its 71st annual President's Ball, featuring the spirit of unity that defines the community and the ongoing contributions of Italian Canadians to all aspects of society. I wish to congratulate this year's CIBPA award recipients: Dr. Gianluigi Bisleri, Rocco Rossi, Victoria Mancinelli, Carmen Principato, Anthony Ricciardi and Dr. Roberta Iannacito-Provenzano on their individual accomplishments.
The Italian Canadian story of hard work, sacrifice and generosity is one I am proud of and one my children will know well.
On behalf of my colleagues and the Italian Canadian community, auguri to this year's award recipients for their recognition.
[Translation]
Société Alzheimer Laurentides
Mr. Speaker, for 40 years, Société Alzheimer Laurentides, based in Sainte‑Agathe‑des‑Monts, has worked tirelessy to support people with all forms of dementia, including Alzheimer's. It also provides support to caregivers and families in the vast Laurentian region.
I would like to highlight the invaluable contribution that this organization makes within the community. All workers and volunteers are the backbone of the organization, because they provide a social safety net and ensure that patients are treated with humanity. In my personal life, I have witnessed the immense contribution of these organizations and what they do. They have my gratitude and appreciation. Having had to live with my father when he was losing his autonomy, I know first-hand that these services need to be there for communities.
Let us ensure the sustainability of Société Alzheimer Laurentides.
Macadam Sud
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the exceptional achievements of Macadam Sud, an organization in my riding that is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.
Macadam Sud's mission is to support and empower troubled adolescents and young adults by tackling issues such as homelessness, mental health, school drop-outs and isolation, to name just a few. A large part of the Macadam Sud team is made up of street outreach workers. They meet young people in their environment and offer them support without judging them, with respect and dignity.
I want to congratulate all the members of the current Macadam Sud team for the important work they are doing. I also want to thank all those who, over the past 40 years, have contributed to the organization's mission and consequently enabled many young people in Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne to improve their quality of life.
I wish Macadam Sud continued success.
[English]
Ted Farr
Mr. Speaker, Canadian radio lost a good one this month. Ted Farr began his radio career 54 years ago, in 1969. Many remember “Tall Ted” on CKLG's Doc Harris Show. Ted's colleagues have remembered him for being an outstanding coach and mentor. I met Ted at Kelowna's AM 1150, where he led the news team. Ted was dedicated in all that he did. Ted Farr's interviews always got to the heart of the issue; and not just what the news was, but how it affected people in their daily lives.
Ted was a dedicated husband and father and a proud grandfather. He championed his kids: his son Jonathan, who sadly predeceased him in 2008; and his daughter Natalie. Grandson Jonathan was Ted's joy and he was so proud of watching him play and grow in lacrosse.
Ted and wife Terrie, also known as T&T, celebrated their 52nd wedding anniversary on October 1. Ted's own words to Terrie were, “Your love and support for 52 years has been priceless.”
I send my deepest condolences to Terrie, Natalie and grandson Jonathan. To quote Ted's favourite expression, “If you couldn't play tomorrow, how hard would you play today?”
Prince Edward Island Marathon
Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago, the Prince Edward Island Marathon was run on a clear, cool morning in Charlottetown. More than 3,000 people from all over the world participated in multiple categories.
The P.E.I. Marathon started from humble beginnings, until 19 years ago when Myrtle Jenkins-Smith saw the potential to professionalize it, make it into a Boston Marathon qualifier, draw in corporate partners, ramp up the promotion and make it into a huge tourist draw. Myrtle has been the heart and soul of what is now a weekend that runners everywhere have circled on their calendars. Myrtle has tweaked and perfected the formula that keeps volunteers, sponsors, spectators and runners coming back year after year.
The P.E.I. Marathon is but one of so many enduring contributions that Myrtle has made to better our community and the lives of so many. Myrtle truly has dedicated her life to service and excelled at every turn. Islanders are truly fortunate to count her as one of our own.
Louis Riel
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to honour Louis Riel, a man who continues to inspire generations of Métis leaders in Canada and the respect of all Canadians. Riel was a father of the Métis Nation and the founder of Manitoba. He was a political leader who fearlessly fought for the rights of all Métis citizens at a time when his people faced persecution and oppression because of their culture, values and way of life.
Today, in front of the House, we have Bill C-53, which would recognize the rights of Métis in Canada. I call on everyone to reflect on the importance of Métis in Canada and support the rights and recognition of Métis people.
In recognizing Riel's unwavering commitment to the vitality and prosperity of Métis in Canada, the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan will be hosting a reception this evening in the Speaker's lounge. I hope that colleagues in the House will join the Métis Nation in celebrating the incredible life and legacy of Louis Riel.
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are finding life more difficult each and every day. The tripling of the carbon tax is having a devastating effect. It is raising the cost of everything from gas to groceries to home heating fuel. Canadians are struggling just to get by.
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, B.C. is one of the most expensive places to live. British Columbians are being “raked over the coals”.
The Prime Minister just does not understand. Higher taxes means it costs more to grow the food; it costs more to ship the food; and, ultimately, it costs more to buy the food. When Prince George resident Brian Wourms opened up his gas bill, almost half was tax. We need to end this nightmare. The Prime Minister is out of touch and just not worth the cost.
Tragedy in Sault Ste. Marie
Mr. Speaker, our hearts are broken in Sault Ste. Marie. Families have been shattered by intimate partner violence. Children who had a bright future ahead of them, with untold potential, have been lost. To the families and friends of the victims, I send my deepest condolences. To the school community and to the residents of the Soo, I hear in their voices their pain. We will be there for them. It is so important that, as a community, we reach out to our friends, family members, therapists and counsellors in such a time. I would be remiss if I did not recognize the first responders whose lives will be significantly changed for the rest of their lives.
We are going to stand together. We will mourn together and we will heal together because, as a community, we will get through these very tragic days in Sault Ste. Marie and Canada. I thank all who have reached out to me and to my community. My heart goes out to the families.
[Translation]
Bloc Québécois
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal government, a growing number of Quebeckers are realizing how costly it is to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Twice, the Bloc has voted to keep the two carbon taxes. The first tax has direct impacts in Quebec and the second is going to cost up to 20¢ more a litre at the gas pumps.
That is not all. Last Monday, the RCMP commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. He came to testify in the SNC-Lavalin case. Before he could utter a word, Liberal members asked to adjourn the meeting. Who voted for that adjournment with the Liberals? That was the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc member for Trois-Rivières prevented the RCMP boss from testifying when he was right there in the committee room.
How can the Bloc Québécois side with the Liberals when ethics are at stake? How can the Bloc Québécois side with the Liberals to protect the Liberal Prime Minister? Whether in terms of money or ethics, voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
[English]
Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, members of the NDP-Liberal government shut down the ethics committee before we could hear from the RCMP commissioner, who was there to testify about the documents the Liberal Prime Minister refused to release that hindered their criminal investigation into the SNC-Lavalin scandal. All of this happened after the Prime Minister hid behind cabinet confidence. This type of behaviour is disgraceful and shows clearly that the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, seem to be hiding and protecting the Prime Minister. No one, not even the Prime Minister, should be above the law.
After eight years, the corrupt NDP-Liberal government has not only worsened the livelihoods of Canadians but also seen trust in government disappear as quickly as a Liberal election promise. Canadians deserve to know whether the Prime Minister broke the law to help his friends. My question is simple: If he has nothing to hide, why is the cover-up coalition going to such lengths to keep the facts from coming to light?
Ian Shugart
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with the sad news that Canada has lost a loyal and faithful public servant. Our friend and colleague, Senator Ian Shugart, has left us after a battle with cancer.
Ian was born in Ottawa and educated at Trinity College, U of T, before taking a degree in political economy. Ian cut his political teeth as a policy adviser to two Right Honourables, Joe Clark and Brian Mulroney. When the Conservatives were elected to govern in 1984, he first became a policy adviser and then chief of staff to Minister Jake Epp. During this time, he played a pivotal role in historic events, such as the patriation of the Constitution and the development of the charter, and working, among other things, on child care, labour market agreements and the Meech Lake accord.
In 1991, Ian entered the public service, rising to many important roles, successive deputy minister positions, with a substantive impact in many areas, including health, labour, climate and global affairs. Finally, in 2019, he was named by the Prime Minister as the 24th Clerk of the Privy Council. He would serve in this role for two years, marked by the outset of a global pandemic, until his health forced him to step aside. When the situation looked more positive, in 2022, he returned to public service as a senator and with a deserved role at the Munk School.
Ian's public service was punctuated not only by his intellect but also by his practical wisdom. I would add, too, his stability and kindness. As a rookie cabinet minister on some challenging files, I will always appreciate the many kind words from Ian before, after and sometimes during cabinet meetings, whether spoken or in the form of an encouraging note.
On behalf of all Canadians, we are thankful for Ian's dedicated service to this country and to our public institutions. We thank him for his thoughtfulness. To Linda, family and friends, please accept our condolences.
Rest in peace, friend.
Women's Rights
Mr. Speaker, the world is a dangerous place for women. In the DRC, women are facing the world's highest rates of sexual and gender-based violence. MSF reports that sexual violence now is a public health emergency in the Central African Republic. In Afghanistan and Iran, women's rights are non-existent.
In Canada, women who speak up are attacked, not just in politics but also in journalism, on social media and in their communities. I am alarmed by the exclusion of Muslim and Jewish women's voices from critical conversations on Israel and Palestine. Canada claims to have a feminist foreign policy, but where are the investments? As Sudan's Hala Al-Karib said recently, only paying lip service to the women, peace and security agenda without insisting on women's rights and women's meaningful participation in peace and political processes is not enough.
Canada must do better.
[Translation]
Macadam Sud
Mr. Speaker, we are currently seeing a troubling rise in food insecurity and homelessness, a housing crisis that will likely be long and gruelling, and unbearable inflation rates that are primarily affecting the less fortunate, including the young people in our communities.
In my riding, Macadam Sud supports young people between the ages of 12 and 35 and gives them the tools they need to improve their living conditions with respect and human dignity, especially those who find themselves marginalized when it comes to education, family and the labour market.
I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of this organization, which has dedicated the last 40 years to supporting the community, helping young and marginalized people live decent lives, and making a real difference in the lives of all families in Longueuil.
Speaking for myself and on behalf of all Bloc Québécois members, I would like to thank Macadam Sud.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, too many Canadians are suffering at the hands of crippling mortgage rates. According to a CBC article published this week, a Calgary senior sold his home due to interest rate hikes and is still unable to find an affordable rental.
Seniors are forced to couch surf, find roommates, or rent a bedroom in a basement apartment. Under the NDP-Liberal government, the very people who built this country are being forced to sell their homes, with nowhere left to turn except the workforce. Seniors should not be forced out of retirement to make ends meet and achieve their dream of owning a home. It is clear that the NDP-Liberal government is not capable of ensuring housing stability and protecting Canadians of all ages, the thousands of Canadians fighting homelessness and desperate for a change.
The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. It is time for Canadians to have a common sense government that brings down inflation and interest rates so hard-working people can keep their homes and a secure life.
Member for Vancouver Centre
Mr. Speaker, it is a very “heady” day in the House as we honour a true trailblazer. Thirty years ago today, the voters of Vancouver Centre opted for a fresh alternative over her opponent, a Conservative prime minister. They chose a physician who was running as the Liberal candidate for the first time.
Since October 25, 1993, voters in that constituency have voted Liberal, and they have elected her in 10 successive elections. She is now the longest-serving female member of Parliament in Canadian history. She has been the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women. Over three decades, she has been a supporter of a strong health care system and a champion for the LGBTQ+ community. She currently chairs the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and back home she is beloved by her fellow residents of Vancouver. Indeed, the City of Vancouver has proclaimed today as a day in her name.
Canada has been fortunate to have her in the House.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in power, this Prime Minister is not worth the price of food.
According to a devastating report, in one month alone there were two million visits to food banks. That is by far the highest level of use in the history of Canada, and that, after eight years of this Prime Minister.
Will he finally reverse his plan to radically increase the taxes imposed on farmers and truck drivers who deliver our food?
Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question in a moment.
I want to begin by sharing a few thoughts about Senator Shugart.
[English]
It is with incredible sadness that I rise in this place to mourn the loss of our friend and fellow parliamentarian, Senator Ian Shugart.
[Translation]
Senator Shugart spent his entire career in the service of others and his contributions have been invaluable.
[English]
He was an incredible clerk to the current government, and I know he was also a valuable deputy minister to the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government.
[Translation]
I offer my deepest condolences to his family, his friends, his Senate colleagues and his former public service colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, indeed, Ian Shugart was my deputy minister. He was a brilliant public servant, serving both political parties and serving Canadians in the Senate. All of us mourn with his family at the tragic loss of this great Canadian public servant.
[Translation]
I want to quote Food Banks Canada, which said, “Rates of food insecurity in Canada—the number of people living in households struggling to afford food due to lack of money—have increased to the highest levels on record.”
This is happening after eight years of this Prime Minister's inflationary taxes and deficits. Why does the Prime Minister want to deprive Canadians of food just so he can increase taxes at the expense of Canadians and families?
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, over the years, we have helped lift 500,000 children out of poverty with the Canada child benefit, a measure that the Conservatives campaigned against. We have helped people create economic opportunities.
We know that people are struggling right now. That is why we are stepping up to help them with measures like $10-a-day child care, dental care for children and even more family allowance cheques. The Conservative Party opposed all of those measures.
We will continue to be there to help families in these difficult times. We will continue to invest in them and help them rather than making cuts like the Conservative Party is proposing.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there he goes telling Canadians they have never had it so good when, after eight years, he is not worth the cost of food.
According to the HungerCount by Food Banks Canada, “the number of people living in households struggling to afford food due to lack of money” has “increased to the highest levels on record.” There is a record-smashing two million visits to Canadian food banks in a month, and his plan is to quadruple the carbon tax on the farmers and the truckers who bring us our food.
How many Canadians have to go hungry or homeless before he axes this terrible tax?
Mr. Speaker, we know that Canadians are struggling with the costs of food and groceries and housing. That is why we continue to step up to support them with measures like $10-a-day child care, dental care for children and child benefit cheques, all measures that the Conservative Party has stood against.
We will continue to help Canadians. We will continue our work to lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty and to lift over a million Canadians out of poverty. However, there is much more to do, and we will keep doing it instead of giving in to the Conservatives' demands for more cuts, cuts to services for Canadians and cuts to supports that people rely on.
Mr. Speaker, actually, Canadians are making cuts to their food. They are cutting back on their standard of living after eight years under the Prime Minister, who is not worth the cost. I will go back to that nightmarish report from Food Banks Canada, where one Nova Scotian reported to researchers, “Seniors are having trouble with home heating and many times have to choose between food and heating.” With heating bills coming up again soon and a cold winter expected, Nova Scotians will have to pay his carbon tax, which he plans to quadruple.
How many Nova Scotia seniors will have to go homeless or hungry in order to pay for his massive carbon tax hike?
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member actually cared about seniors, he would not have been part of the government that raised the retirement age, driving seniors further into poverty. We brought it back to 65. We continued to step up with supports for seniors, and we are going to continue to stand to defend their pensions as well. While his Conservative colleagues are attacking the CPP, he has finally realized that perhaps the CPP is a good thing and has come out in defence of it. This is after a decade of attacking seniors and their pensions, of attacking the CPP. We are going to continue unequivocally to stand to support seniors right across the country, unlike the Leader of the Opposition.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, not only have we always defended the CPP, but the number of seniors requiring food banks was also drastically lower when we were in government. Let me quote a British Columbian, who reported the following in the Food Banks Canada report: “The cost of housing is indescribable. Many of our users are paying 50% of their annual income in rent, providing they can find accommodations.” This is the housing hell the Prime Minister and the NDP have caused after eight years.
Will he realize that we do not need more photo ops and we do not need more bureaucracy? Instead, we need more homes.
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has put forward no plan for housing, he lacks credibility on this issue. We are taking bold action to get more affordable homes built. Indeed, just today, the Minister of Housing is in British Columbia, in Kelowna, for our most recent housing accelerator announcement. This will streamline building permits and allow for high-density housing near public transit, spurring the construction of up to 20,000 new housing units over the next decade in Kelowna. We are also working with Kelowna to make city-owned lands available for housing, in partnership with non-profits, and we look forward to signing more agreements right across the country, delivering for Canadians on housing.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion asserting the economic viability of a possible sovereign Quebec, another in a series of unanimous motions that speak for all of Quebec.
Regardless of his personal preference, does the Prime Minister recognize Quebec's ability to succeed economically as an independent country?
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's attempts to reignite a debate on federal-provincial bickering continue to boggle my mind. The reality is that, of course, Quebeckers are a proud people from a proud nation ready to build a better future, but they know very well that their brightest future is within Canada.
That is why, as the Canadian government, we are here to invest in things like the Réseau express métropolitain de Montréal, Northvolt, Davie and the lithium mines, all hand in hand with the Quebec government to build a better future for all Quebeckers and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has heard the “we want change” rhetoric before. However, I would remind the Prime Minister, who claims to speak for the masses, that everyone, including the Premier of Quebec, voted in favour of the motion saying that Quebec is capable.
I am not asking if that is what he wants. I am not asking if he knows how to count. I am asking him if he agrees with the statement that Quebec is capable of being an economically sovereign country. That is all.
Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, I have been very pleased to make announcements alongside Premier Legault, during which we have talked a lot about the importance of reducing the wealth gap between Quebec and the other provinces. That is because we know that Quebec is capable of doing more, and we know that Quebec is poised for economic growth.
We are here to help and support people. Canada is here to capitalize on the economic growth and leadership that Quebeckers are capable of and that they demonstrate every day. We will continue to work hand in hand with Quebeckers to build a prosperous future for all.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, two million Canadians had to use the food bank in one month alone. This is the direct result of Liberals and Conservatives who continue to distract from what is going on. The real reason for what is causing this, as Canadians knew really well when they were asked the question, is greedy CEOs.
Why will the Prime Minister not understand what Canadians already do?
Mr. Speaker, we understand and we see first-hand how Canadians are struggling with the cost of food, groceries and housing. That is why we are taking concrete actions to support them through this, whether it be with the grocery rebate, whether it be with $10-a-day child care, whether it be with dental care that is going to support young children, whether it be with the initiatives we are taking across this country to create good jobs and economic growth, whether it be with the GST rebate cheques, or whether it be with the climate action rebate that is putting money in people's pockets right across the country.
We are going to continue to be there for Canadians, as we have been in years past, as we lifted hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty and as we lifted over a million Canadians out of poverty.
We know that there is more work to do, and we are going to continue to do it.
Mr. Speaker, while Liberals and Conservatives continue to distract, Canadians know that corporate greed is driving up the cost of food.
[Translation]
Two million Canadians used food banks in a single month while large corporations showed profits of almost $4 billion.
When the Conservatives and Liberals have a choice, they always side with CEOs over Canadians. That is why we forced the CEOs to come back before the committee to answer questions that the Conservatives and Liberals refuse to ask.
Will the Prime Minister admit that their approach is a failure?
Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make life more affordable and ensure that companies pay their share.
The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry met with the CEOs of the big grocery chains and of domestic and international food producers to clearly explain the need for a more affordable grocery basket and improved competition.
I hope that all members will join us in expediting the passage of Bill C‑56 on affordable housing and groceries to improve competition in the food sector, among others.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is like a parallel universe every time the NDP leader stands up, attacks the very government he is a part of and laments how miserable life is for Canadians. This is after two years of his being part of voting for quadrupling the carbon tax, driving up inflationary deficits and, of course, driving two million people to the food banks in a single month. He blames greed for all this hunger.
He is right. It is the greed of Liberal and NDP politicians who keep taking more and more from Canadians.
Will they reverse these disastrous policies?
Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House see how Canadians are struggling. We just have different responses to it.
The Conservative Party is proposing cuts to government services, cuts to investments that are going to support seniors and cuts to investments that are going to support families, whether dental care or child care.
The Conservative Party thinks one can cut one's way to prosperity, when the reality is that our investments in child care, in dental care, in supports for seniors and in supports for students have actually helped Canadians through some difficult times. We will continue to be there for them into the coming years.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, he is not being there for Canadians. He is taking money out of their pockets. If members do not believe me, they can listen to the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who today said, “government spending will be adding to demand more than supply is growing. And in an environment where we’re trying to moderate spending and get inflation down, that’s not helpful”. That adds to the voice of former Liberal finance minister John Manley, who has accused the Prime Minister of pressing on the inflationary gas pedal.
Will the Prime Minister tell us if he agrees with the bank governor that his government spending is not helpful for inflation?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know we need more supply on the housing crisis. That is why we are there investing with municipalities to deliver more housing.
In Brampton, our housing agreement was for the construction of more than 24,000 homes over the next decade. That is an investment that the Leader of the Opposition would cut. In other cities, such as Richmond Hill, Moncton and Ajax, just this week, they are passing more ambitious housing plans at their local councils in response to the federal housing accelerator.
While the Leader of the Opposition would rip up these agreements, we are focused on building solutions that will work for communities right across the country.
Mr. Speaker, the question was not about his housing photo ops. The question was about the rate of inflation and its link to government spending. I am going to quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada on this point. He said, “government spending will be adding to demand more than supply is growing. And in an environment where we’re trying to moderate spending and get inflation down, that’s not helpful.” He is now clearly saying that government spending is driving up inflation.
I have a very simple question: Does the Prime Minister agree with the bank governor that deficits are driving inflation? Yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, inflation is steadily coming down, even as we continue to sign agreements with communities across the country.
By the way, if the opposition leader cared so much about getting more homes built, he would support our affordable housing and groceries act. That legislation would remove the GST on the construction of rental homes, which housing advocates and developers have described as a game-changer. That is the relief that Canadians need. Let us keep moving these important measures forward, and let us keep getting Canadians the housing relief they need, instead of political attacks and cuts from the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, he is very determined to avoid discussing the growing evidence of the link between his deficits and the inflation Canadians pay.
Let us review what the bank governor said today. He said that, one, inflation risks are rising; two, inflation will not get back to target until the year 2025, which is two years out; and three, the bank is now leaving its door open to further rate hikes, probably spurred on by the deficits of the government.
With mortgage payments up 150%, for God's sake, why will he not get rid of these inflationary deficits so Canadians can keep their homes?
Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is proposing is to cut spending and supports for Canadians in the hopes that Canadians will somehow do better that way. We disagree. What Canadians need is greater investment in the supply of housing. That is why, through our agreements, we are unlocking new homes and opportunities for growth in the city of Hamilton by spurring the construction of thousands of homes over the next decade, just as we are across the country. The mayor of Hamilton actually said our housing agreement was “absolutely a big deal”, and I could not agree more.
When we work together with a strong and ambitious plan, we can get more homes built faster. While the Leader of the Opposition's plan would see these agreements ripped up and stalled, we will keep moving forward to help Canadians.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, do members know the one word he never used in that big, rambling, read-off answer? It is “done”. That is because none of those houses are done. They are all promises. He has been promising to build affordable homes for eight years. Since he first made that promise, housing costs have doubled and none of the promises have come to fruition.
Yes, other levels of government have politicians who are thrilled to have more money to bloat their bureaucracies. When will he realize that we do not make housing affordable by building bureaucracy, but we have to build homes?
Mr. Speaker, we are working hand in hand with municipalities across this country, whether it is Kelowna, Hamilton, Ajax, or now Halifax, where we are continuing to move forward with investments that are going to respond to people.
I have to say that I was in Brampton just last week. As we were making another announcement about new homes coming up, we were standing on the site of a building that we announced two years ago, which would be opening its doors to new residents today.
This is what we are doing after that member was housing minister and got nothing done. We are there to invest in Canadians and build a stronger future.
Mr. Speaker, he has the best photo ops in the history of photo ops. We will give him credit for that.
He wants to know what I got done. When I was housing minister, the average rent was $950. It is now over $2,000. When I was housing minister, the average mortgage payment was $1,400. It is now well over $3,500. When I was housing minister, the average needed down payment was 20 grand and one could own a home, on average, by age 29. Now, those numbers have skyrocketed.
I deal in the world of results; he deals in the world of photo ops. I know which ones Canadians prefer.
Mr. Speaker, while he continues to insult and slag cities and municipalities across this country, we are going to continue to work with them, just as we are working with the City of Halifax to build more homes so that locals can thrive in their community. Recently, we announced an agreement with Halifax to fast track 2,600 permitted units over the next three years, spurring the construction of thousands of homes over the next decade.
However, he wants to talk about what happened when he was housing minister. When he was housing minister, he announced $300 million and got 99 homes built. That is his record as housing minister. We are building homes right across the country, and we are doing it for real.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister proudly makes funding announcements in Quebec with the member to his right, he is actually talking about money that belongs to Quebeckers. Those are our tax dollars. With respect to the motion, if he says he agrees, he is in trouble. If he says he does not agree, he is in trouble. Since he is in trouble either way, and because he will be asked about it the next time he is next to the Premier of Quebec, why will he not simply tell us what he really thinks for once?
Mr. Speaker, when I spend time in my riding in Montreal, when I spend time across Quebec, and speak with people about their concerns, whether it is about climate change, affordability, the cost of housing or the extremely difficult and unstable international situation, they no longer want to talk about sovereignty. They no longer talk to me about wanting Quebec to be its own country. What they want to talk about is how we can work together to really make their lives better.
I understand that the raison d'être of the Bloc Québécois is to pick fights and keep raising the issue of sovereignty, but we, as proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians, will continue to work hard every day for all Quebeckers and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am bit like those people. I am reluctant to talk to him about things he does not necessarily understand, but I have no choice. He does not want to provide an answer so I will answer for him. Quebec can and should become independent as soon as possible. He may agree or disagree, but he cannot deny that there are 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec who have said that Quebec can be a viable country economically. The Prime Minister of Canada is too spineless to say anything.
I would like to once again remind members of something I said during my statement last week. It is very important not to question the courage of each hon. member here.
The right hon. Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Bloc Québécois, sovereignty is urgent. They have been here in Ottawa for 30 years, and it has been urgent for 30 years. They keep trying to bring this up.
The reality is that we all have to work together to deliver for Quebeckers, to deliver housing, to deliver affordable groceries, to deliver a safer, cleaner planet. That is what we are working on. I work very well with the Government of Quebec and we will continue to do so. We will focus on Quebeckers' desire to build a better world, not the Bloc Québécois's desire to bicker.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, after eight years in office, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost of inflation and interest rates.
Today, the Governor of the Bank of Canada noted three things in his report. First, inflationary risks have increased. Second, he is considering raising interest rates again, and third, the government's deficits and spending are driving up inflation, which is also increasing the risk of interest rate hikes.
Will the Prime Minister finally reverse his inflationary policies before Canadians start losing their homes?
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition and I strongly disagree. At a time when Canadians are struggling and suffering, he is proposing cuts to services and to the help that we are offering. We will continue to be there for Canadians.
The Conservative Party will always choose austerity and budget cuts in difficult times. Such cuts would lead to longer wait times in emergency rooms, higher fees for child care services, uncertainty for seniors when they retire, and no action against climate change. That is an irresponsible approach, but it is the one the Conservative Party continues to offer.
We will be there to support people, to invest in their future and to help them now.
Mr. Speaker, the disagreement is not with me, but with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who said today that government spending is driving up inflation. I know the Prime Minister loves to spend money. He has doubled our national debt and he is forcing Canadians to make the decision to cut their own spending.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Governor of the Bank of Canada that this government's spending is driving up inflation? Yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we will always respect the independence of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
As is clear from the public accounts, we have reduced the deficit without cutting the supports Canadians depend on. We have the lowest deficit in the G7 and the best net debt-to-GDP ratio, and we have maintained our AAA rating, all while inflation continues to fall.
We do not need the Conservatives' budget cuts. We can be there in a responsible way to help Canadians, create growth and maintain our fiscal responsibility. That is exactly what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, people are already making budget cuts in their personal lives. Given the 150% increase in monthly mortgage payments since this Prime Minister came to power, people are being forced to either leave their homes, live on the street or cut back on food. People are having to make these kinds of cuts because of the Prime Minister's policies.
Would the Prime Minister agree that this government's deficits are driving up inflation and interest rates on the backs of Canadians, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing a housing crisis. The Conservatives' solution is to reduce the government's investments in housing.
We are choosing a different solution. We are saying that in order to bring down housing prices, we need to build more housing. That is exactly what we are doing. For example, today the City of Kelowna will simplify its building permit process and allow for greater density near public transit, which will stimulate the construction of 20,000 new housing units over the next decade.
We are here to invest and create more housing, while the Conservatives are proposing austerity and budget cuts.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, again we hear all of the Prime Minister's expensive promises that have not completed a single home. He mentions that I spent only $300 million on housing, but he had the number of houses built wrong. It was actually 200,000 homes that were built in the year I was housing minister, but we know that numbers are not his strength. This is the guy who thinks budgets balance themselves, who does not think about monetary policy and who doubled the debt, doubled housing costs and doubled rent.
What else is going to double before the Prime Minister realizes that he is just not worth the cost?
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows full well, and he can look in the history records, it was a $300-million program that delivered 99 homes.
The reality is that we are continuing to work hand in hand with municipalities, community leaders and non-profits across the country to move forward on building more homes and responding to the supply challenges. That is why, for example, we are removing GST from new apartment buildings. Unfortunately, the members opposite refuse to allow that bill to move forward, are continuing to block it and do not want to vote for it either.
We are going to be there to support Canadians every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis in this country is deeply concerning. People are living in tents. People are living in cars. Now, in Saskatchewan, people are resorting to living in apartment lobbies. This is a direct result of the Liberals and the Conservatives, who have lost a million affordable homes over the past number of years. Even the Saskatchewan Landlord Association is calling for action.
When will the Prime Minister fix the mess he created and house people this winter?
Mr. Speaker, we are working very closely with municipalities across this country on housing and homelessness, on building more homes and on improving supply.
In the member opposite's hometown of Brampton, our housing agreement will spur the construction of more than 24,000 homes over the next decade by allowing higher density housing near public transit. Other cities, like Richmond Hill, Moncton and Ajax, just this week are passing more ambitious housing plans at their local councils in response to federal leadership. In Moncton, Halifax, Kelowna and other places across this country, we continue to invest in agreements that are going to build more homes quicker to support Canadians and build a brighter future for everyone.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is getting worse by the minute. This collective punishment has now claimed the lives of over 6,000 people. The 12-year-old daughter of one of my constituents remains stuck in Gaza, separated from both of her parents, and we have no information on her whereabouts.
We need more humanitarian aid and a response that is fair to both Israeli and Palestinian civilians. When will the government join New Democrats in calling for a ceasefire now?
Mr. Speaker, we unequivocally condemn Hamas's terrorist attack against Israel. We support Israel's right to defend itself in accordance with international law.
We are deeply concerned about the situation in Gaza. As I said, there are ongoing diplomatic conversations about the consideration of humanitarian pauses, and that is something Canada supports.
Desperately needed humanitarian aid must reach vulnerable Palestinian civilians in Gaza, and Canada is working closely with partners to build a humanitarian corridor. Hamas must immediately release all hostages, and Canadians and foreign nationals who wish to leave Gaza must be allowed to do so.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, since it was imposed upon them, indigenous families and children have experienced racist and discriminatory treatment by Canada's family and children's services. Communities in Yukon and across the nation have always known that self-determination and truth are key to healing and making sure future generations thrive.
Thanks to the advocacy of first nations leaders and communities, calls for accountability have been answered by the highest courts. Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Federal Court's decision means for first nations children and families?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yukon for his leadership.
Yesterday's announcement represents an important milestone. This historic court settlement is the largest in Canadian history and will provide $23 billion to those impacted. While no amount of money can make up for the incredible pain that was caused, this is an important step toward affirming the voices of those affected and our commitment toward reconciliation. It could not have been achieved without the leadership of first nations, and I look forward to continuing to work alongside them to deliver for indigenous people across this country.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Prime Minister is neither worth the cost nor the corruption. We know he illegally interfered to block the criminal prosecution of a multinational Liberal-linked corporation that had stolen from Africa's poorest people. Now we know that he was involved in blocking the RCMP from investigating the criminality of his conduct. He held back cabinet documents, so we invited the top Mountie to testify on this cover-up, and he and his co-conspirators in the NDP silenced the RCMP commissioner and prevented him from testifying.
Will the Prime Minister stop the cover-up and let the Mounties testify?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows well that the RCMP and the CBSA's professional integrity division are investigating. The CBSA has also launched an internal audit to look into contracting at the agency and has increased oversight processes when it comes to contracting.
Mr. Speaker, the question was about the SNC-Lavalin criminal investigation, not the ArriveCAN app criminal investigation. I can understand that there are so many criminal investigations he can get confused sometimes, but he sure managed to know enough about them to block them from any scrutiny.
He deprived the police of cabinet documents that may have led to criminal charges against him, and now he is depriving a parliamentary committee from investigating it. Yes or no, will he let the commissioner of the RCMP testify about his blockage of cabinet documents in the criminal investigation of the SNC-Lavalin scandal?
Public Services and Procurement
Mr. Speaker, one thing we will cut is the ArriveCAN app. That matter is also under criminal investigation. It was an app we did not need and did not work, and it was about 500 times more expensive than it should have been. We now know that one of the contractors who was paid submitted detailed documentation on a company that did not even exist.
We know the Prime Minister blocked criminal investigations into his SNC-Lavalin scandal. Will he agree, yes or no, to co-operate with the police in the ArriveCAN criminal investigation?
Mr. Speaker, as I just said to the opposition leader, when it comes to contracting, investigations are ongoing and processes have been updated.
He does not much care about facts or process, just his hidden agenda driven by ideology, an ideology rooted in denying that the government had to act fast in a once-in-a-century moment to keep Canadians safe. He does not want to talk about the pandemic. He does not want to talk about his behaviour during the pandemic and following it. He will continue to try to distract and deflect based on his ideology and based on the members of his team. It is very telling that the Conservative Party would choose not to prioritize Canadians' safety.
Mr. Speaker, he accuses me of distracting. The question was about the criminal investigation into the ArriveCAN app, and what does he do? He tries once again to divide Canadians in order to distract from the costs and corruption he has imposed upon them.
I asked a very simple question. We now know that a program he created is under criminal investigation. Will he, yes or no, co-operate with the police?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, both the RCMP and the CBSA's professional integrity division are investigating, and the CBSA has also launched an internal audit to look into contracting at the agency.
Once again, when the Leader of the Opposition talks about dividing Canadians, he does not want to accept that over 80% of Canadians chose to get vaccinated during the pandemic. He continues to play divisive games to try to divide Canadians on a matter core to public health and public safety. We have always stood up for the safety of Canadians while he chooses to wear a tinfoil hat.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says he will continue to try to consider the priorities of Quebeckers. I will tell him about one priority that Quebeckers have and it is the subject of a motion in the National Assembly of Quebec. I am talking about extending the deadline for the repayment of emergency loans that were issued during the pandemic that, at this point, are threatening the survival of tens of thousands of businesses in Quebec and Canada.
Does the Prime Minister agree that these businesses, in the interest of the economy both in Canada and Quebec, need an extended deadline or more flexible terms of payment?
Mr. Speaker, we know that small businesses were hard hit by the pandemic and that many are still going through a tough time today. The emergency business account was a lifeline for small businesses. That is why we announced extended deadlines, providing an additional year for term loan repayment and additional flexibilities for loan holders looking to benefit from loan forgiveness.
We will continue to be there for small businesses in Quebec and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, what all the businesses, all the provinces and Quebec are saying is that it is not enough time and there is a risk of closures. If the government does not do it, it stands to lose more money than it will save.
There are two options: Will the Prime Minister agree that businesses need more help or will he agree that it turns out Quebec should take its own money and manage its own economy independently?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, during the pandemic, in Quebec and everywhere else in Canada, $8 out of $10 of assistance to Canadians came from the federal government. SMEs are the backbone of our economy.
We were there for businesses during the pandemic and we will continue to be there for them as they recover. We have a fiscally responsible approach, but we also provide some leeway to those who wish to avail themselves of our loan forgiveness option.
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, The Wall Street Journal revealed today that mere weeks before Hamas terrorists unleashed the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust, they went to Iran to take training and direction from a terrorist group, the IRGC. Strangely, given that this group is probably the most dangerous terrorist outfit on earth, it is perfectly legal to raise money for it and organize and recruit for it right here in Canada.
Will the Prime Minister ban the IRGC today?
Mr. Speaker, for years, during the previous Conservative government's attacks and rhetoric against Iran, including the closing of the embassy, the Conservatives never moved forward on banning the IRGC and declaring it a terrorist organization. We know there is a rigorous process to do that. We are pursuing and looking at all options around it.
What we did do is use rarely before used measures in the immigration department, which were used in the case of war crimes in Rwanda and elsewhere, to ban, for life, senior members of the IRGC from ever being able to come to and find solace in Canada. That is a strong measure, and we are always open to doing more.
Mr. Speaker, the same people he claims are banned are present in Canada today. They are terrorizing Persian Canadians. Many Jews feel that their safety is at risk knowing that there are people with links to the world's most dangerous and anti-Semitic terrorist organization legally operating on the ground here in Canada.
The Prime Minister has the legal authority embedded in law today, with a stroke of a pen, to criminalize the IRGC. Will he do it, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, if I start correcting the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the facts, we will be here all day. The fact of the matter is that the listing of an organization as a terrorist organization is actually a meticulous process led by intelligence and security agencies and carefully calibrated to do no harm to Canadians or Canadian military members serving overseas. We will continue to take all measures to hold the murderous regime in Iran to account. We will continue to stand with the community. We will stand against anyone who is attempting to harm or intimidate Canadians on Canadian soil. We are always open to doing more. That is what we are continuing to work on.
[Translation]
Before giving the floor to the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to yield the floor to those who are entitled to speak during Oral Questions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has had plenty of time to go through that meticulous process. Under the anti-terror law adopted in the aftermath of 9/11, the public safety minister, who reports to the Prime Minister, has the ability to put groups on the list. There are dozens that have already been added, but the most dangerous terrorist group of all, the IRGC, can still legally fundraise, coordinate, organize and propagate its message here on Canadian soil at great risk to Canadian Jews and Persians.
Will the Prime Minister put his intransigence and stubbornness aside, protect Canadians for once and ban the IRGC?
Mr. Speaker, we have taken, and will continue to take, significant actions to hold the murderous regime in Tehran to account. We continue to recognize them as supporters of terrorism around the world. We continue to take more tools in terms of doing that. All options, as always, are on the table. We need to make sure we are doing it in a way that protects Canadians, including Canadians of Iranian descent, and also military members in CAF serving around the world. We will continue to do the right things to keep all Canadians safe and hold the Iranian regime to account.
[Translation]
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, our seniors are feeling the effects of inflation.
Whereas the opposition is trying to cut all the services they depend on after making their lives a constant hardship during its time in power, can the Prime Minister explain to the seniors of my riding and across Canada how we have supported them and will continue to support them?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for her important question and for her work with seniors.
When it comes to seniors, we are proud of our track record since 2015. Instead of raising the retirement age, we decided to keep it at 65. We increased the guaranteed income supplement. We enhanced the Canada pension plan. We increased old age security.
Older Canadians remember the Harper years, and this is exactly where they would end up again under the Conservative Party. We cannot run that risk.
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Americans banned the IRGC in 2019. President Biden reaffirmed that decision just last year. The Liberal caucus even voted in this House in favour of banning the IRGC, but the Prime Minister blocked that from happening. He has the legal authority to do it. This is the world's most dangerous terrorist group. It helped orchestrate the hideous attacks on the people of Israel just weeks ago.
Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and ban the IRGC?
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition should know, the Americans have a very different regime from us when it comes to banning various organizations. We continue to have all options on the table, as we have said. We continue to do everything necessary to hold this murderous Iranian regime to account. We will continue to move forward with measures to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, actually the regime is really not that different when it comes to listing. We both have the power of the executive branch to identify terrorist groups and put them on a list of banned entities, banning them from raising money, recruiting, coordinating and arranging attacks on other people around the world. That power exists in Canada. Because the Prime Minister has not been willing to exercise that power using his executive authority, Conservatives have a helpful private member's bill that would do it for him.
Will the Prime Minister adopt the Conservative private member's bill to ban the IRGC?
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do everything we can to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions. Our actions have included having sanctioned hundreds, over 368, in fact, of Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC Quds Force, and we are listing the regime under the most powerful provision of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
We are, of course, working on a way to recognize the regime to continue to be what it is, which is a regime that spreads terror. We are working to find a way that does not unfairly affect those who may have an association with the IRGC through no choice of their own or puts at risk members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, there are plenty of ways to protect people who are unintentionally forced to participate in terrorist groups. That is what we do with all the listed banned terrorist entities that are already on the list. Therefore, those tools already exist. The Prime Minister has had eight years. He is not worth the cost. He is not worth the risk to our safety.
Will he adopt the common-sense Conservative proposal to criminalize the IRGC terrorist group today?
Mr. Speaker, no one in this House disagrees that the Iranian regime is murderous, is a sponsor of terror and is bloodthirsty against people around the world and, indeed, against its own citizens. I remember well having held in my arms families of the victims of PS752, broken-hearted because of what this murderous regime is capable of doing against its own citizens, let alone against citizens around the world.
That is why we have continued to pursue every available means to hold the Iranian regime to account, to support people fighting for freedom in their country and to support Iranian Canadians. We will continue to do just that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I would like to remind the member of Parliament for Cumberland—Colchester to please allow the question to be answered and the person who has the floor to answer the question without interruption.
The hon. member for Davenport.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the residents in my riding of Davenport are proud of Canada's unwavering support of Ukraine as it is fighting an illegal, brutal invasion by Russia. The opposition is questioning the need for the important Canada-Ukraine trade legislation that is currently before this House, calling it “woke legislation”. This puts into question its support toward Ukraine.
Can the Prime Minister inform this House how we are committed to supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom and why this trade legislation is so important?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Davenport for her unflinching advocacy on this important issue.
We have been steadfast in our support of Ukraine since day one of Russia's illegal invasion. The modernization of our trade deal with Ukraine is another important area of co-operation between our two countries, which is why it is so disappointing to hear the member the Speaker just called out, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, refer to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as “woke legislation”.
On this side of the House, our support for Ukraine has been unwavering. The leader of the Conservative Party cannot say the same.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, as the Liberals fail on climate, first nations are leading the way. Today's transformative AFN report says first nations have begun taking matters into their own hands, unable to rely on other governments for robust climate action. What a sad state of affairs in a country as wealthy as Canada. The government insists on paying billions to big oil instead of investing in first nations, such as those here in Manitoba, on the front lines of the climate crisis.
When will the government stop with the billions to big oil, show leadership and invest in the priorities of indigenous communities facing the climate crisis now?
Mr. Speaker, indigenous communities and indigenous leadership have been indispensable over the past years in our fight against climate change. They have been partners, they have been investors, they have been creators of the moral frame in which we will continue to advance in creating a stronger economy as responsible stewards of this planet.
We will continue to work with them and continue to move forward in groundbreaking ways, like, for example, the four indigenous partnerships on protected lands that we announced at COP in Montreal, where we demonstrated the kind of leadership that indigenous people can take in protecting our planet, protecting biodiversity and building a better future. They are essential partners and we are lucky to be working with them.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Gaza Strip is currently being pounded by unprecedented air strikes: 400 yesterday alone. Nearly two-thirds of Gaza's hospitals are not functioning, with the remaining running out of power while needed fuel is blocked. In just two and a half weeks, almost 8,000 Israeli and Palestinian civilians have been killed, including more than 2,700 Palestinian kids. How many more children need to die before the government calls for a ceasefire?
Mr. Speaker, we unequivocally condemn Hamas's terrorist attack against Israel and we support Israel's right to defend itself in accordance with international law. Of course, we are deeply concerned with the situation in Gaza. As I said, there are ongoing diplomatic conversations about consideration of humanitarian pauses, which is something that Canada supports. Desperately needed humanitarian aid must reach vulnerable Palestinian civilians at risk in Gaza. Canada is closely engaged with partners to build a humanitarian corridor. Hamas must release hostages, and we have to get foreign nationals, particularly Canadians, safely out of Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In light of the persuasive arguments raised by the leader of Canada's Conservatives, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-350, the combatting torture and terrorism act, be deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
An hon. member: Nay.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on another point of order.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Child Health Protection Act
The House resumed from October 18 consideration of the motion that Bill C-252, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children), be read the third time and passed.
It being 3:28 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-252, under Private Members' Business.
Call in the members.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 429)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vuong
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 208
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
d'Entremont
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 116
PAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act
The House resumed from October 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust — perishable fruits and vegetables), be read the third time and passed.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑280, under Private Members' Business.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 430)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
May (Cambridge)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 320
NAYS
Members
DamoffTotal: -- 1
PAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
National Strategy for Eye Care Act
The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑284, An Act to establish a national strategy for eye care, be read the third time and passed.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C‑284, under Private Members' Business.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 431)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
May (Cambridge)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 324
NAYS
NilPAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
[English]
Amendments to the Standing Orders
The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Windsor West to Motion No. 79, under Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 432)
YEAS
Members
AngusAshton
Bachrach
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bérubé
Blaikie
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Chabot
Champoux
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Fortin
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill
Hughes
Idlout
Johns
Julian
Kwan
Lemire
MacGregor
Masse
McPherson
Michaud
Morrice
Normandin
Pauzé
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Therrien
Trudel
Vignola
Villemure
Vuong
Zarrillo
Total: -- 54
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Atwin
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Jones
Jowhari
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
May (Cambridge)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Virani
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 269
PAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 433)
YEAS
Members
AngusAshton
Bachrach
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bérubé
Blaikie
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Boulerice
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Chabot
Champoux
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Fortin
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gill
Hughes
Idlout
Johns
Julian
Kwan
Lemire
MacGregor
Masse
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McPherson
Michaud
Morrice
Normandin
Pauzé
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Therrien
Trudel
Vignola
Villemure
Vuong
Zarrillo
Total: -- 55
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Atwin
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Ien
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Jones
Jowhari
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Majumdar
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
May (Cambridge)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Rota
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
Sousa
Steinley
Stewart
St-Onge
Strahl
Stubbs
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudeau
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Virani
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 269
PAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
[English]
Prevention of Government-Imposed Vaccination Mandates Act
The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-278, Prevention of Government-imposed Vaccination Mandates Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-278 under Private Members' Business.
Before the Clerck announced the results of the vote:
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent for the member for Beloeil—Chambly to record his vote as being against the motion because he was unable to use the app. It was not working.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 434)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 114
NAYS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 206
PAIRED
Members
BergeronFraser
Joly
Larouche
McGuinty
Rempel Garner
Total: -- 6
I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 76 minutes.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Finance; the hon. member for Bow River, Carbon Pricing.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Petitions
Madam Speaker, I rise for the 18th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. The people of Swan River are tired of the NDP-Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, which allow violent repeat offenders to be out on the streets.
Folks in this rural community do not recognize their once safe town. Instead of focusing on tomorrow's future, the people of Swan River are focused on yesterday's crimes. The petitioners are calling for action with jail, not bail, for these violent repeat offenders.
The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and community. I support the good people of Swan River.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of neighbours in Kitchener Centre. They note, first of all, that their quality of life is being negatively affected by a high frequency of air traffic occurring near residential areas, and this is related to stress and interrupted sleep. They note there is a need for greater co-operation on the part of airport management with citizens and federal authorities to reduce the negative impacts of aircraft noise.
The Region of Waterloo International Airport is home to one of the largest and busiest flight training schools in Canada, and its total air traffic, the petitioners note, has increased by over 1,400% between 2019 and 2022, making it now the sixth busiest in Canada. They note that the negative impacts for residents near this airport have worsened significantly over this time, given the fact that the airport, for example, does not have any nighttime flight restrictions or curfews in place, among a number of other items. They also note that Canada's other busiest airports in residential areas, in places such as Edmonton, Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, are all subject to heightened noise management requirements, and air traffic and runway restrictions.
In light of all of this, the petitioners are calling upon the Minister of Transport to first ensure that all Canadian airports near residential areas have established sufficient airport-specific noise-abatement procedures and control requirements to meet all of their obligations under the Canadian aviation regulations and, secondly, to assess whether any other Canadian airports near residential areas should be subjected to additional noise management requirements and restrictions, such as the requirement to develop a minister-approved noise management plan and report publicly on these plans, heightened noise-abasement procedures, and operating restrictions for designated noise-restricted runways.
Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to present a petition in the House. E-petition 4573 calls on the federal government to provide financial aid for all families and caregivers who were affected by Lanark County's sudden decision to terminate access to the Canada-wide early learning and child care funding for a particular child care provider.
This petition, brought by Tyler Williams from Carleton Place, Ontario, gathered 541 signatures. In addition to calling for funding intervention for families that were affected, it calls on the House of Commons to provide an explanation of the factors that led to this decision, support the call for an emergency council meeting with members of the public present to discuss the child care crisis facing Lanark County, and ensure that contingency plans for affected families, with appropriate timelines and procedures in place if funding for child care agencies is terminated, to ensure that no family is ever put in this position again.
I thank the petitioners for their advocacy, and I am proud to table this petition in the House today.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are calling to the attention of the government the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has warned repeatedly that rising temperatures over the next two decades will bring widespread devastation and extreme weather.
The petitioners go on to indicate that Canadians are certainly feeling the impacts of flooding, wildfires and extreme temperatures. They recognize that addressing climate change requires a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to 1.5°C and indicated they are aware that the federal government committed in 2021 to cap and cut emissions from the oil and gas sector to achieve net zero by 2050.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to move forward immediately with bold emissions caps for the oil and gas sector that are comprehensive in scope and realistic for achieving the necessary targets that Canada has set to reduce emissions by 2030.
Madam Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of my constituents, who draw to the attention of the House that Canada now has the highest rate of common-law relationships among G7 countries, with the share of co-residing common-law couples increasing from 6% in 1981 to 23% in 2021. There are other statistics that they draw the attention of the House to, including the number of children living with a lone parent, step-parents, parents in a common-law relationship or other non-traditional unions.
The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Minister of Justice to initiate a statutory review of the Divorce Act, specifically concerning the federal child support guidelines, which would take into account the evolving reality of blended families and the variance of incomes over time to better reflect the needs of children in shared custody situations.
Madam Speaker, impaired driving kills hundreds of Canadians and injures thousands more every year. Shauna and David of the region of Waterloo know this all too well. Their 23-year-old son was stolen away from them and taken from this earth because of this.
Hundreds of volunteers with MADD Canada, hundreds of citizens of Canada, are calling upon the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to require anti-impaired driving technology in new vehicles by 2026-27. This is something that has been done by the United States of America through the HALT Act, and they would like the Government of Canada to consider this for Canadians as well.
Madam Speaker, I also would like to present a second petition today as the president of the Gloucester Pool Cottagers' Association and founder of the Float Homes Not Vessels Coalition resides within the region of Waterloo. Members have been having conversations on ensuring structures are properly labelled, and in this case, that they be referred to as “float homes” and not vessels.
These citizens of Canada, who are also residents of Ontario, are calling upon the Government of Canada, namely the Minister of Transport, to classify both existing and new float homes as float homes, not vessels. This would be in a manner that is consistent with other provinces.
Petitioners note the previous government changed this definition, and as a result, these structures are currently exempt from all forms of provincial and municipal oversight and regulations, including building code adherence, environmental protection, public safety, taxation and local management. They look forward to the Government of Canada providing a response as to what the appropriate next steps should be and hope to see this classification change sooner rather than later.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a number of petitions in the House of Commons. The first petition seeks to support the health and safety of Canadian firearm owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms, and they note this is a big part of Canadian heritage. They are concerned about the impacts to hearing loss, the damaging noise levels of firearms and the need for noise reduction.
These petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally accepted, recognized health and safety device that is criminally prohibited for ownership in Canada. Moreover, the majority of G7 countries have recognized the health and safety benefits of sound moderators, allowing them to be used for hunting, sport shooting and reduced noise pollution. In many cases, such as in many countries in Europe, for example, these sound moderators are a requirement.
Petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to allow legal firearm owners the option to purchase and use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport shooting activities.
Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about our laws that do not reflect and protect all of human life. Petitioners want the Canadian government to respect human life from conception to natural death, and they ask the Government of Canada to support measures that would do so.
Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country. They want to draw to the attention of the House of Commons there is no laws requiring makers, distributers or advertisers of commercial pornographic material to ascertain or document the consent or age of those depicted in the material.
They also want to highlight the ethics committee's report on MindGeek, which stated, “That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution”.
They want to offer their support to Bill C-270, the stop Internet sexual exploitation act, which would add two offences to the Criminal Code. These would be for creating pornographic material for commercial purpose without verifying the age or obtaining consent of the individual shown, and to distribute pornographic material without verifying the age and consent of those depicted, and also for not removing that material if, in writing, consent is withdrawn.
Finally, they want to recognize the work of organizations such as Defend Dignity, the National Council of Women, the London Abused Women's Centre, the Montreal Council of Women, Parents Aware and the National Child Exploitation Crime Centre. They have all expressed their support for Bill C-270. Therefore, they call on the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to adopt Bill C-270 quickly and expeditiously.
The next petition I have to present comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the age verification that is not happening for those depicted in pornographic material.
The petitioners are also calling for the Government of Canada to ensure that age verification and consent are confirmed prior to distribution. They are also calling on the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-270 quickly and expeditiously.
Madam Speaker, the next petition I have comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the conflict that has engulfed Ethiopia in the last year.
The petitioners are concerned that humanitarian actors have not been able to access certain regions. They are also concerned that both the Ethiopian and Eritrean armed forces may have inflicted war crimes on the Tigrayan people.
As such, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to call for maintaining peace in that region and to ensure that our international assistance aids in the peacekeeping there. They are calling for an end to violence in Ethiopia and for all sides in the Tigray conflict to put down their arms. They are also calling on the Government of Canada to promote short-, medium- and long-term elections monitoring in Ethiopia.
Madam Speaker, the next petition I have comes from Canadians from across the country. It is kind of timely, given the vote that we had today.
The petitioners are calling for an end to all the COVID mandates that are still in place across the country. Currently the government has suspended only some of the mandates, and the folks who have signed this petition want them to be exhausted completely.
The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to finally and permanently end all federally regulated COVID mandates and their restrictions.
Madam Speaker, the next petition I have comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the human rights protections in Turkey, Pakistan and Bahrain.
The petitioners state that Turkish, Pakistani and Bahraini officials have committed gross human rights violations against thousands of Turks, including eight Turkish Canadians. The petitioners say that the Turkish officials have killed hundreds, including Gokhan Acikkollu.
The petitioners say that Turkish officials have wrongfully detained over 300,000 people without any reason. The petitioners state that multiple international human rights groups have confirmed these gross human rights violations in Turkey.
The petitioners ask that the Canadian government closely monitor the human rights situation in Turkey, sanction Turkish officials who have committed gross crimes against these eight Canadians, and call on the Turkish, Pakistani and Bahraini governments to end all human rights violations in their respective countries.
Madam Speaker, the final petition I have today is another petition which calls on the Government of Canada to ensure the quick passage of Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act.
This bill comes out of recommendation number two from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report on MindGeek, which requires all content-hosting platforms in Canada to verify age and consent prior to uploading this content.
As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-270 quickly and expeditiously.
Questions on the Order Paper
Motions for Papers
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Criminal Code
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Hon. Jenna Sudds (Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.) (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Jenna Sudds (for the Minister of Justice)
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. The bill was reported back to us with some modifications by members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights following their careful study of its proposals.
Bill S-12 proposes amendments to both the publication ban provisions of the Criminal Code and the national sex offender registration regime. The bill is an example of the government's commitment to responding to concerns around sexual offending and demonstrating its overall commitment to victims of crime.
The proposed reforms of publication bans aim to increase victim autonomy and control in this area of the law. The changes proposed to the national sex offender registry would ensure the continued operation of this valuable police tool by making changes to bring it in line with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
First, I would like to discuss the amendments relating to publication bans. These proposals have been informed by the lived experiences of victims of sexual offending, and they have always had the empowerment of victims as their ultimate objective.
I want to give a particular thanks to My Voice, My Choice. This group has worked tirelessly to advocate for improvements to the publication ban regime. I can say with confidence that its members' advocacy has changed the national narrative on publication bans for the better. Without them, we would not be having this important conversation on returning agency to victims and ensuring that they are not silenced against their will.
My message to all victims and survivors is that these conversations are not over. We know that there is always more to be done. We can continue to fight for positive change. It is incumbent on us to see Bill S-12 as a step in the right direction, not an end point.
The amendments in Bill S-12 would improve communication between victims and justice system actors with respect to publication bans and ensure that there is a clear legislative process on how to amend or revoke a ban. Importantly, it is our intent that prosecutors consult with victims before a publication ban is invoked. Prosecutors should ascertain whether victims wish to have a ban in place and act accordingly. Moreover, the accused should not and will not have any say in whether a publication ban should be revoked or modified.
In addition, Bill S-12 would add clarity to the law with respect to the conduct captured by a publication ban. It is only in the rarest cases that a victim or witness should be prosecuted for such a breach. Publication bans are there to protect victims and should not be weaponized against them in the criminal justice system.
Another victim-centric element of Bill S-12 would improve victims' access to information in the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the federal ombudsperson for victims of crime, who advocated for this change.
Bill S-12 would ensure that victims are asked whether they would like to receive information on case developments after sentencing, such as appeals or parole. This would be a great improvement on the current system, in which victims must proactively make a request to receive information. In some cases, victims are not told that they must make this request, or they have trouble indicating their wishes.
Every victim is different; some want updates, while others want to move on and not hear about their case ever again. Bill S-12 recognizes that this choice is entirely theirs. Our justice system should ensure that victims are supported to make the best choice for themselves.
I will now turn to the Senate amendments made to the publication ban aspect of Bill S-12. For the most part, these amendments greatly improved the bill by creating a more robust and victim-centred approach to publication bans. However, some of these amendments raised concerns, which were voiced to the justice committee by the minister and were shared by some provincial attorneys general. We also heard testimony from organizations and individuals that represent victims, and they echoed some of these concerns.
In the Senate, provisions were added that would enhance communications with victims about the imposition of publication bans. For example, prosecutors would be required to ask the victim if they wished to have a publication ban that applied to their identifying information, as well as to inform a victim who was the subject of a publication ban about its existence and the right to revoke it. The Senate also amended the bill to propose a more robust process for how a publication ban can be revoked or varied. In addition, the Senate crafted provisions that would clarify what information is captured by a publication ban to ensure that victims could share their own information with friends and family, for example, without fear of any prosecution.
These were positive suggestions that improved the bill, and the justice committee was generally supportive of the intention behind these changes.
However, as I previously indicated, we heard testimony at the justice committee from witnesses who voiced concerns with the effects of some of the Senate amendments. I am grateful to the witnesses who lent their expertise to improve Bill S-12 by pointing out these concerns.
To that end, the justice committee proposes to delete language that would require the prosecutor to inform victims and witnesses who are subjects of a publication ban about the circumstances under which they could legitimately disclose information without facing legal consequences. The committee shared concerns raised by some of the provincial attorneys general that this proposal presented serious questions about prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest. This is because some of the Crowns who would be giving that advice may also be called upon to prosecute an individual for the offence of breaching a publication ban.
I am confident that removing this language would not impact the objective of ensuring better communications with victims about a publication ban, but ensure our Crown prosecutors could continue to effectively carry out their duties. Further, some witnesses heard by the committee during the study said that they would prefer to see the Criminal Code include a list of professionals to whom victims or witnesses could disclose identifying information without breaching the publication ban.
In response, the committee proposed an amendment that would specify that victims or witnesses do not breach a publication ban if they disclose their identifying information in situations where the disclosure is to a legal professional, a health care professional or a person of trust. I would like to thank my colleagues in the Green Party and the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke who suggested this change.
I am strongly in favour of these amendments as I believe they add clarity to Bill S-12 while still respecting the overall objective of empowering and giving a greater voice to victims of sexual violence.
I now turn to the sex offender registry provisions in the bill. The legislation would strengthen the sex offender registry and respond to the Supreme Court decision striking down sections of the registry. Bill S-12 proposes that all sexual offenders must be placed on the registry in cases involving a designated offence unless they can show that the registration would be overbroad or grossly disproportionate to the objective of the registry. Providing this limited discretion to judges responds to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision while still ensuring a robust registry that would assist police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.
However, in recognition that there are some offenders who will always pose a higher risk of reoffending, Bill S-12 proposes to retain automatic registration for two categories of offenders.
The first category is repeat sexual offenders. If offenders are convicted of a sexual offence and have another sexual offence in their background they would automatically be registered. This is reflective of the social science evidence that indicates that repeat sexual offenders are twice as likely as first-time offenders to reoffend sexually.
The second category is offenders who commit sexual offences against children and are sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment in cases where the offence is prosecuted by an indictment. These offenders would be covered even in the case of a first-time offence. Proposing automatic registration for this category is reflective of the social science evidence that offending against children is a validated risk factor for sexual offending. Sexual offences against children are among the most heinous crimes and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. Bill S-12 would ensure the police have the necessary tools to prevent and address these crimes.
I would like to be clear that limiting automatic registration to these two narrow categories of offenders is not intended in any way to signal that other sexual offending is any less serious. This could not be further from the truth. All sexual offending is reprehensible, but within the confines of the majority judgment in the Ndhlovu decision, I am confident this was as far as the government could go with respect to automatic registration.
I would like to be clear that this government has faith in the judiciary to make appropriate decisions. The bill also provides a robust appeal mechanism when there is a need to challenge a decision made by a trial judge about whether an offender should have been required to register.
In addition, Bill S-12 proposes to provide judges with a list of factors that are relevant to assessing an offender's risk of sexual reoffending. This proposed list incorporates well-established risk factors based on empirical social research.
In addition to providing guidance to judges, these factors are intended to address the criticisms and concerns reflected in the minority judgment about the possibility that myths about sexual offending will inform any part of a judge's decision.
I would like to close my remarks by reminding members that Bill S-12 also proposes other changes to strengthen the sex offender registration regime. Bill S-12 addresses operational issues that have been identified by our provincial, territorial and law enforcement partners. This includes, for example, creating a new compliance warrant provision that would allow police officers to arrest non-compliant offenders, bring them to a registration centre and give them an opportunity to provide the legally required information.
Bill S-12 would also expand the list of offences that qualify an individual for the registry. The list would include crimes such as non-consensual sharing of intimate images and sextortion. These are terrible crimes that have had serious impacts on Canadians, especially women and children. I am glad to see their inclusion on the list.
The bill would also require registered sex offenders to provide 14 days' notice of any travel as well as specific addresses of their destination. These changes have been lauded by American officials, including Attorney General Garland and Secretary Mayorkas. I know that these measures would contribute to enhanced security on both sides of our shared border.
I am confident that Bill S-12 is a balanced, thoughtful and constitutionally defensive response to the Supreme Court. It also represents our government's ongoing commitment to victims and survivors of crime. Victims and survivors must have full ownership of their own stories; this is critical. I urge all members to support this bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the House to consider giving me unanimous consent to have my vote included in the last round of votes. There were six votes that took place. I had technical difficulties on the first one and then I was able to get four done. I have just found out that my vote was not recorded on the vote on Bill C-278. I would like unanimous consent to have it considered in the negative, voting nay against the bill.
Is there consent?
[Translation]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Before I begin, I want to recognize one of my former students who was just called to the bar by virtue of the tutelage of his principal Jay Michi. That is Kyle Komarynsky. I wish him a long and fruitful career as a distinguished lawyer.
I listened to my colleague's speech. I have asked the justice minister this question three times. One time he hid behind an official, in my view, who gave wrong information about whether sexual offences could lead to house arrest. They clearly can lead to house arrest in most if not all jurisdictions, especially offences against children.
Will the parliamentary secretary commit here and now to say that they will legislate so that sex offences against children cannot result in house arrest?
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my friend's student. I know what an honour it is to be a mentor to young students who are entering the profession and it is quite something when they reach their goal, so well done.
First off, I was there and the minister was not hiding behind anybody. Let us make that clear, for starters.
This bill is quite clear and we had extensive debate. I really enjoy working with the member. I am relatively new to the committee. I have been on the committee before, but not with my colleague across the way. We have a good working relationship.
I am confident in saying that this bill would go very far in protecting children and making sure that those who are guilty of these heinous crimes that the member is referring to receive the punishment that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, some victims only found out that their assailant was about to be released through media reports. Can my colleague assure me that this kind of situation will never happen again and that victims will finally receive the concrete information they need to protect themselves?
[English]
Madam Speaker, the focus of this bill is victims' rights. Every section of the bill and every discussion we had with respect to the bill was with that in mind. The publication ban provisions, in particular, were entirely focused on victims' rights and making sure that they have the information that they need when they are caught up or involved in the legal system. I share the member's concern, and I can assure her again that the bill would do everything possible to make sure that victims' rights are not only acknowledged but information is communicated to the victims at the appropriate time.
Madam Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister's weak-on-crime policies, Canada has become a more dangerous place and he is not worth the cost.
Liberal law Bill C-75, the catch-and-release act, has unleashed a wave of violent criminals onto our streets and incidents of repeat and violent crime have predictably surged as a result. This increase in crime is particularly true when it comes to sexually based offences. Under this NDP-Liberal government's watch, sexual assaults have gone up 71%. Sex crimes against children have seen an astonishing 126% increase.
Thanks to extreme politicians weakening our laws, those who commit sexual assault can now serve their sentences at home in the same community as their victims.
According to Statistics Canada, only one in five cases of sexual assault reported to police result in a trial. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported in the first place, due to fear and stigma, the lowest of all violent crime.
I know that when I was sexually assaulted, as a child of 12, by two perpetrators, I was too afraid to tell my parents, even. I did not tell my mother until I was 40 years old. That is the story for many women in Canada.
The Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter points out that only one in nine cases of sexual assault reported to police results in a conviction. Worse, only one in 15 reported cases results in the perpetrator being sentenced to jail. As a mother of three daughters, I find these statistics alarming. As a lawyer and member of the official opposition, I must hold the government presiding over this crime wave responsible. The lack of urgency of the NDP and Liberals to protect women and children is shocking. They must act now to fix the problems they created with this radical ideology that puts criminals first and victims last.
These stats only tell part of the story. The assault is traumatic enough for the victim to live once. The effects last a lifetime. To get justice, they are required to relive the trauma during the rigours of a criminal trial. They are often revictimized, forced to recount their assault through their own testimony and cross-examination. It is understandable that sex crimes and assaults are significantly under-reported, making it impossible to accurately quantify just how widespread this picture is.
It is not just sexual assault. Other forms of sexual violence are also on the rise. Online child exploitation has increased.
According, again, to StatsCan, my province of British Columbia accounted for 54% of Canada's reported incidents of making and distributing sexually explicit images. The RCMP in British Columbia dealt with 9,600 cases of child exploitation last year alone.
This is unacceptable in the extreme and speaks to the NDP-Liberal government's failure to protect the most vulnerable in our society, particularly women and children.
The House must acknowledge that Canada has a problem with sex crimes, as we debate legal changes to the sex offender registry.
In my family law practice, I handled a case where a woman was concerned for the safety of her child during a custody dispute. She expressed concern that unsupervised contact with extended family members on the father's side of the family could put her child at risk of sexual assault. I discovered, through a sex offender registry in the United States, that the family member in question was a known offender. We were able to secure conditions in the custody arrangements that kept the child safe and under supervision.
This underscores the need for a strong, effective sex offender registry, to help law enforcement keep the public safe.
The legislation before us today, Bill S-12, amends the Sex Offender Registration Information Act, following a Supreme Court ruling that determines that sections of this law were unconstitutional.
The court gave the Liberals one year to fix the unconstitutional provisions. That was on October 28, 2022. The so-called “feminist government” has dragged its feet yet again, and here we are today at the 11th hour debating the bill with a looming deadline just three days away.
Bill S-12 would change the Sex Offender Registry Information Act that was first passed in 2004 with the support of all parties. It was created to assist law enforcement agencies by requiring the registration of specific information about sex offenders, such as addresses, phone numbers, a description of their physical appearance, the nature of the offence committed, and the age and gender of the victims and their relationship to the offender. At the time it was up to the discretion of the judge as to whether a sexual offender should be on the registry.
However, this led to several issues. In 2009, the public safety committee found that only 50% of sex offenders were required to enrol in the sex offender registry. Conservatives recognized that to be effective and to actually protect women, children, victims and survivors, the national registry had to be enforced consistently across the country. Conservatives are the party of law and order. We support tough sentencing and enforcement against sexual crimes.
The previous Conservative government brought in the law that required convicted sex offenders to be automatically listed on the national sex offender registry to better protect the public, a measure that was also supported at the time by all parties. Conservatives remain supportive of legislation that would protect the public from sexual offenders, including Bill S-12. However, the bill is another missed opportunity to improve public safety.
At committee, the Liberals amended their own bill to further prioritize the interests of the accused in sexual assault cases. Frankly, accused sexual offenders do not need more support in the criminal justice system. It is the victims and survivors who need the support. This was a chance for the coalition government to stand with victims, but once again it abandoned them. Common-sense Conservatives believe all sex offenders must be listed on the national sex offender registry, and we will amend the legislation to ensure this is the case when we form government.
As a family lawyer, I often dealt with custody cases where the sex offender registry was especially used to protect the interests of children. It is an essential tool for police and law enforcement agencies. I am concerned that the court's decision will water down the effectiveness of the registry and make it harder for police to prevent and investigate sexual offences.
At committee, that soft-on-crime NDP-Liberal government opposed our common-sense amendments to strengthen the bill and opposed amendments to publication bans that key stakeholders, such as My Voice, My Choice, which was earlier praised by the member opposite, have advocated for. While the government claims it stands for women's rights and supports survivors of sexual violence, its actions say otherwise.
Victims and survivors welcome stronger penalties and protections like mandatory enrolment in the national sex offender registry. They have asked for increased flexibility and victim input regarding publication bans and access to case information. The Liberals had a year to get the legislation right. Their delayed response has opened the possibility of sex offenders escaping registration if Parliament does not comply with the court-imposed deadline looming close now, something Conservatives will not allow.
We will agree to pass the bill through the House today to avoid putting the registry at risk. However, make no mistake, there is only one party committed to ending the crime wave, keeping vulnerable Canadians safe and fixing the flawed legislation. Only common-sense Conservatives will act with the urgency and the specificity required to keep women and children in Canada safe.
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question about Bill S-12.
As was said, when we were in government, we brought in changes to have a mandatory listing of all convicted sex offenders put in the registry. We had to respond to a Supreme Court decision, and the government's response has been tepid. One of the amendments that Conservatives put forward at committee would be to require the mandatory listing of all convicted child sex offenders. There is nothing in the Supreme Court decision that would have prevented that step from happening.
The Liberal and NDP coalition voted against the common sense amendment that would have listed all convicted child sex offenders. Can the member tell me what message she feels that sends to Canadians?
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for all the work he does with respect to justice for victims and with respect to criminal law reform in Canada.
Our children are our most precious resource. I am sure this is felt around the world, but it certainly is true here in Canada. If we cannot move to protect our children, then what is it exactly that we are accomplishing with any legislation in this place?
An amendment that would require registration of those who are convicted of sex offences against children is one of the few ways to protect them. I know that in my own case, I was lured away from the safety of my home and my family by older people, older teenagers, in fact. I was not even a teenager yet. Children are powerless against predators who would do them harm. If someone is accused of doing harm to a child in Canada, they should be on the registry.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have a question about a possible shift in the Conservative Party's current stance compared to that of Stephen Harper, the former prime minister of Canada, regarding section 7 and the Ndhlovu decision, which sought to enrol all sex offenders in a registry. This time around, the judge will have the discretion to decide which names are entered on the list.
I would like to know whether the current Conservative Party, unlike its predecessors, agrees with this shift?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I think perhaps I did address this in my speech. When the sex offender registry was originally brought in, with the support of all parties at the time, it was discretionary for judges as to who would be put on the registry. However, it seemed to be taken up only about 50% of the time, so the Conservative government of the day, again with the support of all parties at the time, took the next step to make it mandatory because it simply was not being taken up enough to fully and thoroughly protect women and children in Canada.
From my point of view, I understand the court's decision and where that decision was coming from, but I think the Liberals and the NDP in their coalition government could have done a much better job of looking at that decision while still protecting women and children to the maximum within the parameters set out in the decision.
Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to thank the member for South Surrey—White Rock for sharing in the House her personal experience as a sexual assault survivor. This is a scourge in our society that is too often treated as a source of shame for victims. It is very important that we all stand with those victims. One of the ways of doing that is by sharing personal experience.
The member will know that I also have shared in the House my own experience as an adult survivor of child sexual assault. I think that whatever our opinions about what the proper solutions are, it is important to acknowledge all those victims who came forward to the House of Commons justice committee, shared their experiences and risked retraumatization in order to get the legislative changes that they think are important.
Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to come forward. I am able to come forward in the House in a public way at this time in my life only because of the passage of time. At an earlier time, I simply could not have stood publicly and disclosed what I have disclosed.
The effects of sexual assaults last a lifetime. I applaud all those who came before the committee and told their personal stories, shared them in order to enlighten us all on the difficulties faced by victims.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for making it possible to pass Bill S‑12 in a reasonable enough time frame that should hopefully allow it to get through the legislative process fast enough for the existing legislation to be amended before the deadline set by the Supreme Court. I think everyone on the committee worked seriously and diligently, and I would like to thank them all.
Having said that, Bill S‑12 has two components. The first is the component required by the Supreme Court pertaining to the national sex offender registry. It is a response to the Supreme Court ruling handed down on October 28, 2022, in R. v. Ndhlovu, which struck down two provisions of the Criminal Code, namely section 490.012 and section 490.013(2.1).
The court held that registering offenders who are not at risk of committing a future sex offence is disconnected from the purpose of registration. The court pointed out that the purpose of registration is to capture information that may assist the police in preventing and investigating sexual offences.
The Supreme Court gave the federal government one year to remedy the situation, and that time is up next week, on October 29, 2023. If the amendments are not passed by then, then offenders will no longer have to register with the national sex offender registry. Clearly, we all want to avoid that.
Obviously, the House of Commons fast-tracked the legislative process to meet that deadline. What I am wondering is why the government waited until April 26, six months after the Supreme Court ruling, to introduce this bill. I would remind the House that the Supreme Court delivered its ruling in R. v. Ndhlovu over a year ago on October 28, 2022, and ordered that the Criminal Code be amended by October 29, 2023.
On April 26, 2023, Senator Gold introduced a bill in the Senate, six months after the Supreme Court delivered its ruling. Bill S‑12 was passed in the Senate at third reading on June 22, meaning the bill took two months to get through the Senate. Six months elapsed between the time when the government found out that it had to amend the law and the time when the bill was introduced, another two months elapsed between the time when Senator Gold introduced his bill and the time when it was passed at third reading in the Senate, and a further three months passed before the bill arrived here in the House of Commons—
I would ask the member not to put his phone on his desk because it causes problems for the interpreters.
The hon. member for Rivière‑du‑Nord.
Madam Speaker, I was saying that it took six months for Senator Gold to introduce the bill in the Senate. I do not blame him. It was the government's responsibility, not his.
The Senate passed the bill at third reading in two months, which seems more than reasonable to me. Three months went by between June 22 and September 19, because it was the summer. The bill arrived in the House on September 19, and 36 days later, here we are in the House for third reading of the bill. Thirty-six days is obviously not a lot of time to study a bill of this magnitude in the House. I find that disappointing.
What happened between October 28, 2022, and April 26, 2023? Was the government closed for business? Were there no ministers around who could work on drafting the bill? I guess not. I am very disappointed.
The only reason we are here today, being forced to ram through this bill, jeopardizing our parliamentary duty to listen to every citizen and group concerned about the bill, weigh their positions and arguments, and study the representations made in committee with care and attention, is that the government did not put in a modicum of diligence to satisfy the obligations imposed on it by the Supreme Court ruling. At no point, in the House, in committee, in the media or in a press release, did the government offer the slightest explanation for this delay. We received no explanation, no excuse, nothing. Again, it is disappointing to say the least.
Basically, the bill reinstates the principle of automatic registration, but with better guidelines and subject to certain conditions. Registration will now be automatic only for sex offenders sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years or more and for repeat offenders. In all other cases, there will be a presumption that the offender will be required to register, but it could be overturned if the individual proves that there is no connection between the order to register and the purpose of registration or that registration is totally disproportionate to that purpose.
Bill S‑12 therefore allows for greater flexibility and provides that judges may use their discretion to order whether those convicted of multiple offences during a single trial should, or should not, remain on the registry for life when their behavioural profile demonstrates an increased risk of reoffending.
The Bloc Québécois unsurprisingly endorses these amendments, which are in line with human rights requirements and respond to the Supreme Court's October 28, 2022 ruling.
With regard to the second component, Bill S‑12 proposes provisions promoting the participation of victims at the publication ban stage, when a ban is to be issued. On numerous occasions, witnesses have come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights asking that we amend these rules and allow victims to intervene before a publication ban is issued.
Publication bans are issued to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses. They are issued for their benefit, not for the benefit of the defendant or the benefit of the courts and prosecutors. The basic principle in Canada, and a cornerstone of our justice system, is to hold open trials. Not so long ago, we heard about hidden trials, secret trials. I do not think anyone wanted them. They certainly should not become the rule. Open legal proceedings are a guarantee of fairness and of trials that comply with the applicable legal provisions. Justice is done in public, not behind closed doors or in secret.
Obviously, the presence of the public and the media in the courtroom is critically important, as is the right to talk about the trial, the evidence presented and the issues at stake. Publication bans should be used only under exceptional and clearly defined circumstances. On several occasions, the courts have heard challenges to their validity, often raised by media representatives.
If these bans are to be issued only on rare occasions, it is quite understandable that the reasons justifying them must be very well defined and clear to everyone. The purpose of the bans must be to protect the identity and privacy of victims and witnesses, or at least seriously strive to achieve that objective. What is the current situation? At present, unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Bill S‑12 seeks to ensure that the people we want to protect are truly protected, and that they know they are protected. It seems to us that, at the very least, before issuing such a ban, the courts must ensure that the victims are aware that a ban is being sought and could be granted, that they understand the details of the ban and, finally, that they consent to it. How else could anyone claim that the ban is in their best interests?
Victims must also have the opportunity to request that the publication ban be modified or lifted. Victims may have consented to a ban for one reason or another but, for a host of other good reasons, they may later decide they want the ban modified or lifted. Logically, victims should be allowed to request such modifications if the ban is indeed in their best interests, as it should be.
However, as things stand, these bans are often issued without the victims' knowledge and, unfortunately, without their consent. Worse still, when they find out that a publication ban has been issued, the victims, whom the bans are intended to protect, are currently unable to request that the ban be modified or lifted. As if that were not enough, victims are even liable to prosecution if they violate a publication ban by speaking out about the assaults they have suffered or about their attacker's trial. The victim we want to protect becomes the culprit we want to prosecute. I agree with what everyone is probably thinking: That is insane and it has to change.
The purpose of Bill S‑12 is therefore to correct these incongruities and greatly improve the situation for victims and witnesses. From now on, judges will have to ensure that victims are notified when a publication ban is about to be issued and that they consent to it. If the victims are not present in the courtroom, the judge will have to ensure that the prosecutor has notified them and obtained their consent. Furthermore, victims will now be able to communicate with a legal professional, a health professional or a person with whom they have a relationship of trust without putting themselves at risk of contravening the publication ban. This is a necessary and welcome improvement. One even wonders how it could ever have been otherwise.
That said, our courts will face challenges. Sometimes, they will have to weigh the interests of the different parties if one victim wants a publication ban revoked or varied but other victims involved in the case disagree. The judge deciding the issue will have to consider the opinions and rights of everyone concerned by the ban. It will definitely take some imagination to word the ban in a way that satisfies and respects each person it needs to protect. This will be no small challenge, but nonetheless, it is a challenge we must meet. While it may not be perfect, I hope that Bill S‑12 will largely and adequately meet our legislative obligations.
Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
From the proposed changes, we can see that the courts will be able to exercise discretion in ordering lifetime registration in cases where an offender's risk of reoffending is high.
Is my colleague confident that the courts will be able to use this discretion wisely to make decisions that better protect victims and the general public?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for her question.
Yes, I am confident that the courts will be able to accomplish that task in an effective, fair and reasonable manner. To be honest, I have often said in the House that I believe we have a high-quality court system in Quebec and Canada that is likely the envy of many states, many countries.
The courts will be able to do that, even if it is not always an easy task. As I was saying at the end of my speech, problematic situations will arise, such as when there are multiple victims and they do not all agree on whether there should be a publication ban or not. However, I believe that our courts will be able to deal with such challenges appropriately.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-12 today, as it would address one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”, which was tabled in the House in December 2022.
When the justice committee began its study on victims of crime more than a year and a half ago, the member for Victoria brought to my attention the bizarre and unjust situation that survivors of sexual assault face in their current circumstances, which is that survivors regularly suffer from restrictions on their ability to talk about what happened to them and sometimes even suffer penalties for violating court-ordered bans on the publication of information that would identify their own names. It is important to note that these bans are routinely imposed in sexual assault cases across Canada. Anecdotally, we know it approaches 100% of the time. It is also important to note that most of the time, this happens without survivors' being aware that the publication ban is in place.
Bill S-12 would fix that by requiring notification of survivors. There are many reasons a survivor might choose to or inadvertently violate such a ban. Some feel that such publication bans inadvertently protect the perpetrators by the necessity of protecting their identity in circumstances where the publication of the perpetrator's identity would identify the victim. Others feel the idea of publication bans itself is based on an archaic and misogynist idea that sexual assault victims are somehow responsible for what happened to them and should be ashamed.
To be clear, some survivors do want their privacy protected by having publication bans in place, but others believe that public safety requires them to let family, friends and members of the public know of a risk of sexual assault they might face, by identifying the fact they were assaulted and who the perpetrator was.
At this point, I want to express my thanks to the survivors of sexual assault, and in particular those from the group My Voice, My Choice, who risked retraumatization by coming forward to committee and talking in public about their own personal experiences, in order to get the legislative change they need, in the hearings before the justice committee on victims' rights that began in October 22, more than a year ago.
Again, I want to thank the member for Victoria, who brought this situation to my attention and then introduced a private member's bill on the topic in order to try to get the House to act. In addition, I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the former minister of justice, who decided to include measures to restore agency to survivors of sexual assault by including it in Bill S-12.
The government did not choose a path, using a Senate bill, nor did it choose a timetable, at the last minute, that New Democrats might have chosen. This has left us with little time to meet the deadline for passage of Bill S-12 and therefore with little time to consider all of the important amendments suggested by My Voice, My Choice, without endangering the fate of this bill as a whole by causing a to and fro between the House and the Senate. Now, we have a bill that, had it been on a better path and a better timetable, could have been even better in meeting the needs of survivors of sexual assault. However, we still have a bill before us that, I am assured, would make the necessary fundamental changes to restore agency to survivors and to ensure that there would not be prosecutions for violating bans of those whom they were supposed to protect.
Let me turn briefly now to the other half of Bill S-12, which provided the original impetus for the bill. The Supreme Court of Canada decision requires revisions to the sex offender registry. The Supreme Court found that automatic lifetime registration for those convicted of listed offences was overly broad, and as a consequence, was capturing some who were very unlikely to reoffend. I know some argue that all must be listed, but it is important to remember that if we list people who are at very low risk to reoffend, we waste public resources that might better be used to monitor the higher-risk offenders.
Instead, Bill S-12 would meet the Supreme Court's challenge by implementing the presumption of registration of those convicted. This would mean that a very small number of those convicted of listed offences could ask a judge to use their discretion to exempt them from legislation. The estimates are that it would be probably far fewer than 10% who could ask for that exemption.
The bill would also strengthen the sex offender registry in a couple of important ways. Most importantly, to me, it would add the offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and so-called sextortion to the list of offences that would result in registration as a sex offender.
In our modern world of overuse of social media, overuse of the Internet and overexposure of everyone to everything, these offences sometimes may seem trivial. However, we must remember that with non-consensual distribution, intimate images last forever on the Internet, and I think those who perpetrate this need to understand that these offences will be taken very seriously and that they will be monitored as sex offenders on the registry to make sure they do not engage in this kind of behaviour again.
I would like to conclude with thanks to all the parties that have worked together to get this legislation here today in time to meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline. I know that some parties still have reservations and I know that some of the victims would like to have had more amendments made to the bill. However, I do believe that we have it in a form in front of us today that will help restore agency to survivors of sexual assault in the future. I think that is a very important reason for us to act promptly.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, for those who do not know, two weeks ago, I ran 10 kilometres to raise funds for the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel de Longueuil, or CALACS. It is a Longueuil-based support centre that is doing very good work helping victims of sexual assault. Its members want to run a campaign in high schools in the spring to prepare young students for their prom, and they want to talk about the concept of consent. They really are doing extraordinary work. I wanted to mention it because we are sort of talking about that.
I was looking at some statistics, which were actually provided to me by the CALACS people, and I can say that the work is far from done. The bill before us is important, but there is still a lot of work to be done. Only 5% of victims of sexual violence file a complaint in Quebec. What is more, when they do, only three out of every 1,000 complaints result in charges being laid. That falls very short. Clearly, the justice system still scares victims.
Does my colleague have any suggestions about other measures that could be implemented to ensure that the system no longer scares victims of sexual offences in this country?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the efforts he has put in within his community to help address the scourge of sexual assault in all communities across the country. I also thank all of the community-based organizations that provide support to survivors of sexual assault in particular but also to victims of crime.
One of the things we concluded unanimously in the justice committee's report on providing better support for victims of crime is that the federal government has to do more to support community-based activities. Coming back to Bill S-12, I think one of the important aspects of allowing sexual assault victims to speak freely about their cases if they choose to do so is that it will help remove the stigma associated with sexual assault. This in itself will help improve reporting rates.
[Translation]
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Madam Speaker, we request that it be passed on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Canadian Aviation Regulations
That:
(a) the House recognize that an assessment by the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk, by
(i) failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport fire fighters,
(ii) requiring only that fire fighters must reach the mid-point of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period; and
(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should, without delay, ensure that the Canadian Aviation Regulations reflect airport rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, specifically by
(i) giving fire fighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less,
(ii) specifying that a required function of fire fighters be the rescue of passengers.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 96 is to close what many, especially who know the fire and rescue profession, see as significant and dangerous gaps in the ability to respond effectively to aircraft accidents at major Canadian airports.
Motion No. 96 calls for the Government of Canada to close these gaps by amending the Canadian aviation regulations to bring them in line with standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a United Nations agency headquartered in Montreal.
Specifically, closing the safety gap involves three measures: including rescue as well as firefighting in the mandate for firefighters at Canada's major airports; mandating a response time of no more than three minutes for fire rescue equipment to reach any point on an operational runway; and specifying the number of personnel required to meet fire rescue standards.
People have been raising attention to the lack of a rescue mandate for at least 25 years. The April 1 edition of Fire Engineering reported a Department of National Defence document quoting an item in the Canadian Press, suggesting “firefighting standards at civilian airports in Canada aren't up to snuff and may even put lives at risk”. The report draws attention to life-threatening dangers faced by occupants of aircraft who are not able to walk away from a wreck because Transport Canada only requires airport firefighting crews to assist in rescue outside the craft. The DND reported that the primary responsibility for rescue from inside the craft is left to the airline's flight crews and local fire departments. I will say more on that a bit later.
In its 30th Canadian legislative conference, held in Ottawa at the end of March, the International Association of Fire Fighters raised the issue again. This time, we in Parliament have an opportunity to respond and close the gaps.
Transport Canada's standard 323 in its Canadian aviation regulations states, “an aircraft fire-fighting service is a contingent resource tasked with the primary responsibility of providing a fire free egress route for the evacuation of passengers and crew”.
Section 323.03, on general requirements, adds:
This standard is not intended to limit the fire-fighting service from providing services in addition to that of aircraft fire-fighting at the airport or aerodrome, nor to prevent it from dealing with other occurrences.
Some I have spoken to reflected that firefighters can be assigned other duties while on shift, such as cutting the grass, that could well increase the turnout time for a call. Regardless, the reality at most of Canada's major airports is that fire crews do not have the personnel or, perhaps, even the training or equipment to step beyond this basic mandate, which is now limited to fighting the fire, trying to keep an escape route open and hoping that whoever is inside the aircraft can make it out.
Transport Canada's outline of the requirements to comply with the current Canadian aviation regulations focuses on fire extinguishing agents and the testing of the equipment needed to ensure the correct discharge rate and the reach the foam can get to when out fighting a fire. The section on training of personnel focuses almost exclusively on responding to an aircraft fire, with one reference to emergency aircraft evacuation assistance. If this measure refers to anything more than keeping open an escape route through the flames, the reality of staffing makes it only aspirational at some, if not most, Canadian airports. In discussions with the firefighters association, I was told that the staffing requirements on a rig dispatched to extinguish a fire is two firefighters: One drives and assists the second firefighter to discharge the foam.
If firefighters are charged with the additional mandate to rescue aircraft occupants from inside the craft, I am told that they would almost certainly need to rely on the two-in, two-out rule: If personnel are sent into any burning structure, there must be at least two firefighters outside to be there if it becomes necessary to rescue their colleagues inside.
We cannot ask firefighters to risk their lives, as they most certainly do when they go in to rescue people, without the support and backup needed if things go terribly wrong. A two-person response team today would then become maybe four, six or more. Bolstered fire hall complements, plus any necessary equipment and rescue training, would all be necessary to bring the Canadian aviation regulations up to ICAO standards.
A number of us in this place are exposed to the broadest range of risks when we fly to and from our ridings to be here for our parliamentary duties and to go back home and help our constituents, and I am one of them.
An assessment of the fire and rescue capabilities in Canada puts Vancouver International Airport at, or near, the top. That is where I usually originate my trips to come to Ottawa. In 2022, YVR recorded 230,162 runway movements and passenger counts of over 19 million. This is a lot, though it is still far short of the prepandemic total of 25.9 million passengers, but it is quite likely that volume will be reached and exceeded relatively soon. I would estimate, judging from the passengers I see at YVR, that this year will probably see the old level reached quite handily. I am told that the Vancouver Airport Authority has voluntarily adopted standards that meet or are very close to the ICAO standards.
At the other end of the journey for most MPs from metro Vancouver, we have the Ottawa International Airport. It is cited by the IAFF as one of the most challenged in meeting ICAO standards. In preparation for today, I reviewed the “YOW 2038 Master Plan”. I looked through it, and currently, there does not appear to be any provision in that plan to close any kind of a fire rescue gap.
I am told Pearson airport in Toronto is close to meeting the higher standards, and most Canadian airports, at least the 25 to 30 larger airports with more than 180,000 enplaned or deplaned passengers per year that are subject to the Canadian aviation regulations, face greater challenges than Vancouver or Toronto.
The second gap is the response time to an incident. The ICAO standard is three minutes for a fire rescue response to any point on an operational runway. I am told the Canadian standard is three minutes to the midpoint of any operational runway.
Let us have another look at the Ottawa airport. The fire hall is located very close to the end of its longest runway, which runs north-south and is 3,049 metres long. Current regulations require firefighters to reach the midpoint in three minutes, and I am told that they can do that in just under three minutes. However, it would be a challenge for them, if we are looking at a worst-case scenario of four minutes or five minutes for a crew to receive an alarm, turn out and reach an incident at the farthest end of that longest runway. I have not been able to find any records on YOW's actual performance in exercises or incident responses, but a resource here with us this evening has said that they can do the three minutes. Beyond that, it is pretty dodgy.
By the way, when we talk about meeting the standards, we should not for an instant doubt the dedication and professionalism of the firefighters. The focus here is on enabling them to meet high standards efficiently and, above all, safely.
Ottawa's airport is one of those ones that relies on the aircrew on board a burning aircraft to get the people to the door and outside, where the current regulation says that the fire department has to keep a pathway clear so that the people can get away from the aircraft. If it is to be fire rescue, they have to rely on the Ottawa civic firefighting service. The fire hall on McCarthy Road is nine driving minutes from the airport, and the hall on Leitrim Road is 11 minutes away. That is driving time. That does not count the turn-out time or getting the person out of the back or wherever they happen to be when the alarm comes in.
To the extent that Canadian airports have been designed like YOW, it could very well be that meeting ICAO's response time would require the relocation of fire halls. As I mentioned, the fire hall at YOW is at just about the end of the longest runway. That leads to the issue of costs, of course. In a 2003 regulatory impact analysis statement, the definition of “rescue” was specifically drafted, “to ensure that the status quo will be unchanged with the types of activities included as aircraft rescue and fire-fighting services” without imposing any additional obligations or costs.
Let us think about that for a moment. In these times, when passengers pay a surcharge of, let us say, $12 a ticket for security costs and $35 or more, in fact, in airport improvement fees, the IAFF suggests that an additional surcharge of 50¢, a dollar or, in the case of a smaller airport, maybe two, three, four or five dollars might be necessary to fund the lifting of services up to the ICAO standards. Canadians love to travel, especially by air. I certainly see a lot of evidence of that here in Ottawa or in Toronto, which I go through. I occasionally see it in Montreal and certainly at YVR. Those airports are jammed. I am seldom on an aircraft that has any empty seats. In spite of the narrative that says the country is broke and nobody can do anything, there sure seems to be a lot of money around for air travel these days. Therefore, we have to wonder whether maybe a few bucks per ticket to bolster the ability of aircraft passengers and crew to survive an accident at Canada's key airports is really too much to ask. Of course, the proposition here is no.
In preparing for this debate on Motion No. 96, I have been inspired by the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, whose private member's bill, Bill C-224, which we passed unanimously, has paved the way for a national framework to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to improve access to cancer prevention and treatment. When it appeared I had this opportunity, she was the first to promote resolving the regulation gaps as an important, worthy and complementary initiative, one that could support our firefighters even further by delivering critical safety improvements for air crews, air passengers and, yes, firefighters too. I would like to thank the Library of Parliament and our legislative assistant Riley Sutton for their assistance in researching this issue. I would also like to thank, of course, the International Association of Firefighters and firefighters from the Ottawa airport, who are helping to keep this issue alive.
I am now looking forward to hearing the perspective of our colleagues, because when Motion No. 96 came out, we received notes from members of the other party asking what it was all about. We provided the information we had, and I know they have been doing their own research and will be in a position to maybe expand on some of the points I have been able to raise this evening. Therefore, I will be very pleased to cede the floor to questions if there are any and certainly to my colleagues to expand on the need for Motion No. 96.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member proposing the motion and the change is this: Does he think this maybe should have gone through a more regular process, perhaps have been brought to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for a discussion so the various affected parties could weigh in on it?
Mr. Speaker, definitely I think so. I think this is a first step. This is a catalyst that could get that kind of discussion taken up at the transport committee, which would have an opportunity to dig into the details. This is what we need to accomplish, in my view. The “how” part is definitely necessarily a focus of conversation among the members of the House who are charged with delving deeper into the issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I love my work, because every day I learn something new on a variety of topics. I think that as MPs, we have an extraordinary opportunity here. The motion we are studying is a fine example of that. It is quite simple: We want to allow firefighters to have access to every possible runway in less than three minutes. Everyone likes firefighters and everyone appreciates them.
Obviously we support this motion. My only problem is that I have to wonder why we are once again asking the person buying the plane ticket to pay for this. Why can we not manage this in some other way than through this motion?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to pay for that gentleman. I think it is important. I like him, and I want him to get here safe and sound. However, the fact is that this is another part of the how.
We have a really good fix on what needs to happen. To the earlier question from my colleague across the way, there will be opportunities to really delve into this. “Who should pay?” is always going to be a question and “How much?” too, because that will change depending on the size of the airport and the number of passengers going through. However, if we all agree that it should happen, then how it happens becomes a step that will not be that hard to take.
Mr. Speaker, why go through a motion when this is really a regulatory process that the member could see the minister about? That would be the quickest way to get an effect, especially when they have their own caucus.
Mr. Speaker, if it was that simple, it would have been done 25 years ago, but it was not. It has been lingering for a very long time.
We are all experienced in the ways of committees and certainly in the ways of Parliament. However, Parliament only has so much bandwidth, as do committees, and sometimes we need to take the initiative to bring something to the foreground that we believe has been neglected for too long. This is one of them. This is one mechanism, and hopefully a very good one, to bring this to the attention of the government and then kick-start the kinds of changes that are needed.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion and, more importantly, for educating Canadian travellers, who are probably not aware of the fact that right now, certain airports do not have the capabilities they would expect when travelling. That is part of this motion and why it is so important.
The motion is not only to educate members of this House representing Canadians across this great land, but also to fix a problem. We have identified a gap, and I think that any Canadian travelling would be willing to put in that little extra dollar or two knowing that in the event of a fire on an airplane or airport runway, it is a question of not only putting out the fire but going in and rescuing.
Could the member elaborate a little on the importance of educating Canadians about this issue?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her encouragement to take up this issue.
Education is a very important thing, but without needlessly scaring people. This is a scary proposition. The fact is that Canadian airports are by and large extremely safe. Those of us who fly have made many trips back and forth without incident, and we will all touch wood so that will continue.
This is an opportunity to draw out an old saying: Being a firefighter is the best job in the world until there is a fire; then it is one the worst jobs in the world. I think Canadians will appreciate this and certainly understand what we are talking about and what we are asking our fire services to do to meet standards. As one of my colleagues said, people expect this to happen, and if it is not happening, we have to move it in that direction.
I want to thank the member for his presentation as a volunteer firefighter. I appreciate his comments today.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and engage in critical discussions about the policies that effect the lives of everyday Canadians. Today, we are being presented with a motion that calls for the adoption of International Civil Aviation Organization standards in Canada's airports for rescue and firefighting regulations. This could potentially increase fees imposed on passengers and shippers to cover the costs.
Safety is paramount and is certainly something that unites all of us. Conservatives believe that this is an issue that deserve more study. We will be calling on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, upon which I happen to sit, to take this issue up. We must carefully consider and evaluate the consequences of implementing these proposed changes.
The mover of the motion just spoke about the fact that Canadian airports are exceptionally safe. That is something we are all proud of. What is the signal we are sending in debating this motion today? Are we giving the impression that it is lacking?
Canada is not out of step with the rest of the world on this. Many countries, including our neighbours to the south, make necessary adjustments to ICAO standards to best suit their own unique circumstances. It is a standard practice that recognizes the need for flexibility, while maintaining high safety standards.
Why are we signalling there are perhaps deficiencies in our safety regulations? Canadian aviation regulations are designed to be robust and thorough. They are tailored to the specific needs of communities and circumstances. In fact, in some areas, such as aircraft rescue and firefighting training, we even surpass ICAO standards by threefold, demonstrating our commitment to safety and preparedness.
It is important to acknowledge that airport emergencies are well managed across Canada through close collaboration with community resource partners. Municipal police, ambulance services and firefighting resources play pivotal roles in emergency response. Airports cannot be expected to staff for every conceivable emergency scenario, so they rely on these mutual aid partners to ensure a comprehensive response. It is worth noting that all of our airports are already working closely with their local fire departments, actively planning and conducting exercises to ensure a swift and effective emergency response.
We can talk about Hamilton International Airport, which I am proud to say is located in my constituency of Flamborough—Glanbrook. It is the fastest-growing cargo airport in the country, plus it serves over a million passengers a year. It is owned by the City of Hamilton, so naturally, there is a strong partnership with the Hamilton Fire Department.
This partnership is already in place and exemplifies the importance of a well-coordinated approach to aviation safety. We have heard this from other airports across the country. They recognize the significance of a collaborative approach, which is why they have expressed concerns that the proposed regulation and added costs are unnecessary. That is why we need to study this further.
It is essential to consider that these additional expenses would inevitably be passed onto travellers and shippers, and would further raise the costs associated with air travel in Canada, which is already expensive on a global scale. In a country where air travel and cargo is already subject to significant fees and taxes, these costs are going to be one more thing added onto the backs of Canadians at a time when we are already dealing with 40-year-high inflation.
It is crucial to remember that increasing costs for passengers and shippers does not necessarily translate into increased safety. We must be mindful of the impact on Canadians' wallets.
Additionally, the regulatory changes proposed in this motion are designed to provide a one-size-fits-all, Ottawa-knows-best approach. However, our vast and diverse Canadian landscape necessitates a more flexible approach to regulation. What works for one airport, may not be suitable for another. Flexibility in our regulations is essential to accommodate these variations.
We must recognize the merits of our existing Canadian aviation regulations and the partnerships we have built with community resources to ensure the safety and well-being of airline passengers. Thorough studies have been conducted, and sound research has supported it, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our current approach.
The proposed changes, while they may sound appealing on the surface, risk imposing unnecessary costs and red tape. There is just no clear evidence to suggest that this would result in a safer air travel environment. That is why we are proposing additional study on this.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a few seconds to thank the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for bringing this motion forward. The member chairs the Special Committee on the Canada‑People's Republic of China Relationship. I know that he is deeply interested in issues that transcend party lines, that promote the common good, the public good. He is a man of—
I must interrupt the hon. member because I think the interpretation is not working.
It is working again. The hon. member for Mirabel.
Mr. Speaker, I have turned everything off around me. For once, I am the one who is disconnected. That is a first.
I wanted to thank my colleague for moving this motion because airport safety is so important. What we read in the motion is rather shocking. It first talks about how there are significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at our airports. That is a matter of passenger and employee safety, but it is also a matter of the country's international reputation, since Canada is known for being a safe place to fly.
Here is what the motion calls for. It says that we need to change the safety standards in Canadian airports so that airport firefighters can reach any part of the runway in less than three minutes. Those are international standards, and Canada is lagging behind in terms of International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, standards. Right now, Canada requires firefighters to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes, rather than all points on the runway. The three-minute time frame is very important. We know that some runways are very long, particularly those at the Mirabel airport in my riding. That time frame can extend to four, five, six or even seven minutes.
We are talking about airport safety, and it can seem as though fires in and around airports never happen. Let me remind members that a tragedy took someone's life at the Mirabel airport on October 18, 2022. A vehicle caught fire at the airport. Aéroports de Montréal, the supposedly independent Crown corporation that manages the facility, decided not to send firefighters and instead waited for municipal firefighters to arrive.
A second call was made to notify the firefighters that there was a fire, and Aéroports de Montréal again decided not to send their firefighters. They have to come from far away. When Mirabel's municipal firefighters arrived, the individual had died inside his car. Municipal firefighters are not trained for that. These things happen. People often do not know that airport firefighters exist. However, when they are needed, it is a matter of life and death. They have to act quickly.
I would like to take advantage of today's debate to salute the 31 valiant firefighters who work at the two airports, located in Mirabel and Dorval. Nine are in Mirabel, and the other 22 are in Dorval. Just think, there are nine firefighters for one airport. These people risk their lives, and all they ask is to do their job; all they ask is to save lives. I salute these people, who put the safety of passengers and airport staff first.
I am thinking in particular of Philippe Gagnon, president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal, and of Alexandre Bertrand, vice-president of the Syndicat des pompiers d'Aéroports de Montréal. I am also thinking of Yvon Barrière and Jonathan Choquette from PSAC‑Quebec. For his bravery, I salute hero Francis Labrie, a firefighter who was suspended because he took the fire truck, went to the scene and tried to save a life. This is no laughing matter.
Aéroports de Montréal tells us that municipal firefighters are to intervene inside an aircraft. Canadian airport firefighters can hose down a plane from the outside, but they are not allowed to go inside the plane. This is against the rules of the ICAO, which is headquartered in Montreal a few kilometres from our airports. To be able to intervene in an aircraft, they need to have completed 333 hours of training. Municipal firefighters do not have this training, and they cannot get there in time. They lack the necessary resources.
In his motion, my colleague says quite rightly that firefighters need to be able to reach the mid-point of the runway in three minutes. However, under municipal standards, firefighters arrive in 25 minutes.
People inside a burning aircraft die after three minutes from the smoke. It is extremely serious. Airport firefighters who follow international rules are needed because there are inherent risks to aircraft fires.
For example, aircraft fires release toxic gases that are specific to airports. There are chemical, physical and thermal dangers, the combustion of composite materials, the oxygen and halon tanks, the sulphur, the exhaust from the running engines, engine fires, the hydraulic systems, and radioactivity.
I do not want to hear that Montreal firefighters are trained for these specific types of risks. Think of the hot brakes, tire fires, flammable synthetic oil, door openings, deployment of emergency slides that are specific to planes, batteries that produce hydrogen gas and lead to a risk of fire and explosion, radar systems, the inflatable cushions, and so on.
We need to have trained firefighters who arrive on time. In France, Great Britain and most industrialized countries, the international standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization, or the ICAO, apply. In Montreal, where the ICAO headquarters are located, these standards are not used, which is rather ridiculous. It is shameful. Our colleague is giving us an opportunity to take note of these shortcomings today.
For example, the Canadian aviation regulations, called CARs, require only three trucks. Unlike the rules at most airports around the world, personnel is not specified, and Aéroports de Montréal takes advantage of this omission to excuse its understaffing.
For six years now, firefighters at Mirabel airport have not received any medical training. The Canadian aviation regulations say that medical training must be up to date. However, since Mirabel no longer has the required number of passengers and is supposedly a cargo-only airport, they say medical training is not required. All they are trying to do is save money at the expense of human lives, when we know that chartered planes, flight schools and general aviation operate out of Mirabel. The situation is extremely serious.
One of the main problems we are having in my riding has to do with the airport administration structure. It is a non-profit organization that essentially leases the land the airport is on for a very long time. These folks are being asked to make money, to make their activities profitable, to open shops and to break even.
At one point, Aéroports de Montréal got a new president. The first thing he did was cut the number of firefighters, the number of trucks available to respond and firefighter training. I guess this means that if there is ever a fire with radioactive elements, the airport firefighters will respond with three trucks and three firefighters. There are even cases where there are so few firefighters that the support truck carrying the equipment cannot even get to the plane. Firefighters are then told to hose down the outside the plane, to get there in three, four, five or six minutes, but to wait for municipal firefighters before boarding the plane. Now we are relying on the municipalities.
I commend the initiative of my colleague who moved this motion. He took action instead of waiting for dozens of deaths in a crash landing or fire. He is looking ahead. The people, the passengers and the staff come first for him.
There is an urgent need to act and amend the outdated Canadian aviation regulations. There is an urgent need for greater transparency in the management of our airport facilities. These facilities belong to the taxpayers, to Quebeckers, Canadians, the people of Mirabel.
At some point, these people need to be held accountable for their actions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on motion M-96. It is a motion that the House recognize that an assessment of the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls.
Basically, the shortfalls are failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport firefighters and requiring only that firefighters must reach the midpoint of the furthest runway in three minutes, rather than all points of operational runways within that time period. Another part of the motion seeks to give firefighters at major Canadian airports the mandate and resources that are necessary and specify that the required function of firefighters must be rescuing passengers.
I do not want to go through the whole motion here. I want to talk a bit about process and how it relates to our airports and the holes we have in the services there. I know that the Speaker is flying tomorrow, and we do have a very good record in aviation, but we still have some improvements that need to be made. Sadly, this problem has been around this place longer than I have. I find interesting that it is a regulatory change that any minister can do at any point in time, so there really is not the requirement for this to go through as a motion.
A motion is not binding. It would not mean that the government has to follow the motion that is passed. That is one of the reasons we might want to look at regulation through the minister as a quicker more direct process, or we could have legislation that would bind the government once it passes this chamber and the Senate.
I think the motion is good for public awareness. I commend the member for bringing this forward, but the government, if it wanted to, could act on this really quickly. There is not really much of an obstacle, because it has the support of the rest of this chamber here. It is good that the member brought this through to discuss it, because maybe his government and the minister will listen to what is taking place here today and act on it even before the motion takes place. Perhaps, in the best scenario, the minister would actually act on the regulations and let the member have a victory lap.
That would be awesome, because the intent of the motion, in terms of fire safety at airports, is critically important, and he needs to be clear that there is support in the chamber for that.
I do want to also acknowledge that our critic on this, who has done a lot of work, is the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is our transport critic, but he is also a former mayor. We look at airports in municipalities. I was on the City of Windsor city council when things were offloaded to municipalities. Local taxpayers had to pick up, basically, from deregulation, which we have seen Conservatives and Liberals do on a number of different things, including airline safety. They tried to get a safety management system employed there. We were able to stop that.
We face a number of things that have been deregulated. This was downloading onto the municipalities, so municipalities like Windsor and others have had to pick up the slack for fire safety.
There are some really good things here in this motion, as discussed. A good one one is regarding persons with disabilities. In the case of accidents, there is very little direction about how we would help get passengers, especially those who are disabled, off planes.
The government was very lackluster when it came to Nav Canada, which was responsible for airport towers. It was looking at closing several across this country and studying them, and they included the Windsor one in that, despite the fact that we have five air zones in the Windsor district area.
We are on the border, so our air zones are not just domestic, but they are international, and they overlap. I was fortunate to be invited by Mr. Chris Kenney, the central regional vice-president who requested a meeting with CATCA with regard to touring my airport tower just recently. I want to thank everybody who was there for the education they also gave me, which confirmed that saving our airport tower was important.
When Nav Canada was looking at this, they basically wanted to close it down so they would not have people in the airport tower. If members can imagine it, we not only have domestic flights, but we also have other services like coast guard and the U.S. air services and so forth that overlap in our region. That would have been detrimental. Losing that, especially as we are growing the airline industry, would have been wrong.
The first response from the government on this, by our local Liberal MP, was that it could not do anything about. It was Nav Canada, so it could study this. All heck broke loose.
I started working with a number of different people, because it came to me. I want to thank the flight instructors at that time: Dante Albano, Ryan Lee, Patrick Li and Craig Borowski. They are international airport pilots and are involved in the issue with the Windsor Flying Club. I also thank Karan D'Souza, Mayor Dilkens and Rakesh Naidu from the Windsor chamber of commerce.
We pushed back at the fact that Nav Canada was doing this, and it became a significant incident. We went from the government saying originally that it could not do anything about it to it saying the minister does not have the legal authority for it to get done. What I did was drafted legislation for the minister and tabled it here in this chamber so he could act. The heavens opened up and the light was on this issue after the government said it could not act. We prepared and tabled the way the minister could do it. Thank goodness that at that time, soon after we tabled the legislation for the minister, the issue was resolved. Nav Canada backed off, and we saved the airport tower.
It was a good story to tell in the sense of activism, but it also showed the vulnerabilities of municipalities in the deregulation that can take place. I mentioned the safety management systems with regard to the airport issue, because in the past, it has been the NDP that stopped the safety management systems from being in the airline industry. That is a system members might have heard about in the rail systems. The rail systems have safety management systems in place.
People are wondering what the heck a safety management system is. Basically, at the end of the day, an employee is supposed to report any of the problems they have on a daily basis about safety to their employer. Imagine that. The employee has to be a whistle-blower in their job to prevent some things from taking place. We saw Lac-Mégantic and other types of rail problems.
A rail study done independently talked about CP and CN having a culture of fear and intimidation over their workers. We were expecting, and we still expect, the workers to report those problems to the people who employ them and control their futures as employees. That system has failed quite significantly, and it does not empower workers. We have seen other whistle-blower problems in this chamber, even more recently in some of the departments.
I point back to this because it is why we have to make sure the government never brings in that system for the airline industry. That has been attempted in the past, but we used what was called a “hoist motion” to end debate at the time, creating a stalling tactic. Another election took place in between, and no government has come back since that point in time to bring in that legislation.
To come back to this motion again, I think there has been a lot of work going on. In fact, our critic, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, rightly pointed to Senate and other types of studies in the past about this issue, going back to the 1990s. That is important. He has done his due diligence, and we do think there is a lot of value in this.
I always encourage there to be discussions among government members that could get the minister to move right away, especially if we can get this in the chamber and have some consensus. With unanimous consent, we could get that regulatory process going.
In all sincerity, I want to again thank the member for bringing this up, because it is an important issue. We will support it, but we do not want to see that be a reason not to do it now with the regulatory changes that could be done. It should also come with resources for municipalities. Local taxpayers should not be paying for federal responsibilities. One would think that fire and other safety issues would be under a federally regulated industry that is required to have different types of security and support systems.
We will see where this goes. The time in this place is always shorter than we think. That is why I am hoping this regulatory process will come into effect sooner rather than later.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion we have before us. I want to address a couple of the points.
I always find it interesting that, when we get into debates on motions or private members' bills, sometimes individuals will read into them things that are not necessarily there from the sponsor's perspective. I have seen that before. When I look at this particular motion, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells has done a wonderful job in identifying an issue that is very important to many people.
Most people would be quite surprised. Some might say that the centre of a runway or the total length of a runway is a bit of a nuance. I was in air traffic control before, posted in Edmonton. It has the longest runway in the Commonwealth. A space shuttle could land on it. I can recall the fire hall's having drills, and I can say that it takes quite a while to get down a 14,000-foot runway. I can understand and appreciate that every second counts.
We need to recognize that when members bring forward motions, not very many of them will pass in the life of a session. The member has been inspired to bring this issue forward, and I suspect it might have had something to do with discussions we had about recognizing cancer agents for firefighters. The government was made aware of this in a very real and tangible way by another member of the chamber, the former deputy House leader. By their raising the issue, the public and the House of Commons became more familiar with it and ultimately passed legislation. Today, firefighters from coast to coast to coast have benefited from that.
The motion my colleague from British Columbia has brought forward deals with the issue of safety. When we canvass about different professions and ask which ones Canadians really respond positively to, I suggest that firefighters are close to the top of the list. I will not say where politicians are. When I think of the firefighters in the community I represent, Winnipeg North, I have an incredible amount of confidence in people like Alex Forrest and the associations that not only advocate for the safety of their membership but also ensure that Canadians are safe, whether they are in their homes or in international or domestic airports.
To be honest, I had no idea that firefighters at airports are not allowed to go into a plane. That surprises me. I think it would surprise a lot of people. The other point that is raised in the motion is that the location of fire halls is also important. If there is a three-minute standard and the location of a fire hall could make the difference, then why would we not give some sort of consideration to that?
Across the way, some would ask why the member brought this forward in the form of a motion as opposed to talking to the department. After all, it is a so-called regulation, and the regulation should be changed, as one member across the aisle pointed out. However, the member also indicated that this has been an issue for many years, for decades.
Let us not try to make it a political partisan issue. Let us believe that the member has taken an initiative during private members' hour and that he feels that, at the very least, he now has a mandate to be able to bring it to a standing committee. Not only are we having a debate here, but if it passes the chamber, it can also get the standing committee engaged.
I think there was one member who spoke, talking about whether the matter should be brought to a standing committee. I love the answer that was provided. We are setting this as the goal, saying that people need to be aware of this. This motion makes us all aware of a very important issue.
In terms of how it is actually implemented, the standing committee could assist in that. Members who want to pick up the ball from where the member has brought it to now, to date, could ultimately bring it to a standing committee. The committee could work out the different ways in which it can actually be implemented.
If at some point in time, unlike in the last 40 or 50 years, it is determined that this could be done, I think there would be a greater likelihood today that we would actually see the change as a direct result of the initiative from the private member. This is if a standing committee has also taken a look, and, through the standing committee, there have been invites to professionals, whether firefighters or municipalities, to come forward to make presentations.
I do not think we should be discouraging private members from identifying issues that are important to them. We should be encouraging it. Through that, we get the type of changes into the future that can really make a difference. I respect that about the member's motion.
As I said, as a member of the Canadian Forces, I sat out in a tower. It is no longer there, as this was a few years back. I do not want to date myself, but I can say that one builds up a bit of a relationship and sees the practice that is taken, and justifiably so.
Our firefighters take their jobs seriously. They are very quick to respond. There is a standard that we are talking about, in terms of three minutes, and maybe it is time that we try to raise the profile of this issue to a degree where we can see some specific action.
That may mean, at the end of the day, that the municipalities and Ottawa need to work together and maybe even bring in the provinces. Our airports are economic engines. They provide so much to our communities, and they need to be safe.
That is why, ultimately, when I would see the fire trucks going out onto runway 29-11, back at Lancaster Park, I saw first-hand the types of responses.
I must say that they actually did, at least in the military, even more than that, by going out. There are other types of benefits. They are not just direct but also indirect.
I hope that members will, in fact, support my colleague's motion with the idea that the issue has now hit a point in time where we will at least have some sort of discussion on how it can actually be done. Then we can work on ways in which we can improve the issue of safety at our airports.
I thank the member for bringing the resolution forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising on Motion No. 96.
As many people know, I spent 30 and a half years as a firefighter. I am actually trained as an aircraft rescue firefighter. I spent a week up at Base Borden trudging through AFFF, which I am now finding out is a cancerous material.
Where I worked in Markham, we had Buttonville Airport. There was no active firefighting capabilities on site, and all of it was done through the municipality in Markham. I remember responding to several incidents of aircraft crashes, such as landing gear coming up and the aircraft not being able to land, and aircraft landing on top of buildings, so it was interesting.
I enjoyed being an aircraft rescue firefighter, to be frank, because of the training involved, such as understanding the different aircraft and some of the emergencies that could occur, including making sure that a means of regress was the number one priority and protecting the exits of those aircraft that were in trouble. I dealt with multi-engine aircraft, but I never dealt with large aircraft that we would see, for example, at Pearson or Vancouver international airports.
I want to thank the member for bringing Motion No. 96 forward. I think that it is well intentioned. I believe that none of us in this place want to limit or diminish the value of safety, either for the passengers, pilots and crew of an aircraft, or for those firefighters who are intended to respond. However, I am not sure that Motion No. 96 is the way to go about it, quite frankly.
There are a lot of stakeholders who need to be involved in this process, not the least of which is the International Association of Fire Fighters, whom I spoke with this afternoon, along with airports and the Airports Council. There are other stakeholders that need to be included in the process, including, for example, the pilots associations, such as ACPA, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and regional airport authorities. They all need to be involved in this process of understanding the full impact of what the motion proposes. In my opinion, this motion would be better off going through the process of the committee, and I heard the member for Winnipeg North talk about that. That way, we could get all of the stakeholders together.
How would this affect municipal agreements? There are many across this country in which local and regional airports have an agreement with a municipality. What are the impacts on cost? What are the impacts on personnel? These are the types of discussions that we should be having on this.
The motion does identify a problem, and I can tell members that in my time of being here, every time I have met with the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Barrie firefighters, they come advocating for improved responses at airports. There is no question that this is an issue. In fact, the regulations have not been addressed since the 1990s, so it is time that we have this discussion. Furthermore, the government has within its power the ability to initiate the type of regulations that are required to increase safety at airports. The minister, in fact, could do it with one swoop of the pen if he wanted to.
I believe that I will have more time to speak about the logistics of this at the next intervention, but as I stated, and I will make the point again, all of the stakeholders need to be involved in this process, and that would include the firefighters, the Airports Council, regional airport authorities, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and a whole list of others. The only way that can be done is through the process that is in place, and that is through the transportation committee.
Let us make sure that we get it there, have a fulsome discussion and look at the implications. I do not want to take away from the good nature of what the member is proposing here, because I believe it has been done in good faith, but this needs to be studied in its entirety to understand what the full impact is going to be on airports, on municipalities, certainly on our country and on safety as well.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise tonight on adjournment business and talk about a question I put to the government last June. I asked the government about interest rates, and I pointed out the devastating effect that interest rates are having on Canadian homebuyers and homeowners.
I asked when the Prime Minister would take the advice of other Liberals, including former finance minister, John Manley. John Manley asked the Liberals to take their foot off the inflationary gas pedal and stop pouring gas on the inflationary fire, so there would be less pressure on interest rates so we could avoid a crisis among mortgage holders and mortgage payers, and also get some relief to homebuyers amid this affordability crisis.
The response I got was really quite disappointing. The parliamentary secretary at the time did not even make any attempt to answer the question. I am not even sure if he heard the question, because his response was totally unrelated to any of the elements that my question contained. He talked about small business loans.
He actually said something that is false. He should probably be brought to the House and made to withdraw his statement. He falsely claimed that opposition parties voted specifically against the CEBA support program for small businesses during COVID. That is an untrue statement. That is a fact. He should apologize and withdraw the remarks; they were unparliamentary and false.
Be that as it may, it gives me an opportunity tonight to get a little deeper on this issue. The truth is homeowners across Canada are concerned about whether they are going to be able to stay in the house that they already own. Mortgage payments are more than doubling for most mortgage customers when their mortgages renew.
We have people who bought homes in 2018 with five-year fixed mortgages that are maturing this year, and they are beside themselves because they do not know how they are going to make the payments. People are seeing their mortgage payments go from $2,500 to $6,000 a month. They cannot do that; they do not have the income to do that. In some cases, people are going to lose their homes. Depending on what city they are in, depending on what their local market is doing, they may not even be able to sell their home. We saw transactions that could not close.
At the time I asked the question, I had been speaking to some people in the industry. I have over 20 years in the mortgage brokerage business before I was a member of Parliament. I was talking to some of my colleagues and some of the industry people in Calgary. We have people who could not close on new construction deals because of the enormous shift in interest rates that occurred.
The government is absolutely oblivious to this and the role it has played in pouring inflationary gas onto the fire. It has a responsibility to do something, to rein in inflation. It talks about the support payments during a small period of its time in office, but most of the deficits that it has piled on were before and after COVID, or had nothing to do with COVID support payments. We have half a trillion plus in new debt, more than every government in history combined. This has an effect on interest rates and inflation.
When are the Liberals going to rein it in and do something to help quell the inflationary fire?
Mr. Speaker, I think at times Conservatives are challenged when it comes time to look at the reality of what is taking place not only in our communities, but around the world.
First and foremost, it is important for us to recognize that Canadians are, in fact, hurting. We are very much concerned about inflation rates, interest rates and the whole issue of affordability. We do not need to be lectured by Conservatives who have the mentality that the way to resolve things is to just cut, aimed recklessly at where it is they would like to take the country and at a huge risk. That is the Conservative way.
We have been consistent. Let us compare Canada to any other country. Let us look at the U.S. or the G20 countries, from Germany to France to England, and what they have for interest rates and what is happening with inflation. In comparison, Canada is doing relatively well. That gets completely lost on Conservatives, because they have a specific agenda of trying to say that everything in the country is broken. They are like the Prince of Darkness. They have nothing to say that is positive about the economy, the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been created and the supports that have been put into place. That does not mean that we do not have to provide additional support. We have legislation before us, which Conservatives continue to filibuster, that is going to put money into the pockets of Canadians and ensure we see thousands more homes being built.
I have news for the member opposite and the Conservative Party. No government in the last 50 or 60 years has invested more into housing. Stephen Harper was an absolute failure when it came to investing in housing. One of the reasons we have a shortage today is because of the former government's inability to have affordable housing. It was this government that came up with the housing strategy that ultimately led to millions of dollars of investment into the repair of affordable housing, and thousands of affordable homes. It is this government that has supported things such as infill housing through non-profit agencies and working with provincial entities to ensure that we can improve Canada's housing stock.
Compare that to Stephen Harper. Yes, we have seen substantial growth, and growth throughout the pandemic, which had created very difficult times for a lot of people. Let us put it in the proper perspective, in a context that is fair, which is something Conservatives are not. I think $300 million was spent on 99 homes built. The reality is Conservatives were missing in action when it came to the issue of affordability in housing. There is no doubt they did not believe there was a federal role, that the national government should play a strong leadership role. That is the absolute opposite of us.
When it comes time to deal with things such as interest rates and the issue of inflation, the member's leader said that he would fire the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Now he is glorifying him and putting him on a pedestal when a number of months ago he said he would fire him. Those are the flip-flop policies we cannot count on.
It is risky to go with Conservatives. I can say that much.
Mr. Speaker, I could not imagine anything riskier than another four years, or any number of years, with the current government. The greatest risk to Canadians is if the government should last much longer. It has the coalition, of course, that is propping it up now, but we need a common-sense government that can get serious about these issues facing Canadians.
After this scattered four-minute mess here, we are left to conclude that the parliamentary secretary is looking for a pat on the back for a job well done. After eight years, there are two kinds of families now in this country: those who owned real estate before and those who never will. That is the affordability legacy of the government, a generation of Canadians who have no hope and have given up on home ownership.
Mr. Speaker, the slogans and the bumper stickers will do well under the Conservatives, leading up from now until whenever the next campaign is going to be. The Conservatives are more concerned about character assassination. They are more concerned about saying how broken Canada is and about getting as many people as possible worked with anxiety. They are not interested in resolving issues, because when it comes time for them to actually step up to the plate and put money in the pockets of Canadians, they choose to play games and filibuster. That is the reality.
All we have to do is take a look at what the members have actually done. One can take a look at the affordability legislation and moving motions of adjournment and concurrence motions. There is not enough time for me to explain to the member how much of a game this is for the Conservative Party. We take it seriously.
Mr. Speaker, we have a new term we could use tonight: “prince of darkness”, or something of darkness. Maybe we can use that new term.
In February 2022, the Conservative member for Huron—Bruce introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-234, which would also exempt natural gas and propane used on farms for essential tasks like drying grain and heating barns. A year later, in March 2023, it passed the House of Commons with full support from the Conservatives, the NDP, the Bloc, the Green Party and a handful of Liberals. However, the bill is now in the Senate and has been there for some time. Then the Senate amended the bill and took out the exemption for buildings. This was a piece of legislation passed in the House through three readings and through committee, and it went to the Senate.
This is with respect to the exemption for farmers on carbon tax. These are the people who do not get a rebate. We hear all the time that the government is sending a rebate. I have talked to many people at farm operations, because my riding is a rural one, including last weekend at a meeting I had in the small community of Enchant. The farmers do not get a rebate, but they are paying a huge carbon tax. The bill has now been amended. I have the utility bills from one of those people, and for one their buildings, they paid $15,000 in carbon tax. This would have been exempted, but now the bill is sitting in the Senate, amended.
For the bill to get out of there, amended, it has to come back here and go through the process. Is there a likelihood of the bill's being passed before we get to another summer? The bill has been kicking around for two summers. For two summers, farmers across the country, from coast to coast, have been paying carbon tax on propane and natural gas for grain dryers and buildings. The bill was what we needed for our agricultural sector. Now, the Senate has amended it and taken out the exemption for buildings. Like I said, a constituent of mine paid $15,000 for carbon tax. It was not the price of the power and the electricity; it was carbon tax because they are using natural gas.
The bill is going to come back here. The delay costs the agriculture sector because of Prime Minister-appointed senators making the amendment to it. Let us understand that: It was Prime Minister-appointed senators who made this amendment. They knew what they were doing. They knew the delay that they were causing. This is hardship. The carbon tax allows no rebate to these kinds of farmers. They do not get the rebates that the government members constantly talk about. It is a travesty to our agricultural sector that this has happened.
Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about a very important issue, and there is no doubt about that. I am very sympathetic to the farmer, and also very understanding of the Conservative Party's positioning on the issue of the price on pollution, or carbon tax, whatever one wants to call it.
When it comes to farmers, I do believe there have been some healthy discussions with different ministers, in particular the Minister of Agriculture, who has been following this issue very closely. We want to ensure, as much as possible, we are helping farmers.
At times I too get frustrated. I remember when I was in opposition and there were huge ships out in the Pacific Ocean that were not able to come in and pick up the wheat piles all over the Prairies. The wheat, in many cases, was getting wet, and there were serious issues back then. The member would know, if he recalls, at the time there was that issue along with the one of the Canadian wheat board.
I bring this up because I do very much follow agriculture and the importance of food supply. Canada plays a critical role in this whole area. I would like to think, given the number of stakeholders out there, that they will continue to work with not only the federal government but provincial jurisdictions, and to a certain degree the many municipalities. We need to ensure farmers are supported in a very real and tangible way.
However, then the member brings in the issue of the carbon tax. As the member is very much aware, it is very much an issue of contention in Ottawa nowadays. The Conservative Party says it will get rid of the carbon tax, or the price on pollution, and its members have made that commitment. If by chance, whether it is in two years, four years, six years or eight years, they ever get the opportunity to govern, I suspect there is a very good chance that commitment will happen. I say that tongue in cheek to a certain degree because in the last campaign, they actually campaigned in favour of a price on pollution. When it was in the election platform, did they exempt the farmer? If not, why did they not do that? I would be very much interested in knowing if the member is aware of that.
Having said that, I realize there has been a change, but it is an important point. It demonstrates consistency of party policy. The member knows full well the government's position on the price on pollution and the carbon tax. We will continue to provide rebates. We should continue to have dialogue with farmers and see how the government can continue to work with the agricultural community to ensure it is able to continue to grow and prosper. The agricultural community as a whole is one of the greatest environmentalists in the nation. On many of the techniques and ways it cultivates land, we lead the world. We also lead the world in many different ways when it comes to the environment.
Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, I know he is from Winnipeg, which used to be the grain exchange centre of the world. It is part of the heritage of the Prairies. I am very pragmatic about this. In my riding, which has 70% irrigation, the costs are huge, as is the money paid on the carbon tax, and there is not the recognition of the value irrigation brings to the amount of crops we can produce in this country and the variety.
We grow more potatoes than P.E.I. these days in my riding and we have the only sugar plant left, and we grow sugar beets because of irrigation. Farmers tell me on a regular basis the carbon tax is so hard on them, so we lose from our communities hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, up to millions and millions. This hurts our communities because those farmers are not able to buy what they could if they did not lose it on the carbon tax. They cannot support our rural communities. They cannot volunteer to donate things they would have donated before.
It is a piece pragmatic for me that those who produce the best and highest quality and variety of foods because of irrigation are paying the highest price for carbon tax. That exemption needs to be understood, and I think it has been recognized there should be more conversations about agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the manner in which the member is presenting the case. In the agricultural sector, there are many strong advocacy groups and farmer personalities. They are always very happy, I have found in the past, to share their opinions.
Many of us recognize that we need to do more for the environment. When we are doing that, there is no intention to devastate an industry. The diversification of crops benefits not only the farmer but also all the communities in many different ways. We could talk about what we see on the food table for Canadian products and of the overall future through diversification. I love the amount of diversity we have witnessed.
Being from a Prairie province, I think of strawberries from Portage la Prairie, which irrigation plays a role in. The member made reference to potatoes. Manitoba grows a lot of potatoes, too, and irrigation is important. I am sympathetic to what the member is saying, and I am going to have—
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer