OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 271 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, January 30, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES January 30, 2024 DEBATES No. 271 No. 271 N o 271 Volume 151 271 30 01 2024 2024/01/30 10:00:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

(1000) [ English ] Points of Order Bill C-59—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the House leader of the official opposition , concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-59 ,

an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023. [ Translation ] According to the House leader of the official opposition, Bill C‑59 is an omnibus bill and therefore he asked the Chair to apply Standing Order 69.1(1), which provides as follows:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

[ English ] The member relied on Speaker Regan's decision of November 8, 2017, to argue that Bill C-59 should not benefit from the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). This exception stipulates that

section 1 does not apply if a bill “has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.” [ Translation ] The House leader of the official opposition contended that the implementation of measures announced in the economic statement of November 21, 2023, is not enough of a common element to justify grouping them for voting purposes. He also asserted that an economic statement is not, properly speaking, a budget.

The member said that Bill C-59 should be divided in 16 for the purpose of voting.

He further stated that two of the 16 pieces, which are similar to bills C‑318 and C‑323 , should simply not be put to a vote at all, given that the House has already passed those bills at second reading. [ English ] In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader pointed out that Bill C-59 mainly contains provisions implementing measures announced in the 2023 budget, along with some measures announced in the fall economic statement, whose common theme is addressing the affordability challenges facing Canadians.

Consequently, he concluded that the measures included in the budget and those announced in the fall economic statement should be voted on together. The Chair must first determine whether the main purpose of Bill C-59 is to implement the budget and whether it therefore falls within the exception provided by Standing Order 69.1(2). The Standing Orders place very specific conditions on the consideration of budgets. For instance, a particular order of the day must be designated. Debate lasts a certain number of days, and votes take place at certain points in time.

From start to finish, budgets are an integral part of the business of ways and means. [ Translation ]

House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, defines financial statements as follows on pages 901 and 902:

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a ‘mini‑budget’, that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget. Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions.

Budget presentations and economic statements are therefore related concepts, but each has its own unique characteristics. [ English ] Both the economic statement of fall 2023 and the budget of spring 2023 are very long and complex documents. As indicated in its title, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023”, Bill C-59 indeed contains many measures; some stem from the budget documents, others from the economic statement.

(1005) However, some measures are not to be found in either. The Chair takes the view that the main purpose of the bill is not the implementation of a budget, and the exception provided in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply in this case. The Chair must now determine whether a common element connects the various provisions of Bill C-59 and, if not, to what extent all or some of the provisions are closely related. A broad common theme is not sufficient.

As explained on November 7, 2017, at page 15095 of the Debates, the Chair must decide “whether the matters are so unrelated as to warrant a separate vote at second and third reading.” [ Translation ] In deciding whether a link exists, the Chair may consider several factors. Different measures may have a single objective or common elements, as the Chair found in its decision on Bill C‑4 on September 29, 2020, whose common element was a public health crisis. Cross-references between parts of a bill, or a lack thereof, may also be an indicator.

After completing this analysis, the Chair believes that Bill C‑59 should indeed be divided for the purpose of voting. As my predecessor noted on November 28, 2022, on page 10087 of the Debates, “[t]he objective here is not to divide the bill for consideration purposes, but to enable the House to decide questions that are not closely related separately.” [ English ] First, the measures in clauses 1 to 136, 138 to 143, 168 to 196, 209 to 216, and 278 to 317 appear in the 2023 budget.

Since their purpose is to implement certain budget proposals, they would be grouped based on this unifying theme and voted on together. Second, the measures that can be grouped under the theme of affordability, clauses 137, 144, and 231 to 272, will be subject to a different vote. Clauses 197 to 208 and 342 to 365 will also be grouped for voting because they amend the Canada Labour Code. Clauses 145 to 167, 217 and 218 will be subject to a separate vote because they relate to vaping products, cannabis and tobacco.

The remaining divisions of Bill C-59 , consisting of clauses 219 to 230, 273 to 277, 318 and 319, 320 to 322, and 323 to 341, will each be voted on separately because they are not linked to any of the common themes mentioned earlier. In all, nine votes will be held. The Chair will remind members of this division when the bill comes to a vote at second reading. Finally, I would like to remind members of the Chair's ruling on December 12, 2023, which also dealt with Bill C-59 . The Chair found that Bill C-318 and Bill C-323 can continue through the legislative process. I thank all members for their attention.

(1010) Alleged Breach of Standing Order 18—Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

While I am on my feet, I am also ready to rule on the point of order raised on December 12, 2023, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the application of Standing Order 18 in reference to votes of this House. [ Translation ] Earlier in the debate that day, several members argued that it was a violation of this standing order to comment on how certain members or parties had voted on a particular issue.

The parliamentary secretary sought clarification from the Chair, contending that members on all sides of the House routinely made such comments and this had always been viewed as acceptable. [ English ] While the Chair pointed to the wording of Standing Order 18 and to House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which both emphasize that “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House,” there was some dispute as to the actual

interpretation and application of the practice. The Chair took it under advisement and committed to return to the House. On the issue of reflecting on a vote, Standing Order 18 states, “No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.” The second part of that Standing Order is of particular interest. [ Translation ] I appreciate that the wording of the standing order can leave members with the impression that the rule prevents other members from commenting on or critiquing how particular members voted on a bill or motion. In the past, there have been occasions where the Chair, relying on this very strict

interpretation of the standing order, may have provided guidance that, in my view, is inconsistent with the original purpose of the standing order. [ English ] The intent of the provision was to prevent members from putting into question a decision already made by the House except by way of a formal motion to rescind that decision.

Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada , fourth edition, refers to the prohibition against reflecting on a vote in the

section on “Renewal of a Question during a Session”. The

section describes a prohibition, stating the following at pages 328 and 329: “That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the House”. This suggests to me that the

section of Standing Order 18 should be interpreted as being linked to the fundamental principle of not questioning a decision once made. [ Translation ] This is consistent with Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms , sixth edition, at page 141, which states that:

A Member may not speak against or reflect upon any determination of the House, unless intending to conclude with a motion for rescinding it.

Finally, I would also refer members to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons , second edition. Footnote 20 under Standing Order 18, at page 484, lends credence to the contention that members can in fact comment on the voting record of other members. It states:

This Standing Order refers specifically to the votes of the House, and not the votes of individual Members.

(1015) [ English ] I do not believe the purpose of the Standing Order is to forestall comment on the positions taken by particular members, or even parties, on a given vote. Indeed, even a cursory review of the Debates will show members of all parties regularly making such comments. In my view, this falls into the realm of acceptable debate. Members are accountable for the votes they cast in the House and should be able to justify their positions. Nevertheless, I appreciate that some members may still have concerns about this practice.

I would therefore suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is well placed to undertake a review of the application of Standing Order 18 and, if it sees fit, return to the House with any appropriate recommendations. I thank all members for their attention.

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

[ Translation ] Petitions Champlain Bridge

Hon. David Lametti (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by 514 of my constituents, who are calling for a reduction in the noise associated with the construction of the Champlain Bridge in my riding. This is for the Minister of Infrastructure .

[ English ] Telecommunications Industry

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, Canadians pay some of the highest cellphone rates in the world, but service is increasingly deteriorating. Complaints to the Commission for Complaints for Telecom-television Services are up 12%, and 36 breaches of the code of conduct have occurred. The petitioners are petitioning this House to call for the Government of Canada to direct the CRTC to immediately review the integrity of Canada's cellphone infrastructure and provide a quality of service report to this House by the end of February 2024.

They also call for the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology to undertake a study comprising telecom service providers and the industry, etc., and report back to this House on the integrity of our oversubscribed cellphone infrastructure.

Air Transportation

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to table a petition today in regard to the relationship between Canada and India, and the desire and demand, as the community has grown exponentially over the last number of years, to have more direct flights between Canada and India. This is something that is very important to my constituents and to the constituents of many members of Parliament. I hope that the air industry and different ministries would at least pay attention to what our consumers would like to see happen.

Firearms

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to stand in this place and present petitions. I am presenting a unique petition today, because this particular petition was offered to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , but he refused to present it in this place. Therefore, I stand on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and present this petition that calls for a number of things, highlights the absurdity of Liberal gun rules and calls upon the Government of Canada to stop any and all current and future bans on hunting and sport shooting firearms. It is an honour to stand in this place on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and represent them, because their MP certainly is not.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I know it is the second day back, but the Speaker is well aware that people cannot use petitions to make political speeches. Members are supposed to present the petitions. I would ask the Speaker to review the rules on petitions.

(1020) The Speaker :

I would like to remind members that the tradition is for members to present petitions and not to comment on them. I would ask all members to do that.

Electoral Representation

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present one of many petitions sought to be presented by MPs over the last few weeks. It notes that the need for electoral reform continues to be an issue for citizens of all political persuasions. The petitioners note that politicians cannot agree on the best way forward, and they call for a new approach for developing a citizens' consensus on electoral reform. The petitioners call on the House of Commons, first of all, to give citizens a voice on the subject of electoral reform and a right to make recommendations.

More specifically, the petitioners would like to see a representative, non-partisan citizens' assembly that has the resources, the expert support and the sufficient time required to come to a citizens' consensus on recommendations to be delivered to the government. The petitioners call on MPs of all parties to vote in support of Motion No. 86, citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which will be debated by this House and voted on in due course.

Women's Shelters

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today on behalf of my constituents, people from Skeena—Bulkley Valley and various other places across the country. The first petition is in regard to the Liberal government's decision to cut funding for women's shelters.

The petitioners note that women's shelters are sadly seeing increased demand, that the high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder on women and children fleeing violent situations and that we are living through a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants while it is cutting $145 million of funding for women's shelters. The petitioners therefore call on the Government of Canada to restore funding for women's shelters.

Freedom of Political Expression

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is in favour of an excellent private member's bill put forward by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. This is a bill that would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and it would protect the ability of people with diverse political opinions to be able to express those opinions and to speak out about their ideas without fear of reprisal in an employment or other context if they work in the federally regulated sector. The petitioners are asking the House to support Bill C-257 .

The petitioners want the government to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

Human Rights

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling is calling for the release of an important democracy and human rights activist in Hong Kong. Ms. Chow Hang-tung, vice-chairwoman of Hong Kong Alliance, has been involved for many years in advocacy on human rights issues in China and Hong Kong. She has fought diligently for democracy and has encouraged Hong Kongers to participate in the pro-democracy social movement. She was arrested, charged under the national security law and sentenced to 22 months in prison as part of an effort to crush freedom and diversity of opinion in Hong Kong.

She has also been awarded the outstanding democracy award by the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation. Petitioners want to see the Government of Canada advocate for her release and to see all charges dropped, as well as advocate for the Hong Kong democracy movement and for the release of other unjustly detained political prisoners.

Falun Gong

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling deals with another human rights issue in the same region. It deals with the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Petitioners identify the history of the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, including, but not limited to, the horrific practice of organ harvesting. The petitioners want to see the House take additional action to raise the plight of Falun Gong practitioners and to seek to hold those responsible for this persecution accountable through sanctions and other means and to continue the work on combatting forced organ harvesting, which the House began with the passage of a private member's bill on that issue.

(1025) Children and Families

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, next, I am tabling a petition regarding parental rights regarding the role of parents in the lives of their children. Petitioners highlight the fact that the Prime Minister has tried to interfere with New Brunswick's decisions with respect to parents' rights.

Whereas the Leader of the Opposition has told the Prime Minister to butt out of those decisions, petitioners note that, in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institutions, and the role of government is to support families and to respect parents and not to dictate how they should make decisions for their children. The undersigned call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.

Health

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Next, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition about changes the government has made to natural health product regulations. The petitioners note that the government is threatening access to natural health products through rules that would mean higher costs and fewer products available on store shelves.

The petitioners note that so-called cost-recovery provisions could impose massive costs on all consumers of natural health products and undermine access for Canadians who rely on these products; and further, that provisions in the last Liberal omnibus budget have given the government substantial new arbitrary powers around regulation. Of course, there is a private member's bill from a Conservative member that seeks to reverse these changes.

Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to implement the proposals in that excellent Conservative private member's bill that is to reverse the changes made in the last Liberal budget regarding natural health products.

Medical Assistance In Dying

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, the next petition that I will table highlights the issue of euthanasia, or medical assistance in dying, and a particular proposal to extend this to children. In a context where we see continuous radical proposals for the expansion of an already deeply troubled system, petitioners are concerned about a proposal from one witness before a committee to expand euthanasia to include babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes.

Petitioners underline their view that infanticide is always wrong, and they call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children in any situation for any reason.

Points of Order Decorum Points of Order

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I want to come back to the unparliamentary comments made by the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . My colleague from Timmins—James Bay addressed that a few minutes ago. I want to cite a ruling from December 12. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies also attempted to do the same thing and, in an unparliamentary way, tried to mislead the House and mislead Canadians. At the time, Mr.

Speaker, you will recall the ruling was that the attempt by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies was not permissible and that the member should rise and apologize. Therefore, I believe you should ask the member for Battle River—Crowfoot to apologize for his unparliamentary use of the Petitions sector and for misleading the House.

The Speaker :

I would like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for raising this point and reminding the Chair of a similar ruling in the past. It is a new year and it is the second day we are back, so it is a little rusty in terms of the application and use. However, I do understand, agree with and affirm the statement, which was the decision made by the Chair. I see that the member for Battle River—Crowfoot is on his feet, and I hope he will be able to put this issue to rest.

(1030) Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight that, very specifically, the statement I made during petitions did not politicize—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker :

Before I go to the point of order, I am just going to take a minute. I am going to ask the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for order. Mr. Kurek is rising on a point of order. I am going to go to the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby , but I am hoping that Mr. Kurek—

Mr. Damien Kurek :

I have been named before.

The Speaker :

I apologize. I should not mention a member's name. There is no intention to name him at this point, and I hope there will never be an opportunity to do so. The member is an hon. member, and I am hoping that he can help us restore order to the House, so I will ask the hon. member to please continue with his statement, but very briefly.

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Mr. Speaker, I intentionally did not politicize the content of the statement, but rather highlighted the fact that there was a particular member of this place who did refuse to present that petition when given the opportunity in the past. I ask that my word be allowed to stand, because it simply is the truth, and I intentionally did not politicize what those petitioners from—

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The rules of this House are quite clear. You have asked the member to apologize. He has refused. He should not be recognized in this House until he apologizes.

The Speaker :

I am just a little rusty. I did not ask the member to apologize. I did ask him to stand up to express, and I was hoping he would do so voluntarily. There was a ruling on December 12 of last year. [ Translation ] To ensure consistency with that decision, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw comments he made that could upset the House and apologize at all costs. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[ English ]

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for clarification on the ruling before I stand and apologize for something. I believe I did nothing wrong.

The Speaker :

I am going to ask once again for the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies , who was asked to apologize, to be consistent with the ruling of this Chair, because when members present petitions there should be no comment aside from the substance of the petition. To mention whether another hon. member presented it or did not, for whatever reason, it should stand as it is. Before we go to points of order, I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to be consistent with this, to start the new year right and, please, to briefly apologize and withdraw those comments.

In presenting petitions in the future, all members should just focus on the substance of the petitions and not make comments as to other issues. I will ask the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot to please stand.

Mr. Damien Kurek :

Mr. Speaker, I will not apologize for standing up for the people of this country. They are not being—

(1035) The Speaker :

Until the member does rise to apologize, the Chair will not be recognizing the member. The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Bob Zimmer :

Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, this precedent was supposedly set because of what I apologized for. I said at the time that if I did something wrong, then I will apologize, I guess. It still was not clear whether I had broken any rules. However, I said I will never apologize for representing the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. That is exactly what I said. There is no clear ruling on this saying that we even broke any rule by doing so, and so please—

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for that. We will certainly take a look to make sure everything is consistent. However, from the advice I received from the officers at the table, it is.

Mr. John Williamson :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that the advice you are getting from the table officers has to be explained to the House. It is an honour to stand in the House—

The Speaker :

We are getting into debate. The Chair did explain what was brought forward by the table officers. I ask members to continue to be patient, and we will be able to bring it forward. I ask members to please take their seats for the moment while I go through the point of order. I will be getting back to the House. Continuing with petitions, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Petitions Climate Change

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present my first petition of calendar year 2024. It is perhaps not too late to wish all members in this collegial and loving environment a happy new year.

I would like to present a petition from constituents who are concerned that we move towards a just transition, and that in phasing out fossil fuels and winding down the fossil fuel industry, there be a centring of workers in the process; good, green jobs and inclusive workforce development that proceed expeditiously; expansion of the social safety net to new income supports; decarbonization of public housing; and operational funding for affordable and accessible public transit.

There are a number of other points in the petition, but I think these are the salient ones that the petitioners hope the government will take on board and implement.

Points of Order Decorum Points of Order

The Speaker :

On the issue that was raised by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies , we did look at Hansard and find that the member did apologize for breaking the rules. I would invite members to look at it and see that the member did apologize for breaking the rules. I thank the member for doing so.

Mr. Bob Zimmer: I said, “if I broke the rules”.

The Speaker: There is no debate on this issue; there is just the presentation. The record has stood in the House of Commons as to what happened in December.

Mr. Mel Arnold :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to your attention your lack of consistency on this issue. The member from the NDP raised a point or order, and you immediately followed, saying that when presenting petitions, it should be the matter of the petition only that is addressed. Immediately following, another member made a quite extensive presentation regarding the petition he was presenting. You did not intervene then, so why would you intervene in the issue with the member for Battle River—Crowfoot ?

Mr. Glen Motz: It's not because you're partisan or anything, is it?

(1040) The Speaker :

That is not considered parliamentary. I invite the member to immediately stand up to apologize, or he will not be recognized by this Chair.

Mr. Glen Motz :

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the comment, but these are comments that I hear from my constituents on a daily—

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for withdrawing the comment. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the attention of the House to an incident on December 15, 2023. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques presented a petition in the House. At the end of the petition, he said, “I hope that as a result of petition e‑4604, the Liberal government will finally understand that it needs to meet the expectations and needs of our students and researchers.” I note that at that time, the Assistant Deputy Speaker objected to the member's statement and highlighted this rule: “The hon. member may present only the content of the petition.

He cannot present his point of view on the petition to the House. I just want to make this point, because a member was about to raise a point of order on this subject.” However, the Assistant Deputy Speaker at the time did not request an apology. That was one incident. I think there are many instances where members have been accused of going over the line in their commentary on petitions. When that has happened, other members have raised points of order. The Chair has sometimes chastened the member, encouraged the member to speed up or encouraged the member to stop.

It is without precedent that the Chair would demand an apology from a member who engages in this fairly minor and somewhat subjective transgression of the standing order. There are many examples. I have cited one of them from December 15, 2023, which I found after about 10 seconds of searching. I could find dozens of such examples where, yes, members may have gone over the line a little bit; yes, points of order may have been raised and the Speaker may even have said that the member should not have done that and should remember for the next time.

However, it is not reasonable to simply make up a new standard, apply it to a particular member and require that member to apologize for such a minor infraction. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take all of that precedent into consideration and provide some clarification.

(1045) The Speaker :

Before we move on to a plethora of points of order, I will address the issue made by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan . It is, indeed, true that the member can point to many examples where members have made comments on petitions that have been presented to the House. That does happen from time to time and usually gets a rebuke or reminder by the Chair for members to focus on the subject of the petition.

However, there have been instances when the Chair, in this case the Assistant Deputy Speaker, on December 15, 2023, when a member accused another member of lacking courage to present a petition or made a comment about the member's character. The member was asked to apologize. He did apologize for having broken any rules of the House if he had, which the Chair had determined he had done. That is the reason this is being asked for here today. This is a matter that the Chair would be pleased to come back to members about with more detailed observations as to what should and should not be done.

Suffice it to say that it makes sense that members' impugning the character of other members would be considered unparliamentary and usually would require an apology. This matter is now closed on this issue. I am going to hear the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies , who will rise on a point of order and cite some rules of procedure. After we hear him, I am going to be pretty satisfied that the matter is closed until the Chair comes back to the House.

Mr. Bob Zimmer :

Mr. Speaker, just for clarity, in my previous statement, I said that if I had said something wrong, I apologize. It was never made to clear to me by the Table after that point that I had made an error. Bosc and Gagnon say, “The Member may then give a brief statement to inform the House of the petition’s content”, which is exactly what the member did. It does not say that a member cannot be mentioned, which is the NDP's whole point of order in the first place. It does not say in Bosc and Gagnon that I am not allowed to do that.

It does say, “The Member may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition”, which I was not doing. I was making a brief statement about the petition then went into the petition. I broke no rules; therefore, I will rescind my apology because I did not make a mistake. I would also challenge you with respect to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot . He did not make a mistake either and should not be prevented from speaking in the House.

The Speaker :

The Chair will come back to the House on this matter. I thank the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies for quoting from the rules, but as he had also quoted as a preliminary to what he had raised, there is indication as to why the member was asked to apologize and what the Chair considered at the time for the rules.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I request a clarification because you said the issue was closed, and then said you will come back to the House.

The Speaker :

This is the same matter that I heard from informal comments as from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan . Discussion on this issue is closed. I will come back to the House with a fuller explanation so members can conduct themselves with greater clarity in the future.

Mr. John Williamson :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is not on this issue, as you will be coming back to the House. The chamber is the place for members to voice their concerns with respect to—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker :

Order. The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest is an experienced member. I am going to ask him to get to the point very quickly because it is sounding a lot like debate on the current issue. Otherwise, we will move on.

(1050) Mr. John Williamson :

Mr. Speaker, some parliaments ago there was a debate in the chamber over the rights of members to express themselves vis-à-vis their whips. The Speaker at the time ruled clearly that debates from both sides of the chamber had to be made in this room and not in the corridor behind us, so members came to this chamber and made their best arguments to inform the Speaker so the Speaker could make a better ruling. My concern is the practice of the Speaker cutting off concerned points of order on an issue before the House.

He is cutting the members out of the process and leaving it up to the Speaker to make a ruling behind closed doors. We would be well served to have a debate over the rules around petitions, and I regret the Speaker's decision. He is going to come back here to say the matter is closed without having heard from members, in good faith, who want to represent their constituents when it comes to petitions. The Speaker would be well advised to hear from MPs who are here trying to work in a good faith effort to advance this House in a way that we—

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest for raising this issue. It is a valid point, but the Chair feels they have heard enough from around the table to be able to consider this matter and come back to the House.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Mr. Speaker, the Chair needs to clarify whether the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot will be able to speak prior to your further ruling. I appreciate you would like to take the time to—

The Speaker :

That is very much on the subject matter that is before the House at this time. The Chair's decision stands that the member would have to apologize before coming back. The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has been very patient. I ask him to rise on his point of order if it is a new point of order.

Mr. Mel Arnold :

Mr. Speaker, I have been very patient. I asked you a direct question that I did not receive an answer to. I hope that will also be included in your response to the House.

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member.

Questions on the Order Paper

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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

The Speaker :

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate Housing S. O. 52

The Speaker :

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach.

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is with utmost urgency I call to the House's attention the housing and houselessness emergency facing all Canadians. Just recently, the City of Edmonton declared a housing emergency, joining cities across the country that are grappling with the outcomes of poverty, displacement and addiction without the power and money necessary to truly end the crisis.

First nations, Métis settlements and Inuit communities are struggling to ensure financial sustainability for housing growth and infrastructure maintenance, forcing many indigenous people into urban centres without the important community and cultural supports they need. In addition, this emergency has Canadians scared they will never afford a home, while rent just keeps going up, and the housing market is only making the rich richer. I want to ground my concern in recent experience.

During my time back in my riding I joined neighbours such as Linda, a retired teacher, and Tabatha and Blake from the Edmonton Public Library; leaders such as Janis Irwin, Brooks Arcand-Paul and Brad Lafortune; community organizations such as Boyle Street Community Services, Tawaw Outreach Collective, Water Warriors, Public Interest Alberta, 4B Harm Reduction Society and Bear Claw; indigenous activists such as Kokum Kathy, Will Cardinal, Rachelle Gladue and Judith Gale; and so many more in witnessing the worst outcomes of this housing crisis.

We watched as encampments were torn down in the brutal cold only to be resurrected a few blocks away. This is a death sentence for some and a horrid reality unfolding across our country. We must break these cycles of violence while building safe, affordable and supportive housing for all. As well, we need to support and enact solutions brought forward by leading community organizations, which I know are found in every riding in our country.

They are organizations like those in my community, such as the Edmonton Coalition on Housing and Homelessness, Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, NiGiNan Housing Ventures, the Right at Home Housing Society and Radius Community Health & Healing. We have the solutions. We just need the will. It is for these reasons I so hope the Speaker grants hon. members the important opportunity to engage in this emergency debate as soon as possible.

(1055) Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Griesbach for his intervention and request for an emergency debate. However, the Speaker is not satisfied that this request meets the requirement of the Standing Orders at this time.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ English ] Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023 Bill C-59. Second reading

The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Ms. Yvonne Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence), Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59 this morning. I waited very patiently for my turn as many in the House were unfortunately challenging the Speaker's decision. We have been here a long time. I think the rules are quite clear. I would like to speak—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Madam Speaker, the member across the way just claimed that members were challenging the Speaker's authority. We were trying to inform the Speaker, prior to what he said—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We are not going to debate that now. Everyone has the right to express themselves in a respectful manner. It is a debate that we are not going to start again.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Madam Speaker, members have been told they cannot participate in the House.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

That is not what the Speaker ruled. The Speaker ruled that he had heard from enough members to be able to come back to the House with a ruling. Right now, we are into the debate of a bill. The hon. parliamentary secretary made a comment that is not necessarily nice, but it is perfectly legitimate and is not unparliamentary. I would like to give the floor back to the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Madam Speaker, respectfully, your description of the events is distinct from what happened. The Speaker has said that a member of this House, prior to him making his final ruling, will be prevented from speaking. The problem with the Speaker is that he is continually inventing new rules and applying ideas that are completely outside of the precedents of the House. If he is coming back to the House with a ruling, then the member for Battle River—Crowfoot should be able to be present prior to that final ruling, but—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

That has been dealt with by the Speaker. There is—

Mr. Garnett Genuis: He is also going to come back—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The hon. member is challenging the Chair. There is another point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I am growing more and more concerned about the confrontation with Speakers when they are occupying the chair. Even when you were standing up, Madam Speaker, the member did not sit down. Rather, he continued to chirp from his seat toward you. I think there—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I appreciate the hon. member's comments and they are duly noted, but we are not going to start a debate on this. There is no point of order. We are resuming debate with the parliamentary secretary for northern affairs.

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

Madam Speaker, members have challenged the Chair, and we just bore witness to it right here in the House again. I am not raising a point of order. I am giving a speech on Bill C-59 . It goes without saying that in the House there is a lot of tension. Members are really not very restful in their seats, and every single little word motivates them to jump to their feet and challenge someone else who is in the chair.

I want to speak today about Bill C-59 , a wonderful piece of legislation crafted by the Government of Canada in response to the people of Canada, who have continuously raised with us, in very eloquent and fundamental ways, the issues confronting them every single day in their lives and their communities, how that impacts them, and suggestions on how we can make life easier. That is what we have been doing. While the opposition has been playing political games in the House and outside the House, we have been attentive to what Canadians are saying.

Even in my home riding in rural Canada, we know that the issues around affordability have become much more challenging for people. We know that families are working harder to meet the demands of continuing with the quality of life they have enjoyed and want to have, and we are helping them along the way. However, it is unfortunate that, every time we have proposed good legislation, good, creative ideas in listening to the people of Canada, we have had Conservatives vote it down. In the fall economic statement, under Bill C-59 , the supports for Canadians under affordability are very important.

They are very important because they come at a time when Canadians need them. We have talked a lot about the Canada child benefit here. I visit families every day, and I know that, without that Canada child benefit going into their accounts every month, they could not provide the quality of life they want for their children. That is why I am proud of what we are doing under the Canada child benefit, a benefit Conservatives want to get rid, have voted against, and have campaigned on saying that it is not adequate for Canadians.

What we know is that, without this benefit, without that monthly income going to families all across Canada, there would be so many children still left in poverty. This benefit alone has lifted children and families out of poverty, and I can cite case by case, community by community, family name by family name, how it has benefited them over the time we have implemented that benefit. I also want to talk about what we have done around affordability today because the key pillar of our fall economic statement is really built around boosting the economy, as well as making life more affordable for Canadians.

We have seen the inflation rate in 2022 go from over 8% down to 3.2%, which I think were the last numbers. We know that, while the inflation rate has fallen, the cost of living has not really shifted downward. The price of goods is still higher than people would like it to be. There are many reasons for that. Conservatives will tell us that it is because of the Liberal government, but the world will tell us a very different narrative.

That narrative is really about supply chains, wars that are ongoing in countries, the self-sufficiency of countries around the world and how they are trying to meet their needs at a very challenging time. The other thing we have noticed is what has been happening with competitors. Canadians have been very strong about this. We need to make changes to the Competition Act. We are doing that in the fall economic statement.

As members know, ministers have called together leading competitors in the grocery chains to talk about affordable groceries for Canadians and how, with the co-operation of the business community, they would be able to make better, more affordable choices.

(1100) Many in the opposition mock that idea. They did not see it as a generational change that could occur within the competition laws in Canada, that could make it more affordable for people across the country. They just mocked the idea of even having the conversation, because that is what happens when there is a far right-wing government agenda. It is about getting rid of laws, regulations and fairness. It is about the competitors and businesses reaching a higher model and greater profits. That is not the direction the Liberal government is going in.

We are going in a direction that is bringing costs down and making life more affordable and sustainable for Canadians. We are not looking at a far-right agenda that caters only to the wealthy, the business communities and large-scale businesses, and where profit is the driving feature of the day. We have seen it. We have seen it here in Canada, and we continue to see it today. My colleague opposite can shout all he likes, but it is not going to stop me from saying what I have to say today. The truth hurts. We all know how much the truth hurts.

He is over there squirming in his seat right now, because he knows that what I am saying is 100% factual, and—

(1105) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary again for a point of order from the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Madam Speaker, there was no squirming whatsoever. The member needs to understand that when the Speaker ignores the rules and when the Speaker invents new norms, it undermines the ability of the House to function. The Speaker—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I am not the one who has to address them, but they will be addressed by the Speaker. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay on the same point.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, I have been trying to listen to my hon. colleague, and all I have been hearing is this juvenile intimidation from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We are in a debate. Some things are going to provoke some reactions, and it is perfectly normal in this chamber.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): May I continue? This is perfectly normal behaviour, apparently, in this chamber. I am going to allow the hon. parliamentary secretary to continue.

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity. I guess my definition of squirming and the member opposite's definition are a little different. When I see someone trying to shift around in their seat, and their arms are moving, their legs are moving, their head is moving and their mouth is moving, I think they are squirming in their seat. Let us get back to this very important speech that I am making on Bill C-59 . What we are doing, in terms of competitiveness, is taking a historic step. We are cracking down on the abuses and the dominance of bigger companies and on predatory pricing.

This is going to help so many families. In the meantime, while we are introducing that legislation and making that crackdown to save money on grocery bills for Canadians, we are giving them an affordability allowance. A family with two children, for example, would have received about $430. That allowance can go up to $640 per family. While we are dealing with the Competition Act and making historic changes to regulate and ensure that there is fairer pricing and competition on groceries in Canada, we are paying out an affordability allowance to families to help them through this difficult time.

This is another incentive that the Conservatives voted down, yet they talk every single day about families that are out there struggling. We talk every single day about the same families that are out there struggling, but we are doing something about it. That is the difference.

What they are doing is voting down every concrete initiative that we are bringing forward, whether it is the Canada child benefit, dental care for families who cannot afford it, an affordability allowance being paid out, or a rural rebate on carbon pollution to help people who are going through a difficult time to heat their homes in parts of Canada. It does not matter how much the benefits are that are going to Canadians.

The Conservatives vote them down because they have one strategy in mind: catering to the far right, catering to the wealthy and making sure that they slash good programs and good benefits, like the ones we are bringing to seniors and what we are doing under the Canada pension plan. These are concrete, fundamental programs for Canadians.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I do believe we are talking about the Liberal government's economic statement. However, the speech I heard was more about criticizing the opposition, even though the topic is actually the government's economic statement. They say they are taking care of people. It is shocking that, in their economic statement, they once again abandoned seniors by refusing to equitably index the OAS by 10%. They are also abandoning workers.

For the past eight years now, since 2015, then in 2017, 2019, 2021 and again now, the government has opted not to listen to workers or look at ways to strengthen the social safety net that is EI. These are urgent matters. Can my colleague tell me how her government plans to sincerely address seniors' and workers' need for enhanced social programs?

(1110) [ English ]

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

Madam Speaker, that is a very sensible question. I agree with my hon. colleague. Seniors deserve the very best quality of life that we can give them. That is why our party has upheld the ability for seniors to retire at 65 and not at the Conservatives' suggested age of 67. There are other things we have done. We have increased the old age security. We have reformed the Canada pension plan. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement. We have also done things like bring in the workers benefit, which has helped so many workers across Canada who work in low-income jobs and has allowed them to have that additional $2000-plus per month in benefits to support their families.

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, in her speech, spoke a little about following rules, the rule of law and so forth. I think that it has been interesting over the last few months. We have seen the incredible disregard that this government has for our institutions and for adherence to rules. We had the court rule, for example, that the government's imposition of the Emergencies Act was unlawful. We have seen, even today, how institutions are undermined when we have people in positions of authority, such as the Speaker, making outrageous rulings without any basis or precedent.

Can the member explain why her government and its partners in various positions consistently ignore precedent, ignore rules, ignore the law and think that they are somehow above the rules?

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, because it gives me an opportunity to really talk about who is in favour of the rule of law. This is the same party that wants to withdraw from the United Nations and that wants to fire the head of the Bank of Canada. These are the kinds of things that we hear from the other side. Let us talk about the Emergencies Act. Let us talk about the convoy on the streets of Ottawa in the absence of anyone dealing with that convoy. What would we have seen if the members opposite were in government?

They would have walked away, ignored it and left the whole city in chaos, to implode. When there were people, radicals, camped out on the lawns of people's houses, when they had streets blocked and they were overtaking businesses, shutting down shopping centres, sending thousands of people in the city of Ottawa home and taking away their ability—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay .

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that she and I have been in some good scraps over the years, but we come to this place for the betterment of Canada, so when I see the opportunity to create good-paying jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador being attacked by the Conservatives, and the Conservatives say they are going to stop jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador, I ask why. It is because they want to burn the planet.

What does it say to people in Newfoundland and Labrador that there are Conservative members who want to burn the planet and deny jobs and good, clean energy, while we see in America, on the Atlantic coast, that the Americans are getting thousands and thousands of jobs, clean jobs? What does that say to the people in Newfoundland and Labrador?

Ms. Yvonne Jones :

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The Conservatives are voting against Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They are voting against Nova Scotians. They are voting against the Atlantic accord. They are voting against 30,000 clean energy jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not only that, but the Conservatives do not have confidence in the governments to do the job that needs to be done. My colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador yesterday insinuated in committee that the premiers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia were being hoodwinked by the federal government: hoodwinked into creating 30,000 new jobs in their province. They should give themselves some thought around that—

(1115) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan (Calgary Forest Lawn, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, before I get started I would like to say that I am splitting my time with the hon. member from the soup-and-salad bowl of Canada, Mr. Lake Simcoe himself, the hon. member for York—Simcoe . Thomas Jefferson reportedly said that democracy would cease to exist when you took away from those who were willing and able to work and gave to those who were not. Speaking from my own experience, coming as an immigrant to this country, my family, like many, came here looking for that Canadian dream that so many are coming to Canada for still.

However, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we know it is not worth the cost. We see now, more than ever, that it is harder, whether for a Canadian or for a newcomer, to survive in this country. It is so much so that more than 400,000 people left Canada just last year. That is not a good sign for any country to think that it can prosper when 400,000-plus people are leaving. I look at the reasons that people are leaving or wanting to leave, and the number one cause is the cost of living. Number two is that their credentials are not being recognized. Both are issues that Conservatives have plans for.

I do not believe that anyone moves to this country thinking that their government will work against them, but when they get here they are proven wrong, time and time again, by the Liberal-NDP government. Their paycheques are attacked; their civil liberties are attacked; their freedom is attacked, and their freedom of speech is attacked over and over again by the Liberal-NDP government. It makes them rethink why they came to this country in the first place. This is because everything does feel like it is broken here. People are getting taxed more. Their paycheques do not go as far as they used to.

They are working harder. They are working so much that many people I have talked to are working two or three jobs. If I talk to anyone in any riding, one thing I am seeing as being more and more of a trend is that more people are picking up Uber jobs or Uber Eats jobs or Skip the Dishes jobs on top of the jobs they are already working. I remember, when growing up, that people would pick up taxi jobs or a job on the side just to make extra money above and beyond whatever their savings were.

However, it is sad to see that after eight years of the current Liberal-NDP government, that is a must now, even to pay for the basic necessities just to live here in Canada. The inflation that was caused by all the spending by the Liberal-NDP government, which continues to spend, made interest rates go up in the last 19 months at the most rapid pace seen in the last 20 years. In fact, the intensity of those rate changes is actually the highest in Canadian history. Because the government spent and wasted so much money, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had to tackle that inflation by raising interest rates.

The government's own housing department officials say that they have no faith in the current government to build the homes that are needed today. In fact, CMHC said in a recent study that homebuilding was actually down 7%. When we look at some of the factors, we see that builders are not building and buyers are not buying, because of those high interest rates. They went up once again, because of the overspending of the Liberal-NDP government.

When we look at Bill C-59 , we see that the only thing the government has included with respect to housing is that it changed the housing department's name and increased the funding for more photo ops. There is no concrete action that would be taken to help with housing affordability. After eight years, we have seen rents double and mortgages double, and even the down payment needed for a house has doubled in just eight years. Canadians pay today over one-third of their income in taxes, and the rest goes to housing, with little or nothing left for groceries, gas and home heating. This is very concerning.

People are making their shelter payments, but all the other payments are starting to go more and more onto Canadians' credit cards. Utilities and groceries are going up. Even though people are paying more for groceries, they are getting a lot less in groceries than they used to.

(1120) This is because of high taxes, like the carbon tax that made the cost of gas, groceries and home heating go up, which the Liberals plan on quadrupling this year. The household debt in Canada, in totality, is more than the Canadian economy. This is not a good sign for a country where we want people to come and be successful and prosper. We are missing out on a lot of talent that could come here, with new energy and new investment, because Canada is not affordable anymore. It is not a place where people can come and be successful.

Canadians have record credit card debt, and over half are only $200 or less away from going bankrupt. The fact is that more and more people are putting more onto their credit cards. We are hearing horrific stories where students are living under bridges. Working people are living in their cars because they cannot afford housing. Mothers are putting water in their children's milk and parents have to choose less nutritious food because they cannot afford groceries. We are hearing about seniors who are having to wear blankets inside their houses because they cannot afford heat them and have to turn down their heat.

That is how they have to get by because of this punitive carbon tax the government continues to raise. Bankruptcy and insolvency are up. All the increases for small businesses are crippling owners, who are the backbone of our country. The IMF also warns, because of the interest rate hikes, that Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. More than 70,000 mortgages a month are now being renewed, sometimes at double the rate. That could mean anything from a $400 increase to a $1,200 increase. This is not sustainable.

With the recent inflation numbers, where inflation is above the target rate, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has been clear that there is a fear of these rates staying higher for longer, which means the pain will be higher for longer. There is no hope in sight. There is no light at the end of this inflationary crisis tunnel we see right now. When we look at the economy today, after eight years we are in a worse position than we have ever been before. In fact, Canada's economy has contracted,

whereas our U.S. partner's has grown. This is because of the bad restrictive policies of the Liberal-NDP government, which have stifled any type of economic growth in our country, let alone productivity or any type of investment that should be made in Canada. Canada is a lot less competitive because of its tax regime, which has held back the country. The GDP per person is a determining factor for how successful each person is in Canada, and it has been declining since September 2022. Canada is last in the OECD for GDP per capita.

GDP per capita today is lower than it was in the last half of 2018, which means five years of the wealth of Canadians has been completely wiped out. Taxes are high. The tax code is too complicated. Taxes have been taken from working Canadians and their families for Liberals to give to their insider friends, consultants, bankers, bondholders, Liberal Bay Street buddies, bureaucrats and woke multinational corporations to advance the Liberal virtue signalling and its unjust job-killing transition. Canadians are being forced to go to food banks more than ever because of the productivity gap and more taxes.

While the Liberal-NDP government thinks the government is the solution, we believe people are the solution, and we need to give them the freedom to spend and to earn the way they want to, not restrict them. Once we have a strong Conservative government under our Conservative leader, we are going to bring home those powerful paycheques again and an economy that is strong like it once was before, where the GDP per capita works for more and more people and where powerful paycheques will become a reality, because what people earn, they will be able to keep more of it in their pockets.

We are going to keep it simple by doing four things to bring it home. We are going to axe the tax, we are going to build the homes, we are going to fix the budget and we are going to stop the crime.

(1125) Business of Supply

Hon. Harjit S. Sajjan (President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Emergency Preparedness and Minister responsible for the Pacific Economic Development Agency of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Thursday, February 1, shall be an allotted day.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

Bill C-59. Second reading The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-59,

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023 , be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Mr. Wayne Long (Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I always marvel when I hear speeches from the opposite side. The Conservatives paint themselves as these magnificent fiscal stewards. Pre-2015, the Conservative government ran nine out of 10 straight deficits. I ask the member opposite to come clean with Canadians. What programs would he cut? Is he going to cut the Canada child benefit, the dental care program or the child care program? Is he going to raise the age of seniors from 65 back to 67? He should come clean with Canadians and tell us what Liberal programs, which you did vote against, you will cut.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

The member has to speak through me. I did not vote against anything. The hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Madam Speaker, first, we are going to cut the number of Liberal seats and replace them with Conservative seats so we will have a strong Conservative government. We are also going to cut waste, waste like the $35-billion Infrastructure Bank that has built zero projects. The government have padded the pockets of Liberal cronies and insiders with that. We are going to cut things like the arrive scam app that cost $45 million, which went to, once again, Liberal insiders, and the $1-billion slush fund that is under investigation for the same reasons. We are going to cut the woke policies.

We are going to axe the carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. The $20 billion that has gone to Liberal consultants to cover up the cabinet's incompetence will be cut as well. That is just the beginning.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked a lot about the economy in his speech. I think he will agree with me that small and medium-sized businesses are a key component of the Quebec and Canadian economies, and that they are extremely important. The pandemic has been hard on them. The government offered them a loan, which was coupled with a subsidy if they were able to repay the loan. It was called the Canada emergency business account, or CEBA. The repayment date was a few days ago, in early January. I have been talking to entrepreneurs back home.

Some of them are wondering whether they should close their businesses because they have not been able to reach a payment agreement with the government. The post-pandemic economic recovery we had hoped for has not materialized. In my mind, it is logical to think that the government would help these people, who contribute to the Canadian economy. I would like to hear more from the member. Does he think this would have been a good measure for entrepreneurs, who are also facing the rising cost of living?

[ English ]

Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the recovery after the pandemic was harder than what people thought. The Conservatives have been saying all along that when there are too many dollars chasing too few goods that is exactly why a lot of the businesses are suffering today, let alone everyday Canadians. The government continues to spend. Let us remind everyone that 40% of the pandemic spending had nothing to do with the pandemic in the first place. Money went to organized crime through the government. Money went to people who literally were dead, to people who did not live in Canada and to public servants.

The government is spending more and more money, yet it is not helping small businesses. It is raising their taxes. It slammed on a second carbon tax that applies without any rebate whatsoever. These types of things are stifling the economy.

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned. We are into the second year of Putin's brutal attack on Ukraine. We see that Trump has undermined Ukraine. We see that the far right, and we know the Conservatives have been meeting with the far right in Europe, is undermining Ukraine. I want to ask why that member, his leader , his defence critic and his foreign affairs critic stood up to vote against funding to support the people of Ukraine in their time of need. That sends a very message that the Conservatives are on the Putin troll machine.

(1130) Mr. Jasraj Singh Hallan :

Madam Speaker, what we voted against, what will continue to vote against and what we always have voted against is a punitive carbon tax that the NDP-Liberal government is more than happy to put on Canadians. It is so ideologically obsessed with the carbon tax and ensuring people pay more for carbon that it wants to do that to the war-torn country of Ukraine. It does not want to help anybody. The fact that those parties have helped to try to cripple our energy sector is only empowering Putin to use the money from his energy sector to fund his war. Shame on them.

Mr. Scot Davidson (York—Simcoe, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, when I look at the economic situation impacting Canadians right across the country, I cannot help but wonder this. Had the Prime Minister never entered politics, and had a more regular upbringing typical of most Canadians, he would very likely be cutting it on a drama teacher's salary. If he were, could he afford to live under the very same policies and economic conditions he is imposing on Canadians today?

Under these circumstances, I cannot help but wonder how the Prime Minister , if he were not the Prime Minister, could stretch his budget to cover feeding his family, clothing, mortgage payments, car expenses, cellphone bills and all the other obligations facing ordinary, but truly extraordinary, Canadians. However, we know that the actual circumstances of the Prime Minister are far different than those facing most people across the country. He does not know what it is like to struggle to put food on the table or gas in the car, but Canadians are doing this, all the while going about their daily lives.

Increasingly, more Canadians are paying attention to what is taking place in Ottawa and what the government is doing, because they must. They can no longer go about their lives without being directly confronted and negatively affected by the actions and failures of the Liberal government. This is because everything is broken in Canada under the Prime Minister . There has been a record two million food bank visits in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgages payments are 150% higher than they were before the Liberals formed government.

Canada has been warned that it is the most at-risk country in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. Violent crime is up 39%. Tent encampments can be found in most major cities. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Average household debt makes up 100% of the income of Canadians. Business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year. Despite our growth in population, there are fewer entrepreneurs and fewer new businesses than ever.

This is the day-to-day reality facing Canadians because of the generational high inflation and the fastest rise in interest rates in Canadian monetary history, an issue the Prime Minister says, if members recall, he does not think about. However, regular people do. Every single person living in our country has been impacted by rising costs; homelessness amid an unaffordable home ownership and rental market; not to mention rampant crime; and a destabilized society where basic government services, travel, medical care and so much more have become inaccessible, unreliable or non-existent.

Canadians know that the Liberal government has caused this misery with the rampant overspending, a record $600 billion of inflationary debt and countless tax hikes that increase the price of the goods we buy and drives up the interest we pay. Now, when Canadians are looking to the federal government and the Prime Minister responsible for everything being broken to see what is being done to tackle these issues, they see this, the 2023 Liberal fall economic statement. Talk about a day late and a dollar short.

The government did not implement any of the common-sense proposals the Conservatives called for to address the problem facing our country's citizens. Instead, the Liberals are forcing $20 billion of new spending on Canadians that will further drive up taxes, inflation and interest rates. Never before has a federal government spent so much with so little to show for it. Now Canadians are paying the price. In fact, the Liberal policies in the economic statement only make the problems piling up in our country so much worse.

(1135) The Liberals are now spending more on interest on the debt than they are on health care. Let us think about that. It is no wonder York—Simcoe still does not have a hospital. When justifying the failure of the economic statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said, “Canada is not and never has been broken.” Can people believe that? Canadians are paying attention and they are being told by the Deputy Prime Minister , who is tasked with tackling these issues, that actually there are not any. She says everything is fine and Canadians have never had it so good. We should not be surprised.

This is the same Deputy Prime Minister who spends thousands on limos while bragging she does not need to own a car. She can just walk out the door and get on a subway. This is the same finance minister who is holding back the rural top-up fund from the carbon tax from the first nations in my riding of York—Simcoe, forcing them to pay more in carbon taxes simply because of where they live. That is dividing based on geography. She will pretend that a AAA credit rating matters, as if that will fill the stomachs of Canadians lined up at food banks.

It does not matter to her that this rating is only maintained on the backs of Canadians through higher taxes and interest rates. She will also brag that Canada supposedly has the lowest debt and deficit in the G7, but she ignores the fact that when we account for general government debt, federal, provincial and territorial, Canada has the 10th highest debt-to-GDP burden in the OECD. With this economic statement, the Liberals would have people believe that, because the federal debt is only 42% of our GDP, it is all good. However, the truth is the government debt is 113% of our GDP when we account for all of it.

The Liberals’ refusal to admit that Canada is broken, that people in this country are suffering and that a change of course is necessary, proves to Canadians without a shadow of a doubt that the government is out of touch and incapable of responding to the crises it has made. There are crises. Let us look at the headlines from the past few months: “Canada's worst fiscal crisis in generations is brewing”, “Federal efforts to solve Canada’s housing crisis” are failing and “Surgery backlogs...no family doctor: ...Canada's health-care crisis”.

There are so many more covering affordability, opioids, foreign interference, food insecurity and mental health. There is crisis after crisis after crisis. After eight years, Canadians have never been more unhappy, more uncomfortable and more unsafe. This economic statement proves that the biggest crisis facing this country, and the root of all others, is a crisis of leadership. The approach of the Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal government is not working. Prices are up, rent is up, debt is up and taxes are up. Time is up.

Canada is broken and the only people who will not admit that are the very same people who caused it: the tired, corrupt and out-of-touch Liberal government. There is a better way. Conservatives will axe the tax, balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates to bring home lower prices for Canadians in a Canada no longer defined by crisis. We can only speculate what could have been if the Prime Minister was never Prime Minister. I am confident that we will not need to wait much longer before the Prime Minister is not the Prime Minister anymore.

With the many issues facing our country, and the repeated failures by the government to address them, what will his legacy be?

(1140) It is increasingly looking like he will forever be remembered as the Prime Minister who broke Canada. Instead of our out-of-touch policies, we need a vision for the country and a prime minister who believes in Canadians the way Canadians believe in their country. The Leader of the Opposition will be that prime minister, and Conservatives will axe the tax and fix the budget.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member puts out the bumper sticker of “broken Canada”, and nothing could be further from the truth. If that was anywhere near the truth, one would have to say that we have a broken world. When we look at how Canada has performed in comparison to others in the G20, such as the United States, England, France or Germany, Canada comes out quite well, whether it is the creation of jobs, interest rates, inflation or on the issue of affordability, and it continues on. Maybe the member could step away from the Conservative spin and take a dip into reality.

Can the member at least acknowledge one fact, that investment from abroad coming into Canada on a per capita, dollar amount is the best in the world? Would the member not acknowledge that that is a good thing?

Mr. Scot Davidson :

Madam Speaker, we see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North is obviously not out in his riding talking to Canadians. The people of York—Simcoe are on the outside looking in. I know the member for Winnipeg North quite well. We have talked about the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund for example. The Liberal government is all promises and all press releases. Since 2019, the government has promised the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund. We are in 2024 now, and there has been zero on it. That does not surprise me.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, every Conservative MP is claiming that their party will be forming the next government. Sooner or later, they are going to have to take a position and offer up some clear proposals. Considering all the shouting back and forth lately, the Bloc Québécois is pretty much only the adult in the room. We therefore intend to keep our feet on the ground. The Government of Quebec is asking the Liberal government for $470 million to pay the costs associated with taking in asylum seekers. The Government of Quebec requested this $470 million quite a while ago now.

No one on the Conservative side has told me what they would do in the Liberals' place. If Conservative MPs are a government-in-waiting, they should have an opinion on the matter. What is it? Would they give the Government of Quebec $470 million to cover this cost? I want to know what they would do, because, so far, they have not put any proposals on the table. All they do is engage in partisan attacks.

[ English ]

Mr. Scot Davidson :

Madam Speaker, I have to take this opportunity to talk about what I would do. I have to stand up for my riding. We know the carbon tax disproportionately affects rural Canadians. We do not even get the rural top-up now in York—Simcoe. We cannot even see the CN Tower. If we google the distance from the Chippewas of Georgina Island to the Finch subway station, it would take 14 hours to walk there, and yet we are not entitled to the rural top-up. We see the Liberal government dividing, based on geography. It has rolled back the CMA data for other ridings in Atlantic Canada but not for York—Simcoe.

The Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation is an island. Let us think about this, any time the federal government has any interaction with them, they are classified—

(1145) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) :

There is another question.

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, it is almost 12 noon; it is 11:45 a.m. I have been here since we started sitting this morning at 10 a.m., and the Conservatives have been playing games all day today, trying to delay this important work to get support to people. I am thinking specifically about the Canada disability benefit and all of those people who are waiting for that money to come to them. Too many seniors are being ejected from their homes right now. There are encampments and people living in tents.

The Conservatives have nothing to offer other than complaining about the fact that they are offended about something and asking the Speaker if they can get apologies. I am over it. We need to get the Canada disability benefit to people now. Why are the Conservatives continuing to play games with people's lives?

Mr. Scot Davidson :

Madam Speaker, the member alludes to the urgency and the crisis, which I spoke about in my speech; crisis after crisis after crisis. This government has done nothing. There is an old saying: One can only hold a beach ball under water for so long. We have seen that thing come shooting out now, and this is what Canadians are facing.

[ Translation ]

Hon. David Lametti (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, today, I am stepping down. This is my last speech in the House. I would like to begin by thanking the voters in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for entrusting me, three times, with the responsibility of representing them in the House. I am also leaving my academic home, the Faculty of Law at McGill University. Leaving both institutions makes this a very emotional day for me. Serving as a member, as parliamentary secretary and as Minister of Justice was the pinnacle of my professional career and I loved every minute of it. [ English ] That is what I want to talk about with friends today in this place.

It is a series of moments that are indelibly etched in my brain and my heart, ranging from laughter to tears and everything in between, from Vancouver to St. John's, from Inuvik to Iqaluit to Nain and around the world in Europe, Asia and South America. [ Translation ] I would like to begin in my riding, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, with Les Bons Débarras bookstore, where I buy my vinyls, on Wellington Street. [ English ] Then to St. John's where twice I have managed to get to Fred's Records and fill my bags with many good vinyls, which I would then spin in my office.

Everybody knows that Justice 306, as Brian Tobin and Anne McLellan have told us, is the best office on the Hill. At impromptu gatherings with my team, many of whom are here, such as when we passed the MMP's bill, we would spin some vinyl, have some fun and honour and thank each other for the work that we had done to make those moments special. There are many humorous moments. I sat for two years as the benchmate to Rodger Cuzner, who is now in the other place, including two Christmas speeches.

I will not attribute my sense of humour to Cuzner, because his is quite unique, but it was certainly a wonderful experience. [ Translation ] As a member, I learned rather quickly to remove my earpiece when the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie had the floor. [ English ] I will not forget the first Press Gallery dinner sitting at a table with Rona Ambrose and hearing her speech, and those who were there would remember it well; or driving through Rome with our ambassador and watched the havoc being wreaked by the police escort that we had, I do not have hair but I would not have had after that anyway, and then later that evening going to V.I.P.

Pizza, not the finest culinary experience in Rome, but still a good one; or throwing my suitcase in the back of a rented Ford F-150 when we were travelling in north. There were serious moments too, such as the swearing in at Rideau Hall as a cabinet minister and the swearing in as an MP on three occasions. There was signing a proclamation at Rideau Hall proclaiming Charles the King of Canada, a one-time experience.

I listened to the stories of Italian Canadian families whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers were interned during World War II, realizing that I was the minister of justice and that a previous minister of justice had signed the decree to intern those people. There was working with my Italian Canadian colleagues in the House to get that apology done and attending the memorial unveiling in the riding of the former Speaker in North Bay with the indefatigable Joyce Pillarella.

I met David Milgaard in my office with James Lockyer and promised him that we would create an independent commission to review wrongful convictions. David Milgaard signed my album by the Tragically Hip, Fully Completely , which contains the song Wheat Kings that they wrote about him. Also, his sister Susan was present to announce the tabling of Bill C-40 , and I will not be smiling fully until that bill receives royal assent.

(1150) This summer, at the G7 in Japan, I realized I was the senior justice minister around the table. I had my first conversation with Attorney General Merrick Garland of the United States. We had finished our agenda, and I had a chance to ask him whether the HBO series on the Unabomber was accurate.

Attorney General Garland's voice lit up as he went on for 10 minutes about the accuracy and inaccuracy of the portrayal of the Unabomber case, but his view was generally favourable, and he said it was an important moment in his career. [ Translation ] When I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade, I went to Namur, in Wallonia, to sell the Canada-Europe free trade agreement. I was prepared to be the bad cop, as they say. It was fun. The minister was able to arrive a few weeks later to reach an agreement.

In the same vein, I was the bad cop with Boeing at the Farnborough International Airshow in England. That was during the time when we had disputes with Boeing. There too, other ministers showed up afterward to make peace. [ English ] I had many wonderful moments on the hockey rink. This is Canada, after all, and I still try to lace up my skates, notwithstanding my advanced age. I had a wonderful moment in Gananoque, when a number of us in this House were celebrating the life and memory of our former colleague, the late Gord Brown.

I will not forget that, because it was a wonderful non-partisan moment, and I was proud to be part of it. I took

part in a Métis-ITK hockey game, in which my defence partner was 45 years younger than me and one of the best players on the ice. She was fantastic. Another game was our first game in the Ottawa Senators arena against the Conservative Party, when the Liberals got their backsides kicked. There was a game on the ice rink on the Hill for the 150th anniversary celebration against a group of very young and impressive Mohawks from Kahnawake. The result was never in doubt.

The only thing I would say that ties those last number of games together was the near complete incompetence of our goaltender, the current Minister of Immigration . I exchanged puns on Jeopardy and Jeopardy metaphors with Chief Justice Ritu Khullar of Alberta, as well as a previous chief justice, Justice Mary Moreau of Alberta, in our speeches in Edmonton at Chief Justice Khullar's swearing in. I have a number of memories of walking, such as with the member for Prince Albert and talking about trade, but talking more about our families. I walked with Alex Steinhouse in Yellowknife on a hike.

It was absolutely stunning. I walked with Aluki Kotierk and Natan Obed in the hills above Nain. I walked to the Hill every morning from my Ottawa apartment. I walked across the floor when I first became minister of justice to tell the member for St. Albert—Edmonton that I was going to support his private member's bill on supporting juries. I was proud of that moment, and I still am. I am proud of some historic moments in this House. For example, we voted unanimously on a bill to outlaw conversion therapy.

I will be forever grateful not only to the members of my caucus but also to the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke , as well as the member for Calgary Nose Hill , the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka and Erin O'Toole for the work they did to make that unanimous vote a reality. We saved lives that day. I remember when the then minister of public safety, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence , and I sat down with provincial and territorial ministers of justice and public safety ministers to get to a unanimous agreement on bail reform.

Not only did we commit to agree on our federal legislation, which is now law, but the provinces also committed to work at their end to make the bail system work better. There were moments with Black community leadership across Canada on the Black justice strategy. In particular, in Nova Scotia, there was a very real pride in the room from that community because of their leadership on creating the movement toward pre-sentencing reports.

(1155) There were many moments with indigenous leaders across Canada, many of whom I now count as close friends. A moment in Williams Lake, at the site of a former residential school, is not something I will ever forget. There, I went into a barn where a number of the children would go, back in the day, and carve their names in the wood. On the positive side, there is the pride of the Tŝilhqot'in leadership in having established their indigenous title; they used the courts and succeeded. I would meet them annually here in Ottawa and in their offices in the B.C. interior, and I saw the pride.

In Iqaluit, as a guest of President Obed of ITK, I was in the room when Pope Francis heard the stories of sexual abuse directly from survivors or the children of survivors. I saw the reaction of the pope and also, in particular, the reaction of the archbishop who was translating. At a certain point, the pope put his hand on the translator's shoulder because of the difficulty he was having in relaying the words.

There were other momentous moments, such as the House rising for what we thought would be two weeks at the beginning of the pandemic, all the urgent committee work we did during the pandemic, and the occupation and the understanding of the gravity of the Emergencies Act. These were balanced by lighter moments, such as trying to buy a white suit online so I could represent Canada at the swearing-in of the president of the Dominican Republic. I had to buy two suits and then keep the one that fit. I got on a plane to the Dominican Republic and sat down beside Moises Alou; we talked baseball the whole way down.

Another time, I bicycled along the Lachine Canal; I saw the work that we had done as a government on rebuilding the walls of that canal and knew that they were going to be there for my children and my grandchildren. In another moment, I was stopped on Wellington by an older gentleman. [ Translation ] He said to me, “Mr. Lametti, I often see you at Verdun Beach.” [ English ] Verdun Beach, in the middle of Wellington Street, is my favourite restaurant with an oyster bar.

I had just been outed. [ Translation ] I think of places like Aj's, Shooters, Riccia, Station W, and now Monk Café; of the conversations with my constituents, particularly on Saturday mornings, when I go buy my bread and sandwiches at Bossa; of the statue of Saint Anthony and the time I stood next to it, during the saint's feast day in Ville-Émard with the Italian community. (1200) [ English ] These are times of a life, and I will cherish them. I thank those people who were involved in making those moments a reality, many of whom are in this room and in the gallery. I want to underscore that UNDRIP is the future.

It will allow us to reset our relationship with indigenous peoples. It is a true road map, a co-developed road map, to reconciliation. It is a singular moment. Indigenous leaders want to participate in nation building. I have heard this time and time again, that they want to be part of this project Canada and they want their children to have the same opportunities as other non-indigenous kids have had, as I have had. I am the son of Italian immigrants, who came to this country with no formal education.

Because they chose to come to this country, I got to have an outstanding education at Canadian universities and at international universities. Because they made this decision, I got to be a professor at an outstanding law faculty in Canada. I could run to be a member of Parliament and even aspire to be minister of justice. Indigenous peoples want a share in that dream. UNDRIP is a way for us to make it happen together. We are many nations in this country. That is a source of strength and understanding as we move forward in the future.

This recognition allows us to work on what unites us and to develop and protect languages and culture. This is true for indigenous peoples, as well as for Quebec. [ Translation ] We need to work together. We all understand that protecting and nurturing the French language and culture in North America is very important. We need to work together to ensure they live on and flourish in the future. [ English ] That means we need to stop scapegoating the English community in Quebec.

People in this community are very bilingual and committed to Quebec; in many cases, they have been there for 300 years. [ Translation ] I have to say that the Charter is not optional, and the preventive use of the Charter suggests that the Charter is optional. [ English ] At some point, with everything we have said, we need to understand that constitutional change will be necessary, and we need to prepare for that. We need to be able to disagree with respect, and recent weeks have underscored that. I tried to be only as partisan as I had to be and only as partisan as necessary; I tried not to get personal.

I did not always succeed, but I did my best. I think we all need to do our best, especially on social media and in this world where we are moving toward artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence does not exempt us from being human. Our human intellect, our emotions and our empathy will become even more important as AI supplements the more routine forms of intelligence. We cannot let it replace those other human qualities. Our survival as a country and as a species depends on nothing less. It remains to thank people.

I want to thank the Prime Minister for naming me parliamentary secretary and minister of justice. [ Translation ] I thank my colleagues here in the House and, especially, my critics, the members for Fundy Royal , Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke , Rivière-du-Nord , and, for medical assistance in dying, the member for Montcalm . [ English ] My chiefs of staff, Rachel Doran and Alex Steinhouse, have been fantastic, and my political teams have been outstanding. None of what we achieved could have been done without them, and I thank them.

I thank my constituency teams for their dedication, hard work and service, oftentimes when I was not around much as a minister. In particular, I want to thank Nicole Picher, who has been with me for eight years. I want to thank other elected officials in my riding at all political levels, and of all political parties, with whom I worked. I want to thank my political association, my volunteers and my donors, who helped me get elected. My friends kept me grounded. Here in Ottawa, Mélanie Vadeboncoeur and the La Roma gang made sure I stayed humble.

I thank my many friends in this place, such as the member for Eglinton—Lawrence , the current Minister of Immigration , the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North , the member for Oakville , Catherine McKenna and everybody else who has come through this place and with whom I hope to stay friends. I thank my friends at McGill and the McGill deans for their support. I thank my ex-wife, Geneviève Saumier, who began this journey with me and with whom I share three wonderful kids; she continues to give me good advice. I thank my children.

Perhaps the years away have been hardest on them. [ Translation ] I want to tell André, Gabrielle and Dominique that I love them. I thank them for their patience and devotion to their father. [ English ] Last, I have two points: First, kindness is not overrated, especially in a world of AI. We could all stand to be kinder, and we would all be better for it. Second, this place is not overrated. The Right Hon. Paul Martin has said that you can get more done in five minutes in this place than you can in five years anywhere else. Paul has been a mentor to me.

I am a successor in his riding, and he is a friend. [ Translation ] I would like us to prove him right every day.

(1205) [ English ]

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult moment for me, not because I had to find a new seat near the exit, not because it took me two tries to get to Ottawa because of the fog and not because I come from an Irish family of criers, but because it is really a moving moment for me. I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for the friendship we have developed in the House. He has a great record of accomplishment, about which he spoke, but I want to point out something someone asked me on the plane last night, and that was how I could go to work in such a negative place.

My response was that, unfortunately, all people see is question period, which is theatre, where people have other agendas they are pursuing, but they do not see the hard work that goes on behind the scenes, the co-operation and the friendships that are built. I really meant that, and the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is a great example of this.

I made a quick list, because I had 15-minutes notice that I had this opportunity, on the number of things he and I worked on together and his willingness to take action to ensure we improved the justice system in Canada, in particular for indigenous people and the work he did on Bill C-5 to reduce mandatory minimums, which fall very hard on the most marginalized in our society. He mentioned the conversion therapy ban. His work with the leader of the Conservatives and all parties meant we were able to pass that ban unanimously, something which I remain very proud of the House for doing.

He worked on Bill C-40 , with which we are not quite finished, on the miscarriages of justice commission. Again, miscarriages of justice fall very hard on the most marginalized, particularly indigenous women. My pledge to him is that I will work as hard as I can to get that done, hopefully by the end of this month. We only have a couple of days, but I think we can get that done. He also helped shepherd medical assistance in dying legislation through the House when I was initially the NDP critic. This was the most difficult issue in my 13 years here because of the very strong feelings on all sides of the issue.

The minister always demonstrated his ability to listen, to be empathetic and to try to find solutions that would keep us all together on this very important issue about reducing suffering at the end of life, not just for the person but for the families of people who need that assistance at the end. One last one is that I approached the minister about the publication ban on survivors of sexual assault and how many of them felt stifled by the publication ban. He asked what we could do to fix it. Eventually he agreed to add the ability to lift the publication ban in Bill S-12 , and it came to the House.

This was an example of how, when I approached him with an idea and a problem, he always looked for solutions and a way to bring us all together. I know he will continue to contribute to Canada once he leaves the House, though I am not sure in exactly what way or if he is sure in exactly what way. He is one of the finest members of Parliament I have ever had the privilege to work with, and I thank him for his contributions here.

(1210) [ Translation ]

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I rise to pay homage to the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, for whom we have tremendous respect and esteem. I vividly remember when he was appointed minister. I had to make a few comments at the time. In fact I was reviewing the appointments that had been made. A journalist asked me what I thought about Mr. Lametti ’s appointment as justice minister. I think I can use his name. I am a member of the official opposition, and I have to be loyal to my position, so I was trying to find something a bit harsh to say.

However, I began reading the minister’s resumé and I saw that he was a renowned jurist, a university professor cited by others across the country, and someone who was extensively involved in the justice system in Canada. I really had to say something negative, so I asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him sooner. I said he should have been appointed sooner. During question period, the parties have 30 to 35 seconds to argue their point of view. This certainly can be a rough and even brutal experience.

However, I always had intelligent, articulate, reasonable and reasoned conversations with the justice minister. We know that we are worlds apart on many issues, but we have always had tremendous respect for one another. I would like to thank him for his attention when I was consulted about certain appointments. He always acted with honour and dignity. Regarding what he said about his family, I would like to point out that such is the case for millions of Canadians. I, too, am the son of immigrants. My mother was born in Italy.

I, too, have felt the personal responsibility to continue what my parents started by choosing this country and being chosen by this country. The minister, whose family did not have much education, arrived here and had a brilliant academic career. He served the university and he served Canada in the highest possible positions for a jurist. He has honoured his family. In closing, I will tell members what I often tell my friend the member for Québec , who is himself a seasoned academic with executive experience.

I hope that he will continue his teaching career to share his experience as an academic and executive with hundreds and thousands of students. I wish Mr. Lametti all the best in his future endeavours.

Hon. François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my friend, amico mio , over there. There are so many things I would like to say to a colleague who has served with such distinction. I heard the minister thank us all, but on behalf of my colleagues here today, I think it is our turn to express our gratitude. I am going to make a prediction: He will go down in history as a great minister of justice and attorney general of Canada—not necessarily because of all his achievements in the House, but because he is, above all, a caring man, a man of conviction, a strong leader. I think all Canadians will end up admiring him.

The country already appreciates him, but, as the years go by, people will see how much he has marked the history of Canada as minister of justice. He will be one of the ministers who paved the way toward reconciliation. Without revealing any secrets, I can say I have seen him in action. (1215) [ English ] When he was talking about moments, I was thinking about how many moments I would say that he had been crucial for the future of this nation. When we talk about dreams, I can imagine the young students around the country looking to someone like him with his great intellect.

All of my colleagues have recognized that. However, I am sure that today, and also in the future, he will make our young generation dream of public service, dream of what is possible, dream of following their convictions, dream of being who they are and dream of making changes. That is who the former minister of justice is. We will remember him for kindness. I have known a lot of people in this place, and I think all my colleagues would agree, but kindness is something that, although he attributes that kindness and says we need more kindness, he has embodied since the day I met my friend.

I think about getting things done. I do not know if there will be many ministers of justice in the history of the country who will have a record of having so many bills approved in the House, bills that have changed the nature of our country, for which we should all be proud. One thing I will say is that I have yet to meet someone who has the same type of deep respect for the institution that we serve. He has achieved a lot of things in his life and he will achieve much more in the future. We have talked about his future career. Trust me, the opportunities and possibilities are endless; he just has to pick one.

He will be remembered for his respect for the institution and his service to the nation. This country owes a lot to my dear friend. I think future generations will look up to him as a leader, and I think we all will miss him very much. Grazie, amico mio .

[ Translation ]

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice to that of my colleagues who have thanked our colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for his exceptional work in the House of Commons since he arrived eight years ago. We were both elected to the House at the same time, in 2015. At the time, I thought I would be the one appointed minister of justice. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I engaged many times with the ministers of justice who followed. I too must say that the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did excellent work as minister of justice. Of course, we did not always agree. There was some talk about dreams earlier.

I tried to convince the member that Canada would be much happier with a respectful neighbour, a wonderful, independent Quebec that would work with him on many fronts, but the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun never conceded on that point—and he certainly did not agree with me when I spoke to him about judicial appointments that I felt were overdue. These were not disputes, just minor differences of opinion. What struck me most about the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is that his respectfulness never faltered, despite any differences of opinion we may have had. His words were always measured and kind.

The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is someone I consider a “gentleman”; there are a few of them here. I truly enjoyed my discussions with him about all aspects of our work, whether about matters we agreed on—and there were many—or the few issues where our opinions diverged. I can only congratulate the Fasken law firm for persuading the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to join them. It is a distinguished firm. I was listening to my colleague just now who asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him Minister of Justice sooner. Personally, I wonder why the Prime Minister was unable to hold on to him.

The Deputy Speaker :

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands also wishes to speak.

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues and acknowledge their comments. (1220) [ English ] It really says a lot about the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun , as a former minister of justice and a member of a cabinet, when so many of his colleagues from the opposition benches who worked with him closely rise to praise his work and thank him for his collegiality, particularly my neighbour from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke , who shared in so many of those victories in abolishing the horrible practices, and we have spoken of it, unanimously.

I was very moved by the words from the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent , who spoke so clearly and eloquently of his appreciation for the work of a Liberal cabinet member. We could hear more of that sort of thing in this place. Maybe people should not have to resign or die before we say nice things. I am thinking of our tributes to Ed Broadbent the other day. Sorry about that; no one has died recently.

I want to say a few words from my point of view as a member of the Green Party. [ Translation ] I also thank the Bloc Québécois for the comments given by our colleague from Rivière-du-Nord. [ English ] I have been really touched so many times by my friend's willingness to share things in moments that were very stressful. I am not pointing out anything the rest of the members do not know. I do not represent a big caucus here. I am not my caucus's critic on justice. I have half the files.

Ministers who have time to share confidential information, trusting that I can be trusted and that we can share difficult conversations, particularly during the occupation, I will always be grateful for the friendship and for the enormous privilege of sharing even a little in those conversations, those votes and those very tough decisions. I will be clear that I wish you were not leaving. I know I have just broken a rule by speaking directly to the member. I know you, Mr. Speaker, are not leaving, but I needed to speak personally for just one nanosecond.

Be well and have a wonderful next phase of a very long career and a very long life. God bless.

The Deputy Speaker :

I would also add my little story to this. The opportunity that I had one night at the airport in Halifax was to be late for that airplane, or the airplane was late for us. The hon. member was on the same flight as I was, and we were going to miss our connection in Montreal. I thought that, as he was from Montreal, he would be staying at his house that night, but no, because of his perseverance, because of his hard work ethic, he was on his way to Ottawa that evening as well.

I was lucky enough that my wife and I were able to jump into his ministerial car, to fit into the third row and to not listen to any of the discussions that were happening inside the car because they were still working that evening. He did get my wife and I here to Ottawa. It is something he did not have to do. He could easily have said, “Enjoy your night staying in Montreal and getting to Ottawa in the morning.” However, being the gentleman that he always is, he found the opportunity to put us in there. There might have been an exchange of a certain liquid.

In this case, I think it was a moonshine that we were going to share. On behalf of the 338 members who sit in the House of Commons, I just want to thank the hon. member for his service to Canada. We are going to miss him. Like we would say in French, “ tu nous manqueras ”. He will be missing from us, and I think that is important. He has done something for Canada and for this chamber. We will always be reconnaissants for that work. I thank hon. members and everyone who participated in the discussion this afternoon for this opportunity. [ Translation ] Good luck.

[ English ]

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from across the floor who represents LaSalle—Émard—Verdun , and I wish him all the best in his future endeavours and all the best to his family. Further, I will be splitting my time with the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake . It is an honour to speak to Bill C-59 , the government's fall economic update, 2023. In my time as a member of Parliament, I have focused on priorities that matter to the constituents of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. Sadly, those priorities are not in the government's update.

People in Saskatchewan will be disappointed but not surprised that Saskatchewan is not even mentioned in the finance minister 's fiscal update, outside of a few tables in the annex, but this is something we should all expect in Saskatchewan and in the west in general. We have never been a priority for the government. Agriculture is one of the industries, if not the largest, in my riding. Again, it is a topic that is ignored altogether in this update. Farmers are struggling. Conservatives have put forward Bill C-234 that would axe the punitive carbon tax on fuel used on farms.

I have heard from farmers in my riding who are paying thousands of dollars a month on that tax. Instead of supporting this common-sense idea, the government is quadrupling that tax in April, which puts the burden of a punitive policy directly on the shoulders of the people who feed our country. If the minister cared about lowering grocery prices for Canadians, that would be a tremendous first step. The adage, if one does