OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 269 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Friday, December 15, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES December 15, 2023 DEBATES No. 269 No. 269 N o 269 Volume 151 269 15 12 2023 2023/12/15 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) [ Translation ] Response to Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

The Speaker :

Colleagues, I rise to make a statement in response to the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs yesterday. I would like to thank my colleagues for their work and consideration of the serious matter before them. [ English ] I made a serious mistake. I should never have recorded that video, not in the Speaker's uniform, not in the Speaker's office and not for a friend who is an active politician. I am deeply sorry. I want to reassure members that nothing like this will ever happen again.

My office is putting in place a more rigorous communication protocol to protect the neutral role of the Speaker. I will ensure that requests are subject to intense scrutiny and considered in consultation with the House administration under the leadership of the Clerk to ensure the utmost impartiality. I will continue to rely on the sage advice and counsel of former Speakers and parliamentary experts in Canada and in other Westminster parliaments. To those members who have generously extended me a second chance to serve as Speaker, I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

To those members who are opposed to this second chance, let me say that I can understand their point of view and I will spare no effort to regain their trust. To all members, my door is open. I want to hear from them so we can work together in collaboration. I ask them to please reach out. It is essential that the Speaker be impartial and non-partisan in every act, every gesture and every appearance. [ Translation ] I know that this issue has become a distraction at a time of year when members' agendas are full and we have a busy legislative program.

Allow me to reiterate how honoured I am to be your Speaker. [ English ] I accept full responsibility for my actions. I pledge to fulfill every measure that was recommended by the committee's report. I thank members for their attention.

Government Orders Government Orders

(1005) [ English ] Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act

Hon. Gudie Hutchings (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)

moved that Bill S-9,

An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill S-9. Second reading

Hon. Robert Oliphant (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to rise to speak in this House on Bill S-9 ,

an act that would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, and the important efforts to eliminate the use of chemical weapons globally. I need to say the government was deeply disturbed and disappointed in how not once but twice the Conservative opposition has blocked the debate on this bill. I am glad we are finally here today. On the eve of the Day of Remembrance for all Victims of Chemical Warfare, the Conservatives blocked debate on the bill, a bill to modernize the very act that would help those victims, the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

It also includes novichok, a deadly nerve agent implicated in multiple poisonings likely conducted by Russia. Conservatives also did this just days before Remembrance Day, when we commemorate the thousands of brave Canadians who have fallen in defence of our freedoms, some of whom were among the first to fall victims of the horror of chemical warfare in Ypres in 1915. More than century ago, during the second battle of Ypres, Canadian soldiers were among the very first in human history to fall victim to the horrors of chemical warfare when 160 tonnes of chlorine gas were released toward Canadian lines.

By the end of the battle, 6,035 young Canadians, more than one in three, were killed or wounded by the new and terrifying weapon. By the end of the conflict, more than a million people suffered the effects of this new kind of warfare: chemical warfare. Today, as we see the devastating images of the victims of war and conflict like never before from Khartoum to Kyiv to Khan Younis, it is incumbent on all of us to do what we can to promote peace and to work vigorously toward a world free of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

The use of chemical weapons to injure or kill is a vile act of barbarism and regrettably one that, despite our best efforts, has not yet been confined to the annals of history. While the use of chemicals in war has a long history dating back to ancient times, advances in science and technology, with the possibility of creating so much good for so many people, have also been harnessed on an industrial scale to cause death and destruction. Thankfully, at the conclusion of the conflict, the Geneva Protocol was launched, which prohibited the use in war of either of these categories of weapons of mass destruction.

The way in which the consequences of chemical weapons on the battlefield left no one untouched demonstrated the sheer inhumanity of these types of weapons. However, the protocol did not prohibit their development or production. Consequently, for decades to follow, countries continued to develop massive chemical weapons stockpiles.

After more than two decades of effort, on September 3, 1992, the text of a Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction was sent to the General Assembly of the United Nations by the UN Conference on Disarmament. Canada signed it on the very first day, January 13, 1993, and proceeded to fully ratify it. The Chemical Weapons Convention entered into force on April 29, 1997.

That same year, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, OPCW, was formed to oversee the convention's implementation, supervise destruction of declared chemical weapons stockpiles and inspect the world's chemical industries to help ensure chemical weapons would never return. Thirty years later, the Chemical Weapons Convention remains a key pillar of the rules-based international system. More than 190 states are party to it, making it the most widely adopted treaty on non-proliferation and disarmament. The convention's prohibitions are clear and comprehensive.

No country party to the convention may develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain or use chemical weapons. They may not transfer chemical weapons to another party or otherwise enable another country or non-state actor to develop them. It affirms the right for all parties to engage in the free trade of chemicals and technology for peaceful purposes and that the prohibition on chemical weapons should not hamper unnecessarily the growth of the chemical industry and progress in chemical research. We need that as human beings.

On that latter point, the OPCW employs numerous programs to promote chemical science and chemical industry, all for peaceful purposes, around the globe. As of July 2023, the OPCW supervised and verified the destruction of 100% of the world's declared chemical weapons.

(1010) Unfortunately, the legal prohibition has not yet fully eliminated the risk of chemical weapon use. Since the CWC entered into force, chemical weapons have been used in multiple instances, even by countries that are party to the convention. Competent international bodies, including the OPCW-UN joint investigation mechanism and the OPCW investigation and identification team have concluded that the Syrian Arab Republic used both the chemical warfare agent sarin and the toxic industrial chemical chlorine as weapons against opposition forces on no fewer than nine occasions and likely more.

The terrorist group Daesh used mustard gas in both Syria and Iraq. Kim Jong-nam, half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, was assassinated with the nerve agent venomous agent X, or VX, in the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in February 2017,

an act widely believed to have been orchestrated by the North Korean state. In March 2018, a more complicated development occurred. Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military intelligence officer living in the United Kingdom, and his daughter, were found to have been poisoned by novichok, an extremely toxic nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union. The attempt at assassination left both Skripals and police detective Nick Bailey in the hospital for several months. The novichok was believed to have been administered to the front door of Mr.

Skripal's house using a perfume bottle, subsequently discarded in a public bin, which, when discovered by a local, believing it to be perfume, resulted in two further hospitalizations and the death of Dawn Sturgess. When the police recovered the bottle from Ms. Sturgess's home in nearby Amesbury, they assessed it to contain sufficient novichok to kill thousands of people. Eight locations had to be decontaminated to remove any trace of novichok, taking several months and costing millions of pounds.

Canada and its allies concluded that the state agencies of the Russian Federation were highly likely responsible for that attack. The British government identified and indicted, in absentia , three Russian intelligence agents. Canada condemned the attack. The Prime Minister and then-foreign affairs minister issued statements. Four Russian diplomats were expelled from the Russian embassy in Ottawa and the consulate general in Montreal as part of an unprecedented collective response. In total, 153 Russian diplomats were expelled from 29 countries, including some accredited to the NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The Chemical Weapons Convention contains an annex on chemicals, a list covering most chemical warfare agents and their precursors across three schedules.

Schedule 1 chemicals have only one use: to injure, to kill. They cannot be used in industry and so are prohibited from all purposes except for research and training for protection and defence against themselves, against chemical weapons. Schedules 2 and 3 chemicals have increasing use in industry and so are subject to fewer controls, with the goal of preventing chemical weapons proliferation while avoiding unnecessarily hampering industry and trade and the benefit of humanity.

At the time of the Salisbury attack, novichoks were not on the annex on chemicals, thus not subject to declaration and verification requirements. It must be made clear that a novichok, as a weapon, indeed, any toxic chemical as a weapon, has always been a violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention, in accordance with the broad definition of a chemical weapon in

article II. Still, Canada and our close allies quickly took the position that the world would be much safer if novichoks were subject to OPCW monitoring like any other chemical warfare agent. On November 29, 2019, as the result of tremendous leadership by Canada, the United States and the Netherlands, the Twenty-Fourth Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention took the unprecedented decision to add four new categories of toxic chemicals to

schedule 1. This included the novichok used in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal. As a result of this amendment, states handling novichoks for defensive purposes such as research, development and testing of new protective gear or medical countermeasures or training police or armed forces in responding to their use must declare their activities to the OPCW and be subject to verification. This amendment is also symbolic. The toxic chemical used as a weapon in Salisbury is now included in the same list of chemical weapons as sarin, mustard and VX.

(1015) The additions to the CWC's “Annex on Chemicals” came into force on June 7, 2020. The Chemical Weapons Convention requires that all states parties put in place domestic legislation to apply the convention's prohibitions to their citizens and all people on their territory. That is what Bill S-9 is about. In Canada, this is done through the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which makes it illegal for anyone in Canada, as well as Canadian citizens abroad, to develop, produce, acquire, stockpile, retain, transfer, use, prepare to use or assist in the use of chemical weapons. It also prohibits Canadians from producing, possessing or using

schedule 1 chemicals without explicit government authorization. Since June 7, 2020, this has included the four recently added categories. The CWCIA still contains a copy of the convention's original annex on chemicals, which has been out of date since 2020. While subsection 2(3) states unambiguously that the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention take precedence should there be disagreement with the act, it is important for us to fix this discrepancy and show leadership on this important issue in this place. To this end, Bill S-9 seeks to repeal the

schedule from the act, and repeal or amend two subsections that reference it. These changes would not just realign Canadian legislation with our international obligations but also future-proof it in case of further amendments in the future. This bill is something all parties should agree to easily and expedite immediately. It has already passed through the other place without objection, so I hope that can happen in this place as well.

This legislation alone does not eliminate the risk of foreign states, such as Russia; non-signatories; or non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, using chemical weapons for nefarious purposes. It does, however, underscore Canada's steadfast support for the Chemical Weapons Convention and for other key agreements that form an essential part of the rules-based system that keep Canada, all Canadians and our allies safe. As the foreign minister outlined the other week, our system, as well as our world, is cracking.

The international rules-based order is under attack, and the world is increasingly marked by geopolitical turbulence, unpredictability and uncertainty. We must, therefore, continue to show leadership on the international stage, as we have in the past.

Canada can be proud of our leadership on these important issues, which also includes former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy's landmark work on the Ottawa treaty to ban land mines; the launch of the Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, which occurred when former prime minister Chrétien hosted the world leaders in Kananaskis in 2002; and work to spearhead the international convention prohibiting cluster munitions. These are all important, critical parts of keeping our world safe.

Another critical tool is diplomacy, which cannot help but strengthen our ability to maintain the safety and security of Canada and Canadians. We must work with allies and our partners to keep our world safe through a world security infrastructure. That is why we increased our footprint in the world. Diplomacy leads to better activity, which leads to a lesser degree of peace in our world being threatened. That is why we continue to do all that work.

We have missions around the world; our diplomats regularly coordinate with our allies and partners, as well as engaging host governments on the importance of buttressing our work on this convention. It was through concerted advocacy around the world that we were able to adapt the convention to the modern realities of today's world. It is through diplomacy that we continue to build peace. It is a trying challenge. It is something that we need to commit to every day in this place.

It means we continue to monitor the situation, adapt and take legislation we have in this House, this place and this government, and adapt it to modern realities. Our words need to be backed by meaningful actions, notably through funding the weapons threat reduction program housed within Global Affairs Canada. It represents Canada's flagship contribution to the G7-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, hosted by former prime minister Jean Chrétien in Kananaskis, Alberta, in 2002.

(1020) Canada has contributed more than $1.6 billion towards threat reduction activities worldwide, including destroying chemical weapons and combatting their spread. This includes supporting the destruction of declared chemical weapons in Russia, Syria, Iraq and Libya. Through the weapons threat reduction program, Canada is the single largest donor country to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which was set up to implement the CWC. It was honoured with the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize for its effort to supervise the destruction of more than 98% of declared global stocks of chemical weapons.

With our $10 million commitment, Canada is the top individual donor to the OPCW's new Centre for Chemistry and Technology in The Hague, which opened this past May. The centre will strengthen and bolster the organization's investigative capacities and capabilities and support innovative efforts to keep pace with the ever-evolving chemical weapons landscape. Canada has also provided defensive equipment, including masks and filters, to the Ukrainian military, given the threat of chemical weapons use by Russian forces.

Let us be very clear: This bill is also about the defence of Ukraine against the illegal invasion of Russia into its territory. To counter Russian efforts to undermine the global norm against chemical weapons use, Canada has worked in close concert with allies to demand that Russia fully declare its novichok program. Our government will continue to be a leader on the global stage and ensure that Russia is held accountable for its aggressions against Ukraine.

This may be through providing defensive equipment or through Bill C-57 , the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, which Conservatives have voted against multiple times, to support the rebuilding of Ukraine when we win. In August 2020, when Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

If members have questions they should wait for questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, I look forward to the questions. In August 2020, when Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny was poisoned by a novichok agent, one that was sufficiently different from the novichok agent used against Sergei Skripal that it is not covered by the amended “Annex on Chemicals,” Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs strongly condemned the assassination attempt. Moreover, Canada joined our G7 partners and NATO allies, which made similar statements.

We have continued the close coordination of advocacy and, as recently as August, announced sanctions against senior officials of the Russian government, judiciary and investigative committee, as well as federally funded courts. This includes the notorious Basmanny District Court, which has been directly involved in human rights abuses against Russian opposition leaders, including Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Kara-Murza and other Russian citizens.

Even now, as President Putin continues his war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine, Canada is working hand in hand with allies to counter blatant disinformation on chemical weapons by Russia. Moreover, it is preparing to hold Russia to account should it choose to use chemical weapons in Ukraine. This would be a bad decision on Russia's part.

Canada has joined its G7 partners in demanding information from Russia regarding allegations, supported by reports from Russian state-controlled media, that the Russian military has dropped grenades filled with a riot-control agent from drones in occupied Ukrainian territory. This would be another blatant violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The threat of a resurgence in chemical weapons use is real. Canada will play a key role in upholding the tools of the rules-based international order that keep us safe, including the Chemical Weapons Convention.

We will also continue in our fight against flagrant violations of international law and global norms. This legislation will bring us in line. It will signal to the world that we are serious about keeping up with the convention and that we will continue to move in pace as industry changes, as technologies emerge and as people continue to be unsafe. Canada will stand on the right side. I ask all member of the House to support this bill, so we can get it done and bring it home.

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I will be giving some remarks shortly on this; not to pre-empt them, but we support the bill. I listened to the member's speech, and he saw fit to blame the opposition for this bill not having passed sooner. It should have been passed in the 43rd Parliament, not brought up on the last day before Christmas. Could he maybe take this opportunity to explain to Canadians why Liberals prorogued the House with this on the Order Paper in 2020 and why they called a snap election in 2021? The member went there in his speech. Could he apologize for blaming Conservatives for the government's mismanagement of its calendar and for twice failing to get this bill approved?

(1025) Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, the government does not live in the past. We live in the present. We are very much looking at the future as we engage in this legislation. This is an important bill, which has been part of the antics of the opposition in this session of Parliament. Our government House leader called the Conservatives on it yesterday to remind them that perhaps they need a time out. Perhaps, when it comes to the eve of the day of remembrance for victims of chemical warfare, it is absolutely abhorrent to stop the piece of legislation by moving motions that are irrelevant in our House and doing the same activity.

Let us get over the antics. Let us get the work of this House done. Let us work on the international rules-based order. Let us move on and be grownups.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Order, order. The hon. members have had an opportunity to ask their questions. If they have more questions, they should wait. It is not good to be throwing insults at members as they speak. I want to remind members to be respectful.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hoping you will find unanimous consent for this motion, that for the sole purpose of disposing of—

Some hon. members: No.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

There is no consent. I am sure the hon. official opposition House leader knows that, if he is looking for unanimous consent, it is best to talk to the other House leaders to obtain it. If it is not obtained, then he knows it is not going to be accepted in the House. [ Translation ] The hon. member for Saint-Jean.

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question asked by my colleague from Calgary Rocky Ridge . This bill has been debated several times at the Senate. It was supposed to be debated here in the House since Parliament opened, but it has been deferred several times. This bill has garnered fairly broad consensus. It was passed quickly in the Senate because it is relatively simple. We are talking about harmonizing the provisions of the international Chemical Weapons Convention with domestic law. There is no issue with the substance of the bill.

The government says that it is the Conservatives' fault that this bill has not really been debated in the House. However, it could have been debated much sooner if Parliament had not prorogued in 2021, since the bill had already been introduced in 2020. I would just like to know if the government can take even a small share of the blame for the fact that this bill has still not been passed.

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, I think that certainly bears repeating. We are now here, in the present. It is an opportunity for all members of the House to share their thoughts on the bill. We will have the opportunity to do something else in the new year.

[ English ]

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention on this important issue. My question goes to the heart of an issue that many of my constituents of North Island—Powell River have. We know that there are currently 93 signatory countries to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, including Mexico, New Zealand and Brazil. We know that Canada, shockingly, refuses to join the treaty. Could the member explain to my constituents why that is?

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be a huge scourge on humanity. The Government of Canada has chosen to work with our allies through a variety of means. We continue to do that. We monitor that treaty very closely. We talk to our allies that are signatories to it. At the present time, we will continue to find the best ways forward on this under the conventions that we have already signed and will continue to work for a world free of nuclear weapons.

(1030) Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the member for North Island—Powell River for raising the issue I had planned to raise here. I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his thoughtful remarks on the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act and getting it on the record. Clearly, Green Party MPs will vote for this. However, the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are the nuclear weapons arsenals around the world.

With the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway and the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona , I attended the second Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the United Nations in New York. I want to stress that other NATO countries sent an observer group to that session. Canada did not even send observers. As parliamentarians from the NDP and Greens, and one independent senator, we were there, wishing our government was there with us.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary explain why Canada has chosen not to even send an official delegation of observers to this all-important convention for the prohibition of nuclear weapons?

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to sit down with the three members of this House and the independent senator who attended those meetings at the UN in New York and get a briefing from them, because obviously their wisdom on this issue and their experience at that meeting would be very helpful for us. The government will always be happy to listen to them with their suggestions.

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

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting when Conservative members said that the legislation is not being passed because of the government. When we brought forward the legislation, one of the first initiatives the Conservatives took was to move a concurrence motion in order to prevent debate of it. It seems to me that every member of the House is supporting the legislation, and the desire of the government is to see the legislation pass. Could my colleague provide his thoughts on that?

Would it not be nice if the Conservatives allowed the legislation to pass and made a suggestion that there is unanimous support for it? Let us see if we can get it passed and allow the debate to collapse. Would he see that as a good, positive thing before Christmas break?

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, if we could end this debate quickly and move on, we could get to the other important work this House wants to do. This piece of legislation would amend something that we are all in agreement with. The faster we can get it done, the better, and then we can move on to other work. This legislation is the kind of thing that Canada, when we speak on the world stage, should speak to with one voice, to be strong and to be heard. Let us get it done.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary about another bill from the House that is currently in the Senate, Bill C-281 , the international human rights act. That bill was passed by this House. I believe it was unanimous in the end. It is another important bill that deals with international human rights issues, and as far as I know, it has not moved forward in the Senate. Is the government trying to stop the bill? Are members making phone calls to senators? Does the government want to allow this bill to move forward?

Important human rights legislation, wherever it comes from, should get the support of the House. We would like to see Bill C-281 , which was passed unanimously by the House, be brought into law. Can the parliamentary secretary update us on what is or is not happening on this important legislation in terms of the government's conversations with the senators it has appointed?

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, I have been in this place long enough to know it is not wise to comment on legislation that is in the other place. I will allow the other place to do its work and will be respectful as senators do their deliberations on all legislation that comes before them.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, Russia developed the novichok nerve agent to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Convention, as it is more difficult to detect. Can the hon. parliamentary secretary illustrate how Russia is still using this agent?

[ English ]

Hon. Robert Oliphant :

Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on chemical weapons, particularly novichok. What I do know is that this convention will allow us to do further research. There are several different kinds of novichok. They masquerade. They hide behind each other. I hope this bill will allow us to do the right research into them to prevent them and then continue to find ways to eliminate them.

(1035) Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, it is likely this will be the last time I rise this year, so I wish you a Merry Christmas, as well as all other members of this place and those who support the work we do here, including the parliamentary pages, the desk officers, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Parliamentary Protective Service and everyone else who helps us do our work on behalf of Canadians. All the best to everyone. We are on the last day of this session, and the government has called Bill S-9 ,

an act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. As I said earlier in debate, I support the bill, as I understand all of my Conservative colleagues do. It is a very important bill and one that needs to get done. I must take a moment and register my disappointment that the government chooses to accuse the Conservatives of delay anytime we debate a bill. The parliamentary secretary delivered his remarks, and I am going to deliver mine. There may be other members of the House who want to deliver remarks on the bill. That is the process of debate and that is what we are elected here to do.

Debating a bill is not obstructing a bill, particularly when it is one that members have not yet had an opportunity to weigh in on. I agree that the bill is important and should pass expeditiously, but I will not be told by members of the government and its parliamentary secretaries not to speak because it is our job or duty to just let every bill collapse and go straight to a vote without debate. We are going to have debate on the bill, and I hope that all members will in fact support the bill, as I do. Bill S-9 would ensure that Canadian law becomes properly aligned with the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The convention was the world's first multilateral disarmament agreement to eliminate weapons of mass destruction such as toxic chemicals, poison and biological weapons. The convention was open for signature in Paris on January 13, 1993. Under the Mulroney government, Canada was among the first countries to sign it, and it came into effect on April 29, 1997. Canada's Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act is a Chrétien-era law that implements Canada's obligations under this convention as one of its original signatories. Bill S-9 is identical in purpose to two bills introduced in the previous Parliament.

It was introduced originally as Bill C-9 by the former minister of foreign affairs in the first session of the 43rd Parliament, and was reintroduced as Bill S-2 by Senator Marc Gold in the second session of the 43rd Parliament. Neither of these bills made it through the 43rd Parliament, and to be clear, it was not because of Conservative opposition to them or any procedural wrangling of the Conservative caucus. Bill C-9 was a casualty of the current government's decision to prorogue the House in the summer of 2020 amid the WE Charity scandal.

Bill S-2 was a casualty of the current government's decision to call a snap election in the summer of 2021. Now here we are today on the third attempt to get this legislation through Parliament to update Canadian law and ensure that Canadian law aligns with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Bill S-9 was introduced in the Senate by the government's representative in the Senate, Marc Gold. I thank him for introducing the bill. He did so on June 2, 2022, about a year and a half ago.

The bill would make several amendments to the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act to ensure that the act is consistent with the convention.

(1040) Currently, the

schedule of the Canadian act does not reflect the Chemical Weapons Convention's latest listing of chemical weapons, which came into effect in June 2020, three and a half years ago. The latest listing of the convention includes additional toxic chemicals under

schedule 1, which now includes novichok-style agents. Novichok is a comprehensive label. It encompasses various groups of nerve agents that originated during the Cold War era in the Soviet Union as a part of its chemical weapons program. Future listings of chemicals under the Chemical Weapons Convention are expected to take place from time to time as technology evolves and toxic chemicals and their precursors change and require the list in the convention to be updated. That is why this bill is important.

It is going to ensure that future legislation is not required to update the list of chemicals regulated in Canada under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. This bill would delete the

schedule in the Canadian act and replace it with reference to the Chemical Weapons Convention, so that for items listed in the Chemical Weapons Convention, Canadian law will automatically align with changes that are expected to happen from time to time under the convention. To be more precise, Bill S-9 states:

This enactment amends the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act by deleting the

schedule to that Act and the references to that

schedule in that Act, in order to avoid potential discrepancies between the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, as amended from time to time, and the portions of that Convention that are reproduced in that schedule.

The Chemical Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act are very important, and here is why. Eight years ago, in 2015, Emilian Gebrev was poisoned in Bulgaria by novichok, which, again, is a Soviet era military-grade nerve agent. Five years ago, in 2018, a former Russian spy, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were poisoned in the United Kingdom using a novichok nerve agent. That was by foreign agents working for the Russian Federation who carried out those attempted assassinations on foreign soil.

As the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his remarks, there is significant danger not only to the victims of Russia's security operations but to random victims as well, because these agents remain in place and any handling of them can result in serious illness or death, as we have seen in the case of the attempts on Sergei Skripal and his daughter's lives. Also, in 2017, Kim Jong Nam, the half-brother of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, was assassinated with a different nerve agent, but nevertheless an item now covered under the new convention, at the Kuala Lumpur airport in Malaysia.

Recently, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned and placed into an induced coma. Fortunately, he survived. These events are ongoing, and it is important that Canadian law give us the proper tools to deal with and deter this kind of activity. Chemical weapons are being used today, and they threaten citizens around the world, including in western countries. The Russian Federation is using novichok. It appears to be one of its weapons of choice for assassinations on foreign soil. It is a lethal nerve agent that even in the smallest quantities can potentially kill thousands of people.

It is a threat to the safety and security of western citizens, including Canadians. That is why we must have all tools available to stop the proliferation and use of chemical weapons, including by ensuring that the convention and Canadian law are kept up to date.

(1045) Just this year, on July 7, the United States announced that it had in fact destroyed the last of its chemical weapons. This is an important milestone and a testament to the success of the convention. There were 72,304 metric tons of declared chemical weapons destroyed worldwide. However, Russia, having completely destroyed its declared stockpile of chemical weapons, obviously has undeclared stockpiles as well, including novichok, which it uses to target people in western democracies. Last month, we observed Remembrance Day.

Canadians in communities all over Canada joined war veterans to commemorate the sacrifices of members of the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force. Remembrance Day was originally called Armistice Day, to commemorate the first anniversary of the armistice. It was commemorated for the first time on that day in 1919 across the British Commonwealth, including in Canada. It marked the agreement that brought an end to the First World War. The occasion of Remembrance Day is an opportunity to reflect on the history of chemical weapons and their use.

The First World War has now passed out of living memory, as no one is still alive with a living memory of that time. However, we do remember, and it is important that we do every year, and we recall, as we are debating this update to Canadian law, that during World War I, chemical warfare was employed by all belligerents, including Canada. Germany introduced chlorine gas into the battlefield for the first time during the Second Battle of Ypres. It targeted not only French and Algerian troops but also Canadian troops.

Initially, chemical weapons required very specialized troops for their handling, and relied on things like wind conditions to disperse them across the battlefield. Over time, new delivery systems, including artillery shells and gas projectors, were developed. Unlike chlorine gas, which had a distinctive colour and odour, subsequent gases became colourless and odourless, making their detection much more challenging.

In response to these toxic agents, protective measures like gas masks and defensive tools were devised, and by the end of the war, the use of gas had become commonplace, with soldiers routinely donning masks before entering combat. Chemical weapons were used by all belligerents, particularly in the final 100 days of the war. In total, chemical weapons then injured 1.2 million individuals and resulted in 90,000 fatal casualties. In the lead-up to the Second World War, there was widespread international concern regarding the potential extensive use of chemical weapons.

Italy had deployed lethal gas against Abyssinia, and Japan deployed chemical and biological weapons in its invasion of China in 1937 and onward. It is worth noting that in the cases of both the Abyssinian War and the invasion of China, there was a disparity of access to these weapons. Only one side had access to gas, so gas was used by these belligerents.

In the Second World War, both sides possessed chemical weapons but refrained from using them, I guess one could say on an early application of the mutually assured destruction theory; both felt that they had to build up stockpiles, if for no other reason than deterrence. While chemical warfare was not ultimately used during that conflict, the threat of its use on a massive scale remained. During the 1980s, we saw that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and also against its own Kurdish population.

Chemical weapons have been used by the Assad regime in Syria, targeting civilians and deliberately killing hundreds of them. We have also seen that Daesh has used chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq.

(1050) There is a long history of failure to ban and control the production and deployment of chemical weapons. Among the earliest examples of attempts to regulate chemical weapons was the Hague convention of 1899, which enacted prohibitions against the use of poisons in warfare and deployment of projectile weapons designed solely for the dissemination of asphyxiating gas. The powers that had ratified the convention then eventually amassed substantial stockpiles of chemical warfare agents and proceeded to use them indiscriminately during the First World War.

The Hague convention of 1899 was not effective in preventing their use. Following the war, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the use of chemical weapons, and Canada ratified the protocol but nevertheless actively engaged in research and production of chemical and biological weapons. While there was not widespread use of chemical weapons in the Second World War that followed, the protocol itself did not prevent even countries like Canada that signed it from researching and developing their own chemical weapons capability. That leads us to the Chemical Weapons Convention that is in force today.

The convention includes a verification regime that is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is based in The Hague. It is important that we keep this convention current and that Canada keep its laws current. The convention has been successful. It does lack in some aspects; it is not perfect, and there have been uses since it came into force. For the most part, the convention does not ban, in its schedules, chemicals that act on the central nervous system; there is currently only one such chemical listed.

Biological toxins, which are chemicals produced by animals and nature, and bio-regulators, which are chemicals produced by the human body, are not included in the schedules. These chemicals could be fabricated or exploited for military purposes, so this is something worth exploring during the next review of the convention. As technology evolves and as new chemicals and chemical weapons emerge, the convention must rely on amendments to capture and prohibit new chemical weapons developments.

Bill S-9 represents an opportunity for us to maintain Canada's unwavering commitment to limiting the harm of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear arms and biological weapons. Canada has made significant contributions to the convention by being among its first signatories. Our ongoing involvement is evident as Canada remains a dedicated member of the executive council of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, underscoring our ongoing commitment to this vital cause. I would again like to thank Senator Gold for introducing the bill. My Conservative colleagues and I will support Bill S-9 .

I do urge its swift adoption in order to fulfill Canada's international obligations. I urge the House to ensure that Canada's own laws remain up to date and consistent not only with those of our allies but also with those among the broader community of nations that strives to suppress the use, proliferation, research and development of chemical weapons. Since the horrors of the First World War, there has been a near-universal consensus that mass deployment of chemical weapons is barbarically inhumane, even in war.

A combination of calculated self-interest over the past several decades, including this agreement, has mostly prevented nations from using them, and the world has not seen the mass-scale deployment of chemical weapons since the First World War. However, we have, sadly, seen numerous smaller-scale examples of the use of chemical weapons, and Russia continues to use them for political assassination in foreign countries. Therefore, modernizing the agreement by deleting the existing

schedule of prohibited agents and merely adding reference to the convention itself would ensure that Canada's laws comply with our obligations and that we possess the most current tools for the deterrence and proliferation of chemical weapons.

(1055) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member says he is recommending swift adoption, yet the childish behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party, which comes from the Conservative House leadership, is truly amazing. Think about it: The last time we attempted to bring Bill S-9 to debate, the Conservatives moved a motion of concurrence in order to prevent members from debating it. They moved that motion in order to filibuster the legislation.

At the beginning of his comments, the member said that they want to debate the legislation, yet he prevents the debate from occurring, and now he says that he would like swift passage of the legislation. It is totally amazing and mind-blowing how the Conservative Party wants to play childish games. If the member supports the legislation, as he says he does, when will the Conservative Party stop playing these childish games and allow legislation to pass into committee?

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Conservatives believe the House should sit on Monday, December 18 to pass Bill C-234 , which would take the carbon tax off farmers and lower food prices for Canadians. I wonder whether you would find there is unanimous consent to do that.

Some hon. members: No.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

If members are looking for unanimous consent, they need to talk to the House leaders of the other parties to see whether they are willing to do that. Otherwise, these motions will not be accepted in the House. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge has the floor.

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Madam Speaker, in response to the question from the member for Winnipeg North , I do not even know what to say. His government killed the bill not once but twice in the previous Parliament. We are three and a half years late getting the bill done because of the government's failure to approve it in the past. We do, indeed, from time to time introduce concurrence motions in the House so we may debate important work that comes out of committee and get recorded votes on them. We are debating the bill now. I support it. I hope the government will not kill it again.

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

Madam Speaker, it was on April 22, 1915, that completely untried Canadian troops were hit with the first mass gas attack, and the Canadians held the line. We have a lot at stake in this treaty. Given the fact that we see Putin has used chemical weapons for support in Syria, and that Rumsfeld supported Saddam Hussein in the fight against Iran in using chemical weapons, we need good international players that can actually deal with these serious issues in a time of a destabilized international global reality. Does the member think Canada could play that role, with the kind of resources that could be brought to bear, given our history with chemical weapons and given our role as a middle power?

Mr. Pat Kelly :

Madam Speaker, it is not often that the member gives me an opportunity to agree with him and to affirm, as I am sure he does, based on the question, that Canada does have an important responsibility to be a leader in the world in the suppression of weapons of mass destruction. He is right; Russia is a threat to world security in its ongoing use of chemical weapons as a tool of assassination. We do not know what its undeclared stockpiles are, so I do agree with the member on the importance of the agreement and on the importance of Canadian leadership in this matter.

Statements by Members Statements by Members

(1100) [ English ] Huron Heights Warriors

Mr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, achievement is defined in the dictionary as a thing done successfully, typically by effort, courage or skill. All are defining characteristics of both the senior and junior Huron Heights Warriors. These Newmarket football teams are champions, having made history with both teams winning the provincial titles in the same year, and they are only the second program in Ontario high school football to have met that challenge. Football is, in many ways, the ultimate game. It takes a complete team effort with everyone executing at the highest level to achieve victory on the field.

To coach Heath Weir, his fellow coaches and the support staff, I send my congratulations. What they have achieved with the Warriors program is remarkable. It is remarkable for what has been accomplished this year, and even more remarkable for the longevity of its success. Their program has emerged as a true dynasty in the world of high school football.

Christmas

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

Madam Speaker, in 1973, Audrey Martin knew her neighbour was an unemployed, single mother who had recently lost a child. Her neighbour had very little in her cupboards and nothing under the tree for her three-year-old son. On Christmas Eve, Audrey Martin showed up at her neighbour's door with a Christmas miracle. Her small act of kindness has never been forgotten, and my mother and I will be eternally grateful for the donations of food and gifts she had collected from our neighbours to put under our tree. Mother Teresa said, “The good news is that God still loves the world through each one of you.

You are God’s good news, you are God’s love in action.” For my mother and I, Audrey Martin was God's good news and God's love in action. There is more good news, and it is the good news of a small child named Jesus who was born in a manger. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is the reason we celebrate Christmas. I want to wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Cape Breton—Canso

Mr. Mike Kelloway (Cape Breton—Canso, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as we bring 2023 to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to wish my colleagues, constituents and, indeed, all Canadians a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Looking back on how we have been finishing the year, I am delighted to share that, in the last two months alone, our government has invested over $155 million in my riding of Cape Breton—Canso. This federal funding is going toward causes that truly matter for people in my riding, such as airport infrastructure, public transit and green energy.

By making these investments, our government is helping Cape Breton and northeastern Nova Scotia grow. With green energy in particular, we are helping our communities tap into an entirely new economy, which could have generational impacts, not just in my riding, but throughout the province. To all my constituents who are listening, there is more to come in 2024, and I cannot wait to share it with them.

Dental Care

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives voted against it and the Liberals voted against it because they said a national dental care program could not be done, but the NDP is proving them wrong. Under the NDP’s national dental care program, millions of Canadians will be able to visit the dentist for the first time. This includes seniors, people with disabilities and young people. It is the biggest expansion of public health care in this country in over 60 years. What do people in Northwest B.C. say about this program? Allan from Smithers calls it a “Massive improvement”.

Sarah from Terrace says, “This is a game changer for many families!” Kathleen from Prince Rupert says, “this is life-saving for people”. Right across Canada, people who access the program will save over $1,300 per year. That is money they can spend on groceries, heat and other necessities. We are stronger when we take care of each other, and national dental care is going to make Canada stronger. I am so proud to be a part of this massive improvement.

[ Translation ] Christmas Greetings

Mr. Francis Drouin (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, another year has come and gone, and the holiday season is now upon us. I would like to wish a merry Christmas to all members, assistants, pages, support staff, civil servants, and all Canadians. The Christmas spirit is very much alive in Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Homes are decorated with Christmas lights. Our values of sharing, generosity and friendship have spread far and wide in every one of our towns. I have gotten some good news from Santa Claus: The children in our region have been good this year, and he will have plenty of houses to visit.

I would also like to thank the donors, volunteers and businesses who donated their money, food and time to support our local food banks. Christmas is all about community. It is the perfect time to share our joy and kindness with our neighbours, friends and family. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

(1105) [ English ] Christmas

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC) :

Madam Speaker,

'Twas the week before Christmas after eight years, the Grinch, Snuggled warm in his mansion, wondering who next to pinch.

Was it farmers or families or perhaps the first nations? He needed more money for his friends and vacations.

“If they protest, I'll punish! They have unacceptable views. I'll force on them lockdowns; they'll watch CBC news.”

As Canadians suffer, “Should we eat; should we heat?” Their cries did not bother the Grinch's elite.

But up from the opposition benches did appear A common sense leader with no glasses this year!

“No more scandals, mismanagement, no ethical lapses; I'll build you more homes and axe carbon taxes.”

Canadians know that our country's not lost, It's just that these Liberals are not worth the cost.

We have great people, resources and land. Canadians have culture—our future's not bland.

As he turned and he waved, said, “Canada's best days are a cinch. It's time to say bye to the tired, mean, old Grinch.

Merry Christmas to Canada—reverse going broke. Let's hope that next year is a year without “woke”!

Christmas in Vaughan—Woodbridge

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are 10 days away from Christmas, and the festive spirit is in full swing in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge. From the Woodbridge Christmas in the Village events to seniors Christmas luncheons and donations to the Vaughan Food Bank, Vaughan residents continue to exemplify the meaning behind it all. Beyond the twinkling lights and the festive cheer, the true meaning of Christmas is the spirit of giving. We know that Jesus is the reason for the season. He reminds us that joy is the net through which we build community.

Let us allow Christ's joy to fill our hearts and spread to everyone we encounter. In the face of global conflicts, we can shine the beacon of hope that is Christmas rather than create more darkness. It is easy to be angry and shout, but it takes real effort to show up for our neighbours when they need us most. Through the holidays and all year round, we will always be there for Canadians. I wish my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge and all Canadians buon Natale e felice anno nuovo . Merry Christmas and happy new year to everyone.

Mississauga—Lakeshore

Mr. Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I was fortunate to be elected the member of Parliament for Mississauga—Lakeshore this time last year, and I wish to share some of our community's many accomplishments. Our neighbours enjoyed our “Paint the Town Red” Canada Day, the Southside Shuffle Blues and Jazz Festival, Carassauga celebrations, Halloween in the village, Cabinfest and many other cultural festivals throughout the city welcoming tens of thousands of visitors.

As Christmas approaches, generous donors and volunteers are wrapping up the 15th annual 'Twas the Bite Before Christmas turkey drive, which provides essential meals to the Mississauga food banks. We also saw critical investments to build new, affordable homes and to support employers. There was the hiring of Canada summer jobs and the expansion of the Trans Canada Trail along the Jim Tovey Lakeview Conservation Area to enhance our precious waterfront. I am so proud of our community, and I am privileged to represent it in the House. Merry Christmas and best wishes for a prosperous and healthy new year to everyone.

Housing

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, from my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, a mom told me recently that she believes her daughters will never own their own home. Now, it takes over 25 years to save for a down payment on a mortgage for the average home. This means that a young adult fresh out of college will be in their fifties before they will be able to buy a home. It was not like this a generation ago. In 1972, Canada's population was 22 million, and we built around 230,000 homes. In 2022, Canada's population was 39 million, and we built around 220,000 homes. We built fewer homes last year than we did 50 years ago.

Inflation has hit record highs going back 40 years. Inflationary deficit spending policies of the NDP-Liberal government have caused high inflation, which caused higher interest rates. I spoke to someone yesterday whose home mortgage upon renewal last month went up over $2,000 a month. After eight years, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

(1110) Christmas in Yukon

Mr. Brendan Hanley (Yukon, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Yukon may seem cold and remote, but Yukoners are warmly connected to people and events in all parts of the globe. We know that in these hard times there are many Canadians, and so many around the world, who will not have the luxury of celebrating with loved ones. [ Translation ] As we celebrate Christmas and other traditions, may we keep those who are dealing with violence and poverty in our hearts and minds. [ English ] Let us, as parliamentarians, rest, reconnect and come back ready to work for Canadians and for Canada's place in the world. Neither justice nor peace should face boundaries.

In The Spell of the Yukon , Robert Service describes how, despite the gold, Yukon's true value lies elsewhere:

It’s the great, big, broad land ’way up yonder, It’s the forests where silence has lease; It’s the beauty that thrills me with wonder, It’s the stillness that fills me with peace.

That is the Yukon I cannot wait to return to and enjoy with my family. I wish for everyone in the House and for all my constituents at home to have a joyful and peaceful holiday.

Carbon Tax

Mr. Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Saskatchewan has always been the breadbasket of the world, but after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is getting more difficult for Saskatchewan farmers to provide the food the world needs to eat. Every year, the carbon tax on farmers goes up, and every year those additional costs get passed on to consumers. Sooner or later, farmers are going to have to decide if they will continue to pass on those rising costs to consumers or cut back production and let the world become dependent on food from foreign countries, which is often produced with a much higher carbon footprint.

Fortunately, Conservatives have the solution. Conservative Bill C-234 would remove the carbon tax on fuels used for grain drying, allowing those savings to be passed on to consumers. Will the Prime Minister pass Bill C-234 or show once again that he is just not worth the cost?

Carbon Tax

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, do members know what the Prime Minister and the grinch have in common? They are both trying to steal Christmas. After eight years of inflationary spending, the price of everything necessary for a happy holiday has gone up. For those who are not now looking to a food bank for their Christmas dinner, a recent report from Dalhousie University shows that the cost of the average Christmas dinner is up significantly. As we approach Christmas, the Liberals' gift to all of us is making our food more expensive.

They harassed senators into gutting Conservative Bill C-234 , which would have reduced the price of groceries by giving farmers a carbon tax carve-out. In fact, they plan to quadruple that carbon tax. Jack, a grain farmer from southern Manitoba, paid $6,000 in carbon taxes on his most recent bill, which will soon increase to $24,000 in a single month. When will the Prime Minister axe the tax, help our farmers and allow Canadians to have a merry Christmas?

Government Accomplishments

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Milton, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, thinking back a few short months ago, we arrived back in the House of Commons to continue supporting our neighbours with ambitions to support housing affordability and the rising cost of living and to make key improvements to health care delivery in Canada. Last summer was also the worst year on record for wildfires and extreme weather, so our obligation to address climate change was never more acutely in focus. Despite Conservatives' attempts to filibuster, obstruct and mislead, we have come through for Canadians with a plan and some real progress in key areas.

This fall, we forced the grocery CEOs to stabilize prices while we work on the Competition Act within the grocery sector and introduce a corporate grocery code of conduct. We have removed the HST on new rental housing construction. We have removed the GST on counselling and psychotherapy services. We have introduced a dental care program for nine million uninsured Canadians who have had no access to existing dental coverage. We have introduced legislation to ban replacement workers to support unions and workers.

We are the first country in the world to commit to both a cap on oil and gas emissions and reductions in methane, with a plan to protect more nature in 2024. The work does not end there, as 2024 presents more opportunities to support our neighbours.

Employment Equity

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

Madam Speaker, New Democrats are committed to challenging all forms of discrimination that prevent full participation in our economy. Although updates to the Employment Equity Act are long overdue, they still will not be under the tree this year. On Monday, the Employment Equity Act review task force released its recommendations to include Black Canadians and 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians in the federal Employment Equity Act as listed groups. The task force notes that, while Canada has shown leadership on other 2SLGBTQI+ issues, we are lagging behind other parts of the world on employment equity.

It also notes that transpeople are particularly at risk of employment discrimination and resulting poverty. The White Paper on the Status of Trans and Gender Diverse People, which has the support of the Canadian Labour Congress, also recommends this addition to the Employment Equity Act. All it would take would be to add eight words to include both of these groups. After over a year of consultations, the labour minister needs to table legislation to get this done.

(1115) [ Translation ] Hélène Ladouceur

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, 50 years or a whole lifetime of volunteering is an incredible accomplishment. That is why I am rising today to pay tribute to an equally incredible woman, Hélène Ladouceur. Hélène is a Royal Military College Saint-Jean icon, especially since she was recently inducted into the institution's hall of fame. She first became involved with the college shortly after she moved to the area in 1973 through the Ex-Cadet Foundation, where she still coordinates social events.

Over the years, she has worked with no less than 17 of the college's 25 commanding officers and she has also always looked after all the officer cadets who came and went, never hesitating to welcome many of them into her home during school breaks. She will always be remembered for her warm presence, listening ear and love for this second family. To Hélène, the mother of the Royal Military College Saint-Jean, today all those children are joining their voices with mine to say thank you.

[ English ] Carbon Tax

Mr. Dane Lloyd (Sturgeon River—Parkland, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Canadian farmers feed our communities and the world. They are the great innovators and the stewards of the land. The farmers of Sturgeon River—Parkland are no exception. From seed potatoes to grains, cattle, chicken and dairy, our region is the french-fry basket of the world. However, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is getting harder for farmers to make a living. Farmers in my community are sending me their carbon tax bills to heat their barns and dry their grain. It is tens of thousands of dollars each month, and the NDP-Liberal coalition is planning to quadruple that tax.

Canadian farmers are struggling to compete with American farmers who do not pay the carbon tax. The NDP-Liberal government would rather sacrifice our food sovereignty to foreign corporate farms that do not pay carbon taxes rather than supporting our hard-working farm families here at home. Families, farmers and first nations know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. They are looking forward to a Conservative government that will bring back powerful paycheques and axe the tax.

Conservative Party of Canada

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Conservative MPs have been relentless in their attempt to shut down Parliament. Their tactics have included a 30-hour voting marathon temper tantrum, filibustering the sustainable jobs bill by moving over 20,000 amendments, filibustering the Métis self-government bill, blocking the debate on the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement multiple times and moving procedural motions to block debate in this House on one out of every three days this fall session. Despite these childish games, the government has still been able to deliver for Canadians.

We have expanded dental care to seniors, passed the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, and adopted a national framework for a school food program. I am hopeful that after the Leader of the Opposition has a time out over the holidays, he will come back and actually get ready to work for Canadians.

Oral Questions Oral Questions

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, while Canadians go cold and hungry this Christmas, this Prime Minister is counting down the hours to another taxpayer-funded beach vacation. He and his MPs are taking a six-week holiday for voting time and time again to quadruple the carbon tax and defeat Bill C-234 , as they pressured senators to gut the bill that this House already passed. If they will not axe the tax today, why will they not come to work on Monday and finally take the tax off farmers, so that Canadians can eat this Christmas?

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by wishing all members in the House happy holidays. I think everybody will be enjoying time with their families over the holidays and we look forward to seeing everyone back here in February. I think it is important to make sure that the facts are right. It was actually Conservative senators who were bullying independent senators. In fact, the Conservative leader in the Senate was actually sanctioned by the other place for his terrible behaviour.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we all know that the biggest bully in this House is the Prime Minister . He is squashing any hope that Canadians had for getting relief this holiday season. They are doubling down, once again, on their plan to quadruple the tax on gas, on groceries, on home heating and on everything else. There is hardly enough money for food, let alone Christmas presents. As two million people are eating in a food bank, families are left to skip meals and children write Santa asking for warm boots rather than toys. Why do these Liberals insist on making Santa deliver the basic necessities instead of toys this Christmas?

(1120) Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to wish everybody in this House a merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, happy holidays and a happy new year. I also hope that the Conservatives come back willing to work in the new year. Conservatives continue to take farmers for granted. Not only do they vote against Canadian farmers, they have also abandoned Ukrainian farmers. Ukraine is the breadbasket of the world. Time and time again, they have been given the opportunity to vote for the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement and, disappointingly, they have voted against it every single time.

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we are ready to fight for Canadians every single day in this House, despite them not wanting to. It turns out that Santa is not the only one flying around the world this Christmas. He has got some serious competition from the environment minister , except the minister does not fly a sleigh. He flies on a private jet. From Beijing to Dubai, he burns fuel and taxpayer dollars just to rub elbows with dictators and pop stars. He emits more carbon with one flight than most Canadians do in a whole year, while telling Canadians to pay more carbon taxes. The more he flies around, the higher the tax goes. Will he park the hypocrisy and finally axe the tax before Christmas?

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, speaking of hypocrisy, we know what the Conservatives wanted to give Canadians for Christmas and that is cuts to the vital programs and services that they care about. In fact, just last week, they voted against $10-a-day child care. They voted against dental care for seniors and for children. They voted against Operation Unifier, which is an important NATO mission to Ukraine. In fact, when they refer to Ukraine as a foreign land, they forget that the country that is invading it is Russia, which is a border of Canada as well. We want to protect our sovereignty here at home. That is what they would give to Canadians.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Christmas is just around the corner and a lot of families are worried about whether they can have their traditional holiday meal. Prices are just too high. Parents are having to choose between feeding their children or putting gifts under the tree. There is nothing funny about it. That is the result of eight years of the policies of this government, aided by its Bloc allies who want to drastically increase the carbon tax. Will the Prime Minister listen to our demands to end inflationary taxes so that Quebeckers can have a stress-free Christmas?

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, while the Conservative Party wants to see our planet burn, we intend to protect our communities. While the member for Kelowna—Lake Country wanted to see our planet burn, there were homes in her community gutted by forest fires. If the Conservatives really want us to help with affordability, we have to protect communities from natural disasters. The Conservatives still want to see all that. We, however, want to protect communities.

Finance

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, my question was about children and Christmas. The folks at Moisson Kamouraska in La Pocatière are doing a great job, but they are facing growing demand, which is up 37% since 2019. Some 25% of their clients have low-paying jobs. After eight years, we cannot count on this Prime Minister or his Bloc allies to give them a break. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Will the Prime Minister follow our common-sense plan and eliminate inflationary spending so that Quebeckers can have a proper Christmas dinner?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear about Moisson Kamouraska. I would like to know what the folks at Moisson Kamouraska think of the Conservatives, who oppose the Canada child benefit, which reduces child poverty by 40% every month in every riding, including my opposition colleague's riding. What do the folks at Moisson Kamouraska think of the Conservatives opposing affordable, quality child care that reduces gender inequality and gives more money to middle-class families?

(1125) Dental Care

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the federal government is trying to pick a fight on dental care for no reason. Quebec agrees with expanding coverage, and Ottawa knows that. The difference is that Quebec wanted to expand coverage through the RAMQ public plan. Instead, the Liberals and the NDP decided to favour a private company, Sun Life Insurance, over the public plan. We no longer have the left-leaning parties we once did. A simple agreement with Quebec would have led to better public dental care coverage in Quebec. Why did the Liberals and the NDP choose to favour the private sector on health?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Block Québécois is the one trying to pick a fight. Our party, the government, is the one trying to come up with solutions. We are having discussions with Minister Dubé—

[ English ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am going to have the hon. minister restart. We cannot hear him.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I know you all love his jacket and it looks great on him. He is going out this year in style. It is lovely, but I just want to remind members that we need to hear what the hon. minister has to say. The hon. minister.

[ Translation ]

Hon. Mark Holland :

Madam Speaker, I wish you happy holidays and a merry Christmas. It is clear that the Bloc Québécois is the one looking for a fight. Our government is the one looking for solutions to ensure that everyone, everywhere in the country, can have access to dental care. I have had good conversations with Quebec's health minister, Minister Dubé, and I am confident that we can find productive solutions to ensure that dental care is available everywhere.

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we are not trying to pick a fight. We are trying to protect our jurisdictions. Protecting our jurisdictions means protecting our ability, as a nation, to make different choices. Quebec wanted better dental coverage through the public plan, but thanks to the Liberals and the NDP, what we are going to end up with is more private coverage through an insurance company, and not just any insurance company. Sun Life fled Quebec sometime around 1978 when we asked it to operate in French under Bill 101. Instead, why not respect the will of Quebec, sign an agreement and enhance our public plan?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, there is good news. Dental care will be accessible to everyone across the country, Quebeckers and Canadians alike. That is good news, and I am wondering why the Bloc Québécois is angry about it. It really is good news for everyone. Of course, there are some details to iron out, and we are going to talk to Quebec to make sure that we get the right results, but our goal is to improve the quality of health care across the country.

[ English ] Government Priorities

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

Madam Speaker, we all know Canadians are better off when New Democrats are fighting for them in Ottawa. Here is what we succeeded in fighting for in this session: anti-scab legislation to empower workers to fight for better wages and working conditions; for indigenous, by indigenous housing to build suitable, affordable homes for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples; national child care and dental care, putting thousands of dollars back in the pockets of Canadians. While the Conservatives vote to gut and cut these services, New Democrats are delivering results and we will keep fighting in the new year, but why does the government always wait for the NDP to force them to deliver?

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of the record we have in delivering $10-a-day child care for families across this country, delivering dental care for low- and moderate-income children and seniors throughout this country and delivering a sustainable future for Canadians across this country. This government is here every day fighting for Canadians, and we are happy to work with any party in this House that wants to support Canadian families, Canadian workers and the future of this country.

[ Translation ]

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

Madam Speaker, thanks to the NDP, Quebeckers and Canadians are seeing concrete results, namely, funding for social housing, anti-scab legislation, dental care for millions of Canadians and Quebeckers, and consumer protection. In Quebec alone, nearly 50% of the population will benefit from the NDP dental insurance. While the Conservatives aim to cut services for people, the NDP is delivering results. If we do not force the Liberals to act, we know they will drag their feet. Why are the Liberals always waiting on the NDP in order to deliver the help people need?

(1130) Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, that is why it is so important to work together. There is no point in simply criticizing, raising a fuss or creating problems. I really like it when other parties come up with solutions, because times are tough right now, all over the world. It is time to work together, to find solutions like dental care and the other results this government has delivered for all Canadians.

Finance

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Moisson Québec reports that the face of poverty has changed. Roughly 30% of the people using food banks in the greater Quebec City area have a job. A growing number of students, newcomers and seniors are using food banks. That is the legacy of the Liberal government and its Bloc Québécois allies who want to radically increase the carbon tax, which is increasing the price of everything. Will the Prime Minister listen to reason and axe his inflationary taxes once and for all?

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we know that many Canadians are struggling to put food on the table these days, so it was especially disappointing, last Friday, to watch the Conservatives vote against measures such as the strategy to bring in a food school program. We know that students learn better on a full stomach, and we are working on that. However, last week, the Conservatives showed us their true colours when they voted against that measure.

Mrs. Dominique Vien (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I would love to know what my colleague thinks about food banks that are overwhelmed by the demand. For example, La Bouchée généreuse in Quebec City is preparing twice as many hampers as it did two years ago. Its staff perform small miracles every day, but they are wondering, and rightly so, how they are going to cope. That is the result of the Bloc-Liberal coalition. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. Will the Prime Minister listen to us and scrap his inflationary taxes and deficits so that Quebec families can have enough to eat, especially at Christmas?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking this question and for mentioning La Bouchée généreuse in Quebec City, which I know very well. I am sure the folks there are also wondering how the Conservatives can oppose the Canada child benefit, which reduces poverty in the Quebec City region by 40% every month, lifting more than 400,000 children across the country out of poverty every month. How, in 2023, can the Conservatives claim to care about poverty and then oppose what La Bouchée généreuse, Moisson Kamouraska, Moisson Québec and Moisson Bellechasse do every day, namely reduce child poverty?

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, yesterday, Empire Foods, one of Canada's largest grocers, stated that its suppliers were still passing along price increases above the rate of inflation. As costs go up for Canadian farmers and food processors, they have a choice to make: increase prices or go out of business. After eight years, Canadians have a bad taste of what is in store. When we tax the farmer more and tax the trucker more, Canadians pay more. When will the Prime Minister pull his head out of the sand and acknowledge this carbon tax is the root of food inflation in Canada?

Mr. Peter Fragiskatos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, that is quite the statement from the member opposite, who in the past has voted to not go ahead with tax cuts for the middle class and who has voted against the Canada child benefit. Just a few days ago, the Conservatives voted against more homes being built. They voted against, in fact, shelter spaces for women and children who are trying to escape domestic violence. It is true, of course, that Canadians are going through a difficult time and we need to continue to be there for them with supports. The Canada child benefit, which I mentioned; the Canada dental benefit; day care; and support services are all there, and we will continue that support.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, we voted 134 times last week to show the government that it had a lack of confidence from the Canadian people. Canadians are responding to food inflation in two ways: buying less-nutritious food and lining up for food banks. Reliance on food banks is at all-time highs. Worse to come, the NDP-Liberal coalition is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax on Canadian farmers—

(1135) The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I am sorry. A lot of individuals seem to want to contribute and it is not time to contribute, so I am going to get the hon. member to repeat his question.

Mr. Greg McLean :

Madam Speaker, we voted 134 times last week to throw the government out through confidence measures. Canadians are responding to food inflation in two ways: buying less-nutritious food or lining up at food banks. Reliance on food banks is at record highs. Worse to come, the NDP-Liberal coalition is committed to quadrupling the carbon tax on Canadian farmers. That means those who can afford it the least will be punished the most. It is obvious the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. There are two options here. Will the government exempt Canadian farmers from the carbon tax or should Canada import more non-taxed foreign food?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the stunt, the overnight filibuster, the member pointed out cost taxpayers $2 million, so as he preaches about fiscal responsibility, it is a bit tough to stomach. The food report he references said explicitly that it is misleading to suggest that carbon-pricing policies are affecting food prices. Moreover, Trevor Tombe said last week, “If we got rid of the carbon tax and the rebate, then this would harm a much larger fraction of lower- and middle-income households than it would higher-income households.” The Conservatives are making it very clear who they are standing for: It is big oil executives and the wealthiest Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker,

'Twas the night before Christmas when the members across, Doubled down on their plan to keep raising costs. They set out to do it by taxing the carbon, On the hard-working people who do all the farming. This dastardly plan to make our farmers poor, Was almost disrupted by Bill C-234. However, the time is coming for a bigger course correction, When Conservatives bring home the carbon tax election. After eight years we have gone from feasting to scraps, So for Christmas will they finally axe the tax?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member. Bravo on the great performance. However, I am going to remind him that every time grain farmers come to Ottawa they ask for new markets. The Conservatives had a choice last week. They had a choice to support grain farmers, support the agricultural bureau in Manila and support the Indo-Pacific strategy. They had a choice and they voted against this. On this side of the House, we not only walk the walk but support our farmers.

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

Madam Speaker,

Farmers do not like their carbon tax plan, They do not like their pipeline ban. They do not like it here or there, They do not think it is just or fair. It taxes the food the farmer grows, It taxes the tractor when he mows. It taxes the food as it gets trucked, It taxes the people as they get squeezed. Liberal policies are breaking our backs, So when will they finally axe the tax?

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I think what Dr. Seuss is concerned about is food security. Food security is relevant to the member and the people he represents in Alberta, because the good Ukrainian Canadians in Alberta know that Ukraine represents the breadbasket of the world. It is not just Ukrainian Canadians who are disappointed in the member and his caucus. It is Polish Canadians, it is Baltic Canadians and it is every eastern European person who stands against the authoritarianism of Vladimir Putin. The member has been noted for combatting Communist authoritarianism. Where was he last week when we voted on that?

[ Translation ] News Media Industry

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, we now know what the breakdown of Google's royalty payments is going to look like. Of the $100 million specified in the agreement, $30 million is earmarked for electronic media, $7 million for CBC/Radio-Canada and the rest for print media. This amount of money will not fix the media crisis for newspapers, television stations or radio, by any stretch, but $7 million for the CBC? Seriously? Since every dollar counts and every dollar can help save a local newspaper or a regional radio station, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage ask the CBC to keep its hands off this tiny little pot?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Last month, we announced a historic agreement with Google to compensate local journalists for their important work. This agreement will enable newsrooms to keep producing local content for their communities. We know that all media outlets are in crisis. We are doing our part to ensure that they can continue delivering the news to Canadians across the country.

(1140) Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, if the government can guarantee that the $7 million from Google will prevent the dismissal of 600 CBC/Radio-Canada employees, we might reconsider our position. Seven million dollars out of $1.5 billion is a drop in the bucket for public television, but it is a huge amount for the small weekly newspapers in our towns and regions. I have an idea. If we were to cancel the Christmas bonuses for Ms. Tait's inner circle and cancel one or two trips to Australia or the other side of the world, voilà, that would make up the $7 million. Can we get assurances that CBC/Radio-Canada will not dip into that fund?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we know that the Conservatives do not value the work of journalists, but we do. Over 500 newsrooms have closed in the past 10 years. That is why we passed the Online News Act, to level the playing field for journalists against the web giants. The publication of our final regulations is the final step in the process for Bill C‑18 .

[ English ] Carbon Pricing

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, the NDP-Liberal government has driven up the cost of food for everyone. Canadians knows that when we slap a carbon tax on a farmer and then a trucker, these added costs are going to be paid by consumers. Anthony, a dairy farmer in Saskatoon, is currently paying $55,000 every year in carbon tax. It is clear for dairy farmers that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Does the Prime Minister want Anthony to raise prices on consumers or does he want him to cut production so Canadians are forced to buy dairy from polluting foreign countries?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is the Christmas season and I want to thank all farmers who are providing food for Canadians. What the hon. member is not telling his constituents and dairy farmers is that last week he had a choice. He had a choice to support dairy farmers and all supply-managed sectors and he voted against dairy farmers, he voted against the poultry sector and he voted against the turkey sector. The Conservatives love to talk, but when it comes to supporting dairy farmers in the supply-managed sector, they are nowhere to be found.

Mr. Brad Redekopp (Saskatoon West, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, Canadians do not have confidence in the government, and I am proud to say that our party voted non-confidence in the government 135 times. It gets worse. Instead of supporting Bill C-234 to reduce the cost of food by removing the carbon tax on farmers, the NDP-Liberal government is going to quadruple the carbon tax. This will balloon Anthony's carbon tax bill from $55,000 to $220,000 every year. This is guaranteed to increase the price of dairy for Canadian consumers. What does the Prime Minister want Anthony to do, raise prices or cut production and force Canadians to import dairy from polluting foreign farms?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I see the enthusiasm they have for a particular bill on the other side. I do not hear them being as loud in supporting Bill C-282 , a bill we unanimously supported on this side of the House that supports supply management. Where is the member and the other side of the House's support for Bill C-282 , which the supply-managed sector, dairy farmers, turkey farmers, egg farmers and chicken farmers are all asking us to support? Where is the member and that party's caucus support for Bill C-282?

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister 's carbon tax is taking direct aim at Canadian farmers and hitting our grocery prices. The Liberal government does not know Jack, a grain farmer from southern Manitoba who paid $6,000 in carbon taxes on his most recent bill. When the Liberal government quadruples its punishing carbon tax, he will be paying $24,000 in a single month. How will the Prime Minister advise that Jack pay that $24,000? Will he be raising prices on Canadians? Should Jack cut back on production or should Canadians be forced to import more polluted foreign food from foreign farms?

Hon. Dan Vandal (Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member for Portage—Lisgar should be embarrassed, and he should be ashamed of himself. Last weekend, during the temper tantrum, he voted against PrairiesCan, an organization that has invested millions of dollars in Portage—Lisgar. He voted against the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, Canada's only major national museum in western Canada. He voted against Ukrainian immigrant settlement services in Manitoba. The member should be ashamed.

(1145) Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am so proud, and my constituents are extremely happy, that I voted non-confidence in the government 135 times last week. It has become clear, after eight years, that this Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost, certainly not to Jim in my riding, who is paying $5,000 a month to heat his poultry barn. The NDP-Liberal coalition is planning to quadruple that to $20,000 a month. How does the government expect Jim to pay that $20,000 a month? Is he going to cut back on production, raise prices for Canadians or are we going to be forced to import food from more polluting foreign farms?

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as members of Parliament, we are representatives of the constituents in our ridings. They send us to Ottawa with one very important job, and that is to vote on government policies and programs. Last week, the Conservatives voted on over 120 items that Canadians depend on. That member and all the members of the Conservative Party voted against farmers. They voted against supporting supply-managed sectors, like poultry, dairy, egg and turkey. The Conservatives need to stand accountable for the fact that they stand against farmers, and they stand against our agricultural sector.

Infrastructure

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, everyone deserves to know that they will make it home safely at the end of the day. Weather stations in North Island—Powell River are vital to this. However, poor upkeep and underfunding by both Liberal and Conservative governments have left our weather stations in ruins. We need real action now to fix this problem. Will the government make sure these weather stations are working, or continue to neglect the maintenance of infrastructure that people rely on for safety?

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the advocacy from the member opposite, who I know recognizes that in modern times, the incidence of extreme weather events happens more frequently because of climate change. We have an obligation to ensure that the data and reporting from those weather stations is up to date and fully functional. That has a direct impact on the safety of our neighbours, particularly during the winter months and particularly when folks are travelling. I sincerely appreciate the question from the member, and I would be happy to touch base with the member after question period to discuss how we could make sure that Canadians stay safe over the holidays.

Health

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

Madam Speaker, in 2019, I put forward a motion for a national suicide prevention strategy, and it received all-party support. Since that time, the Liberals have broken their promise to deliver the Canada mental health transfer to the provinces. I am really concerned that this past week the Conservative Party voted against the national suicide prevention hotline, as well as voted against clean water on reserves. That would have a huge impact in my region. We know now the Conservative leader would break any promise on mental health.

Will the Liberals finally commit to implementing the full national suicide prevention strategy, so that people are not playing political games on such important issues as mental health and suicide prevention?

Mrs. Élisabeth Brière (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. [ Translation ] We continued this strategy by implementing the 988 suicide prevention line on November 30. That line has been very successful so far. It was receiving calls within the first few hours. Staff are well trained and ready to respond to help Canadians in these most difficult situations.

[ English ] Foreign Affairs

Mr. Yvan Baker (Etobicoke Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government is unwavering in our support for Ukraine, but there are troubling signs internationally and in this House. This week President Zelenskyy urged American politicians not to succumb to far-right, MAGA-inspired plans to abandon Ukraine. Unfortunately, we are fighting the same fight here in Canada with Conservatives voting against the free trade agreement, voting against Operation Unifier and voting against military aid for Ukraine. This week Vladimir Putin said that western support for Ukraine is waning and that he will win the war. The situation is dire for all of us.

Can the parliamentary secretary share with Canadians what we are doing to support the Ukrainian people in their fight for their own survival, for global security and for Canada's security?

(1150) Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for his tireless advocacy. Earlier this week, President Biden urged Republicans not to give Vladimir Putin an early Christmas gift and abandon Ukraine. It looks like Christmas came early for the MAGA-inspired Conservatives right here in Canada. While they are busy voting against trade and against Ukraine, we will not waver. At the international trade committee, we heard directly from industry groups, the UCC and the ambassador of Ukraine, who supports this modernized trade agreement. I hope our colleagues across the way will take some time over the holidays to reflect, come to their senses and support this trade agreement with Ukraine.

Carbon Pricing

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Rocky Ridge Turkey Farm in Langley just received its heating bill. It was $3,000 and shockingly, a quarter of it is the carbon tax. When it quadruples, farmer Steve's heating bill is going to be 60% carbon tax. It is ridiculous. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is clear that the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. What is his advice to farmer Steve? Is it to raise prices on Canadians or cut production so that Canadians are forced to import food from polluting foreign farms?

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, it is Christmas and I want to thank the turkey farmers for doing an amazing job providing turkeys for all of us during Christmas. The one thing that the entire supply-managed sector is asking of us is to support Bill C-282 . I know that caucus is split, but our caucus is unified in terms of supporting our dairy farmers, our turkey farmers, our egg farmers and our chicken farmers. Where is that member's support and where is that caucus's support for Bill C-282 in the other chamber?

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, where is the support from the Liberals for our common-sense bill, Bill C-234 , which they rejected? It is a common-sense solution to tackling food inflation. Why did the Prime Minister reject supporting Canadian farmers and the citizens who rely on them for a good, safe, affordable food supply?

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, what I want for Christmas is for that member of the justice committee and his colleagues to end their antics and stop playing with people's lives. I am talking about David and Joyce Milgaard's law. That is a law that would change the way we address wrongful convictions and end systemic discrimination. Reversing a wrongful conviction should never be a partisan matter, but filibusters by that member and his colleagues at the committee have made it exactly that.

These delays mean that potentially wrongfully convicted people, like indigenous people and Black people languishing in our prisons, will just languish a little longer. That is reprehensible behaviour and that needs to be corrected immediately.

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, places of worship in Edmonton have always helped with food hampers for those in need, regardless of their faith. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, they are seeing record increases of those seeking help. What is the government's solution? More carbon taxes. One church alone in my riding is facing a bill of $30,000 in carbon taxes this year alone. The government is probably not aware, but they cannot pass those costs on to their congregants. When will the government axe the tax so places of faith can have more to give to families in need?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, I think it is essential that we be straight with people who are going through difficult times. Those difficult times are felt all over the world. The fact that Canada is doing better than just about any other country in the world is cold comfort to people who are suffering. What they need are solutions, like dental care so that seniors can get the dental care they need and one million children can get the dental care they need. Of course, the Conservatives voted against that. Not taking action on the climate and cutting support for vulnerable people is really what this is about.

[ Translation ] Finance

Mr. Richard Lehoux (Beauce, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, the costly Bloc-Liberal coalition wants to radically increase the carbon tax, driving up the price of all food. They are so out of touch with reality. It is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois. The food bank in my region is receiving roughly 12,500 user requests a month. According to Marie Champagne of Moisson Beauce, that is an 82% increase compared to a few years ago. More than a third of these requests are for children. Will the Prime Minister follow our common-sense plan and eliminate inflationary taxes and deficits so that Canadians can have enough to eat at Christmas?

Hon. Jean-Yves Duclos (Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about the price on pollution. There are some very clear facts. First, pollution exists. Second, climate change exists. Third, the price on pollution will help reduce emissions by one-third over the next few years. Fourth, we know that the Conservatives are no longer welcome in the Magdalen Islands. We know they will not be visiting the Plains of Abraham in the next few weeks because they voted against the Plains of Abraham project. We know they will not want to go to the St-Tite western festival.

Maybe they could go to Baie-Saint-Paul where, a few months ago, there was catastrophic flooding that destroyed hundreds of homes and businesses. Would the member for Beauce agree to invite his climate-change-denying leader to Baie-Saint-Paul so he can understand that climate change exists?

(1155) Small Business

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, the federal government has one last chance before the holidays to prevent a wave of SME bankruptcies. It has to extend the January 18 loan forgiveness repayment deadline for the emergency business account. As inflation chips away at families' budgets this Christmas, the customer base for restaurants shrinks by 20% and bankruptcies increase by 81% compared to last year, the life is draining out of our main streets, and the survival of our small local businesses hangs in the balance. Will the federal government finally extend the deadline and let our SMEs get through the winter?

[ English ]

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the CEBA program provided unprecedented support to nearly 900,000 small businesses and helped keep their doors open and their lights on. Last year, our government extended the forgiveness qualification deadline by one year, to the end of this year. We know that times are still tough and that is why our government has extended the full loan for another year. We are going to continue to listen to small businesses throughout this time and we are going to continue to have their backs.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, it seems holiday magic is not meant for everyone. According to Statistics Canada, more than 98,000 companies are unsure whether they have the liquidity or access to credit available to repay their CEBA loans. With 98,000 businesses in limbo, SMEs are not the only ones in need of reassurance before the holidays. Hundreds of thousands of workers need some too. The January 18 deadline is a sword hanging over all these peoples' heads. Will the government extend the deadline so they can rest assured that their jobs will still be waiting for them after the holidays?

[ English ]

Mr. Bryan May (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, we are offering additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. This includes a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access the loan forgiveness, which is a balanced and fiscally responsible approach. We know that times are tough, which is why our government will also be cutting taxes for growing small businesses and lowering their credit card fees by up to a quarter.

Innovation, Science and Industry

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund is mired in corruption. Tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars have been funnelled to companies that board members have an interest in and yesterday, at the industry committee, the former chair dismissed this corruption as the normal course of business. In other words, it is business as usual. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, can the minister explain why corruption and self-dealing are business as usual?

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. As soon as we found out about these alleged allegations, the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development acted quickly. The Minister of Innovation has already accepted the resignation of the CEO Annette Verschuren. We take these allegations extremely seriously, which is why we are following proper due diligence. Our government is committed to ensure that organizations that receive federal funding adhere to the highest standards of governance. We are committed to getting to the bottom of these allegations.

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, according to the whistle-blower, more than $150 million has been misappropriated by Liberal insiders at the green slush fund and yet, incredibly, the minister continues to stand behind the board, a board that has engaged in self-dealing to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. This is scandalous. It begs the question: What does the minister know, when did he know about it and who is he protecting?

Hon. Mark Holland (Minister of Health, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the member opposite knows that this agency was created 20 years ago and operates at arm's length. I am not sure what the member is saying. Is he saying that if the Conservatives were in government, he would be interfering and managing the organization or is he saying that if he saw malfeasance, he would do what we did, which is to immediately call people in to review what has occurred? What this is really about is the Conservatives being against taking action on climate change and being beholden to a base that has MAGA values.

An hon. member: It's tens of millions of dollars of corruption.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member knows full well that if he has other questions, he can ask for a late show to expand on his question today. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

(1200) Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight long years of the NDP-Liberal government, we know that it is just not worth the cost. We have the government's billion-dollar green slush fund and what do we have following that? Over $150 million appears to have been criminally misappropriated. Rather than word-salad explanations that they are investigating, we can say that there is an Auditor General investigation and an ethics investigation, times two. Why will the government not just call in the RCMP?

Hon. Terry Beech (Minister of Citizens’ Services, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, as we go away, we know that Canadians have had a hard year. We know that we have suffered with global inflation. We have had troubles with war in Ukraine and elsewhere. We have had, of course, the after-effects of the pandemic and climate change. Despite that, I think Canadians can feel good about the fact that we still have the lowest net-debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and that we have lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. We have done that by investing in programs like health care, dental care, the CCB, $10-a-day child care, retirement security, and investments in communities like the Jewish Community Centre of Greater Vancouver, all investments—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Egmont.

Regional Economic Development

Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, Atlantic Canada has had its fair share of challenges over the past three years. A deadly hurricane, natural disasters and a global pandemic have left Atlantic Canadians wondering what the future holds. Can the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency outline for the people in my Egmont riding what the government is doing to help Atlantic Canada recover, rebuild and thrive?

Hon. Gudie Hutchings (Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Egmont is a strong voice for P.E.I. and for Atlantic Canada. Down east, we have a saying, “Tory times are tough times”, and last week, the Conservatives reminded us why, because they voted against funding to help us rebuild from hurricane Fiona. They voted against funding for small businesses to grow and create good jobs. They voted against support for our manufacturers and our farmers.

They voted against funding so support Marine Atlantic, which is a vital ferry service between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. 'Tis the season of colourful lights, but last week the Conservatives showed us their true colours. Just like when Harper was in charge, they continue to treat Atlantic Canada as—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Calgary Heritage.

Natural Resources

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, after eight years, Beijing-backed raiding of Canadian resources is at an all-time high. First, it got the Prime Minister to fast-track the sale of Neo Lithium. Now, it is working on a deal to buy critical minerals in the Northwest Territories through acquiring vital minerals. Yesterday, the industry committee passed a motion calling on the minister to invoke the Investment Canada Act to protect this critical Canadian resource. Will the minister listen to the committee and review this deal today?

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, our government has been clear. We will always welcome foreign investment and trade that encourages economic growth, innovation and employment opportunities in Canada. We know that economic security is national security. The bill, which would amend the ICA, brings forward improvements so the government could act more quickly when required. We will continue to ensure Canada's prosperity while acting decisively to protect our national and economic security.

Mr. Shuvaloy Majumdar (Calgary Heritage, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, they can act today. They need to act today. We can really see where the Prime Minister 's heart lies with that non-answer: not with Canadian resources, not with Canadians, but with his love for Beijing's basic dictatorship, the same love that put three other Canadian lithium companies at risk of CCP takeover, and is now putting at risk our only rare earth mining company. Will the minister do the right thing, put Canadians first and invoke the Investment Canada Act today?

Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Export Promotion, International Trade and Economic Development, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, the Investment Canada Act provides for review of the most significant investments by non-Canadians to ensure their likely net benefit to the Canadian economy. All investments, no matter their value, are subject to a national security review under the Investment Canada Act. Therefore, the acquisitions of a Canadian company by a foreig