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. 077
CONTENTS
Monday, May 30, 2022
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 077
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, May 30, 2022
Speaker: The Honourable Anthony Rota
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayer
[English]
Vacancy
It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Spengemann, member for the electoral district of Mississauga—Lakeshore, by resignation effective Friday, May 27, 2022.
Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Speaker has addressed a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
It being 11:01 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Criminal Code
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act (violence against an intimate partner), as reported (with amendment) 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.
[Translation]
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
(Motion agreed to)
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-233 is now in the final stage of consideration here in the House. I am so pleased with the overwhelming support this legislative initiative has received thus far. I would like to thank all my hon. colleagues from the bottom of my heart for supporting this bill.
My colleagues and I, who worked on this bill, regularly receive emails and calls from women and organizations that are advocating to protect female victims of domestic violence. They want to express their appreciation for this bill. My colleagues from all political parties have also received countless messages from these victims' rights groups about helping pass this legislation.
There is nationwide support for Bill C-233. I want to thank all the people across Canada who wrote to me and shared their tragic and heartbreaking stories. I am very touched by the trust they have placed in me. There is no doubt that more needs to be done to help those who experience domestic abuse, physical or psychological.
[English]
It has been an uphill battle to recognize not only women's rights, but the real danger women often face when it comes to situations of domestic violence. Domestic violence, until very recently, was not talked about as openly as it is today. There was, and I believe still is, a stigma attached to it in many places. Whether it is victim-blaming or the feeling of shame, these horrific events should have always been given priority. The shame belongs with the person who does the tormenting, not the one who is subjected to it. Whatever the reason for this past humongous injustice, now is the time to address it full on and to never back down.
Domestic violence has affected many, many women, and I say this because it is oftentimes women who are victims of domestic abuse and who face the most distressing situations possible. Whether it is psychological, emotional or mental abuse, physical violence or threats thereof, coercion, being controlled through duress, or financial bondage, far too many women to count have suffered through this and continue to do so. Today, the statistics are very clear about this and the past history of domestic abuses that have been endured. Many times, these women were not heard because their voices were silenced or because no one was listening. They were not taken seriously, so they lived quietly with their shattered dreams and painful memories.
[Translation]
Other parts of the world come to mind, places where people have unshakable partisan beliefs, where deep divides within society impede progress and get in the way of important dialogue about social issues that affect a lot of people.
Our strength as Canadians, regardless of our political affiliations, our values and our beliefs, is that we are always guided by a common thread: the society we all want to live in and bequeath to future generations.
One of the pillars of our country is keeping everyone safe. Given the constant headlines about murdered women and children, we can all agree that we need to do more to protect these vulnerable people.
I realize that my Bill C‑233 is just part of the solution. However, without this legislation, our efforts as a society to do a better job of protecting victims of intimate partner violence will not be as robust. It is time to put our collective shoulder to the wheel by supporting Bill C‑233.
[English]
I would like to share an overview of the elements that favour this bill.
There is a critical window during which most victims of femicide lose their lives. It is in the first 18 months post-separation. After this critical period, things start to settle down and people are able to rebuild their lives slowly but surely.
However, there are some very troubled individuals who simply cannot stay away from their target, no matter the number of restraining orders issued by the court, such as the individual I spoke about during my previous debate. That person violated quite a few restraining orders and even went to prison for it. He continued to harass his ex-partner from prison. When he got out, he followed her and somehow managed to find the secret location she had been hiding at with her daughter. Once he found them, he stalked them. He sat outside their home for hours watching them, waiting for his chance. He tormented his ex-wife and tried to kill her and their daughter before he committed suicide.
In a situation like this, only an electronic monitor can dissuade the harasser from approaching the victim, as their location would be disclosed electronically. In turn, this would give the complainant victim some serenity and an opportunity to be better be prepared in case the accused is close by. This law is for the victims.
For the longest time in the Canadian justice system, there was the belief that violence against an intimate partner did not necessarily mean that the violent parent was incapable of being a good parent to the couple's children. Some adjustments were made to the Divorce Act to better address this issue. However, this legislative initiative cannot be completely executed as long as those who decide on the fate of these children do not fully comprehend the ravages domestic violence leaves on all victims, including the children, who at times, vicariously or directly, also experience that violence. Those who give themselves the right to physically assault another human being or who psychologically terrorize them, often in front of the children, have a lot of work to do on themselves to change, and sometimes they just cannot or will not. That is something all judges need to fully acknowledge and understand before deciding what is in the best interests of the child.
[Translation]
In conclusion, this non-partisan bill will help prevent homicides and save lives. This critical step is needed to better support and protect the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence and their children. We must help break the cycle of violence and trauma, including for any children who are exposed to it.
Bill C-233 will help judges better understand the phenomenon of domestic violence and its impact, as well as coercive control in family relationships, in order to make the best decisions affecting the children of those relationships.
The other interesting point about this legislation is that it formally adds electronic monitoring to the Criminal Code as another possible condition for judicial interim release. This is another tool in the tool box for judges to use when they believe that the safety of any person, including alleged victims of intimate partner violence, could be compromised if the accused is released pending trial. This provision would ensure better protection where there is doubt about the safety of an individual, including victims of domestic violence and their children. It is worth noting once again that between 20% and 22% of femicides and filicides in the context of domestic violence were committed by former intimate partners within 18 months of separation.
As a society, it is important that we continue to look for solutions to significantly reduce violence against women and children in Canada. My legislative initiative is a practical measure that will contribute to saving lives and help better protect victims of family abuse.
I sincerely hope that members still believe in the urgency of and need for Bill C‑233 and will vote accordingly.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I know this is a very important bill to get through today, but there are some things we still want to pass, so perhaps I could ask the member what additional things we would like to see as we continue build on the foundation of Bill C-233.
Madam Speaker, from the bottom of my heart, I thank my hon. colleague for all her hard work and advocacy, for working across all party lines to help with this legislation and for hearing the voices of organizations, victims and people who have spoken up.
To answer her question, there is still much to be done. As I said in my speech, this is just the start of what we need to continue doing, including having open conversations, exposing domestic violence and exposing the flaws in our criminal justice system and child custody cases. This is—
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear what I am hearing this morning. I thank my colleague across the way because it was high time.
My thoughts are with a few organizations in Laurentides—Labelle, such as l'Ombre‑Elle and Passe‑R‑Elle, because this has been their plea for many decades. What we are hearing this morning is a start on two levels, specifically in terms of the interpretation and implementation, and I commend that.
I just heard my government colleague mention that it was just the start of the continuum. Will any money be transferred to these organizations to help these women and families?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments and her thoughts. I sense a great deal of passion as well.
To answer her question, I think we have to continue working with the provinces. As a member from Quebec, I am truly proud of the legislation that Quebec passed on electronic bracelets.
I hope we will be able to continue working with the provinces and territories to combat family and intimate partner violence against women.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for introducing this bill to make the justice system more sensitive, responsive and safe for women and children.
I spoke to a constituent just last week about her experience in the court system and the many ways in which she and her children did not feel safe. I am wondering if the member could share with constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, and the constituent I spoke with, what would be the first, most important piece to help increase safety for women and children as a result of this bill passing.
I would also like to express my full support for this bill.
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her hard work and for listening to the tragedies that complainant victims go through in their experiences with the criminal justice system.
There are many gaps still to be filled, and I believe that, if we continue on this path, the first thing to do is to pass the bill and then keep addressing these issues. It is very important that judges be able to discern whether something being decided is in the best interests of the victim and the child. These are conversations we need to keep having, and I really hope I can count on the support of all of my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide her thoughts regarding the amount of support from, in particular, Liberal caucus members wanting to see this legislation pass and their contributions, along with those of stakeholders.
Madam Speaker, I have to say, and there is no other word that comes to mind, even in these conversations about tragedies, that I am enchanted by the support received from our own caucus and across all party lines. This is so meaningful. It is the first time we are talking about coercive control with regard to the Criminal Code and the criminal justice system, so this very important.
Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the chair this morning as I talk about something so personal to you and any individual in this place.
I really want to talk about my time here as a member of Parliament over the last seven years. I have had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which has held a number of studies related to intimate partner violence. The committee has talked about it when looking at the Canadian Armed Forces and shelters.
However, the study on Bill C-233 is the study that has had the most impact on my life in my time in the House of Commons, as I have realized what a bubble we live in and why this study is so important. I have been here for seven years, and I have heard stories from witnesses over those years. After hearing what I have heard in the study of Bill C-233, as well as in the intimate partner and domestic violence study we will be tabling before summer, I can say there is a lot to be done in Canada when it comes to intimate partner violence and domestic abuse.
We need to ensure we are all working together. As the chair of the status of women committee, I could not be any prouder of the members for what we have achieved through working together, which is exactly what we did when we looked at this very important piece of legislation in the name of Keira.
I want to read into the record the testimony put forward by Keira's mother when she came to our committee. For anybody who knows what it is like to be a mother, I ask them to imagine being a mother who has lost their child. This is a woman who is fighting for every other child out there. This is something we are doing in Keira's name, but we recognize this is for all women, children and families.
This is from the testimony Keira's mother gave:
Essentially, I will tell you my story and why my story is not an anomaly but instead is emblematic of a broader problem in the way the family court system handles domestic violence cases and is reflective of a lack of judicial understanding of domestic violence and coercive control.
I was a victim of domestic violence in my previous marriage. It was a short marriage, and I was subject to multiple types of domestic violence, which included isolated episodes of physical violence as well as coercive control.
I had a young daughter and I was able to safely escape the abuser, but when I sought protection for Keira in the family court system, I found that the court system was not equipped to protect a small child. I was before, I believe, between 10 and 12 different judges, none of whom had an understanding of domestic violence and coercive control. During my trial, when I went to the stand to talk about the abuse I had experienced, I was cut off by the judge and told that abuse is not relevant to parenting and he was going to ignore it.
To me, that says it all. A judge decides that it is okay because parenting has nothing to do with the abuse. I am sorry, but perhaps this judge should maybe look at this training. As I said, I have been here for seven years, and I can tell members about the impacts just from listening to the testimony of others. Perhaps they need to get out of the bubble and also look at this. Perhaps they need to see and experience what Keira and her family have gone through, as well as so many other hundreds and hundreds of families across this country.
In the intimate partner violence study, the committee received 137 briefs. The majority of those focused on Bill C-233, as it had been introduced in the House of Commons. This is not just happening to Keira's family. It is happening across this country, and we need to make sure people understand. We need to understand what happens to a young child who has seen domestic abuse, what the impact is to that child and what we are going to do to ensure that child is safe.
The judge failed Keira. The judge failed this family. I am sure judges have failed other families as well.
I am not sticking it to the judges here. I am just asking them to please step back and recognize they are in a bubble. We are all in a bubble. When we are here in Ottawa, we are in the Ottawa bubble. When we are home with our families, we are in our family bubble. However, when we are actually learning about things like this and talking to people whose shoes we have never walked in, we are going to learn something.
I am urging each and every judge out there to understand Bill C-233 and to please read the report that will be tabled here in June of 2022 by the status of women committee. The study is looking at coercive control, physical abuse, mental abuse and financial abuse. These are things that are happening across Canada to Canadians families, and we can do more.
I am going to leave members with one final thought. Yesterday would have been Keira's seventh birthday. She was not able to spend it with her family.
[Translation]
The bill is now at report stage. It amends the Criminal Code to require a justice, before making a release order in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence against their intimate partner, to consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the safety and security of any person, to include as a condition of the order that the accused wear an electronic monitoring device. The bill also amends the Judges Act to provide for continuing education seminars for judges on matters related to intimate partner violence and coercive control.
I can confirm that the clause-by-clause study was conducted in a truly collaborative spirit at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Its members were focused on one thing only, because the lives of women and children, as well as men, let us not forget, are at stake.
At the risk of repeating myself, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-233. I will begin my speech by talking about the important role of this bill, with its inclusion of electronic monitoring devices, in addressing intimate partner violence. I will then talk about coercive control and will close by making a few more proposals on how to complete the continuum of assistance for women and children who are affected by intimate partner violence.
First, let us look at the role this bill can play in cases of intimate partner violence. Recently, Quebec called upon Ottawa to act. A few days ago, the Quebec public security minister explained that electronic monitoring devices could be issued only by authorities under Quebec jurisdiction and for provincial sentences. That means that only provincial sentences of two years less a day will be covered and that offenders who are given longer sentences in federal penitentiaries will be exempt. As a result, last week, Minister Geneviève Guilbault openly invited the federal government to follow Quebec's lead, while reminding the government that Quebec has control over what falls under our jurisdiction. Ms. Guilbault said that she spoke about this with the federal public safety minister.
With Bill C‑233, electronic monitoring devices would be used in cases involving serious sex offenders who have received a sentence of more than two years, to be served in a federal institution, because sentences under two years are served in institutions run by Quebec. The federal government had little choice but to follow suit, especially since electronic monitoring devices are already used in other countries, like Spain and France. We should be able to build on their experiences. I have also spoken with the Australian consulate about making coercive control a criminal offence. We will will come back to this.
The other problem has to do with the Internet and the technological gaps, since, realistically, broadcasting and transmitting services are not going to be implemented across Canada in the short term. A number of witnesses expressed concerns in committee about how this would affect the implementation of this measure. They told us that a woman's postal code should not determine whether they can feel safe. Nevertheless, this device must in no way be used as an excuse to reduce funding for other measures to combat domestic violence. These support measures are managed by the Government of Quebec, and Quebec must continue to receive the money required to run them.
For the other part of the bill, it is important to note that it addresses coercive control only with respect to the education of judges. The Criminal Code amendment proposed in this bill does not criminalize coercive control even though numerous experts, some of them internationally recognized, made that recommendation to the status of women and justice committees a number of times. The experts emphasized that the notion of coercive control is inextricably linked to the definition of intimate partner violence and that acknowledging this notion in Canada's Criminal Code would trigger the awareness and training mechanisms needed by the professionals and people on the ground who work directly with victims along with the funding to pay for it.
Let us not forget that family violence needs to be part of the conversation. In addition to the women who were murdered, 14 children were killed last year in intimate partner violence incidents.
Regarding the importance of the device, Ms. Lemeltier from the Regroupement des maisons pour femmes victimes de violence conjugale cautioned that we must not think that intimate partner violence ends once the woman leaves the family home, because that is not true. The violence can morph into what is referred to as postseparation spousal abuse. It can manifest in many ways, including harassment on social media, maintaining financial control, withholding a woman's immigration documents or denying supervised right of access, which impacts children's safety.
This controlling behaviour continues and gets worse over time. The period after a separation is the most dangerous time for women and children. The amendments proposed in the bill to the Judges Act are therefore in keeping with the Bloc Québécois's positions in that they help enhance the protection of complainants. The issue of victims' safety is crucial.
This amendment would expand judges' education on sexual assault so they have a more in-depth understanding of intimate partner violence, by adding a component on coercive control.
It is reasonable to believe that a better understanding on the judges' part will improve the protection and safety of victims of intimate partner violence. That is something that I insisted on adding in our committee study.
My party welcomes any measure designed to increase the safety of victims of domestic violence. It also condemns any violence between intimate partners, the victims of which are most often women. We stand in solidarity against intimate partner violence and femicide, both of which have sadly and unacceptably increased during this pandemic.
We also want an inquiry into how to prevent, eliminate and create a legislative framework for the form of family violence known as honour crimes. These are our other hopes for the future.
Furthermore, we demand that the federal government contribute financially to the Quebec government's efforts in the area of violence prevention. During the 2021 election campaign, the Bloc Québécois argued that funds for the fight against intimate partner violence should come from the Canada health transfers, which should immediately increase by $28 billion, without conditions. Long-term investments will also enable the generational change that is crucial to fighting this fight.
Furthermore, court cases involving crimes of a sexual nature are heavily influenced by the training and abilities of judges. It goes without saying that continuing education for judges on sexual assault law needs some updating. The Bloc Québécois has unequivocally supported this type of initiative since the subject was first raised in the House in 2020.
This bill complies with a recent recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. In its April 7, 2022, report entitled “The Shadow Pandemic: Stopping Coercive and Controlling Behaviour in Intimate Relationships”, the committee recommends that the federal government engage with provincial and territorial governments and other relevant stakeholders to promote and fund a public awareness campaign on coercive and controlling behaviour, as well as training of judicial system actors, such as police, lawyers, and judges, about the dynamics of such behaviour. Training must be trauma-informed, integrate intersectional perspectives and be accompanied by tools and policies to support action on this issue.
At the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, Pamela Cross, the legal director at Luke's Place, a support and resource centre for women and children, reminded us that until every actor in both the criminal and family legal systems has a fulsome understanding of the reality of violence in families, the prevalence of it, the fact that it does not end at separation, the fact that there are many fathers who use the child, weaponize the child, to get back at their partner, we are going to continue to see shelters that are turning away 500 women and children a year and we are going to continue to see women and children being killed.
Experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women all stressed the importance of training. This was emphasized by Simon Lapierre, a full professor at the University of Ottawa's School of Social Work, who also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He said:
Having the judicial system better aligned with psychosocial services seems to me to be very important. Above all, we have to understand that even if a lot of measures are put in place, many of them will unfortunately not achieve their full potential if they are not accompanied by adequate training for all actors in the system, including social workers, police, lawyers and judges.
Training is extremely important and should be expanded across the country. Simon Lapierre also noted that it is important to reinforce the very concept of coercive control. This concept was already in place before the Divorce Act came into force, but he says that we should also include it in the Criminal Code. What is more, it needs to be accompanied by training programs for all stakeholders in the various sectors, including judges, and there needs to be a coherent approach to intimate partner violence, including youth protection services, across the country.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of the entire team at an organization in my riding, the Maison Alice-Desmarais, which helps victims of intimate partner violence and their children. Last week, the organization opened a new duplex. The good news is that an entire community rallied behind the cause, but the bad news is that the needs are still immense. One more victim is one too many.
Everyone agreed that community organizations that help victims of intimate partner violence need more help. It is great to have the best training possible for judges and electronic monitoring devices for greater safety, but we need organizations to help the victims, and we need to support them as a society.
Let us, here in the House, support the work they do on the ground every day and help the victims and their children.
[English]
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Judges Act, which will require new judges to take ongoing training about intimate partner violence and, when necessary, require those who have been convicted of intimate partner violence to wear an electronic bracelet.
Before I begin, I wish to first acknowledge Jennifer Kagan–Viater, who lost her daughter Keira Kagan as a result of intimate partner violence. I know this bill does not go far enough to truly honour her daughter. It is a first step of many, which needs to occur to end violence against women, girls and diverse-gendered individuals.
It is an issue that has worsened during the pandemic, something that falls on the deaf ears of those in power, who continue to make us beg for incremental justice while lives are lost to violence. It is violence that is often hidden as a result of stigmatization against victims and the minimization of violence by those who are able to ensure safety, including judges, often uneducated and unaware of the signs, as in the case of Jennifer Kagan-Viater, who expressed her concerns about the safety of her daughter having visitation with the father, only to fall upon the deaf ears of judges, who not only ignored her, but assumed she was a manipulative parent, a revengeful ex-spouse, which is a common stereotype placed on women who express concerns about violence. This cost Keira’s life, so, no, this bill does not go far enough, in the way that it requires only new judges, not current judges, to take training, the training they clearly needed to save Keira’s life.
Training for judges must be culturally appropriate and reflect the realities of those experiencing violence. It must be holistic and include an understanding of violence from diverse social and cultural contexts. Training also needs to provide a greater understanding about how intimate partner violence intersects with other forms of oppression, including racism, sexism, ableism and homophobia. For instance, judges need to clearly recognize how experiences of gender-based violence against immigrant and refugee women, children and individuals require an understanding of not only how gender-based violence impacts individuals, but how various intersecting identities further marginalize an individual, often resulting in inequalities in accessing culturally proficient resources, services and supports.
It is no secret that the judicial systems are already unfriendly to women, girls and indigenous and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals. One only has to read the aboriginal justice inquiry, the truth and reconciliation report, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and, most recently, the Feminist Alliance for International Action to affirm this assertion. It is time that judges are provided with training to ensure they are trauma-informed. This needs to be led by survivors of violence and those working on the front lines. Training must use anti-racist and anti-oppression approaches.
Intimate partner violence is a crisis in this country, and the lack of government action to combat it is telling. Today, we have an opportunity to pass a new law, a small step, but a major one to address violence.
Every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. In 2018, 44% of women reported experiencing some form of psychological, physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. These rates of violence increase depending on where one lives in Canada. For example, women and girls in the north experience violent crime four times higher than Canada’s overall population, and rates of intimate partner violence experienced by rural women are 75% higher than for urban women, yet there is a lack of action. There are epidemic rates of violence, and the government's response continues not to reflect the severity of the crisis in which we find ourselves. Begging for support, begging for a change in laws to better protect women, girls and diverse-gendered individuals, is met with a pile of excuses and rationales about why it cannot be done. This is particularly alarming considering that the current Prime Minister claimed to be a feminist, the leader of a so-called feminist government, yet the need for response and support to end this violence often falls on deaf ears.
There is a lack of funding to address this issue. Meanwhile, the government can find the resources to provide $2.6 billion in this year’s budget for fossil fuel subsidies. How many billions have been given to pad the pockets of big oil since 2015, while women, girls and diverse-gendered individuals continue to experience violence, sometimes resulting in death, or the billions of dollars for military weapons while women, girls and diverse-gendered individuals continue to perish as a result of violence?
There is no excuse for the lack of action and the inadequate support, whether it be in regard to strengthening laws to address issues of violence or providing the resources necessary to ensure that communities can offer the support and services required to save lives.
These issues become even more pronounced in certain populations, including BIPOC communities, transwomen and women with disabilities. According to Stats Canada, at least 25% of Black, indigenous and racialized women experienced intimate partner violence in the past 12 months; three out of five transwomen experienced intimate partner violence before the age of 16; and women with disabilities are three times more likely to experience intimate partner violence than women living without disabilities, a situation that becomes even more dire because of increased barriers to accessing services.
These rates become even more alarming for indigenous women. Sixty-one per cent of indigenous women report having experienced some form of intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Indigenous women are killed at nearly seven times the rate of non-indigenous women. Indigenous women and girls are 12 times more likely to be murdered or missing than any other women in Canada, and 16 times more likely to be murdered or missing than white women.
What was the 2022 budget allocation to address the ongoing genocide against indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ individuals? It was zero. Meanwhile, the needs are great, including in my riding of Winnipeg Centre, where our community has been literally begging for over 10 years for a 24-7 low-barrier safe space. We are still waiting. Meanwhile, women continue to be murdered, including two women last week.
I wish to honour Rebecca Contois and Doris Trout. The system failed them. Those in power failed them. I honour them and their friends and family today. I will keep fighting for our community to get that safe place, so that their spirits have a safe place to always be.
As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, this bill is a start, but the government needs to do more to ensure that all women, girls, and diverse-gendered people can live in dignity, in safety and with security. This is a start.
The use of electronic monitoring devices has been shown to increase the likelihood of survivors of violence feeling safer and serve as a deterrence factor for abusers from approaching and harming victims of violence. We need to ensure that this device is available in all parts of Canada, including in rural and remote areas.
The government must also immediately support equitable access to services, because even if the issues with infrastructure for electronic monitoring devices are addressed, if improvements and increased funding to resources, community support services, emergency dispatches, and culturally relevant training for dispatches are left out of the solution, electronic monitoring devices will not address the needs of victims of violence in rural and remote areas.
Funding holistic approaches needs to happen to address intimate partner violence, including supporting the recommendations from the Ending Violence Association of Canada, in a consultation initiative informed by experts in frontline sexual violence services and advocacy organizations across the country, which identified priorities for a national action plan to end gender-based violence, including efforts to provide sustainable core funding; expand a robust and intersectional social infrastructure, including enabling an environmental framework as a key to prevention and providing safe and low-barrier housing and shelters, which is central to this recommendation; implement oversight and transparency in training for the justice system, while addressing systemic barriers that further marginalize victims of violence; support indigenous-led approaches and indigenous-informed solutions; and finally, implement the 231 calls for justice.
Without efforts to expand, fund and implement community-led programs and services that uplift people and uphold the human rights of all individuals, especially those who have experienced violence, we will continue to perpetuate the violent cycles of abuse, but—
We are out of time.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.
Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to Bill C-233. I would like to start by thanking the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle for putting forward and creating space for the bill. Throughout her career, she has been a tremendous advocate for those who have suffered from domestic and partner violence, both for those who have endured physical violence and for those who have silently suffered emotional and psychological abuse: coercive control that is no less harmful and in many cases has a violent or even deadly outcome after protracted years of silent suffering.
The member understands deeply that deterrent tools to preventing such violence, which happens to far too many partners and their children behind closed doors in far too many homes in this country, require education and a trained comprehension to effectively use the tools in our legislative tool box to protect those who are most vulnerable in a court system that is, in many cases, failing them.
When the member for Oakville North—Burlington and I came to the member with the story of Keira Kagan, she compassionately understood and made space for the work we are debating today. We have heard the story of Keira Kagan: the little girl who was the brightest of sparks who was tragically lost and whose death was completely preventable. I note, as did other members, that yesterday should have been her seventh birthday. We have shared the tireless advocacy of her mother, Dr. Jennifer Kagan-Viater, and her stepfather, Phil Viater, on the floor of the House. It was a parent's cry for justice in a system where there was every effort to do what every mother wants to do at the very core of her being: protect her child.
We heard their call. It became the siren for many others, including leading advocates for women from my community in York Centre and from across this country who were no longer asking, but demanding that light be shed on this pervasive form of abuse: to name it, to know it and from there to be able to use the tools we have to protect them.
To each one of the large and small organizations in my riding, from Tikvah Toronto to the North York Women's Shelter, from local advocates for immigrant and racialized women to the National Council of Jewish Women of Canada, Toronto chapter, and to the many parents and victim-centred organizations from coast to coast to coast, I can clearly and with gratitude say as we enter the last hours of debate here in the House that they have been heard.
It is a rare but incredible thing when we have consensus across the floor. When we do, we know it is because we have heard the call of Canadians at the deepest levels.
Bill C-233 was first tabled in early February. It went through to second reading and to committee in April with a co-operative effort to move schedules and get it to the important work of the committee by May. I would like to thank the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, in her role as chair for the status of women committee. She, like many of us, understood the importance of the bill and her co-operation and leadership from across the floor must be acknowledged as we contemplate the bill now.
Much of the work that goes into the legislative process involves many conversations and emails, coordination of witnesses and stakeholders, asking the hardest of questions and unpacking key issues here and at committee. Each of the members who I have mentioned played a key role in the learning and advocacy that has taken place for Bill C-233.
Bill C-233 seeks to address two key components of education and legislative tools. It amends the Judges Act to expand judicial education, which currently covers topics such as sexual assault and social context, to include coercive control in domestic violence. It amends the Criminal Code to require a justice to consider whether an accused who is charged with intimate partner violence should wear an electronic monitoring device before a release order is made.
Through this process, we have shed light on the definition of coercive control. An important piece of this legislation is providing education to understand that while physical forms of intimate partner violence and domestic violence are well known and easy to detect, there are more covert forms of psychological abuse that are not always recognized as violence.
Coercive control can often be an early indicator that abusive relationships will escalate into physical or even lethal violence. A study of femicides from 2015-19 found coercive, controlling behaviours such as stalking, isolation and threats were frequent components. On average, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every six days in this country.
The patterns of behaviour for coercive control are intended to isolate, humiliate, exploit or dominate a victim. This can include emotional, verbal and financial abuse; isolation, such as preventing someone from going to work or school; and limiting their access to finances.
This invisible chain of behaviour escalates and can be quite visible through warning signs, when we know them, that include monitoring movements, sexual coercion, threats to harm a child and restricting access to money or even food. This outline of coercive control only scratches the surface of what judges will need training on in what has until now been a murky side of the court system. Victims straddle family and criminal court systems, and there is a dire, and at times deadly, impact on children.
We now understand the pathology of this form of intimate partner violence. It is unseen and brutally harmful. Its victims are the partners and children of these relationships where dependency, vulnerability and children themselves become weaponized. We cannot look away any longer.
The second aspect of Bill C-233 addresses the contemplation of using e-monitoring as a deterrent tool. In Keira Kagan's case, her father had 53 court orders against him. None ultimately served as a tool to keep her safe from harm. What we know is that education and implementation go hand in hand, and that is what this bill intends to do. It is a start.
There are those who see these amendments as first steps. We heard from many national advocates who expressed their concerns on the implementation of e-monitoring in terms of the settings and who would be subject to it. There is undoubtedly more work to do; there always is, but we must start and we have.
With this bill, coercive control and its understanding would become part of the language used within our legislative system. Our judicial system would have the tools to be educated on this and to identify it when it is in their courts. It would have deterrent tools that could prevent escalating violence in a cycle that does not end with the separation of a relationship.
We must be talking about this, and Bill C-233 has opened the conversation nationally, so that judicial training can set a precedent for the discussion of coercive control and the needed deterrent tools in other aspects of our system, be it with lawyers, social workers, health care workers or the many aspects of our system that are meant to protect victims and children.
We are in lockstep with other countries doing this work and exploring education on and, in some cases, criminalization of coercive control. These range from Australia, where studies have been done on the impact and potential criminality of it in the framework of domestic violence since as early as 2020, to the United Kingdom's section 76, which includes coercive controlling behaviour in an intimate family relationship as an offence.
Even here in Ontario, more recently than any of the above mentioned, the former Bill C-78 sought to update the definition of “family violence” in the Divorce Act to include “coercive and controlling behaviour”. The discussions and the work have begun, so that we can ensure the victims are not left unprotected.
Each morning I wake up and spend a short bit of time in the practice of the Jewish tradition called Daf Yomi, the daily page of Talmud, whereby around the world, over a cycle of seven and a half years, an entire community studies a page of law. We review the compendium of Jewish law that has evolved over thousands of years, studying each debate, each small change and its lead-in to the next. We are taught to first learn much and then seek to understand it profoundly.
This daily practice humbles me and reminds me that, each day in the House, we are putting our efforts forward to create change, and that the work we do here each day is a small step that makes space, as the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle has done, and sheds light to understand how we can protect and create safety for our community and all of its members, especially its most vulnerable. It is a profound responsibility and a privilege to do this work, and we must. For the many victims of abuse, families, partners and children, we owe it to them to protect them, and yes, we owe it to Keira Kagan.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I just want to thank all of my colleagues from the bottom of my heart.
[English]
I thank all the organizations, and Dr. Jennifer Kagan and her husband, Mr. Philip Viater, for having advocated for so long. Yesterday, as was mentioned, was Keira's birthday. Only in memory of her can we continue to speak out for other victims of domestic violence, such as her, who are the most marginalized and vulnerable people in our society. I just want to take this moment to say that Keira is everybody's daughter. These children are our children, and we suffer along with those who suffer.
I thank everybody from the bottom of my heart, and I hope we can pass this bill as quickly as possible.
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 1, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Chair has been advised that there is a question of privilege that the hon. member for Perth—Wellington would like to raise.
Privilege
[Privilege]
Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the refusal of my request for Adjournment Proceedings, or a late show, concerning my question pursuant to Standing Order 37(2) to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy during the May 16 question period.
On the afternoon of May 16, I followed the provisions of Standing Order 37(3), which states, “A member who is not satisfied with the response to a question asked on any day at this stage,...may give notice that he or she intends to raise the subject matter of the question on the adjournment of the House. The notice referred to herein...must be given in writing to the Speaker not later than one hour following that period the same day.”
The following morning, I received the following message from the Private Members' Business Office: “We are not able to accept your notice for an adjournment debate because Standing Order 38 indicates that only a minister or parliamentary secretary may answer questions during the Adjournment Proceedings.”
While the office was correct in acknowledging that this is what Standing Order 38 says, it overlooked the House's order of October 2, 2001, recorded at page 677 of Journals, which stated:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered, — That notwithstanding any Standing Order, a question to a spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy may be raised during the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 and a spokesperson for the Board who is not a Minister of the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary may give the response during those proceedings.
I pointed this order out in a reply email. The answer I received from the Private Members' Business Office was as follows, “Should you obtain unanimous consent, as was obtained on October 2, 2001, we would then accept the notice provided yesterday.”
I had filed my late show notice because I had hoped perhaps there might be more information, which the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, could not have shared in the 35 seconds he had to answer me during question period. Additionally, given that it might be September or October before the late show gets scheduled, perhaps there might even be an update on the file, which then could be shared with this House.
It is my concern that my privileges in being able to raise this matter further are being frustrated, perhaps by a misapprehension of the nature of the order adopted by this House on October 2, 2001. Footnote 127 on page 517 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, describes the provenance of this order:
In 2001, Mauril Bélanger...raised a question of privilege to object that, while oral questions could be put to a representative of the Board of Internal Economy, the Member, if dissatisfied with the reply, could not then discuss the matter further during the Adjournment Proceedings since only Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries could reply to questions during such proceedings. The House later adopted a motion, by unanimous consent, to provide that the spokesperson for the Board, who was not a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, respond during the Adjournment Proceedings.
Here we are with yet another question of privilege on the right to have a late show concerning an inquiry about the House of Commons administration. In my view, the House's 2001 order was of a permanent standing nature. Paragraph 20.96 of Erskine May, 25th edition, explains the following:
Orders of a permanent character which ‘stand’ in force from one session to another and (unless indicated otherwise) from one Parliament to another, codify and direct many of the procedures and practices of the House and are known as standing orders. Standing orders may be amended or repealed, or new standing orders introduced, by motion and decision in the House in the normal way; there are no set rules on how such a motion may arise.
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to page 16 of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand, fourth edition, which adds:
Some orders of the House have a shorter or longer life than a session. For example, an order of the House may give committees a longer time to report on particular Estimates or annual reviews than is permitted under the Standing Orders. Such an order is spent when the business to which it relates has been dealt with. On the other hand, some orders, although not made into Standing Orders, may come to be regarded as having virtually permanent operation. One such order was passed in 1962 adopting a form of words for the prayer with which the House begins each sitting.
Of course, the wording of our own daily prayer, a matter of recent discussion, traces its approval to a decision of the House found at pages 172 and 174 of the Journals for February 18, 1994. The wording of the prayer has not been approved in every subsequent session, but rather, the 1994 order has proven to be of sufficient authority.
For an example of another House order of a similar enduring nature that was adopted by this House without ever having been catalogued among the numbered and bound Standing Orders, I refer the Chair to pages 72 and 73 of the Journals for November 19, 1984:
By unanimous consent, it was ordered,—That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs shall have permanently referred to it all annual reports made to Parliament pursuant to section 72 of the Privacy Act and section 72 of the Access to Information Act; and
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to:
1. consider every report prepared under section 72 of the Access to Information Act and of the Privacy Act;
On the strength of that House order, all annual reports from departments and agencies under the access to information and privacy laws were referred to the justice committee for over 30 years, until just a few years ago, despite the fact that the House created, in 2004, a special committee dedicated to, among other things, access to information and privacy issues.
Only in 2015 was this 1984 House order superseded, after the House adopted an amendment to Standing Order 108(3)(h) concerning the mandate of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to specify that the committee would receive access to information and privacy annual reports.
In my respectful view, the House's order of October 2, 2001, is of a similar nature and remains in effect today. A plain reading of that order suggests that it was neutrally worded with regard to time in stating, “a question... may be raised... and a spokesperson... may give the response".
Nowhere in the order does it say it is limited to Mr. Bélanger's question or that its application was limited to a single question. Looking beyond the actual wording of the October 2, 2001, order, I would invite the Chair to consider also the motivations which led to its adoption.
In response to Mr. Bélanger's question of privilege, which I described earlier, the then-government House leader, the Hon. Don Boudria said, at page 5722 of the Debates on September 28, 2001:
This is most unfortunate, and creates an injustice. I agree with the hon. member on that. If, in the near future, the clerks could prepare for us the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders, I would be agreeable to discussing it with the other House leaders, with a view to amending the Standing Orders and making things equitable. It seems to me that is the solution.
The following week, when the motion for the October 2, 2001, House order was presented, the then-parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Geoff Regan, said at page 5883 of the Debates:
Following other discussions among the House leaders I believe you would find, if you were to seek it, unanimous consent for the following motion.
If one were to follow the thread between these events, I think it is patently clear that the order of October 2, 2001, was meant to address, permanently, the gap in the published Standing Orders, which allowed questions to be posed to spokespersons for the Board of Internal Economy but not a late show follow-up or, in other words, in the words of Mr. Boudria, to make an equitable cure to this injustice.
Accordingly, I would respectfully submit that my notice seeking to raise the matter during adjournment proceedings should have been treated as receivable and therefore received by the House administration. Further, the House administration's refusal to accept my late show notice respecting my question about the allegations of Liberal partisanship on the part of the Clerk of the House constitutes a breach of privilege.
I do not make this point lightly. Put simply, pages 81 to 83 of Bosc and Gagnon confirm that “an offence against the authority or dignity of the House, such as disobedience of its legitimate commands” and “acting in breach of any orders of the House” constitute contempt of Parliament.
Should you agree, in addition to permitting my notice to be received by the table, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for their consideration.
I thank the hon. member for Perth—Wellington for bringing that to our attention. It will be taken under advisement and we will return with a decision.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Online News Act
Bill C-18—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to person in Canada, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill;
and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil.
[English]
Madam Speaker, you and I are in a unique position: We both have front-row seats to what is becoming quickly a further decline of democracy here in Canada.
The government has moved time allocation on this bill with just two hours of debate. One speaker on the official opposition side has spoken to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been universally panned. It is quite controversial and warrants further debate.
This is the 101st time that the Liberal government has used time allocation and the 22nd time in this Parliament that their partners in the NDP, the NDP-Liberal coalition, have agreed to time allocation, which makes Motion No. 11 laughable, because the government's argument was that it was going to extend time to give more debate for members, which we now are seeing as a farce.
My question for the minister is this: Given the controversial nature of this bill and the fact that it does warrant further debate, I am wondering how he feels his legacy will be seen in furthering a decline in democracy in this country by muting the voices, limiting the voices, of millions of people speaking through members elected in this place.
Madam Speaker, let us put things in context.
If we look at what has been actually happening in our country, we see that over 450 news outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 in the last two years. Does that have an impact? It has a huge impact on our democracy. Our democracy is not becoming stronger; it is becoming weaker because of that. Things are changing. Things are evolving extremely quickly, and what professional news media outlets are doing has value, and the web giants have to recognize that there is a value and that it is normal that they contribute.
I am very surprised that my Conservative friends have a problem with that, because they even said in the last campaign that this is what we should do. There is an agreement, almost a consensus, that we have to act and that we have to act now. The Conservatives have been stalling debate in this House. They did it with Bill C-8 and Bill C-11. They like to stall things. If they do not want to come here to work, then they should move aside and we will do the work.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have not been a member of the House for all that long, so I would like someone to explain to me what has been happening here over the past few weeks.
I would like to start by saying that we want to work to find solutions to what is happening to our media. The groundwork was laid during the previous Parliament, and we knew where we wanted to go. However, the Liberals called an election and we had to start over. The previous bill that has now become Bill C-18 still contains some of the same elements with no changes. However, we need to find a solution, and we need to do it fast, because billions of dollars are being lost and we need to protect freedom of expression and our media.
There is one other thing. I would like the member opposite to explain to me the point of these incessant motions. Not a day goes by that I do not have to try to explain to my constituents and even to my children what is happening with the legislative process in this session of the House.
I would like to know what we can expect in the coming days. What is the point of constantly challenging democracy, when we have a duty to debate each bill fully?
Today we are talking about a different bill, Bill C‑18, on which we are generally working quite well with my Bloc Québécois colleagues, and in particular the member for Drummond, who is the Bloc Québécois's heritage critic and who works very hard and very diligently on everything that he does, including as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
I thank the Bloc Québécois for highlighting the freedom of the press and for emphasizing that the media must be independent and that print media must be strong and autonomous. That is precisely the purpose of Bill C‑18, which would enable the media to not only survive but also succeed. The bill would also ensure that the media is strong not only in major cities, but also in the regions. We are talking about media in all forms, big, small, print, radio or television.
Together, all these forms of media help strengthen our democracy. Journalists representing these media outlets ask us tough questions here, questions that we sometimes do not want to answer, but it is our job to do so. That is why we need to ensure that these media outlets survive and grow even stronger in the future.
[English]
Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in this place once again discussing time allocation on an important bill. I think for most Canadians, they look at this and say, “We want to see adequate debate on these topics”, yet, at times in this Parliament, when adequate time has been afforded, we see other parties using that time to perform obstructionist tactics and waste the time of this place.
Can the minister please comment on the bind we seem to find ourselves in where we have to choose between time allocation and putting up with obstructionist delays?
Madam Speaker, my colleague's question highlights what the Conservatives have been doing for weeks and months in trying to jam the work of Parliament in the chamber and in committees. Who benefits from that? No one does. The Conservatives think that they benefit from it, but Canadians do not benefit from what they are doing now.
Now we are talking about Bill C-18, which is fundamental for a strong, free, independent press. I said before that 450 media outlets have closed their doors in the last 15 years, and 64 or 65 have closed in the last two years. This makes our democracy weaker, not stronger.
We have to reinforce it. We have to be able to answer the tough questions, and I want to thank NDP members who are taking this extremely seriously in committees, in their ridings and in meeting with the media. They are bringing back good feedback. They want to collaborate, which is the difference between them and the Conservatives. The NDP wants to collaborate, but they do not.
Madam Speaker, again, it is troubling the way that this Liberal-NDP government is contributing to the decline of democracy here. There are signs that this government simply does not want to hear from Canadians, and does not want to hear from the opposition parties, so it is shutting down debate again. It is shameful that the NDP is siding with it on these time allocation motions.
The heritage committee is already backed up with the legislation it is dealing with already. We have only had one speaker from the Conservative Party on the opposition side on this important debate. This is a debate that is important to all Canadians so that all Canadian voices can be heard.
Is this stifling of debate necessary because the Liberal government does not want to work? The Liberals have set an example. In 2019, the House only sat for 75 days. In 2020, we only sat for 86 days. In 2021, we only sat for 95 days. Prior to that, the House sat for an average of 122 days.
We know that this Liberal government does not like to be in the House and be held accountable. Why are they pushing to further shut down debate from the opposition parties on this motion?
Madam Speaker, I have been in this House for a few years now. I have sat on that side for many years, and I know how important the work of the opposition is. However, at that time, as with other members, we respected the House and Canadians.
I think that there is a way to work together respectfully, and I want to commend my official opposition critic who does exactly that. We may disagree on a lot of things, but he is very respectful. He respects the work of committees and the House, and he respects the bill too. I would love the Conservatives to be a little more respectful of the whole process, and we have seen what they have done on Bill C-11 and others.
Now it is time to work for democracy, not against it. A strong, free and independent press reinforces democracy, and that is exactly what Bill C-18 is all about.
Madam Speaker, at times in the past, I have supported time allocation when there has been reasonable debate on a particular bill. For government to function, it is important for respectful debate to take place. I agree with the minister about the importance of Bill C-18. In fact, I was looking forward to hearing various perspectives in this place on the legislation.
In this case, as others have shared, we have had a total of two hours of debate on a Friday afternoon before moving to time allocation. Can the minister share why he feels this is so necessary, and why this is the only option available to the governing party to move ahead with respectful debate in this place?
Madam Speaker, debate happens here in this beautiful House, it happens in committees and it happens in the Senate. Those debates will take place.
We all know how important committee work is. This is where the thorough questions are asked and where we hear from witnesses. I go to committee and appear with great pleasure. A big chunk of the work is done there. What the Conservatives have been doing is trying to jam this place. It is very sad for someone who ran to come here to see what is being done. I am sad when I look at them and even more when I listen to them.
I know they do not like me to be sad, so I ask them to maybe change a little how they do things. Maybe they can participate a bit more in the debates or maybe be bit more constructive and make suggestions instead of trying to jam everything in the House.
Bill C-18 is about democracy and journalism, and Conservatives should support it.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed because my colleagues and I were looking forward to debating this piece of legislation. So far, the only Conservative member to speak to it has been me, which is unfortunate.
To my colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, it is obviously a forgone conclusion that this bill will be passed and time allocation will be guillotined on this bill.
I want a clear commitment from the minister that he, the government House leader and the whip will not interfere at committee. I want a clear commitment that they will permit the committee to hear from witnesses and that there will not be a guillotine or programming motion at committee and that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will be permitted to fully explore the bill, hear from witnesses and not be forced into a programming motion.
Madam Speaker, of course there will be very important work done at committee. It would be a pleasure, if my colleague and the members invite me, to go because I have many important things to say on the bill. For example, it is really an arm's length bill. It is a bill that sets a table for the web giants, tech giants and news media across the country, big or small, to sit down and work on fair agreements for all. That is extremely important.
That is one of the things we can discuss at committee. Another thing we could discuss at committee is how this bill would allow collective agreements, which would include a lot of small and regional papers. If I go to committee and the member asks me that question, I will talk about collective agreements. Of course there will be lots of time to work at committee, and it will be a pleasure to see my friend there.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I will rephrase my question. I was giving a passionate speech, and I did not know whether I had 60 seconds to ask my question.
We obviously want to have a solution.
My questions are as follows: What is going on? What can we tell our constituents?
As it stands, we have had only two hours of discussion and debate on such an important bill. I expect to hear an answer from my colleague across the aisle, because this is not the first time this has happened, and my hunch is that it will not be the last. I would like an explanation.
Madam Speaker, I will not comment on my colleague's hunches, but I will say this: I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois, which is generally the exact opposite of the Conservatives when it comes to ideas, principles and ideals, is so openly supportive of the Conservatives in this type of discussion.
As I understand it, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑18. Why do they support it? They support the bill because it strengthens our media, because it strengthens a free and independent press, a press that will ensure that we have news about what is happening in Chibougamau, Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke, Gatineau, Amos and Brossard.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that there will continue to be a press. From what I understand, the NDP supports it as well. As for the Conservatives, who included it in their platform, I hope that they will agree with themselves. If all goes well and they listen to themselves, they should support the bill. Then it will be unanimous.
[English]
Madam Speaker, when the Conservatives were in government, a majority government at that, they used time allocation over 100 times. Here we are now, and we are seeing the Conservatives using obstructionist tactics over and over again.
Could the member share why this bill is important? Could he also share why it is important that we make a decision that Canadians need to be made and why these obstructionist tactics are in the way of Canadians being served?
Madam Speaker, my colleague's comment and questions highlight how important it is to be able to collaborate.
Even if we disagree, we come here for the same reasons. We want to represent the people who voted for us, and we want our country to improve. We want a better society for our children. We may disagree on how to get there. Once or twice, we may disagree on how to get there, but we are here for the right reasons, which is to make a better country.
This will make Canada a better country because we will have a stronger free and independent press, and that press is disappearing. I mentioned 450 media outlet that have closed during the last 15 years, and that is huge. We are not only talking about small ones. There are small and big ones in different regions.
If they all disappear, who will be there to talk about what my colleague is doing in their riding, what I am doing or what anyone else is doing? About 80% of advertising on the web is going to two web giants: Facebook and Google. That is the reality. That is what is happening at this moment. We need to have the tech giants and the media outlets sit down and negotiate fair deals. It would be fair for all.
Mr. Speaker, in the answers to the questions so far, the minister has talked about the loss of thriving news agencies. He has talked about the 450 news agencies that have been lost in the last couple years and how it is so important for us to have these thriving news agencies to support our democracy.
He just talked about the differences we might have in the House as we come to debate bills. We come to represent our constituents and to have a discussion in this House, but he does that in the context of limiting the opportunity for us, as members of Parliament, to come and have discussion and debate a particular bill. He talks about how substantive this bill is.
How does limiting our discussion and debate by invoking closure on this bill allow for members of the House to come and represent their constituents in an adequate manner?
Madam Speaker, some numbers came out this morning about the importance of supporting a free and independent press, and they are quite interesting.
If members do not want to listen to me, then maybe they can at least listen to their own voters, the people who voted for them, and 71% of self-identified Conservative voters think web giants should have to share revenue with Canadian media outlets. That is 71% of Conservatives. I have a second number, and it is that 74% of self-identified Conservative voters think that Parliament should pass a law that would let smaller outlets negotiate collectively with web giants. This is exactly what we are doing with this bill.
Madam Speaker, this bill is important. It is important to ensure that web giants such as Facebook, Meta and Google pay their fair share. When I think about the Canadians watching the debate and the constituents of our Conservative colleagues watching this party obstruct not only this bill but so many more before it, I imagine they are disappointed.
I'm wondering if the minister can speak to those Canadians and talk a bit about the importance of the work we do here and how it is incredibly disappointing to see what the Conservatives have been doing.
Madam Speaker, that is a very important comment from my colleague. I want to thank her for everything she is doing, and her party for what it is doing, on this very important bill.
With respect to Canadians being disappointed, of course they are disappointed with the Conservatives. I am very disappointed myself with them, which says a lot. However, it is not only Canadians. I referred to the numbers: 71% of Conservative voters said that we should do this and 74% said we should allow small media outlets to negotiate with the big web giants. This is written in the bill, so if the Conservatives do not want to listen to me or to us, will they at least listen to the people who might vote for them in the future?
Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party.
This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous.
The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with.
A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.
Madam Speaker, if my colleague agrees with that, he has a weird way of showing it. I see the Conservatives attacking the New Democrats because they come here trying to make a difference. On some things we collaborate; on others we do not and we disagree, which is fine. However, to the Conservatives the word “collaboration” makes no sense. What they prefer to do is jam things, filibuster, listen to each other and clap for each other all the time. They think it is a good thing to shut down democracy like they are doing now. It is totally wrong.
We have to move forward. This bill has to move forward. This bill will go to committee and will have hours of discussion and witnesses. I will go there and speak about the importance of it and how it allows collective bargaining to help smaller media news outlets and regional news outlets. I will talk about how this will translate into fair agreements between the tech giants and media outlets across the country. I will talk about the importance of the press. I will talk about the importance of the press for our democracy and the importance of a strong, free and independent press, because that is what bill C-18 is all about. That is it.
Madam Speaker, to the hon. minister, this moment we have now is not about debating the substance of Bill C-18. I look forward to an opportunity to debate that, but I will not get that opportunity because time allocation is being used again.
I have to say that, on principle, I object to this. I objected to it when the previous administration under Stephen Harper did it over and over again at a level unprecedented in parliamentary history. What is now happening is the governing Liberals are normalizing the suppression of debate at second reading. Maybe we can debate this in the Standing Orders debate we are to have. Is the goal of governing parties in this place to shut down all debate at second reading and just say, “We will get to it in committee”? That is not acceptable.
This is not acceptable and I will not be voting for time allocation. On principle, I have maybe once been persuaded that there really was a case for it, but today on Bill C-18 there is no case for it.
Madam Speaker, it is important that we move on with such a crucial bill for our democracy. I think it is a well-balanced bill. We took the original idea from Australia and we tweaked it and improved it. It is more transparent. It is arm's length legislation, and we have set the table for the tech giants to sit down with media outlets big and small so they can negotiate to come to different agreements. There is minimal intervention from the government.
The Conservatives should be happy about it, but they do not seem to be happy. I do not understand why. They even wrote in their own platform that they would do exactly what we are doing. Maybe they changed their minds again on this, but I think we are doing the right thing.
Madam Speaker, when I was in opposition in the third party, I indicated that there is a time when governments need to use time allocation as a tool to pass legislation. We have before us today, and have witnessed for a number of months now, an official opposition that has absolutely no intention to allow legislation to pass. It does not take very much for an opposition party to prevent legislation from passing. As I said when I was in opposition, at times the government has to use time allocation as a tool.
Would my colleague not agree that, given the strategy of the Conservative Party not to pass legislation and to even filibuster legislation that it supports, the only way we can pass this legislation is if we use time allocation, something the Conservative Party used to vote for extensively?
Madam Speaker, I would say more than extensively. I was here with my colleague, and the Conservatives were using time allocation time after time, even when we were not doing anything. However, in this case, the Conservatives are jamming the debate on many important transformational bills, on bills that Canadians want and even on bills that Conservative supporters now want.
This bill is fundamental. As we speak, news media outlets are closing their doors. I spoke about the 450, but there are more and more. Time is of the essence.
There is debate here. There is debate in committee. There is debate at the Senate. These important debates have to take place and have to bring us to the conclusion where this bill is adopted, because this is what Canada needs.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, this is my last question. I certainly understand that all the questions about the process we are going through will not be answered.
I heard the minister. The Bloc Québécois is not just here to oppose things. We will vote in favour of things that are good for Quebec, and, obviously, we believe that Bill C‑18 is extremely good for Quebec.
Nevertheless, if collaboration is so important, why was the Bloc Québécois not consulted so that we could reach an agreement ahead of time? This is not our first time allocation rodeo. Over the past few weeks, closure has been all the rage. Again, the question is, how did we get to this point? Are the Liberals short on inspiration or on strategy?
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is consulted regularly. In fact, I have an excellent professional relationship and excellent collaboration with the Bloc's heritage critic, the member for Drummond.
As I said off the top, the member cares deeply about all of this and he takes this extremely seriously. I know he consults people, and I know he does so very thoroughly because we talk to the same people. He offers suggestions, he listens to what we say and we talk about it all. We will continue to discuss issues with my colleague from Drummond, the rest of the Bloc Québécois and all the parties. What matters is moving this bill forward because Canada needs it.
[English]
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Perth—Wellington.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 104)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blois
Boissonnault
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fergus
Fillmore
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garneau
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 172
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barsalou-Duval
Benzen
Bergen
Bergeron
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
MacKenzie
Maguire
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 137
PAIRED
Nil The House resumed from May 13 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about an important piece of legislation. I suspect that what we would find is virtually universal support, no matter where one goes in Canada, for this type of legislation.
In fact, it was not that long ago when we were in a national election and the Conservative Party of Canada was talking about how important it was to deal with this very same issue. On the one hand, Conservatives seemed to love the idea back in September, but something has happened. Maybe it is that leadership vacuum, but the bottom line is that the Conservatives now seem to want to waffle.
Let me assure my friends across the way that Canadians understand the issue. They understand it fully. Unlike the Conservatives, we recognize the value of our public having media sources they can actually count on and of supporting that industry, both directly and indirectly.
Someone who was suspicious of the Conservative tactics on this legislation might raise a couple of issues. One that comes to mind is the issue of fake news. The Conservatives love fake news. It was not that long ago the Conservatives were saying the Liberals are going to put a tax on trucks. Do members remember that one? That was a Conservative fake news spin. A big part of their agenda—
Order. I know we have been away for a week and I am so glad to see that everybody is looking forward to talking and happy to see everybody, but I would ask to just keep the noise down a bit and respect other members.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to emphasize why it is so important that we support the industry. From a government, from a party or even from the average person in our communities, they all recognize the true value of fact-based news. It is somewhat foreign to the Conservative spin doctors, and that is why I brought up the truck issue.
In the very brief discussion I had moments ago, another example came up. Do members remember the fake news when the Conservative Party said the Liberals are going to put a tax on the sale of principal homes? We can stand up in the chamber and tell Conservatives that this is just wrong and is an outright untruth. I did not say the word “lie”; I said “untruth”.
The Conservatives would say something of that nature, and we would stand up and say that it is just not true, yet the Conservatives still try to say something that is questionable—
Order. Let us all take a moment and take a deep breath. Question period is not for another hour or so. Let us bring the temperature down, but also let us not do indirectly what we cannot do directly either.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, let me restart, if I can put it that way. There is an expectation that we all have. We all have it because we went through a national election where it was made very clear that the government was given a new mandate and part of that mandate was to show there was a need for opposition parties and government to work together. We see that taking place quite often between different opposition parties and the government.
Unfortunately, the Conservative Party has taken an approach where it does not matter what the legislation is and the importance of Bill C-18—
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
Mr. Speaker, we hear this narrative all the time with the Liberal Party saying that the Conservatives do not co-operate. We had unanimous consent on the constitutional amendment for Saskatchewan, so we have co-operated—
We are descending. This is debate, and I am sure there are lots of slots that people can fill on this debate on the bill before us today.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, being inspired, I would ask if there would be unanimous support to see this legislation go through, given the fact that all political parties supported the principle of the legislation and supporting the principle would only see it go to committee stage. I would encourage that sort of enthusiasm for support on Bill C-18.
The point I was trying to get at is that Bill C-18 is important legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact. The minister has done an incredible job, through the ministry, of gathering and sharing thoughts and ideas and getting the information necessary to bring forward legislation that would make a difference and would be a true reflection of what Canadians wanted back in September of last year.
We also need to recognize there is the expectation that the government will bring forward legislation and that opposition parties will participate and be engaged. We often see that, especially from members of the New Democratic Party, the Green Party and the Bloc. At times we will see it from the Conservatives. It is not too often, but maybe at times.
The bottom line is that what we have witnessed in recent months is a great filibuster on whatever the legislation might be. That is the reason we needed to bring in time allocation on this legislation. The best example I could probably give would be Bill C-8. Members might remember Bill C-8 as the fall economic statement legislation that was just recently passed. That is an excellent example of the manner in which the Conservative Party will go out of its way to stop legislation from passing.
Bill C-8 was all about supporting Canadians through the pandemic. Bill C-18 is all about protecting a critical industry here in Canada. It is an industry that needs legislation of this nature. Canada is not alone. There are other countries that have moved in this direction and recognized the need for national governments to bring forward legislation. In fact, the official opposition recognized and seemed to support what was taking place in Australia on this issue. It has made reference to that.
I believe Bill C-18 is—
Order, please.
Somebody has their microphone on in the parliamentary feed.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. I am sorry to be interrupting him so much.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure I will be given the time back.
At the end of the day, I believe we have better legislation than Australia. I understand the Conservative Party supports what is taking place in Australia. There is more transparency in Bill C-18, so one wonders why the Conservative Party would not see the value of it and not only support the legislation but allow it to ultimately pass as opposed to continue to put up some form of a filibuster.
At the end—
It seems we keep getting the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount on the parliamentary feed, so let me once again make sure we are clear.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.
We will try this again, Mr. Speaker.
What we are looking at in Bill C-18 is legislation that would provide more transparency and ultimately more accountability than we saw in Australia. Canadians as a whole, in all regions of the country, desire to see fact-based news reported. One of the ways in which we can ensure that takes place is to support Bill C-18.
On one hand, we had every political entity inside this chamber in the last federal election say that it supported that form of legislation. The good news is that, like so many other platform issues in an election, the Government of Canada has brought forward legislation that would fulfill yet another commitment to Canadians, so it should be no surprise. Part of that commitment is to see this legislation ultimately pass. That is why the Minister of Heritage was here about half an hour ago, talking about why it was important that we bring in time allocation to get this legislation passed.
I would appeal in particular to my Conservative friends to recognize the true value of the legislation and suggest to them that times have changed. When I was first elected as a parliamentarian a few years back, I can remember walking back into the Manitoba legislature in 1988 and looking into the press gallery. We have a press gallery up here, but it is not very often that we actually see members of the press in there. Having said that, when I first walked into the Manitoba legislature during a question period, the press gallery was packed. We would have two cameras from CBC. We would have CKND there. We would have CTV. We would have at least three reporters from the Winnipeg Free Press and from the Winnipeg Sun and even some rural media. There were not that many chairs, and often we would see media personalities standing. When I left the Manitoba legislature a number of years ago, prior to coming here, we might get one or two members of the media sitting in the gallery.
We need to recognize the number of local news outlets that have been lost through print media, radio and television. Our communities really miss community-based reporting of local news. At large companies, including CTV, CBC and other major media outlets, there have been cutbacks. We should all be concerned. We are a parliamentary democracy in Canada. Our system is very much dependent on having a healthy, modern media industry. I have used the word, as many of my colleagues have. When we talk about a modern industry, it is absolutely critical that it be fact-based. That is why more and more we are seeing a sense of urgency in getting this type of legislation put before the House and into committee, and ultimately coming back and getting the royal assent that is necessary in order to make it the law of the land.
The legislation would ensure that there is a free, independent press that is able to enhance our democratic values, and it would ensure that there is a certain element of fact-based news that we see when we look at Facebook and YouTube and those high-tech world-leading giants, if I can put it that way.
Let us compare yesterday to today, yesterday being a number of years ago, and the advertising that would have taken place. I will use the Winnipeg Free Press as an example and the advertising dollars it would have generated during the 1990s. We can compare that to the amount of advertising required today. Whether it is print, radio or TV, it is advertising dollars that generate the revenue to provide opportunities for those companies to pay their employees, from the people delivering, publishing or printing the papers to the journalists, the ones writing the stories and providing the editorials. There has been a massive loss of advertising revenue not only by our major newspapers, but also our community-based newspapers. If we look at rural communities and municipalities versus larger urban centres, we have seen a reduction in what I would suggest is reliable, fact-based reporting because of the loss of revenue.
Where we have seen an explosion, on the other hand, is through the Internet. It has been cited, for example, that Facebook and Google consume somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80% of what goes into advertising. Are the reporters and investigative journalists receiving any sort of real financial compensation for the work they are doing to create and provide the fact-based stories that come from Internet giants Google and Facebook? If we do a Google search or look at Facebook, we see these streams that incorporate news broadcasts. Is there fair compensation being provided?
The government and, based on the last federal election, I would argue all members recognize that there is a deficiency and that fair compensation is not being provided. It is the Government of Canada that is in the best position to ensure that there is a higher sense of awareness and that we have an industry that is being protected. It goes much further than the issue of jobs. It is an industry that we cannot afford to lose or neglect. I would suggest there is an obligation for us to protect it and do what we can to enhance it. When we read through Bill C-18, that is what we will find it would do. The sooner it gets through the House of Commons and becomes law, the sooner we will enable many news agencies to have the opportunity to have fair discussions and negotiations with companies such as Google and YouTube. That is why I believe it is so critical.
In the questions and answers the Minister of Canadian Heritage provided earlier today, he was talking in part about the number of people we are losing in that industry. I do not have the actual numbers, but I could speculate in terms of salaries. I suspect the average salary in that industry has modestly increased and I would not be surprised if, in many ways, it has decreased at a time when, as the Internet explodes, there is an even higher demand for reliable news.
I know how important it is. On a weekly basis, I go to a local restaurant where every so often a certain gentleman would come by, and I could tell what paper he was reading by the criticism he was providing. One day I suggested to him that he should broaden his reading and share other stories that were being published. Interestingly, he never did show up again. I suspect it was because he had been looking at the broader media and reading what was being published by some of those agencies that we have grown to trust over the years. There is a high sense of accountability for Global, CTV and CBC, and newspapers both nationally and locally. When they appear in newsfeeds, whether it is on Facebook or YouTube or in whatever format, it does make a difference.
This government is not going to be intimidated in any fashion by the tech giants of the world. We want to ensure that the industry is protected, and we need to put everyone on a more level and fairer playing field. There needs to be proper compensation to our media outlets that are being tapped into in order to foster greater profits for those high-tech world companies, and in short, that is exactly what Bill C-18 would do: It would put in place a process that would enable negotiation and a much higher sense of fairness. It would protect our news industry as we modernize and continue to move forward.
I encourage all members not only to support the legislation before us but also to support its passage so that it can get royal assent possibly as early as the end of June.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that I would like to thank my colleague for Winnipeg North for his speech, but that would be disingenuous.
The member talked a lot about support for local media, which is funny, because in the operations committee about three years ago, we actually studied government advertising in Canada. The committee came up with recommendations that the government should stop sending all its money to Google and Facebook and use government advertising to support local media, small newspapers, the Winnipeg Free Press, which he mentioned, and a lot of local ethnic newspapers. What did this government do? It took the recommendation, threw it in the garbage, and continued to push more money to Google, Facebook and these big web giants.
Why, then, is the member speaking out of both sides of his face? He is saying to support local business, but when we had the chance to do so, the government gave the money to Facebook and Google.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is actually good news.
Let us be realistic. The federal government, as it has for many years, invests in advertising in a significant way, from community newspapers to radio programs, both urban and rural. We have ethnic advertising that takes place, and yes, there is advertising that takes place on Google and on YouTube. There are very important programs that the government has, and it is important that Canadians find out about them, whether they be programs that serve our vets or programs that advertise the greener home building program or other programs from which Canadians can really benefit if in fact they are informed about them.
Governments have done advertising for many years, although not with as much money as Stephen Harper ever spent, but governments have done it for many years.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I organized a major public consultation during last week's constituency week. There is an airport in my riding, and I held public consultations on developing that airport. It is an important piece of infrastructure that affects the lives of 400,000 people in the region.
My riding has just one local weekly newspaper, Le Courrier du Sud. We wanted the media to come and cover this event, which would affect everyone in my riding, not to mention people in neighbouring ridings, so we sent a press release to the newspaper. We were told that no journalists were available to cover this event, despite how important it was to our local community.
The legislation presented for our consideration does not ensure that small local weekly newspapers will have enough bargaining power to fully participate in negotiations with web giants.
Can my colleague comment on that? Can he assure us that local media will be able to get sufficient funding through the negotiations that will take place with the web giants?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-18's passage, we will see for the first time a greatly enhanced opportunity to ensure that we do get fair compensation, not only for the large media outlets but for small media outlets also. I can understand and relate to what the member is talking about, especially in rural Manitoba, as an example, or even in some of our major urban centres where there is a need for more journalists. As a society, we want to support that industry. For me personally, fact-based news is of critical importance.
I hope to see the bill go to committee, and maybe the member can participate at the committee stage. If there are things we can do to improve and enhance the legislation, I am sure that the minister would be open to those ideas. In fact, if the member has specifics, he should probably raise them with the minister or the parliamentary secretary in advance of the bill going to committee.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is important, and it is so important that we make web giants pay their fair share. It is also important that we learn lessons from other countries.
The member mentioned Australia, and I want to follow up on the question from my colleague in the Bloc. We have seen in Australia that Facebook and others have been entering into revenue agreements with the large publishers. It means that the smaller publishers are not getting fair compensation. Therefore, I am wondering if the member will commit to advocating for changes at committee stage to ensure that smaller publishers get a fair shake.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and I think there is a great deal of interest not only on my part but from within the Liberal caucus and hopefully others, such as the member, in recognizing the importance of the smaller news agencies. That is one of the reasons I incorporated this point in my comments and talked about ensuring fairer compensation for both large and small media outlets. They are absolutely critical, especially to our local communities.
I really do believe that this legislation would enhance that sense of fairness for both large and small media outlets. If there are things that we could do to better ensure that outcome, I would encourage my New Democratic friends to raise the issue and bring up the example, and if they have an amendment, to share it with the minister or the staff. They do not have to wait until it goes to committee; they can do that at any point in time. I am sure that if there are ways in which we can improve the bill, the minister would be open to them.
Mr. Speaker, I am very troubled by what has happened to journalism in Canada. I agree, as the hon. parliamentary secretary said, that democracy itself is under assault when we lose our local journalists. In fact, there have been empirical studies that show that as parliamentary bureaus of local papers across Canada close up shop, the level of voting in those communities goes down. I agree with the diagnosis, but I do not know that we have the right prescription.
What we now see in Australia are a lot of concerns after the Australian model, which we are now pursuing, has been used as a big stick to drive people to private negotiations with no transparency. There is a lot of concern about following this model.
I am not saying I am against it and I want to figure out how it might work, but surely the simplest thing is to go to the source and say to Google, Twitter, Facebook and anything that is undermining our journalism that they are publishers, just like the newspapers. They are not platforms but publishers, and they have to follow all the same rules as print journalism in Canada.
Would the hon. member comment on that?
Mr. Speaker, for many years, giant tech companies such as Facebook, Google and YouTube have been going around the world and getting away with a great deal while enriching themselves worldwide. We are seeing more countries today saying that it is not acceptable and that we want to ensure that there is protection for their media industries, and that is something that is very tangible coming from this government. This legislation will go a long way toward ensuring a higher sense of fair compensation and protecting a critically important industry.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for fitting me into this debate.
I would say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North: We just heard a comment from the Conservatives across the way that they did not want to hear from him because he had an alternative point of view. In fact, a lot of news is presented online in a biased fashion. Could the member talk about news as entertainment versus news as a source of information on the different points of view that help to inform us?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. That is why I shared the story of the gentleman who would show up and talk to me. After a few weeks, I could tell exactly what outlet he was using as his source. It was always the same outlet. When I made the suggestion that he try to expand and look at other media outlets, he literally stopped coming. It was a pleasant discussion we had.
The point is that it is very important that we be supportive of our news industry and journalists. That is what this legislation is all about. It is about ensuring there is proper compensation. We have some of the best journalists in the world and we need to support them. We need to be there for the industry. It is healthier for our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, it has been an enjoyable afternoon listening to some of the fairy tales from the government, because it is cutting off debate after two hours on a bill that, from coast to coast, we have not seen much of.
Bill C-18 is an interesting bill. As a former journalist and broadcaster, I am glad today that I have the opportunity to speak to this bill and right the ship, if the House does not mind.
I spent 40 years in the industry, in radio and television. I began the career in Yorkton, working midnights as a disk jockey. I spent some time in Melfort doing radio. I moved over to CFQC in Saskatoon—
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my friend for interrupting.
There is an incredible amount of background noise going on just outside the chamber. Perhaps you could pass along an instruction for them to quiet down a bit.
I appreciate that intervention. I try to remind folks as they come into the chamber and the lobbies to keep their conversations a lot quieter, because the sound coming over from the other side is a little too much for this House of Commons. Again I would ask members coming into the House to keep the lobby doors closed to keep the volume down.
I apologize. The hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood has three minutes.
Mr. Speaker, picking back up, I spent some time at Melfort, went over to Saskatoon in radio and then spent the majority of my career as a sports journalist and anchor at CTV News Saskatoon.
As a journalist, I remember having the opportunity to travel and cover some of the biggest news stories in Saskatchewan's history. I was on the field for countless Roughriders games, Grey Cup championships, Olympics and world curling championships. I remember covering the historic attempt when Saskatoon and Saskatchewan tried to get the St. Louis Blues to move to Saskatoon. That was in the 1980s.
What a success entrepreneur Bill Hunter and his group had back then, as they had thousands of people activated in our province, all going through the news media. We went to Madison Square Garden in New York for the NHL hearings. I remember the night before the hearings I was in the New York Islanders' dressing room celebrating the team's four-game sweep of the Edmonton Oilers. I talked to the many Saskatchewan-born players on the Islanders' team: Bryan Trottier, Bob Bourne and so on. It was a historic week being in New York trying to get the St. Louis Blues back to Saskatchewan and Canada.
I am afraid those stories would probably not be told today because of the lack of budgets for small- and medium-sized news organizations in this country. They have cut their staff, some down entirely to zero. In stations that actually remain, the person we hear on the air is often the only person in the entire building. Big stations are not exempt from this either. I have seen my fair share of colleagues and friends over the years being shown the door when cuts came around to address lagging revenues.
Earlier in my career, though, I worked late nights covering the station at a time when there was actually live coverage of radio throughout the night. Now, most stations are live for maybe six hours a day, or 12 at best. It is actually exclusively pre-recorded and it is satellite radio. This is a shame because where can young broadcasters get into the business now when, with a flip of the switch, people can have satellite radio?
We are getting ready for question period, and I will, as they say, come back for the rest of the story.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Roger Farwell
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share today about my friend Roger Farwell.
Roger was not only an architect, a community builder and a champion of arts and culture, he was one who was deeply devoted to his family and his community. He passed away tragically last summer, and yesterday family and friends came together to celebrate his life and legacy.
Waterloo region is known as a barn-raising community, where people come together to support each other. Over his life, Roger received nearly every prestigious award our community offers to recognize leadership and service, including our highest honour, the Barnraiser Award, which was inspired by former governor general David Johnston.
Roger was the consummate barnraiser. He gave to others, worked quietly behind the scenes, and expected nothing in return. In so many ways, Roger was the best of our community.
As we continue to mourn the loss of Roger, I want to extend my deepest condolences to his wife, Cathy, and the rest of his family. We send them all our love and wish them strength as they continue to grieve. Together we will do our best to make Roger proud.
National Tourism Week
Mr. Speaker, Canada is blessed with stunning natural beauty, vibrant cities and diverse cultural gatherings that draw people from around the world to experience them.
Before the pandemic, the tourism industry employed one out of every 11 Canadians. Across our country, from the slopes of Whistler, to the Calgary Stampede, Le Vieux-Port of Montreal and Gros Morne in Newfoundland, chances are that tourism is one of the important parts of the local economy and a source of immense pride for communities to welcome visitors.
This week is national Tourism Week. As we celebrate Tourism Week, I invite every member in the House and every member in the other place to join me in the panorama room at the Delta Hotel for a reception, hosted by the parliamentary tourism caucus and the Tourism Industry Association of Canada, to share some food and drinks from across our great nation and talk about how we could jump-start tourism in Canada to once again share our beautiful country with the world.
Joy Smith Foundation
Mr. Speaker, human trafficking remains a vicious and growing crime in every corner of this country, and it is within 10 blocks of where we live. It must end.
Today I am pleased to recognize the work of one of the great heroes in the fight against human trafficking, the former member of Parliament Joy Smith. For years, Joy was relentless in raising this issue in the House and championing the voices of victims and survivors. During her time as MP, she had one motion and two private members' bills adopted that strengthened Canada’s human anti-trafficking laws. Joy also initiated the former Conservative government’s national action plan to combat human trafficking. As a former teacher, Joy has always said, “Education is our greatest weapon”.
Since leaving office, she has continued the fight against human trafficking through the Joy Smith Foundation, educating thousands of Canadians and supporting countless survivors. Last year, Joy’s foundation launched the National Human Trafficking Education Centre, which provides courses for teachers, parents and frontline responders. We thank Joy for her tireless work to stand up for the vulnerable and securing freedom for those enslaved.
Canadian Rangers
Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Rangers. They are dedicated, courageous men and women, and they are Canadian Armed Forces members. They live and work in remote, isolated, coastal regions of Canada. They are trained and ready to serve.
This year they celebrate a major milestone of loyal service to Canada. They are 5,000 strong, and they serve in more than 200 communities across Canada's north. I want to thank all those who serve in the Canadian Rangers.
We see them in times of crisis, such as search and rescue operations and natural disasters. We see them helping communities throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and we see them in times of celebration as they mark the extreme events of Canada's military history. They are always there to support their communities and to support Canada's northern regions.
I ask members of Parliament to join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to all those who have served in the Canadian Rangers and Junior Canadian Rangers for Canada for the past 75 years.
[Translation]
National Tourism Week
Mr. Speaker, this week is National Tourism Week. We all know that tourism is a vital part of our economy. In Quebec alone, it generates $15 billion in economic spinoffs each year, and there are 25,000 businesses employing 400,000 people in tourism.
The last two years have been especially difficult. It is now time to look ahead. Our industry must regain its international competitiveness. The industry is ready, and it is safe. It is working flat out to offer tourists an exceptional experience.
We must support our businesses and sing the praises of our own little corner of the world. I have plenty to boast about. With its wide-open spaces, its history, its amazing food scene, its new-world accent and its charm, Quebec is ready to welcome tourists back with the same warmth and good humour as before.
Happy National Tourism Week, everyone.
Outaouais Multicultural Entrepreneurs Action Network
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to draw your attention to the 10th anniversary of the Outaouais Multicultural Entrepreneurs Action Network, or RAEM, which contributes significantly to the socio-economic integration of immigrants through entrepreneurship. Together with many local stakeholders, RAEM is known for the services it offers to immigrant entrepreneurs in the Outaouais region.
A celebration was held in the organization's honour on May 24, and I was there to personally attest to its valuable contribution to the socio-economic development of Gatineau over the years.
I would like to highlight the commitment of Señor Jaime Baquero and his team, the board of directors, and the many volunteers and partners who contribute to the success of immigrant entrepreneurship.
Once again, I wish the entire Outaouais RAEM team a wonderful 10th anniversary.
[English]
Brooks Bandits
Mr. Speaker, after winning the Canadian championship in 2019 and two cancelled seasons, the Brooks Bandits are once again the Canadian Junior Hockey League national champions. In 2022, they scored 109 points in regular season, and in the playoffs' four rounds, they went 12 and one. This is their fifth Alberta junior hockey championship in 10 years. Yesterday, with a four-to-one victory, they finished undefeated in the Centennial Cup final. They are back-to-back champions. It was their third in 10 years.
I send my congratulations to everyone in the organizations: players, coaches and management. They focused on education and scholarship, attracted young talent and furthered the players' educational and career goals. They are doing the city of Brooks, the county of Newell, the Bow River riding and Alberta proud while forging a legacy in junior hockey. Next year, the Bandits are going for three in a row. Go, Bandits.
The Great Lakes
Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence stakeholder communities are today visiting Parliament Hill to share their vision for the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Then, later tonight, we are hosting an event for MPs, Senators and staff to learn more about the triple bottom line impacts of this massive freshwater system.
Representatives from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative, the OFAH, the Council of the Great Lakes Region, the Ontario Commercial Fisheries’ Association and more will be on hand to take questions and to showcase the great things happening in the area.
These resources are binational treasures that we hold in trust for future generations. They support hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in trade and economic output. They are a source of clean drinking water for millions, and they are part of an environmental trust we all share.
I thank these groups for helping to keep the Great Lakes great, and I thank all members of the House for supporting this essential work.
Canadian Jewish Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, this Canadian Jewish Heritage Month I would like to recognize and celebrate Jewish culture, heritage and history in Canada. Jewish Canadians have made and continue to make important contributions to the socio-economic development of Canada. I would like to recognize and thank Rabbi Mendel Blum of Ottawa Torah Centre and the leadership team at Congregation Beit Tikvah of Ottawa for their services to the Jewish community and beyond in Ottawa.
I would like to recognize and thank Andrea Freedman of the Jewish Federation of Ottawa for her services to the Jewish Canadian community. I also would like to recognize and thank Corey Balsam for his hard work representing Independent Jewish Voices Canada.
Retirement Congratulations
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to recognize a local legend in Alberta municipal politics, Helen Posti.
Helen left office last year after 30 years as mayor of Eckville and a total of 35 consecutive years on council. While Helen may be leaving the job she held, which spanned five different decades, she is certainly not leaving her role as a public servant. I know Helen will continue to be a cherished volunteer and lend her expertise to a number of community groups and boards.
Over the course of her career, Helen saw the transition from typewriters to Zoom meetings and has a list of accomplishments that anyone in this chamber would be envious to call their own. From being instrumental in bringing family and community support services to town and overseeing the creation of multiple subdivisions, to a new water treatment plant, countless new pieces of community infrastructure and a new fire hall with ambulance personnel quarters, there is not much she has not done.
I thank Mayor Posti, Helen, for being a shining example of what public service ought to be.
National AccessAbility Week
Mr. Speaker, this week is National AccessAbility Week, when we get to celebrate the tremendous contributions of persons with disabilities and highlight the work of Canadians and organizations working together to remove barriers in communities across Canada.
That was the case last Saturday in my hometown, with the official opening of the Farrow Riverside Miracle Park. Miracle Park is the first fully accessible park, playground and baseball diamond in Windsor, and it has already brought countless smiles and pride to our community.
So many stepped up to make this miracle happen, inspired by the leadership of the Riverside Minor Baseball Association and the generosity of families, including the Farrow, Solcz and Toldo families, among other. Bill Kell, the Miracle Park co-chair said, “No matter how big or small, you made a difference.”
I urge all my colleagues and all Canadians to highlight the miracles happening in their communities during this year's National AccessAbility Week celebrations.
Supreme Court Ruling
Mr. Speaker, recently, the Supreme Court struck down life without parole for mass murderers, dealing yet another blow to victims' rights in Canada. When I first heard this, I was shocked and then I got angry. I later spoke with my constituent Sharlene Bosma, whose husband Tim was brutally shot in the head and then incinerated in 2013.
The murderer, who also killed his father and girlfriend, was then convicted and sentenced to life in prison for three consecutive 25-year sentences. Sharlene believed she would never have to go through a parole hearing in her lifetime, but the murderer will now be able to apply for parole in just 16 years, and every two to five years thereafter. This is revictimization. This dangerous and disappointing ruling essentially gives would-be mass murderers the licence to kill at will because our Supreme Court believes in the dignity of the offender over the well-being of victims’ families.
This decision should outrage all parliamentarians. I urge the government to think of the Bosma family and bring balance back to our justice system.
National Tourism Week
Mr. Speaker, if we want to know how much we need something, simply take it away. That is what happened this past week in my riding of Peterborough—Kawartha, in Ontario, when we lost our power. I want to take a minute to thank all the hydro workers, both local and from all over, who came to restore power.
It is also what has happened in the last two years to our tourism sector. When we lost tourism, we lost human connection. It is responsible not only for one in 10 jobs, but for memories.
As shadow minister for tourism, I am excited to work in the all-party caucus. We have a lot of work to do, and I know every member in here believes in tourism because it impacts every single one of our ridings. We have a lot to be enthusiastic about, but we have a lot of work to do. It is my job to be critical and to put pressure where pressure needs to be applied.
It is time to open up Canada for business, it is time to drop the mandates and it is time to support the industry that needs us so much. Happy National Tourism Week. Canada is the best of the best, and I am so honoured to represent it.
[Translation]
Patriots Exiled to Australia
Mr. Speaker, I just returned from an incredible trip to Australia, to which 58 patriots from Quebec were exiled 182 years ago for participating in the 1836-39 rebellions.
These courageous men, including farmers, businessmen, notaries and doctors, had fought for better democratic representation in the colony of Lower Canada.
Two men from Sainte‑Martine, Louis Dumouchel and Gabriel Chèvrefils, died there. All the others returned home after being pardoned by Queen Victoria, except for Joseph Marceau of Napierville. He fell in love with a young Australian woman and stayed there. The couple had 11 children and many descendants who still proudly celebrate their Québécois Canadian heritage to this day.
This is a little-known story that deserves to be told.
[English]
Land Claims Agreements Coalition
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition gathers in Ottawa to continue its important work developing a comprehensive, modern treaty implementation framework. I am pleased to share that among the participants is a group of leaders from the Nisga'a Nation in northwest B.C. who, almost exactly 22 years ago, achieved B.C.'s very first modern treaty. After 113 years of hard work and struggle by the simgigat and sigidimnak', they won self-government for their people at long last.
Today, the work of treaty is as important as ever, and we are reminded of the need for Canada, as a treaty partner, to engage in good faith and address treaty concerns in a timely way.
Joining us in Ottawa this week are Nisga'a Lisims Government President Eva Clayton, Council of Elders chairperson Herb Morven and over a dozen other elected leaders from the Nisga'a Lisims Government and the four Nisga'a village governments. I invite my colleagues here to join me in honouring these leaders for their hard work and in wishing them a productive week of meetings while they are in our capital.
[Translation]
Shootings in Uvalde
Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, tragedy once again struck our American neighbours when a gunman killed 19 children and two teachers in cold blood at an elementary school in Texas. Our hearts go out to the families affected by this heinous crime.
It would be a mistake for us to think that we are safe because we live on the other side of the border. If we do not take action, something that has become all too common in the United States could become the norm here too. The recent shootings in Montreal show that there is already a worrisome move toward a real culture of gun violence here.
The mayor of Montreal and the Premier of Quebec have been clear. They have reiterated that we need to ban handguns and crack down on gun trafficking at the border. With all due respect for hunters, we also need to take action against all military-style assault weapons, not just on a model-by-model basis. These weapons are not made for duck hunting, and they have no place in a society that needs to keep its citizens safe.
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about recent events in our justice system. Someone who commits multiple murders is now eligible for parole as though they had committed only one, and extreme intoxication can be a defence for sexual and violent crimes.
One event that recently hit me most when I reread it just this morning came in a case from a few months ago of a seven-year-old child sexually victimized by her own mother. Her childhood was stolen. The Crown sought a lengthy jail sentence, but a B.C. judge imposed house arrest. Why? The offender had no criminal record, which is not uncommon in these types of offences, the offender was intoxicated and, worse, the judge reasoned that it happened only once.
One time is too many. This seven-year-old child may now have a psychological life sentence, while the person who was supposed to protect her avoids a jail cell. I have three words for the government: Change this now.
Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, vaginas and vulvas are a source of strength, empowerment and pleasure, yet throughout our lives we have been taught that the terms “vulva” and “vagina” do not have a place in polite conversation. That is one more way that the bodies of over half the world’s population are stigmatized, sexualized and objectified.
With the recent news in the United States regarding Roe v. Wade, conversations about sexual and reproductive health are more important than ever, and they start here on Parliament Hill. We need to reclaim space in health research, in politics, in policy-making and at the doctor’s office to celebrate the power of vulvas and vaginas.
It is 2022, and we should not be embarrassed or ashamed to talk about our bodies. Join me, the MPs for Winnipeg Centre, Saanich—Gulf Islands and Shefford, Senator McPhedran and Action Canada as we jointly host a celebration on May 31 to reclaim the conversation and celebrate vulvas and vaginas as powerful and important.
ORAL QUESTIONS
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always put victims' rights above criminals' rights.
On Friday, the Supreme Court issued a disappointing verdict that will allow violent criminals and serial killers like Alexandre Bissonnette and Justin Bourque back into society in spite of their life sentences.
They murdered nine people. These victims will never be back in society, never be with their families again.
Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to ensure that people who commit mass shootings serve sentences that reflect their crimes?
Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this has been painful for the families in Quebec City and for families in communities all across Canada.
I remind members that just because an offender is eligible for parole does not mean that parole will be granted. The Parole Board of Canada will determine whether Alexandre Bissonnette or any other convicted murderer will be granted parole after serving 25 years of their sentence.
We respect the clear and unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It clearly stated that the law it was striking down constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the Prime Minister promised to make life more affordable for everyone.
Seven years later, here is his report card: Gas costs twice as much, housing prices have doubled, groceries cost a fortune, and inflation has risen from 1.1% to 6.8%. With the carbon tax, the government itself is happily picking the pockets of Canadians.
The facts speak for themselves. Under the Liberals, more and more Canadians are having trouble paying their bills. What will the Prime Minister do to help the middle class and those who are paying more and more just to stay in it?
Mr. Speaker, we understand, as all Canadians do, that inflation is a global phenomenon. However, we also understand that this is making life difficult for Canadian families, and that is why our government has taken action.
Our budget includes practical measures, such as dental care for Canadians, a one-time payment of $500 for people who are facing housing affordability challenges, and the introduction of a multi-generational home renovation tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, that is a whole lot of nonsense.
The government's response to inflation and the rising price of gas, food and housing is sorely lacking in compassion for Canadians. It is not by comparing Canada to other countries that we are going to help the families who are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month.
The government is one of the biggest beneficiaries of inflation since it is collecting more and more taxes from Canadians. Instead of continuing to fill its coffers at Canadians' expense, can the Prime Minister give them a bit of relief and lower taxes?
Mr. Speaker, we have no lessons to learn from the Conservatives when it comes to helping the most vulnerable Canadians.
We brought in the Canada child benefit, which is indexed to inflation and has helped to lift nearly 300,000 children out of poverty. It was our government that increased the guaranteed income supplement, which is also indexed to inflation and has helped more than 900,000 seniors.
We have helped the most vulnerable and we will continue to do so.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia are all acting on high gas prices. Even Germany slashed its fuel tax by $16 billion. Our Canadian government did zip, zero, nothing, nada.
The Conservatives proposed exempting GST from fuel to give Canadians a break at the pumps, but the speNDP-Liberals voted against it. Will the Prime Minister take a cue from other G7 leaders and start acting on high gas prices, or is the only acting he enjoys these days playing the Prime Minister on TV?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that inflation is a global phenomenon. We understand that it is very much driven today by Putin's illegal war in Ukraine. That is why we are so active on that issue.
However, we also understand that it is causing real hardship for Canadian families, and that is why our government has acted. We created the CCB, which is indexed to inflation, and now a single mother with two children will receive up to $13,666 from this benefit. OAS, indexed to inflation, is going up by 10% this year. Of course, there is also early learning and child care.
Mr. Speaker, more recycled talking points are not going to help people on low income due to inflation. Nearly half of all Canadians say that skyrocketing grocery bills are making it impossible to feed their families, and food banks are at a breaking point. Economists say inflation started in meat products, but now it has broadened to the most common food items due to rising gas prices.
Will the speNDP-Liberals cut taxes at the pumps to help curb grocery inflation, or was it their plan all along to simply pass on the burden to food banks?
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the most vulnerable Canadians, precisely the people who need to rely on food banks, we will take absolutely no lessons from the Conservatives when it comes to supporting them.
In 2015, when we formed government, more than 5.1 million Canadians lived in poverty. In 2019, the last year for which we have figures, that number had dropped to below 3.8 million. We have programs indexed to inflation supporting the most vulnerable, and there is more support in the budget.
[Translation]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. The Liberals have finally announced their intention to challenge Quebec's Bill 21 when it reaches the Supreme Court of Canada. They are in such a hurry to do so that they have announced their intention even though the matter is not yet before the court. They are out of control. As the Premier of Quebec said, “This is a blatant lack of respect...for Quebeckers”.
Bill 21, the state secularism bill, was passed by a majority of the members of Quebec's National Assembly, who represent a majority of Quebeckers. What part of the concept of democracy does this government not understand?
Mr. Speaker, from the start, we have made it clear that we have concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution. We have made that clear from the start.
I said so clearly the other day when I announced our intention to go to the Supreme Court of Canada if the Court of Appeal's decision were appealed. It is very important to ensure respect for democracy and look at legal jurisdiction and the Constitution. We have concerns relating to section 33 of the Constitution, and we will defend Canadians' rights.
Mr. Speaker, I hope he is embarrassed.
The Liberals like to accuse the Bloc Québécois of picking fights, and yet just last week, they were quick to launch a full-blown attack on Bill 21 on secularism, for one thing. Second, they also suggested they will challenge Bill 96, which is meant to protect the French language. Third, they refused all of Quebec's requests to better manage its own immigration. Each of those represents a slap in the face to democracy in Quebec. That is what they did.
The Liberals want to stop Quebec from protecting its secular, francophone society. They want to stop Quebec MNAs from doing what Quebeckers want them to do.
Who is the one really picking a fight here?
Mr. Speaker, I am a Quebecker. Quebeckers from various sectors, including anglophones, francophones, legal experts, doctors and other players in the health sector, have all expressed concerns about Bill 96. As we have said, we will be following the legislation's implementation to see whether it violates the constitutional rights of Canadians. That is not an insult. We are simply carrying out our duty.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since Justice Deschamps made specific recommendations on how the government could address sexual misconduct and harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. Her report has been gathering dust on a shelf for seven years while the government has been doing nothing. Meanwhile, the government's failure to act continues to have devastating consequences for women in the military. Today, Justice Arbour tabled a new report on the situation.
How long will it take for the government to act and implement these recommendations?
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ms. Arbour for her detailed report, which will be the cornerstone of our efforts. I accepted the report in its entirety. I spoke with the Prime Minister this morning, and we completely agree with the important issues raised by Ms. Arbour.
My priority is to build an institution where everyone is safe, protected and respected at work.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it has been seven years since Justice Deschamps provided specific recommendations on how the government could address sexual misconduct and harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces. In those seven years, we saw brave women come forward while the government covered for powerful men at the top. This failure has devastating consequences for servicewomen and emboldens abusers. Service members have endured incredible harm. The government stood by while careers and lives have been destroyed.
Will the minister apologize to service members specifically for her government's failure to address the toxic culture in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Arbour for her comprehensive and detailed report, which will be the cornerstone of our culture change efforts going forward.
This morning, I accepted her report in its entirety. I spoke with the Prime Minister. At the outset, let me be clear that we wholeheartedly agree with the significant issues identified by Madam Arbour. My top priority is to build a military where everyone who puts on a uniform for our country can work in a safe, respected and protected manner.
Health
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been asking the government to release the metrics and the science it has been using to justify the travel restrictions and mandates. Last week, no one in this House could produce any. Today, at committee, the transport minister finally admitted that he has specific advice that led to the decisions to keep the random testing of 4,000 passengers a day and the mandates for domestic travel in place.
If he has it, why is it a secret? Will he tell everyone in this House what his colleagues were not able to tell us last week?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there is no secret. The data are available. The experts have been very clear.
Consider this example. During the omicron wave, a total of 163,000 deaths could have been prevented in the United States alone if the U.S. had had a higher vaccination rate like we have in Canada.
That said, Canada still has a lot more work to do. We need to keep increasing our third-dose vaccination rate to protect ourselves against the pandemic.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, our airports are still in the news for their worsening delays. The minister blames travellers, and the parliamentary secretary has now taken to blaming stakeholders. He has the health advice, but no one is allowed to see it. That means it is a secret. The Prime Minister once said that Canadians deserve the most transparent and open government in the world.
Would the minister describe refusing to release the scientific evidence as actions of the world's most transparent government, or will he just do the right thing and get back to prepandemic normal?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to talk science when it comes to such an important topic.
Take the number 130,000. That is the number of hospitalizations that the United Kingdom was able to prevent in recent weeks because it has a high third-dose vaccination rate. Because so many people have gotten vaccinated, they are better protected individually and are also helping to protect their communities and families.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the government refuses to tell Canadians what scientific advice it has received in regard to travel mandates, if any. Worse yet, while denying and delaying, the government is ignoring programs like NEXUS, which significantly reduce wait times during travel. Just this morning, The Canadian Press reported that the backlog of applications has ballooned to nearly 300,000.
Why does the government have so much trouble handling the basic things Canadians expect of it?
Mr. Speaker, here is a basic number: 690,000. That is the number of hospitalizations that the United States would have avoided, just in the last few months during omicron, had it had a high vaccination rate like the one we have in Canada. As I said earlier, there is more work to do because, unfortunately, however difficult it may be for some to hear and understand, the pandemic is still with us and we need to keep fighting it.
Air Transportation
Mr. Speaker, Sandra recently experienced the mismanagement of Toronto Pearson International Airport first-hand. She waited on the tarmac. The lines were long and confusing to navigate. The CBSA officers were stressed, passengers were angry and agitated, and nobody knew what to do or where to go. She said it was embarrassing, as a Canadian, having new people come to our country and this being their first experience and impression. This week is Tourism Week, but we need to do better to welcome tourists.
Will the Liberal government restore travel confidence, help with airport delays and vote to drop the mandates?
Mr. Speaker, I know how frustrating delays at airports have been for Canadians and travellers. It is something that we are taking very seriously. We are witnessing similar phenomena across the world. Airports all over the world are experiencing this, but we are taking action. We hired over 400 CATSA employees. We have convened CBSA, CATSA, airports and airlines to work together on bottlenecks to address this. We are investing in resources. We are addressing procedures. We want to make sure that every Canadian is able to travel safely and efficiently.
Tourism Industry
Mr. Speaker, from passport delays and airport backlogs to unnecessary travel mandates, the Liberals are continuing to create an environment of uncertainty for our small business owners, and businesses are raising the alarm on serious impacts. Business leaders in Toronto stated, “The current travel experience will have detrimental and lasting impacts on how...Canada [is] viewed on the international stage.” At the industry committee, a tourism spokesperson implored government officials to take action.
Will the government take immediate action, or are the Liberals okay with continuing to hurt small businesses and throwing away hundreds of thousands of tourism jobs?
Mr. Speaker, the last two years have been very difficult on Canadians. The pandemic, a once-in-a-hundred-years event, has caused significant disruptions to our businesses and to our lives. Our government was there helping small businesses and supporting Canadians during a very uncertain period. We will continue to do whatever it takes to protect Canadians. We are glad to see businesses come back to normal. We are glad to see the economy is booming. We are glad to see unemployment at the lowest record in history. We will continue to support Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, “we are working on it” just simply does not cut it. The expected jump in travel should have been foreseen. People have lost confidence in travelling to and in Canada. Other countries are dealing with it just fine. In Canada, the union representing many airport workers stated that airport delays are here to stay for the long term. Small businesses have faced a death by a thousand cuts, thanks to the Liberals. These long-term airport delays and ongoing mandates will further squeeze them.
When will the small business minister defend against the transport minister's unfair and extreme made-in-Canada travel delays?
Mr. Speaker, around the world people are looking to travel after being home for two years. This is something that is not just happening in Canada. In fact, when we look at passport-processing times in other countries, we see that in the United States, for example, it is nine to 11 weeks. When we look at the U.K., it is a minimum of 10 weeks. When we look at Sweden, it is actually 27.5 weeks before people can get a passport.
Around the world, in countries like Canada, people are looking to travel. They all want to do it at the same time and passport systems around the world are struggling with this demand, but here in Canada we are doing everything we can to meet it.
[Translation]
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National Assembly had not even voted on its Bill 96 before the Prime Minister suggested that he could challenge it in court.
Let us make one thing clear. Regardless of our differences of opinion, Bill 96 was democratically passed by a majority of elected officials. That is a democratic choice that responds to the clearly expressed will of Quebeckers to better protect French. More importantly, this democratic choice was made by all Quebeckers, not by a handful of federal politicians.
Democracy in Quebec has spoken. Will the government respect that?
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am a Quebecker and I, too, have the right to share my opinion in this regard, as do other Quebeckers from various sectors and fields.
Legal scholars, health care professionals and other experts have all spoken out against Bill 96. We all want to protect French, and we all should protect French. That is exactly what our Bill C-13 would do for Quebec and all of Canada.
As I said, we will be following the implementation of Bill 96 to ensure that it does not exceed Quebec's jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not just issuing threats against Bill 96, they are already dismantling it.
Bill 96 imposes the Charter of the French Language on federally regulated businesses, but the Liberals are giving them a way out in their own Bill C‑13, which will allow these businesses to continue to work in English with complete disregard for Quebec laws.
On language matters, the Liberals' actions speak for themselves. Why are they encouraging the anglicization of Quebec instead of protecting French?
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I had not even uttered the word “fight” yet.
What I am sensing here is a disregard for democratic debate and for diverging opinions. We have 35 MPs here from Quebec, who were elected by Quebeckers, who reflect their constituents' points of view, and who are also entitled to a say.
Just because we did this does not mean we are in favour of anglicization or against French. On the contrary, we stand up for French every day. We have done more than any other government, but it is not up to the Bloc Québécois to decide who is a real Quebecker and who is not. A Quebecker is a Quebecker.
Mr. Speaker, a true Quebecker would stand up, defend French and defend Quebec culture.
I want to talk about the Liberals' actions when it comes to French. The posting for the appointment of a new CRTC chairperson states: “Proficiency in both official languages would be preferred”. It is not mandatory, simply preferred. The Liberals decided to make French optional for the person responsible for the regulation and future of Quebec television and the entirety of our telecommunications system. They feel it is okay to put someone who does not speak French in charge of an entire segment of our culture.
Do the Liberals realize that their actions speak for themselves, and that those actions speak English?
Mr. Speaker, I think that is going too far.
In the Liberal government's opinion, it is absolutely essential that the next CRTC chairperson be able to speak both languages. It is a question of respect for the cultural sector, whether for English or French Canada. I think it is dangerous to get into an identity debate where the Bloc assumes the right to declare who is a true Quebecker and who is not. In addition to the bickering it causes, it creates a deep division, and that is unacceptable.
As parliamentarians, we must work together for unity and social cohesion. We can have different points of view, but we should never try to divide ourselves like that.
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, a troubling and recent Supreme Court of Canada decision allowing some of Canada's worst mass murderers to apply for parole much sooner means that families are revictimized by a vicious cycle that forces them to relive the worst day of their lives over and over again at repeated parole hearings. That includes the families of three RCMP officers who were killed in the line of duty in Moncton, New Brunswick in 2014.
The families of victims are speaking out and standing up for their lost loved ones. Will this government do the same?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and we acknowledge the pain that families and victims go through in these kinds of cases.
Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision changes the fact that all people convicted of murder receive mandatory life sentences. What happens here is that they are now eligible for parole after 25 years, but that does not mean that they will get parole. It is extremely rare for people who have been convicted of multiple murders to receive parole.
It was a clear and unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. It stated that the lack of parole was cruel and unusual, and we will respect that.
Mr. Speaker, what is self-induced extreme intoxication? According to the Women's Legal Action and Education Fund, self-induced extreme intoxication means that a person is so intoxicated that they are in a state of automatism, meaning that their actions are not considered voluntary or something that they can control. “Self-induced” means that the person chose to consume substances, such as alcohol or drugs, that caused their intoxicated state.
Victims already have enough barriers. When is this government going to table legislation against this type of defence?
Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank the hon. member for her question.
We are committed to keeping communities safe, to protecting victims and to ensuring that their rights are protected. We are looking carefully at the decision. I will work with the hon. member and members on all sides of the House in order to reach a solution. We are troubled by the decision as well.
I would remind everyone in the House, and I would remind everyone across Canada, that as the hon. member has pointed out, this ruling only applies in a small minority of extreme cases. We will act, but we need to keep that in perspective.
Mr. Speaker, Brian Ilesic and two other victims were murdered in an armed robbery. They were shot point-black in the back of the head. A fourth victim survived with serious brain injuries. Brian's parents, my constituents Mike and Dianne, feel completely betrayed that this cold-blooded killer will be eligible for parole years sooner, along with other mass killers.
What assurance can the Minister of Justice provide, aside from empty words, for Mike and Dianne and other grieving families in the face of this unjust decision by the Supreme Court?
Mr. Speaker, that was a 9-0 decision. It was a unanimous decision. It was clear and unequivocal.
Our hearts go out to victims. We make the justice system better by enacting and applying laws and seeing them applied. I remind everyone in this House, and I remind everyone across Canada, that eligibility for parole does not mean one will get parole. It is extremely rare that people convicted of mass murder achieve parole. That is the fact. We will respect the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, the legacy of colonialism is deep. Former students, now parents and grandparents, told churches and governments about the loss of their loved ones. They were ignored.
Unmarked graves are now being found and many more will show the truth of what was hidden. Indigenous peoples need the resources to support each other in these traumatic experiences.
Will the government provide funding directly to indigenous organizations, communities and families to help with healing, instead of giving funds to the RCMP?
Mr. Speaker, as part of this comprehensive approach to supporting communities as they reel from the ongoing discoveries of unmarked graves, clearly what they have asked of us is to have a concerted approach, whether it is from me, the Minister of Indigenous Services or other departments, or whether they need supports now or for the next 10 years.
This is something that, sadly, will go on for some time. There are 70 searches and supports ongoing. Yes, we will absolutely provide those resources to communities.
Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the date of the discovery of the remains of 215 indigenous children at the Kamloops residential institution, but not even this shocked the government into action.
The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations has admitted it has been too slow. This is a pattern. On clean drinking water, the housing crisis and the calls to justice, it has been too slow. Enough is enough.
One year ago, the government blocked my motion calling for support for communities, including bringing in international experts, such as the International Commission on Missing Persons.
When will the government do what is needed to help communities bring their children home?
Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite's point, clearly what we have seen in this country is a pattern of dispossession that has continued to retraumatize and traumatize communities, and the constant denial of this reality is what characterizes today's discourse as well.
We have a duty, as a society, to keep opening our minds and being more respectful, and to show compassion to communities that are reeling, but also to provide those resources. We know that some communities are not even ready at this point and it may take some time, and the last thing they want to think about is any party in the House suggesting that the funding would ever stop.
I would encourage all people in the House to support our efforts in walking with communities and supporting them in their searches.
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, I followed closely the work of our government to respond to the sexual misconduct crisis in our military institutions.
Today, the Minister of National Defence presented Madame Arbour's final report regarding this issue and presented the government's path forward. As part of a military family, I was pleased to see our government's commitment to creating change and establishing meaningful reforms that will stand the test of time.
Can the Minister of National Defence outline our government's response to Madame Arbour's report?
Mr. Speaker, today, I announced that I have received, and I welcome and accept, Madame Arbour's report in its entirety. I confirmed that as an immediate step, I have accepted, and the defence team will be immediately moving on, implementing over one-third of Madame Arbour's recommendations.
This is just the beginning of our response, and I look forward to providing a further update as we strengthen, grow and improve our defence team and institutions.
Canadian Heritage
Mr. Speaker, last week, Morghan Fortier, creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel, appeared before the heritage committee, and had this to say about Bill C-11:
It's been written by those who don't understand the industry they're attempting to regulate....worst of all, section 4.2 hands sweeping power to the CRTC to regulate the Internet use of everyday Canadians and small businesses.
This is the creator of Canada's most-watched YouTube channel. It is someone we should be celebrating and not holding back. Will the minister make the very simple commitment to remove section 4.2 from Bill C-11?
Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing at the committee is that our cultural sector needs Bill C-11. It is fundamental. This is what we are hearing day after day. Our musicians, producers and creators all need it. This is what we put forward. It has the support of a lot of people across the country.
I would like, for once, the Conservatives to support our industries and for once to support the cultural sector.
Mr. Speaker, we can support the cultural sector by taking user-generated content out of this bill and letting Canadian creators thrive here at home and internationally.
The Liberals claim that user-generated content will not be included in Bill C-11, yet the chair of the CRTC contradicted the government and said that it would and that it could regulate user-generated content.
We still have not seen the government's policy directive on Bill C-11. The government could do that right now. It could release the policy directive and confirm and make it clear that user-generated content would be excluded from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Conservatives are very creative, because they invent a lot of stuff.
Bill C-11 is only about online streamers, those companies, so that they contribute to the Canadian culture. It is very simple. Platforms are in and users are out. That is it.
Could the Conservatives please, for once, support our artists and our cultural sector? That would be really nice.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a bit of a dilemma here, because the heritage minister keeps telling Canadians that user-generated content, such as YouTube videos, is out, but Mr. Scott, the chair of the CRTC, has said that actually user-generated content is in. Both of these men cannot be correct, so I would ask the minister to please tell the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is very parliamentary, but I will still, out of respect for our democracy, answer the question.
I am quite surprised that the Conservatives quote the CRTC, because they keep attacking the CRTC like they keep attacking the CBC. Actually, there is no institution they do not attack. Now it is also the Bank of Canada, for some of them.
The thing is that this is simply to ask streamers to contribute to our culture. That is it—
It is not for me to dissect things. All I want to do is make sure that people are listening, that people are able to ask their questions, that people are able to answer them and that we use parliamentary language.
The hon. member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting is that I simply asked the minister to tell the truth, but he could not even do that. He had to ramble on and make excuses for himself.
I will ask the minister again. The chair of the CRTC has said that user-generated content, such as Facebook videos, is in: It is captured. Meanwhile, the minister has said not to worry, that it is not. Which one of these is reality?
If we are asking someone to tell the truth, we are saying that they lied. That is basically what we are saying. I just want to make sure people are using the best possible language in the House of Commons so everybody is comfortable in that direction and so we get good questions and good answers.
The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we can all agree that we may disagree on some points, but we can still respect each other. I think that is fundamental in the House.
Bill C-11, once again, is very simple. We are asking those big streamers, those platforms, to contribute to Canadian culture. Why? Because that is important for us. It is important to be able to tell our stories and to keep telling those stories that are fundamental. That is the only thing the bill does.
We hear a lot of theories, conspiracy theories, and this and that, but we want to help our culture. For once, I would have loved for the Conservatives to help us, but I guess they will not.
[Translation]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, we would all like to believe that we are safe from gun violence and that our children are protected.
In Montreal, just last week, someone shot up a day care centre. Fortunately, there were no casualties. Fortunately, the day care centre was empty. However, gun culture is emerging in Montreal.
Again, we simply cannot allow the situation to deteriorate. The mayor of Montreal, the Premier of Quebec and the Bloc Québécois are once again calling for Ottawa to ban handguns.
When will the minister finally do what everyone in Quebec is waiting for him to do?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are working closely with the Quebec government to reduce gun violence, and the Minister of Public Safety recently attended a forum in Montreal. We have directed $46 million under our guns and gangs fund to the Legault government. We are finalizing a transfer specifically for Quebec under our building safer communities fund to prevent gun crime.
The minister continues to engage directly with his counterparts in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety has a historic opportunity this afternoon with the introduction of his bill. He can ban handguns. That would be one more tool to counter their proliferation in Montreal. He can ban all military-style assault weapons, not just ban models one by one. He can use this opportunity to announce new border measures to combat illegal firearms, which are still the crux of the problem in Quebec.
Will the minister seize this historic opportunity this afternoon, or will he announce more half measures?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member not just for her question but for her advocacy.
Handguns are the number one type of gun used in shooting homicides across the country. We are taking action to make sure that handguns do not fall into the hands of criminals by requiring stronger background checks and investing more to stop illegal gun trafficking at the border.
We will continue to engage our provincial partners, such as the Province of Quebec, as part of our national approach to tackling handgun crime.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, an entrepreneur in my riding, Tony Ouellet, president of Feuillages du Québec, relies on temporary foreign workers to run his business.
Unfortunately, only one of the three workers he hired has arrived. Nothing is happening at Immigration Canada with respect to the other two. Many planting contracts must be completed by June 15, which is in two weeks, or he will have to pay severe penalties.
Why should Mr. Ouellet pay for this government's failures and mistakes?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the employers out there who are working hard to bring in workers to fill gaps in the labour force. It will help kick-start one of the strongest economic recoveries that is already taking place. We have put tons of resources into boosting the processes and capacity of the department, including $85 million in the economic and fiscal update to target work permits, study permits, temporary residency visas, proof of citizenship cards and PR cards.
I am pleased to report that these efforts are taking hold. This year, to date, we have already processed more than 216,000 work permits, compared to only 88,000 this far into last year. We are starting to make serious progress. We are going to continue to make the necessary investments to grow our economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today for the 20th time abut the government's incompetence on immigration and the temporary foreign worker program.
Two businesses in my riding called me just this past weekend to tell me that they still do not have the workers they need, who should have already arrived. These landscapers and manufacturers are losing contracts.
When will the government take this issue seriously and help these businesses grow instead of pushing them towards bankruptcy?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I just answered in response to the previous question, we are making unprecedented investments in Canada's immigration system to ensure that we can smoothly welcome people to Canada who make essential contributions to our economy.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that we are now in an economic context in which we have seen 115% of the jobs lost during the pandemic come back. Our GDP is better than prepandemic levels and our unemployment level is now at the lowest rate since we started recording those statistics more than 50 years ago.
That said, we can do more by continuing to bring in workers to fill the almost 900,000 gaps in the economy and the labour market. We are going to continue to invest in our immigration system to do that. It is the path forward that will help us achieve growth.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker saga continues.
A number of businesses in my riding received their confirmation letters of a positive labour market impact assessment on April 15, 2022, after more than eight months of waiting. That is far too long and the process is not even complete.
The government has a duty to simplify the process for approving temporary foreign workers. At some point it needs to walk the talk.
When will it do so?
Mr. Speaker, we know that immigration plays a key role in combatting the labour shortage. IRCC is prioritizing work permit processing for in-demand occupations.
This year, we have processed more than 200,000 work permit applications, which is nearly double the number processed over the same period last year. We will continue to ensure that Canadian employers have access to the workers they need to secure Canada's economic recovery.
Official Languages
Mr. Speaker, investing in our official language minority communities must include implementing a range of measures to enable them to flourish and prosper.
As a teacher, I understand why it is necessary to invest in education at all levels, including post-secondary education. We need to ensure that there will be jobs for francophone students when they graduate.
Could the Minister of Official Languages, who proudly represents francophone communities across the country, explain to the House how our government is helping francophone students in New Brunswick prepare for their future careers?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Fredericton for her important question. I would also like to thank her for highlighting the importance of ensuring that our young people in official language minority communities have a career path that will allow them to continue to work in their language.
Last week, I had the privilege of announcing a $6.6-million investment in projects at New Brunswick Community College. This investment will give Acadian and francophone students more tools to advance professionally throughout their careers.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, this week I spoke to Krystle. The rising cost of living is threatening her small business in Amherst. She has worked 28 of the last 30 days to make enough money to keep her business solvent. A recent errand for supplies has cost her $600 versus the usual $350, as the cost of fuel and goods has gone up. She cannot understand why the government would not support two Conservative motions to reduce fuel prices.
On which date will the government remove tax upon tax and get fuel prices and the cost of living under control?
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what we are doing in budget 2022 for small businesses. We are cutting their taxes. We know that businesses in Canada have recovered over 100% of the jobs that have been lost since the pandemic. Businesses are looking to grow. They are not only looking to grow in Canada, but they are looking to grow through exports into the international market. We are going to work with our businesses to grow here and to scale up internationally, and we have cut their taxes so that they can grow here in Canada.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Firefighter Aid Ukraine, based in my riding of Edmonton West, has been delivering crucial life-saving equipment and supplies to Ukraine for the past eight years. The Russian invasion has only made its work more critical. It has collected 25 tonnes of life-saving medical supplies desperately needed for Ukraine's doctors and hospitals. An oil and gas company has donated the transport fuel needed to get the supplies over to Ukraine. All it needs is a transport plane to get it there.
Will the government provide this plane?
Fisheries and Oceans
Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is sick and tired of the lack of respect shown to it by the government. With the season now upon them, fishers in Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame and in all of Newfoundland and Labrador are wondering where the capelin management plan is. DFO's own science says that seals consume 99 times more capelin than fishermen harvest. This year, the assessment did not happen.
With these facts in mind, will the minister confirm that she will reinstate last year's quota for capelin, or will she listen to activists like Oceana and shut another fishery down?
Mr. Speaker, all fisheries are important. All conservation measures are intended to make sure that we maintain a healthy stock. That is the responsibility of DFO.
With respect to the capelin decision, we are reviewing the science. We will be coming out very soon with a determination for the harvesters in the coming weeks.
[Translation]
Health
Mr. Speaker, the 75th World Health Assembly convened last week. It was the first to be held in person since the beginning of the pandemic.
This was an excellent opportunity for the delegates, WHO experts, partner agencies and civil society to discuss current priorities and future solutions to issues critical to global public health.
Can the Minister of Health tell the House more about this assembly and how Canada plays a leading role in global public health?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for his excellent work.
Last week I did indeed have the opportunity to participate in the World Health Organization's 75th World Health Assembly. The theme was “Health for peace, peace for health”.
At the assembly, I was able to meet, talk and work with many of my counterparts regarding the fight against the pandemic and efforts to prepare for future pandemics. We also talked about antimicrobial resistance and the effects of climate change on health and health care.
I was also able to meet with Ukraine's health minister to offer him the Canadian government's unwavering support for his people's health and health care.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, our community has been begging for a 24-7 low-barrier safe space for women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people for over 10 years. We are still waiting. Even though the former minister of Crown-indigenous relations called Winnipeg “Ground Zero” for MMIWG, last week we had another two women murdered. Thoughts and prayers do not cut it.
Will the minister confirm that the funding they announced Friday will be used to open a 24-7 safe space in Winnipeg and save lives now?
Mr. Speaker, on Friday we announced a historic investment of $121 million to invest in shelters and transitional housing for women and children fleeing gender-based violence. This is going to support 16 projects across the country in virtually every province and at least one territory. I am happy to work with the hon. member to see if we can continue to support projects in Winnipeg.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, understandably, Russia's assault on Ukraine has dominated our foreign policy agenda, but we know it is not the only crisis. The Taliban has declared war on women and girls. They are not allowed to go to school. They are not allowed to walk down the street. Their male family members have become their jailers. This is a regime of gender apartheid.
Will the government confirm that with a feminist foreign policy, the policy is not to stand back and do nothing? What does “feminist foreign policy” mean for women and girls in Afghanistan?
Mr. Speaker, the situation Afghans are facing, in particular Afghan women and girls, is absolutely terrible. Canada condemns the Taliban's oppression of women's liberty in Afghanistan. As the Taliban continues this act of discrimination, the prospects for a better life are being denied to girls. Access to education is a human right to which every woman and every girl is entitled, and the Taliban will be judged by its actions and not by its words.
That is all the time we have for question period today.
I want to make a quick comment about some of the debates that go back and forth. A number of weeks ago there was a question the member for Thornhill asked of the Minister of Transport when they used the issue of honesty. Today, we sort of ran into the issue of telling the truth. We keep rebounding onto that issue, so I just want to make sure that for consistency, we watch the words we use in the House of Commons. I want to thank members for that.
Shooting in Uvalde, Texas
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following heartbreaking motion. I move:
That the House express its horror at the school mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, and extend its deepest condolences to the families, friends and communities who lost loved ones.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Rules and Service Levels for Travel
The House resumed from May 19 consideration of the motion.
It being 3:15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Thornhill relating to the business of supply.
The question is on the motion. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to House]
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 105)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
MacKenzie
Maguire
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 112
NAYS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bergeron
Bérubé
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Ehsassi
Fergus
Fillmore
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Garneau
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Singh
Sorbara
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: -- 201
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the motion defeated.
We have a point of order from the hon. deputy House leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker, during the vote, and in this hybrid Parliament, we have had an abridgement of some of the Standing Orders when it comes to voting from our seats. The member for Laval—Les Îles heard the question but was seated in a different seat during the roll call on the government side. He moved seats to have his name called for the vote.
I would like clarity from you on whether that vote can be counted in the House and clarity on the rule when it comes to whether we stay in our seat during the entire vote before our name is called.
An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada's Official Languages
[Government Orders]
The House resumed from May 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the amendment to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-13.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 106)
YEAS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Bergeron
Bérubé
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Brunelle-Duceppe
Chabot
Champoux
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gill
Larouche
Lemire
Michaud
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Therrien
Trudel
Vignola
Villemure
Total: -- 29
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Davidson
Davies
Deltell
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garneau
Garrison
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Schmale
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
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
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 288
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.
[English]
The next question is on the amendment.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the amendment be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 107)
YEAS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Bergeron
Bérubé
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Brunelle-Duceppe
Chabot
Champoux
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gill
Larouche
Lemire
Michaud
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Therrien
Trudel
Vignola
Villemure
Total: -- 29
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Davidson
Davies
Deltell
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garneau
Garrison
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
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
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 289
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the amendment defeated.
[English]
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Avalon.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 108)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Aldag
Alghabra
Ali
Allison
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arnold
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Benzen
Bergen
Berthold
Bezan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blaikie
Blair
Block
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Bragdon
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Calkins
Cannings
Caputo
Carr
Carrie
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Chambers
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Chong
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Damoff
Davidson
Davies
Deltell
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Doherty
Dong
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Ellis
Epp
Erskine-Smith
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Fergus
Ferreri
Fillmore
Findlay
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Garneau
Garrison
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Gray
Green
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Hoback
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Kitchen
Kmiec
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe
Lauzon
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lehoux
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKenzie
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maguire
Maloney
Martel
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLean
McLeod
McPherson
Melillo
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Murray
Muys
Naqvi
Nater
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
O'Toole
Patzer
Perkins
Petitpas Taylor
Poilievre
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rood
Ruff
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Shields
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Small
Sorbara
Soroka
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
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Weiler
Wilkinson
Williams
Williamson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 289
NAYS
Members
Barsalou-DuvalBeaulieu
Bergeron
Bérubé
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Brunelle-Duceppe
Chabot
Champoux
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Fortin
Garon
Gaudreau
Gill
Larouche
Lemire
Michaud
Perron
Plamondon
Savard-Tremblay
Simard
Ste-Marie
Thériault
Therrien
Trudel
Vignola
Villemure
Total: -- 29
PAIRED
Nil
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to paragraph 90(1)(a) of the Parliament of Canada Act, the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner in relation to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
Firearms Act
Government Response to Petitions
Criminal Code
Hon. Kamal Khera (for the Minister of Public Safety)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-21, An Act to amend certain Acts and to make certain consequential amendments (firearms).(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees of the House
Public Safety and National Security
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, May 19, 2022, regarding the support for Finland's and Sweden's NATO memberships.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23”.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-5, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23: Vote 1 under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Vote 1 under Canadian Energy Regulator, Vote 1 under Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Natural Resources and Vote 1 under Northern Pipeline Agency".
Health of Animals Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act (biosecurity on farms).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing a bill as an amendment to the Health of Animals Act. This is very fitting with what we have seen across Canada with the spread of avian influenza, the possibility of diseases like African swine fever, and what we have gone through it in my riding with BSE. These show us how important it is to protect biosecurity on our farms and ensure that those who may endanger our farms and our farm families are held accountable for those actions, which is why I am tabling this amendment to the Health of Animals Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[Translation]
Canada Labour Code
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce this anti-scab bill to protect workers during a strike or lockout. This is a long-standing demand of workers and unions, and I am proud that my colleague from Manicouagan supports this bill. She is a steadfast ally of working people.
It is quite simple: If we want to foster industrial peace, free bargaining, and sound and sensible labour law practices, then the right to association, the right to free bargaining and the right to strike must be guaranteed. The failure to put anti-scab provisions in place undermines the power to bargain.
Such provisions have existed in the Quebec Labour Code since 1977, and this has contributed to industrial peace. In fact, federally regulated business see twice as many strikes or long lockouts as we see in Quebec, and this is due to the absence of anti-scab legislation.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-276, and it is not the first. We hope that this will be a priority. It is unfortunate that it was not in the budget, but there is still time to do the right thing and act. That is where we want to go.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
[English]
Business of the House
The following motion, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, was put on the Order Paper:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(b), consideration by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage of all votes under Department of Canadian Heritage in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, be extended beyond May 31, 2022.
(Motion agreed to)
Committees of the House
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics
moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics presented on Thursday, March 31, 2022 be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to join everyone in the House virtually today, as I am still back in Manitoba. I am going to splitting my time on our third attempt to move concurrence on this report with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
It is interesting to note that every time we have brought this motion forward, the Liberals have adjourned debate, similar to the filibusters we saw in the 43rd Parliament when they tried to stop this report on the WE Charity scandal from coming forward to the House.
I will go into some detail on the litany of ethical breaches done by the Liberal government, but I can tell the House that in addition to the Prime Minister taking illegal vacations and being found in contravention of sections of the ethics act, sections 5, 11, 12 and 21, we know that he also was found guilty with regard to SNC-Lavalin for putting undue pressure on the then-minister of justice and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, as well as his continued breaches of ethical behaviour that we have seen from time to time, and how that has impacted other members of cabinet.
I do not need to remind the House of former minister Morneau and all the challenges he had when he was the finance minister, such as his having been found in contravention of the ethics act for having accepted an illegal gift, a vacation offered by the WE Charity.
He also forgot to recuse himself when talking about the WE Charity's delivery of the youth program that was proposed at that time. We know that he was also in conflict because his daughter worked for the WE foundation.
We need to also remind everyone of the former minister of fisheries' contravention of the ethics act through a conflict of interest, actually practising nepotism to make sure that family members received multi-million-dollar contracts in what we have called the surf clam scam.
We have a number of ethical breaches, and here we find today that the Ethics Commissioner, Mr. Dion, has opened another investigation on another Liberal cabinet minister, this time the Minister of International Trade and Small Business, for awarding a contract to a very close personal friend. That has resulted in looking at whether the minister contravened sections of the Conflict of Interest Act in her decision-making, whether she used her influence and whether she practised the duty to recuse.
I can tell the House that the minister of trade was working closely with a long-time fellow staffer back in the Wynne government days and also in the McGuinty era in Ontario, and that they are very close personal friends with the founder of Pomp and Circumstance, Amanda Alvaro.
We know that the $17,000 contract, which was gifted for two days of media training for two people, was quite costly. It does not sound like much in the big scheme of things, the way we spend money in Parliament and the way the Government of Canada spends, but when someone can get away with sole-sourcing contracts, small amounts of money like $17,000 can come to be a big amount of money. When we think about it, it was for only two days of media training for two people. There is no wonder that the Ethics Commissioner is doing the investigation on our international trade minister.
I want to again thank the ethics committee for the work that it did, both in this Parliament and in the first session the 44th Parliament, in getting this report tabled on March 31, as well as the work that was originally done on this report in the 43rd Parliament, second session, when this report was tabled originally.
There is a pile of great recommendations on how to strengthen the Lobbying Act by giving more powers to the Commissioner of Lobbying and to the Ethics Commissioner to prevent these things from happening in the future. Unfortunately, we have a situation of the current government, under the Prime Minister, continuing to violate ethics rules.
One of the key things on which I have not gone into detail in my previous interventions with respect to this motion and the third report of the ethics committee in this 44th Parliament is that three individuals who were political staffers were supposed to appear: Ben Chin, Rick Theis and Amitpal Singh. All of them were political staffers either in Minister Morneau's office or the Prime Minister's Office, and it was important for the ethics committee to hear from them specifically. They refused to appear before the ethics committee in the 43rd session. The committee was actually required to come before the House to ask for an order from the House of Commons to ensure that they would appear before the committee. Unfortunately, the House leader for the Liberal government of the day refused to allow those political staffers to appear to talk about their role in awarding a half-billion-dollar contract to the WE Charity and how those decisions were made so that we could look at how pandemic spending was being used to help out friends of the current Liberal government and specifically friends of the Prime Minister and Minister Morneau. We know they failed to appear because of the direction from the House leader of the day, who is now the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I can tell the House that this again is in contravention of our parliamentary rules.
I want to quote our former parliamentary law clerk, Mr. Robert Walsh, who said this at a previous committee hearing in the past:
...the Prime Minister, and any minister, has no authority to prevent someone from appearing in front of a committee.
Their ministerial function may present a limitation on what you can ask that political aide when they're in front of you, but everyone has a duty, apart from members of Parliament, senators, and the Governor General, to show up when summoned before a committee.
While the government prevented these individuals from appearing before the ethics committee, it is inherent upon us today to compel them to appear. We know for a fact that contempts of Parliament in the past are not, as any criminal activity, purged from the record just because of an election and a new parliamentary session beginning.
We now have the ethics committee's report on the WE Charity scandal before the chamber and we need to talk in detail and investigate further the outstanding questions of how this came into being.
We also know that aside from these political staffers, the member for Waterloo, the former minister of youth and social development, who was in charge of implementing this program through the WE Charity, essentially perjured herself at committee when she first said that she had never met with the Kielburger brothers, and ultimately we—
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member just accused the member for Waterloo of perjuring herself. I do not think that is parliamentary language.
I thank the hon. member. I will have to go back and review the blues. I am not sure what the hon. member actually said, but I can go and review the blues.
I am not sure if the hon. member wants to respond to that as he is resuming. There are only 18 seconds left before he has questions and comments.
The hon. member.
Madam Speaker, I will address the point of order. First, I would say it was in the committee report that was tabled that there was misleading evidence given or there was a failure to acknowledge that there were previous meetings between the minister and the Kielburgers that she had denied at her first—
I want to again remind members to be very careful with the language they use in the House because we would not want to mislead the House.
The hon. member has 14 seconds to wrap up before questions and comments.
Madam Speaker, it is important that the committee is allowed to finish off its work and that anyone who obstructed those investigations in the past is allowed to appear now so we can get the truth for all Canadians on how the WE Charity scandal had played out.
Madam Speaker, I lament again that we are on a concurrence debate, which is likely to mean that we will not get to petitions or other Routine Proceedings today, but I want to first agree with the member that I do not think we got to the bottom of the WE Charity scandal because of the refusal to allow the RCMP to investigate further.
I also do not believe that the language the hon. member used, which I heard clearly was to say that the member perjured herself, was parliamentary. I am a former practising lawyer and the word “perjure” suggests that someone has sworn an oath and lied under oath, and therefore has committed a crime. I think the hon. member should state now that he regrets using that language, because it is shocking to me as a member of Parliament to hear it in this place.
I would remind the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands that we addressed that under the point of order.
The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
Madam Speaker, we do have a practice in the House of Commons of making sure that there is ministerial accountability. It is in our rules and procedures.
The minister was sworn in under oath, and recommendation 3 of the report said that given the failure of the minister to reveal her April 17, 2020, meeting with Mr. Craig Kielburger, a review of ministerial accountability in committees must be undertaken. We know that committees were misled. I would say that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands can use her legal background to determine what term she wants to use, but I will say that it is in the report and that report has been tabled in the House.
That is why I believe the member for Waterloo, who is no longer a minister in the Liberal cabinet, needs to appear and account for her testimony during the 43rd Parliament.
Madam Speaker, today we were supposed to be debating Bill C-18. That is on the agenda. Is the member concerned that the Conservative Party says it wants more debate on legislation, yet it continues to focus on character assassination and preventing debate on government legislation? On the other hand, it complains that the government is bringing in time allocation, which seems to be the only way we can pass legislation because of the irresponsible behaviour of the Conservative Party.
Madam Speaker, I am disappointed with the member for Winnipeg North and his constant defence of the ethical behaviour and unethical consequences that have been caused by his government.
I will say this. We know that parliamentary institutions are being questioned quite vigorously by Canadians when they see unethical behaviour and sanctions brought forward by the Ethics Commissioner against the Prime Minister, former minister Morneau and other members of the government. When it comes down to truth, honesty and integrity, we have to make sure that we are holding those up in the utmost. It is important that we have these debates and carry on with these studies at the ethics committee to restore that trust in our democratic institutions.
Madam Speaker, the member referenced it in his speech, but this is the third time that we have endeavoured to have the opportunity to talk about this important issue. I would ask the member if he would elaborate on why it is important that we have this debate here today.
Madam Speaker, this comes down to the very foundation of our democracy. If we cannot restore confidence and trust in our democratic institutions, including in the government itself, then chaos will prevail. We need to make sure that we do not fall into the practices of other failed states where kleptocracies rule and corruption is part of everyday business. We are better than that, and that is why this committee report and the ongoing work that we are doing as members of Parliament at the ethics committee must be respected.
Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. I rise to speak to this issue not for the first time and not for the second time, but for the third time. The reason why I share that today is that it is unfortunate that over the past number of times when we have endeavoured to move this motion, the Liberals have, with the support of the NDP, moved not to allow it to proceed and be debated and ultimately voted on.
There is the old saying that suggests that where there is smoke, there is fire. I would suggest that when it comes to the issues that are outlined. I will get into some of the specifics of why it is so important that we have this discussion and that we do not simply allow the scandal that was the WE Charity report, as specifically referenced in the title of “Questions of Conflict of Interest and Lobbying in Relation to Pandemic Spending” that was tabled in the second session of the 43rd Parliament.
We have to have these conversations. I would simply ask if the government, and if the NDP as the Liberals' coalition partners, are truly in earnest when they talk about their openness and transparency. When they are outside of this place, they certainly repeat those talking points time and again. However, when it comes to having these discussions, they seem quick to dismiss, deny and shut down debate on these important subjects.
In the first session of the last Parliament, I sat on the ethics committee during what was the height of the pandemic. Let me provide a little context here as to what led to this report being done. It was at a time when Canadians demanded much of their government. The Prime Minister and certain high-level members of the government took it upon themselves not to work in the best interests of Canadians, but rather to further their own political and personal interests.
That is egregious at every level. We saw it in the debate that took place at committee, where there was filibuster and delay and every effort imaginable to stop this motion from being studied. The government went through unbelievable efforts to try to stop it, but thankfully the committee under both the first and second session was able to move forward this motion and at least start to get some answers.
When I tabled the motion to retable this report from the last Parliament in this Parliament, the effort was simply that the calling of an election could not be an excuse to wipe the slate clean. There are consequences of one's actions. The Prime Minister promised not to call an election. Very clearly he said that, time and again. He even voted in this place. I saw the Prime Minister vote that he would not call an ele