Skip to main content

House Publications

The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
Skip to Document Navigation Skip to Document Content

44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

EDITED HANSARD • No. 334

CONTENTS

Tuesday, June 18, 2024




Emblem of the House of Commons

House of Commons Debates

Volume 151
No. 334
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus

    The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayer



Routine Proceedings

[Routine Proceedings]

(1005)

[Translation]

Information Commissioner

    It is my duty to lay upon the table, pursuant to subsection 40(1) of the Access to Information Act, the report of the Information Commissioner for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2024.

[English]

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Law Commission of Canada

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2023-24 departmental plan for the Law Commission of Canada.

Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2021-22 annual report from the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.
    In addition, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2022-23 annual report from the Office of the Federal Ombudsperson for Victims of Crime.

Women, Peace and Security

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the combined 2021-22 and 2022-23 progress report on Canada's national action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace and security.

Government Response to Petitions

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.
    While I am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.
     If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
    Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
    Call in the members.

(1050)

    (The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 830)

YEAS

Members

Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 171


NAYS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Zimmer

Total: -- 148


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


     I declare the motion carried.

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

[English]

Electoral Participation Act

    The House resumed from June 17 consideration of the motion that Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-65. Before I do that, if members would indulge me, I want to send congratulations to a member of my staff, Ali Shahsamand, who is receiving his master's degree today. Based on his excellent work in my office, he could be teaching many of the classes, but he is nonetheless learning a lot through his master's degree. I am going to do my best to pop over there if there are not too many shenanigans from the other side that keep me here throughout the day. Members are pointing out that I might be the cause of some shenanigans later as well. We will see. I think that is tough, but fair.
     We are debating Bill C-65 and, in particular, an amendment put forward at second reading by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton. I do not know that there has been much discussion of the amendment in particular, so I do want to review. The amendment proposes that the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Elections Canada Act, as the bill would delay the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament could collect taxpayer-funded pensions, which is a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal government's inflation, carbon tax and housing costs. It is a wise and thoughtful amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, which I am pleased to support, and I am looking forward to discussing it.
    By way of context about the state of the country right now, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, two of my children, Gianna and Phineas, are in Ottawa as well, and it is great to have them here. I was reflecting on some conversations I sometimes have with my children when I ask them to do a task. My children are very responsible 99% of the time, but sometimes, it comes to pass that a part of the house needs to be cleaned, and I tell them to put the toys away and to clean up an area of the house. Maybe I have a phone call from someone or have some work I have to do, and when I come back an hour later, nothing has changed; all the toys are exactly where they were, or maybe it is even worse. Then, I ask them what is going on and explain that they have to clean it up. They say that they have been working at it for an hour, but nothing has changed.
     As parents, we want to look at not just the amount of time spent on an activity, but also the results of the activity and whether things have changed as a result of the efforts that have been put in. It is a good lesson for children that their activities will be judged not just by the effort they put in, but also by the results they achieve. If people do not learn that they will be judged by the results they produce and not by the efforts they put in, they might grow up to become Liberals.
     The Liberals would like us to judge their activities over the last nine years not by the results but by the amount of money they have spent and the amount of energy they have purportedly exerted on behalf of certain outcomes. However, Canadians are judging them on the results. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, it is undeniable that the results are much worse.
     I think back to 2015 when I was first elected as a member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. It was the same year that we had a change in government. We had the Conservative government of Stephen Harper prior to 2015, and the current Prime Minister came in 2015, promising real change. That was the slogan. In 2015, the Liberals' slogan was “real change”, and in 2024, their slogan is “boo hoo, get over it”. It is quite a real change that this country has experienced in nine years.
     In 2015, the Prime Minister said that real change was coming and, indeed, real change is here. Rents have doubled. The violent crime rate, which was going down, has now gone back up and is continuing to be on the way back up. The national debt has more than doubled. I recall debates previously where people had concerns about the size of our national debt. The national debt has more than doubled since 2015. We are now spending more on servicing the national debt than is transferred to the provinces in health care. As this debt was escalating, the message we heard from the government was not to worry because interest rates were low. However, interest rates have not remained low, and as a result, we are paying more and more in debt servicing costs.

(1055)

    Debt is up. Costs are up. Inflation is up. Crime is up. Canadians are now looking at these results, and they are judging the government, not by its flashy slogans, by its professions of concern or by its promises to spend even more. Canadians are judging the government based on the results that are being achieved. It is amazing to hear the Liberals talk as if they just have to talk in a different way and explain what they are doing in a different way.
    After nine years, Canadians have seen what the Liberals have done and have seen the results. What are they doing in response to that? After nine years of failures, costs and crime being up, what are Liberals interested in talking about in the House? What are they trying to focus our attention on? They have this new bill, Bill C-65, and in response to all these challenges and the public anger at the failures of the government, they are proposing to delay the election even further. It is unbelievable.
    If the public is upset and it is demanding change and new direction, the Liberals had better delay the election a little longer so that they can stay in power for as long as they can and collect their pensions. That is the approach we are seeing from the Liberal government. I look around the world, and there are a number of cases where governments that are struggling for various reasons have at least the willingness to put their programs to the people and to make their cases to the voters.
    We have challenged the government. Rather than a delay to the election, most people I talk to in all parts of this country actually want an election sooner, not later. They want an opportunity to pronounce on the government's failures and to replace it as soon as possible. In the context of the level of fierce criticism and of the challenges the country is facing, the responsible thing to do would be for the government members to say that they were ready to make their case, to put their case before the Canadian people and to let the Canadian people decide on that trajectory in a carbon tax election.
    However, the Liberals are trying to move in the other direction. They want to delay the election further. They want to stay in power for as long as they possibly can and avoid the inevitable judgment of the Canadian people on their nine years of terrible failures and the results that it has produced for this country.
    Naturally, Conservatives are opposed to the proposed bill. We believe that instead of having a later election, it is time for an earlier election. Canadians want to have a chance to rule on the many failures of the government, and we will, of course, be opposing the bill.
    In addition to its evident desire to delay the election and to cling to power as long as it possibly can, the Liberal government has coincidentally put forward a date change to the election that just so happens to allow many additional members of Parliament across the way to be eligible for a pension, and that is certainly suspicious. The members across the way are putting their own pensions ahead of the desire of Canadians for an election that would allow us to replace this costly, corrupt coalition NDP-Liberal government.
    The wise amendment from my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton points out that this focus on protecting their own position and protecting their own pensions is particularly galling to Canadians at a time when so many Canadians are indeed struggling. The struggles Canadians are facing, by the way, are things that the Liberal government loves to try to blame on other people. How can we explain that after the government has pursued inflationary policies, things cost more? The government has chosen to pursue policies that make things more expensive, and on this point, the amendment mentions the carbon tax, and I want to spend a couple of minutes on the carbon tax.

(1100)

    The funny thing about the carbon tax is that New Democrats and Liberals refuse to acknowledge the basic logic of how a carbon tax is supposed to work, even as advocated by its proponents. Proponents of the carbon tax—
    I have a point of order from the hon. member for Humber River—Black Creek.
    Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have recognized a half a dozen times where my hon. colleague keeps talking about everything else but the amendment and the bill before us. As a reminder, this bill is about electoral reform and not about carbon tax, and not about the umpteen other things that he has mentioned.
    I want to remind hon. members that there is some flexibility when members are debating. However, I would ask members when they are debating to bring it back to the legislation that is before the House.
    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
    Madam Speaker, I will just reacquaint my friend across the way, and the one person who applauded her intervention, with the fact that we are debating an amendment from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which says the following:
the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, as the bill delays the next federal election so that more departing members of Parliament can collect taxpayer-funded pensions, a measure that is particularly offensive at a time when Canadians are struggling due to the NDP-Liberal government’s inflation, carbon tax and housing costs.
    I am, of course, speaking, as I said, about the amendment. That would be not only related to the topic, but definitively the most germane thing that one could possibly talk about: that is, the amendment that is presently before the House. The amendment highlights how the efforts by the Liberals to cling to power by their fingernails, by passing a bill to delay the election, are particularly offensive to Canadians, who would like to see the carbon tax end as soon as possible.
     Canadians know that the next election will be a carbon tax election. It will provide an opportunity for the Canadian people to make a decision about whether they approve of the NDP-Liberal plan to massively hike the carbon tax in the years ahead or the Conservative plan to scrap the tax, to axe the tax in every region of the country, and for good. That is the choice that Canadians will have in the next election. A confident government would say they are ready for that choice. It would say, let us have that debate. The member for Winnipeg North says he welcomes that debate. It seems that he has more courage than the leader of his party, because the leader of his party and the minister responsible for this bill have put forward a bill to delay that great clash of ideas that will occur in the next election. Whenever the member for Winnipeg North is ready for this conversation and is ready to allow his constituents to rule on this vital question, then I suggest he tell his Prime Minister to scrap Bill C-65 as they are ready for an election.
    I can tell colleagues that, on this side of the House, we are ready. We want to let Canadians decide: Do they prefer the radical NDP-Liberal plan to hike the carbon tax, to quadruple the carbon tax, or do they prefer the common-sense Conservative plan to axe the tax everywhere, and for good? I think Canadians will choose to axe the tax, but in any event, we are ready for that debate. We are ready to submit ourselves to the judgment of the Canadian people. Instead, the government, rather than being prepared to submit itself to the common-sense judgment of the common people, wants to be able to delay the election so the Liberals can hang on to their pensions for as long as possible, hang on to power as long as possible, rather than letting the Canadian people decide.
    The government will not be able to delay this inevitable carbon tax election forever. When the inevitable carbon tax election comes, Liberals and New Democrats will have to explain the following to the Canadian people: that the very purpose of a carbon tax is to increase costs. That is what even proponents of the carbon tax say it exists to do. The carbon tax exists to make driving one's car more expensive and to make taking that family road trip more expensive, the family road trip that the Minister of Health thinks is going to burn the planet. I think it was notable after that how various people on social media were able to find posts from the Prime Minister about family road trips he has taken. The Prime Minister does not just take family road trips. He travels much greater distances, using more carbon-emitting options than the simple family van. It is another example of “do as I say, not as I do”. Apparently, when everyday Canadians want to spend a few days seeing beautiful parts of our country, putting their kids in the car and travelling places, the Minister of Health thinks that is going to burn the planet. This is the kind of “do as I say, not as I do” radical extremism that we have come to expect from the radical NDP-Liberal coalition government.
    Let us be clear. The purpose of a carbon tax, what it is designed to do, is to increase the price of goods so that people will consume those goods less. That is the theory behind the carbon—

(1105)

[Translation]

    The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on a point of order.
    Madam Speaker, we have had approximately 150,000 opposition days on the carbon tax. Today, we are studying a different bill, and yet my colleague is talking only about the carbon tax, which—
    That is a point of debate. As I mentioned before, there is some latitude. The hon. member is talking about an amendment that mentions the carbon tax. I will let the member continue his speech. He has four minutes and 43 seconds.
    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, at the risk of being accused of repetition, I will clarify the point for my Bloc colleagues again, as I did earlier. We are, at present, debating an amendment put forward by my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton, which is about declining to give second reading to Bill C-65, because the bill reveals the priorities of the government, priorities that are dead wrong. Conservatives would like to focus on providing economic relief to Canadians. We are ready for a carbon tax election, in which the choice will be clear, between a Conservative common-sense plan and the plan of the NDP-Liberals and the Bloc to impose additional costs on Canadians, punishing new costs that would further undermine opportunity for everyday Canadians.
    Here is where we are. It is clear and unmistakable that we are at a time when Canadians are overwhelmingly disapproving of the direction of the NDP-Liberal government, when Canadians' disapproval of the government reflects their own frustration and the fact that they can see how policies of the government have made their lives materially worse, how there is more poverty in this country, more division and more crime as a result of policies that have been pursued by the NDP-Liberal government. In that context, where Canadians are upset with the government, see how the government has made their lives worse and are, therefore, looking for an alternative to the current approach, the Liberal government, rather than recognizing its failures, changing course in its policies and putting its programs to the Canadian people, is focused on pushing forward legislation to try to delay when that ultimate judgment will come down from the Canadian people. That is what we are debating. That is what Bill C-65 is about.
    Bill C-65 is before this House because, rather than calling an election or putting forward bills that would actually make Canadians' lives better, Liberals are focused on delaying when that election will come. Conservatives are ready to put our plan before the Canadian people, our plan to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, our plan to focus on the common sense of Canadians.
    I want to remind the New Democrats that the plan is to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. I think we are winning converts. I think—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1110)

    I would remind members that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, so I would ask them to please wait until the appropriate time.
    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
     Madam Speaker, I think we are finally getting through. I think New Democrats are finally hearing us. I think they may be reflecting. The House leader—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
     Order. I want to remind hon. members again that they will have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments, so I would ask them to please wait.
    The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
    Madam Speaker, the NDP House leader self-identifies as a worker bee. He has told us that he is a worker bee. If we doubt that he is a worker bee, all we have to do is ask him, and he will tell us that he is a worker bee. Meanwhile, New Democrats are at committee putting forward motions specifically to avoid doing parliamentary work over the summer. Imagine that. At a time when Canadians are suffering, at a time when Canadians want their politicians to get down to work and find solutions to the challenges this country is facing, Liberals are putting forward a bill to delay the election, and New Democrats are putting forward motions so they do not have to work until the election comes. This is what the NDP coalition is about: delaying the election and doing as little work as possible until it comes.
    Conservatives are ready to get down to work. We are ready to replace the government. We are ready to clean up the mess that has been created over the last nine years, because our country did not have these problems nine years ago. It will be set on the right path under the principled leadership of the member for Carleton. This is what we are offering Canadians.
    Conservatives are ready for an election. We oppose Bill C-65, because we do not want to delay the election. We are ready for a carbon tax election, to put our common-sense plan before Canadians for lower, fairer and simpler taxes, to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, to bring it home.
    Let us reject Bill C-65, let us have a carbon tax election and let the Canadian people decide.
     I believe the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill is rising on a point of order.
    Madam Speaker, I want to ask if I could get unanimous consent to have my vote recorded as a yea earlier. I was unable, for technical reasons, to vote.
    Some hon. members: Agreed.
    Questions and comments, the hon. member for Avalon.
    Madam Speaker, before I get to my question, the member mentioned an employee who received his master's today. An employee of mine in my Hill office received two master's degrees. I do not like to be outdone by a Conservative, so I will note that. As well as having a dual master's in political science, he has been accepted into the Ph.D. program. Again, I want to congratulate my employee, Liam O'Brien.
    When the member talks about moving to the election, has he spoken to the 32-plus members on his side who would not qualify for a pension when they do not get re-elected?

(1115)

     Madam Speaker, first, I want to associate myself with the member's comments and also share congratulations to his employee who is getting his second master's. Maybe once he gets his third master's, he will see the light and become a Conservative. I wish him the best with that intellectual journey.
    In terms of the views of members, the Conservative Party has been clear and united that we are ready for an election. We want an election, and we want a carbon tax election where Canadians can choose. We do not want to delay the election. As members will see when this measure comes to a vote, that is the united position of every single Conservative in the House.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, voting in federal elections is allowed every day at the office of the returning officer. Currently, without the law, there are four days of early voting prior to voting day, people can vote by mail and they can vote on campuses. Simply put, there are plenty of opportunities to vote.
     Officially, the government is citing the need to accommodate the festival of lights, Diwali, a holiday celebrated by Indian communities, to justify postponing election day. The Liberal government has chosen to integrate the religious calendar into the electoral calendar. It has chosen to subordinate the rule of law to religious considerations. With that in mind, I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of this official reason.

[English]

    Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that I would have a bit of a different view of many aspects of the religious accommodation conversation than my colleagues do. I think that a free society, a rule of law society, should make efforts to ensure the protection of religious freedom, of the deeply held convictions of people. Religious freedom is a foundational aspect of human rights. It is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights very clearly.
    That said, the member is right that there are many different ways and times people can vote. If we have a situation in which the main election day as well as advance poll days and early voting days also intersect with religious holidays for the same community, then I think there is a much greater problem. In this case, this is just cover for the government. I do not think it is really about accommodation. It is fundamentally about the Liberals' desire to delay the election as much as possible and benefit themselves in the process.
    Madam Speaker, among the member's many useless slogans that were put forward once again today, one of them was around the Conservatives being “clear and united”. I find that particularly interesting, because the member said he is not in support of this bill, yet last night the member for Calgary Confederation said very clearly that he would be in support of this bill as long as there is an amendment to move the election date back.
    I have made it clear that I will be putting forward an amendment to see the election date put back, because I agree that we cannot be looking at legislation that will benefit members at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet.
    How can the member continue to sabotage legislation that truly supports Canadians?
    Madam Speaker, the worker bees in the NDP want to tell us about amendments that they might propose, will propose or intend to propose in the future.
    Let me tell the House about an amendment Conservatives have already proposed that is at present before the House. This is the amendment I spoke to, from the member for St. Albert—Edmonton, which would, on the basis of the attempt to delay the election, decline to give reading to Bill C-65. Our position is to support the amendment that is on the table, not hope that the worker bees in the NDP will, after taking sufficient time off over the summer, eventually get around to coming up with their own amendment in the future.
    Madam Speaker, to follow up on that point, it seems like we have two options here. One is to get rid of the bill altogether because there is one provision in it that is inappropriate. The other is to continue with the bill that has many important elements in it, for example, making it easier for folks to vote at advance polls, and then at committee, as is often the case here, to address the problematic provision.
    Greens, of course, would strongly support what the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith has put forward.
    Why not at least support the bill, given that there are other important measures in it, and address the problematic provision at the place where that is best done, at committee?

(1120)

    Madam Speaker, here is the legislative process in a nutshell. At second reading, we look at the principle of a bill and determine whether the principle of the bill is one that we want to support or not. The principle of what the government is trying to do is that it is looking for cover to delay the election; I think it is quite evident. The principle is that Liberals, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others, are reluctant to face the judgment of the electorate. That is what they are trying to do with the bill. We are not going to fall for this Liberal trick.
    Madam Speaker, what my colleague just brought up is interesting. The principle of the bill is, essentially, to make sure that as many Canadians as possible can vote in the next election. I think that is a very noble pursuit that all members of the House should be working toward. To disenfranchise Canadians is not what we have been put in this place to do. We want the next election to be the most participated in, the most fair. The issue that came up with the October 20 election date is one that I know my community faced during the last municipal election, when the election fell on Diwali. There was an extremely low voter turnout.
    In this case, it falls on Diwali. It also falls on an election in Alberta as well. Canadians will be asked to make up their mind about their federal member and their provincial member. I think this would cause a lot of confusion and cause fewer people to come out to the polls. Let us make sure we all work together to get more people to vote.
     Madam Speaker, I do want to assure the member that I think there will be very high participation in the next election, judging from the Leader of the Opposition's rallies and public events and the level of enthusiasm we are seeing from Canadians for the Leader of the Opposition's message. I know that many people who have never participated in politics before are finally hopeful about the direction that this country could go under new common- sense Conservative leadership.
    Respectfully, the chief government whip wants us to judge the government based on its intention, not based on the results. I am not sure that is actually the intention. The publicly stated justification is one thing, but the reality of what the bill would do is delay the election date.
    Liberals said that the current proposed date has some issues and problems with it. Why did the government not propose to move the election a week earlier instead of a week later? I would be willing to meet the chief government whip in the middle. How about we just have an election right now, right away? Then we would avoid the potential conflicts that the member mentioned. We are working to have the election as soon as possible, but it is a bit suspicious that they want to delay the election in order to avoid, apparently, a problematic date.
    Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague, but the reality is that the Harper government was terrible in taking away voting rights from racialized people, from indigenous people, from poor people and from young people. The Harper government and the member for Carleton stripped away voting rights for a whole variety of Canadians they do not seem to like or appreciate. It seems that the Conservatives are in the same frame here with a bill that would enfranchise more people, that would ensure that more people can vote, and Conservatives are opposed to it.
    Why are they opposed to more Canadians voting?
    Madam Speaker, the self-identified worker bee in the corner is making things up about the record of the Harper government, as he regularly does.
     The choice Canadians will face in the next election is that they will look at where this country was in 2015 and where it was in 2024, and they will say, “Are we better off in 2024 than we were in 2015? Are we better off with the Conservative government or are we better off with the NDP-Liberal government?” That is the choice, and I think the choice will look much better for us when Canadians finally have a chance to decide than it will for the buzzing bees in the corner of the room.

(1125)

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of the great people of Don Valley East to speak to a very important bill, Bill C-65, the electoral participation act.
    The chief government whip talked about a noble pursuit to actually look at legislation and look for ways to increase participation, which is essentially what the bill is attempting to do. As members of Parliament, we should always be looking for ways to increase participation in elections. There have been some elections over the last decade where the numbers were quite low, and I have seen low numbers in Ontario in provincial and municipal elections. As members of the House, we need to look for ways to better position people so they can participate in elections. It is important to look for ways to increase accessibility.
     My participation in elections go back seven elections. I have actually run seven times: three times as a school board trustee, three times as a provincial member and once as a member of Parliament. However, every single time I ran, I noticed a bit of a change in the elections overall.
    I will be sharing my time with the member from Surrey—Newton.
    It is important for us to reflect on elections from the past, look at those elections and look for ways to constantly make improvements. I remember the first time knocking on a door as a candidate, which was in 2003. I ran for school board trustee in Don Valley East, and I remember knocking on doors with four or five of my friends for the entire summer. We knocked on every single door throughout the riding. In the end, I was successful in winning my first election.
    The cool thing about that campaign is that we got people involved who had not traditionally been involved in politics, people who saw someone like themselves getting involved in politics. I was the first person from my community, Flemingdon Park, to be elected into any level of government, so it was an important thing for our community.
    I go out to different schools all the time and I speak to young people. Actually, probably one of my favourite things about this job is talking to young people about politics, going into the classrooms to talk about politics. I always remind young people that to be involved in politics, one does not have to put their name on the ballot. They can help organize or they can advocate. They can write to their elected official or work within the sector. Participation is important because it upholds our democracy and it holds our system accountable, which is an important thing for young people to recognize and to know about.
    When I go into classrooms, I often talk about June 1215, which was when the Magna Carta was published. It is a document that today still holds a significant role in the timeline of increasing democracy, because it was the first document in the west that said that the king and the government were not above the people and that they should be held accountable by the people. This is the tradition in the House, that we are accountable to the people.
    However, when only half the people show up to vote, there is obviously a problem in politics. We need to look for ways to increase trust, and Bill C-65 would do that. It would increase accessibility. It would increase integrity within the system, and it would also put trust back into the electoral process.
    It is important to make sure that as we are building these types of bills, we look at all different ways, especially with emerging technology and the shift within our society as a whole, to make sure that people still feel that the system can be trusted. I do not know whether folks remember, but I think it was in 2011 that there was a major issue in this country with robocalls. This was a new, emerging technology.

(1130)

     Some folks got into trouble because they were using it to discourage people from voting at the correct station. They were sending them to different places to vote, and when they got there, they figured out they could not vote. It was all about voter suppression.
    It is important that we, as part of our due diligence as members of Parliament in the House, look for ways to open up the process even further so that people feel they can trust the system, are a part of the system and are involved in deciding which direction they want their democracy and their government to go in.
    We have seen the rise of AI over the last several years, especially over the last two or three years, which is going to be a challenge for democracy. It is going to be a challenge for places like the House of Commons and for the electoral process. We have seen recently the use of deepfakes. I know there have been challenges south of the border, and also in India during its election. The use of deepfakes is occurring more and more.
    When we watch one of these AI-generated images, it is hard to determine whether it is real or fake. In fac I just saw a deepfake with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition trying to sell some type of product. I was thinking, “What is this?” It was so elaborate that it even had an anchor from one of the major media news stations interviewing the leaders. When we see this stuff, the voice and the facial expressions are so perfect, but the message is not real. We need to make sure that we as MPs put into place the right process so that these types of technologies do not disrupt our pursuit for greater democracy and so that we uphold the integrity that citizens require.
    The other thing that I think is important in the piece of legislation before us is accessibility. We need to constantly look for ways to open up accessibility so that when someone wants to go out and vote, maybe a first-time voter, they are not discouraged by the complexity of going out to vote. A good example of that would be what happens in long-term care, and getting polling stations into those types of facilities where it is hard for people to get to a specific location because of a physical challenge. There may also be people who are living in one part of the province but might be in another part of the province on election day. How do we accommodate them?
    We need to constantly look for ways to improve the system. This bill would address those challenges as well.
    Also, one thing that has been a major concern for me over the last several years, not only as a former provincial member but also as a federal member, is the protection of personal data. We live in an age when personal information can be collected, reused and sold. We need to make sure the data collected by Elections Canada that is used during the process is protected, not only with respect to where it is stored but also with respect to how it is disposed of. We need to ensure that the privacy of citizens remains intact and that there is integrity connected to it, in order to ensure that we have the trust of people.
    This is important for Canadians. It is important for democracy. If people think for even a second that their personal information is going to be used by a third party after an election, perhaps a political party, this would increase the likelihood of their not wanting to vote. That is why the act would put in place a process to ensure the protection and privacy of citizens.
    I would like to thank the House for listening to me for the last 10 minutes. I thank the people of Don Valley East for their continued support.

(1135)

     Madam Speaker, the hon. member delivered a speech about the bill and never mentioned the extension of the voting date by one week to secure the pensions for about 80 MPs, which is about 25% of the House. I wish he had talked about that, because Canadians have been asking about it. We have received so many questions and emails asking about this very important element of the bill.
    Madam Speaker, the member has been around here for a while, and he is a smart guy. He knows the process. The bill goes to committee. If improvements can be made, the member and his team can bring forward suggestions.
    I was given 10 minutes today to address the issues that I though were very important. That is why I talked about privacy, accessibility, integrity and trust. They mean a lot to me.

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, I welcome the remarks of my colleague opposite.
     I would like to know what his position is. There are some good things in this bill, but there is also the date change. Earlier my colleague from Montcalm asked a question about changing the date for a religious reason. I see two things here. First, the religious reason raises a number of questions. How many religions are there in Canada? Will we end up finding a date on which there are no religious holidays? I would like to hear my colleague's comments on this. Will we really have to accommodate all the various religions?
     Second, there is another aspect I would like to broach. There is a proposal to postpone the elections by a week to allow more House members to qualify for a pension. This is known. Members would miss out by one day if the elections were held on the scheduled date in 2025. This too strikes us as unreasonable, given the often precarious finances of many Quebeckers and Canadians. Not only is a religious holiday being invoked to justify putting off the elections, but a delay would also allow more MPs to qualify for a pension. Does my colleague consider these to be good reasons for postponing election day?

[English]

    Madam Speaker, that is an important question. We have such a beautiful country, from coast to coast to coast. There are so many different nationalities, a mosaic of different cultures, and it will always be difficult for us to find the perfect date. However, as MPs, we should be trying to accommodate people when possible. That should be a common-sense approach to picking an election day, and I think the member would agree with that.
    Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing from fellow previous school board trustees. There is a lot of value in that experience and bringing that to the House of Commons.
    My question is specifically around the component of the bill that speaks to lifting the restrictions on who can assist people living with disabilities, having it removed and having the elector choose who assists them. I believe that to be a big step in the right direction, to look at who can support people in having their ballots counted.
    There is also a lot of work that needs to be done once we get this bill to committee, and I am an eternal optimist, to ensure people are able to have autonomy to cast their ballots. I think about people who are visually impaired as one example.
    What does the member think about the necessity of us having ballots that make it possible for all Canadians to cast a ballot for who they would like to see elected?
    Madam Speaker, my father is legally blind, so I go with him when he votes. I am always amazed at how he is accommodated. The first time we went when he needed assistance, I wondered how they would do it, but it was very professional. If we can look for ways to strengthen the process, through consultation with the disability community, and make it more accessible, it would be a huge priority for me.

(1140)

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The legislation would make it easier to vote and increase voter participation across the country, which is essential to a healthy, modern democracy.
     One aspect of the legislation includes legislating campus vote as a permanent program. This is particularly important because it will increase voter engagement for youth and young adults.
     Coincidentally, today, my nephew, Prabh Noor Singh Dhaliwal, a recent graduate of the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania, which is one of the top business schools in North America, is visiting Ottawa. I am proud of his accomplishments, including being elected as vice-president of sponsorship and finance for the student body. It is important that our youth are engaged in the political process and are involved in all levels of government. This is the type of legislation that would allow that.
    This important bill, which supports voter participation, better protects Canadians' personal information and enhances electoral safeguards and compliance measures. On electoral safeguards, the government has been continuously improving its response to the evolving threat of foreign interference by enhancing measures and adding new measures that strengthen Canada's electoral system.
     The government is not alone in ensuring our electoral system is well protected. Parliament has entrusted responsibility to the independent commissioner of Canada Elections for ensuring that the Canada Elections Act is complied with and enforced. The commissioner's work is an essential element to upholding Canadians' trust in the integrity of Canada's electoral system and maintaining a fair and level playing field for all electoral participants. The critical role of the independent commissioner of Canada Elections and how the safeguards in Bill C-65 would be enforced is what I will speak about today.
     First, I will outline how the commissioner fulfils her mandate. I will then turn to the specific proposals in Bill C-65.
    In order to enforce and promote compliance with the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner is primarily responsible for conducting investigations and applying a suite of compliance measures as appropriate. The commissioner may initiate an investigation in a number of ways, including following a complaint from the public, a referral from Elections Canada or on her own initiative.
     If the investigation reveals any contravention of the Canada Elections Act, the commissioner has a wide range of enforcement tools at her disposal that she can deploy depending on the severity of the contravention. These tools include laying criminal charges, which may lead to prison time and/or a fine; issuing a notice of violation accompanied by an administrative monetary penalty to promote compliance; or simply issuing information or caution letters to raise awareness of the rules, and encourage those who make an honest mistake to course correct.
     Which enforcement tool the commissioner chooses to use depends on what would best serve the public interest and whether the contravention has been categorized as an offence or a violation under the act. The difference between the two is that offences may result in criminal prosecution, fines and/or prison time, while violations are considered administrative contraventions and are subject to administrative monetary penalties.
     Some contraventions of the act could be considered either an offence or a violation, meaning that the commissioner would consider the facts of the case to determine which route would better serve the public interest.

(1145)

    The tools available to the commissioner have proven to be effective in promoting and maintaining compliance with the act, yet, as we are well aware, there is always room for improvement.
     Bill C-65 would build on the strong compliance and enforcement foundation by adding to the commissioner's tool box in five new ways.
    First, to enhance the commissioner's access to information pertaining to investigation, Bill C-65 would clarify that those who have been ordered by a judge to appear before the commissioner or her staff may also be ordered to produce any relevant documents at any time before, during or after the individual's initial appearance. This clarification would help avoid potential delays in the commissioner's gaining access to relevant information and would lower the risk of documents being lost or destroyed.
    Second, the commissioner's authorities to enter into memoranda of understanding or other similar arrangements with national security organizations, such as FINTRAC or the Communications Security Establishment, would be made explicit. This added clarity around the expectations for collaboration between the commissioner and government security agencies would not only facilitate investigations and ensure the commissioner can gain access to information held by other federal departments, but it would also support government-wide efforts to respond to the threat of foreign interference in our elections.
    Third, Bill C-65 would give the commissioner the option to pursue administrative contraventions currently treated as offences under the act as violations. An example would be taking a ballot selfie where these types of contraventions are better dealt with by the commissioner as opposed to our judicial system.
     Other examples of existing offences that would be treated as violations and subject to administrative monetary penalties under Bill C-65 include preventing apartment building access to Elections Canada or campaign staffers for the purpose of engaging voters and wearing partisan materials at polling stations.
    This expansion of the administrative monetary penalty regime will support the commissioner's ability to maintain compliance with the Elections Canada Act without lengthy unnecessary criminal investigations.
     In addition to existing contraventions that will be newly classified as violations, non-compliance with a political party's privacy policy would also now constitute a violation. This means that the commissioner will be able to issue a notice of violation and administrative monetary penalty or pursue informal measures to encourage compliance, such as issuing caution or information letters, as appropriate.
    Fourth, the electoral participation act would also provide the commissioner with the ability to issue administrative monetary penalties to those who support those who contravene the act in addition to the perpetrators themselves. While the measures I have highlighted will support the commissioner in holding those who broke the law accountable, those who conspire or attempt to break the law should also face consequences.
    This brings me to the fifth and last measure, which would permit the commissioner to use her powers in instances where conspiracies or attempts to contravene the Elections Act have taken place. This means that those who try to break the law or encourage others to do so can be held accountable. Similar laws on conspiracies and attempts can be found in the Criminal Code and have already proven effective.
    This bill is very important to most of my constituents, who need more time to vote in the pre-elections and different means, so that maximum participation can be had.

(1150)

[Translation]

    Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights.
     Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?

[English]

    Madam Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member suggested, Diwali is a religious and sacred event in the lives of many Hindus and Sikhs across the globe. We are talking about more participation on the Diwali day when people will be celebrating. There will also be a lot more traffic on the streets of major municipalities, which would distract voters from going to the polls. In fact, it is a very good suggestion. On one side, we could celebrate the religious, sacred day of Diwali. On the other side, the voters could go and vote freely with a lot more numbers during the next week, after Diwali.
    Madam Speaker, I also want to congratulate the member's nephew for his graduation.
     The member was just talking about transportation. In my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, we have an aging population, and I know a lot of seniors have a difficult time with transportation to the polls and have been asking me for an extension to make it easier, to have more days to vote. Therefore, I wonder if the member would not mind sharing with the House what he is hearing in his riding from seniors on their ability to get transportation to the polls.
     Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's gesture toward my nephew.
    I am hearing the same thing in my constituency because elderly people and people with disabilities need more time and an accessible system to vote. That is why we are encouraging having an extra two days for the advance polls so that those members of the community who are willing to vote would be able to make sure that their vote is polled and counted. I appreciate the member's concern about our seniors and people with disabilities.
    Madam Speaker, we all know that the House of Commons hosts the king of cryptocurrency here, better known as the leader of the Conservative-Reform party. Within this legislation we see more transparency and accountability. For example, cryptocurrency is something that people would not be able to give through a donation, whether it is to a candidate or to a political party, not only during elections but also between elections.
    I wonder if my friend could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we pass the legislation because there are many aspects of the legislation that would enhance and make our election laws stronger, healthier and better. Would the member not agree?
    Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, my dear friend, is always inspiring when it comes to making suggestions about the electoral process and helping communities that need more help to participate in the electoral system.
    Cryptocurrency should not be accepted as part of donations. That is why we have to make sure that we are able to strengthen the Canada Elections Act. Let us pass the bill through here and let it go to committee where all members, including Conservatives, Bloc, New Democrats and Liberals, would be able to make suggestions to strengthen the bill to make sure that we have a fair and integral election.

(1155)

     Madam Speaker, Canadians have a right to be thoroughly cynical about this legislation. For all the public hype about how the Liberal government wants to encourage Canadians to participate in the electoral process, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's claims that he is taking action to prevent interference in our elections from hostile foreign governments, Bill C-65 should give little comfort to Canadians who feel that our mock democracy is eroding before our very eyes.
    Living in Canada is like winning the lottery. We have a history of standing for justice. We are a country dedicated to the rule of law. We are prosperous. We are safe. We have been blessed with an embarrassing abundance of natural resources. Our citizens are among the best educated in the world. We boast a strong democratic system and a commitment to peaceful transitions of power.
    Since 2006, I have had the honour of serving the constituents of Abbotsford, British Columbia, who have elected and re-elected me six times through a robust, fair and transparent electoral process. This very process is what Bill C-65 claims to improve upon.
    Trust in our democratic institutions, in our elections, is critical to a peaceful and vibrant society. Canadians must have confidence that the members of the House, who are right here in this chamber, have been elected and have arrived here fairly, without interference from foreign powers. As such, there are some provisions in the bill that we Conservatives would agree with, but we are also deeply concerned that the provisions of the bill are an attempt to conceal from Canadians a much more cynical ploy, namely the promotion of the private financial interests of the Prime Minister's NDP-Liberal caucus, a group of MPs who expect not to be re-elected again. I will get to that in a moment.
    To be sure, there are provisions in the legislation that we support. To begin with, there are provisions that would make changes to third party donations. Those changes are welcome, particularly as they are aimed at preventing foreign entities from contributing to election-related activities in Canada.
     With the recent revelations regarding interference in our democracy by hostile foreign actors, and the shocking disclosure that our Prime Minister failed to act in a timely manner to warn Canadian MPs and party candidates of threats to their own elections, we parliamentarians must act to ensure that our institutions remain secure and accountable to the only people who really matter, Canadians themselves, and not to hostile foreign powers. Ensuring that foreigners cannot easily donate to candidates for a federal election is a sensible, albeit very modest, improvement for a stronger democracy.
    If that were the sole purpose of Bill C-65, we would be content. However, this modest improvement in our election laws is marred by other elements that are problematic. I speak, of course, of the Prime Minister's cynical efforts to extend the so-called fixed election date by one week.
    A fixed election is exactly that, or it is supposed to be that, which is the setting of a fixed date for an election to take place in a predictable manner, instead of the Prime Minister gaming the system for his own partisan purposes. Sadly, the fixed election that the law prescribes is no more. Instead, the Prime Minister is cynically pushing it back. He is pushing back the fixed date to benefit his NDP-Liberal MPs who are facing imminent defeat in the next federal election.

(1200)

     According to the legislation, Canadians would have to pay more to pay for the pensions of MPs. Accordingly, this piece of legislation is now becoming known as the “loser NDP-Liberal pension protection act”. That is what it is.
     I will explain for Canadians who have just tuned in. They deserve to know that, for MPs to qualify for a parliamentary pension, they must have served a total of six years in the House of Commons. It just so happens there were 80 MPs elected in 2019 who will not qualify for a pension if they lose the next election. They would fall one day short. The Prime Minister, of course, sensing that he and many of his NDP-Liberal coalition MPs will not survive politically, has cynically included in this legislation before us a provision that would extend the fixed election date by one week to secure the pension entitlements of NDP-Liberal MPs.
    The Prime Minister claims this extension to the fixed election date has nothing at all to do with vesting in pensions for his MPs and everything to do with the Indian festival Diwali. That is a fair point, except that he had the option of moving the date one or two weeks earlier to avoid a conflict with Diwali, or of calling an election right now, as Conservatives have asked him to do. This would spare Diwali and avoid some of the corrosive cynicism that Canadians are experiencing today, but no, the Prime Minister has again exploited our long-suffering taxpayers by favouring the financial interests of elected officials who work here and, quite frankly, are well compensated for the work they do in the House.
    We should remember that it is the Liberal government that has amassed more debt than all other Canadian governments in Canadian history combined. This is the Prime Minister who so glibly proclaimed that budgets balance themselves. This is the Prime Minister who asked Canadians to forgive him for not thinking about monetary policy. What are a few more taxpayer dollars going to pension off well-to-do and well-paid politicians? On that basis alone, Conservatives will vote against this legislation. We will always promote the interests of Canadian taxpayers. By the way, it is true that 32 of my Conservative colleagues are within that group of 80 MPs, but those Conservative MPs have made it very clear that they are prepared to go into an election right now and put our Conservative vision and plan for this country to the Canadian people against the disastrous Liberal record.
    There are also other elements of the bill that are problematic. Under the legislation, taxpayers would have to foot the bill for having more advanced polling days, which is more cost to taxpayers. Conservatives are also concerned about new provisions that would place the political party above the candidate on a ballot. Let me again explain that. Elections determine who we wish to have represent us in Canada's Parliament, here in the House of Commons, and which individual would be our community's voice in Ottawa.
    When Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, and the other fathers of Confederation came together to create the Dominion of Canada, they agreed that Canadians should elect a hard-working person from each of their communities to represent them in our capital city, someone dedicated to serving the interests of their communities and country without compromise. This would be an individual, not a political party, who truly cares for their district and the people within it. Sadly, this bill before us flips that time-honoured principle on its head by suddenly prioritizing the party on the ballot rather than the candidate himself or herself.

(1205)

    Rather than marking down the candidate of their choice on the ballot, Bill C-65 would now allow a voter to simply mark down the name of a political party, and that ballot would then be valid. This provision goes against everything our parliamentary democracy has been based on for over 150 years, the premise that elected members of the House serve Canadians and that we members, not our political parties or special interest groups, are employed by and accountable to Canadian voters.
    It is beyond worrying that the NDP-Liberal coalition believes bringing American-style ballot box party politics into Canada, with its attendant ballot harvesting abuses, will be embraced by Canadians. It will not, and it is not. More likely, it is our NDP-Liberal coalition friends who seek to gain an advantage over their political adversaries in the House.
    I began my remarks by describing this bill as cynical, with a capital “C”. It is our Prime Minister who, over a period of nine long years, has failed to seriously address the integrity of our elections and the interference from hostile foreign actors. For many years, the Canadian government has known of foreign interference in our elections. In fact, the director of CSIS, which is our security and intelligence apparatus, warned our Prime Minister that there was a legitimate and significant threat, particularly from China, with respect to our democratic institutions and the elections that undergird those institutions.
    Time and time again, the Prime Minister refused to act. It does not stop there. In July 2021, a CSIS report said that China viewed Canada as a high-priority target and invests substantially into influencing our elections and civil society. Indeed, my hon. colleague and friend, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, has said that he and his extended family were even targets of the Communist regime in Beijing and that the Liberal government failed to let them know, to inform them of that fact.
    More egregiously, the recent top secret NSICOP report on foreign interference names MPs who have wittingly or unwittingly engaged in election interference. That report, sadly, has been censored by our own Prime Minister, who refuses to let Canadians know who among us is suspected of acting on behalf of a foreign government. It is completely unacceptable that a parliamentarian who has wittingly aided a hostile foreign power should have their name protected and be able to run for re-election. That is incomprehensible, and Canadians deserve better.
    Ask Canadians whether they believe someone suspected of disloyalty to our country and who is in thrall to a foreign power should remain anonymous. The overwhelming response would be absolutely no, so it is fair to ask what the Prime Minister is hiding.
     Accordingly, it should surprise nobody that Canadians are losing confidence in their electoral process and have grown cynical about anything the Liberal government does or says, and yet our Prime Minister continues to claim that only he and he alone can fix his own mess and the many other things that are broken in Canada. At its very essence, this boils down to an issue of trust. Do Canadians trust the Prime Minister? Do they trust the government? Overwhelmingly, the answer to that is no.

(1210)

    Our Liberal Prime Minister and his NDP-Liberal coalition have failed Canadians so badly that we cannot even trust our electoral process. This broken country needs a fix that only a change in government can deliver. The winds of change, fortunately, are sweeping across Canada, fanned by our Prime Minister's broken promises and his reckless disregard for the institutions of our democracy.
    This bill in no way fixes that. Trust has been broken, and this bill before us will do nothing to materially fix that. For all of those reasons, and many more, I will not be supporting this bill, and I do not believe any of the Conservatives in the House will be supporting this bill.
    I ask again: do Canadians have a right to feel cynical? That is what I asked at the beginning of my speech. Do they have a right to feel cynical about their government? The answer is yes. They have a right to feel cynical about their government, about their Prime Minister, and yes, about this disingenuous bill.
    The good news is that help and hope are on their way. Let us remember what things were like in Canada back in 2015, before the NDP-Liberal coalition broke everything. It messed it all up. Remember, we had low inflation. We had low interest rates. We had affordable homes and affordable food. We had safe streets. We had respect on the international stage. We had balanced budgets. We all had hope for a brighter and better future.
    I am confident that a new government, a Conservative government, will restore the Canadian dream and the hope of a brighter future. We will axe the taxes, build the homes, stop the crime and fix the budget. Canadians are counting on us.
     Mr. Speaker, I am certainly going to miss that over-the-top rhetoric when this member is gone, as he has announced that he will not be running again.
    I will say that he seemed to bring up a lot of issues that do not jive with what was being said previously. The member for Calgary Confederation yesterday said:
    The issue that my Conservative colleagues and I have is...the date change that would create pensions for losing Liberal and NDP members. If that date changed, I would be in full support of this bill.
    The only issue to Conservatives, according to the member for Calgary Confederation, is the date. The minister made it very clear yesterday, when he was speaking, that he was trying to change the date because there are also municipal elections going on in Alberta on the same day. People will effectively have to go and vote at two polling locations on the same day. The minister also said that if the committee decides it wants to put the date back to where it was, he is willing to accept that.
    Given that this is the only thing that seems to be problematic with Conservatives, as stated by the member for Calgary Confederation, why does the member not just let it go to committee and change the date?
    Better yet, during his 20 minutes of speaking, why did he not just introduce an amendment to change the date? He could do either of those, and he has not. Why?
    Mr. Speaker, there is a lot in that question but I was pleased to hear him mention Alberta. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government and former Liberal governments have never cared for Alberta. Remember the national energy plan? The reason I focused—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

(1215)

     Order.
     The hon. member for Abbotsford has the floor.
     Mr. Speaker, I noticed that I touched a nerve. These folks over here do not care for Alberta. They do not care for western Canada. My speech focused in on the totality of this legislation. The reason my colleagues focused on the cynical ploy that is the election date is because Canadians, by and large, are not aware of this. They are not aware that the Prime Minister is monkeying around with the election date simply to protect the pensions of his own well-paid MPs. Shame on them.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I am anxious for Quebec to become a country so that we do not have to listen to the bickering of these three federalist parties. It will happen one day, I guarantee it.
     I listened to my colleague's speech. Something we have agreed on since the beginning is that it is offensive to have wanted to change the date of the election, especially for a completely unreal reason, namely that that day is a holy day. There are many holy days because there are many religions and many days in a year. At some point, that cannot be used as an excuse to change the date. We all know that it is mainly to allow some members to get their pension.
     My question is simple. Does my colleague find it as offensive as I do that they drew religion into an election date?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, what I find really shocking is the Liberals are prepared to Mickey Mouse around and gerrymander our election laws to favour themselves. They are going so far as to actually try to protect and vest the pensions of MPs who would not qualify otherwise.
    There is a very easy way to fix this and that is for the Prime Minister to go to the polls. Call an election right now. Let us see if the Liberals can back up their words. Everyone knows that they will never call an election now because they know they are going to lose because of their disastrous record.
    As I said in my speech, I am prepared to put up the Conservatives' plan for the economy and for our country and show how we can unite Canada against the Liberals' disastrous plan any day.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Abbotsford for a very long career in representing the constituents of Abbotsford.
    I want to share with the member for Abbotsford that I have some great news. We have been talking about this from the onset of Bill C-65. I will be putting forward an amendment to change the election date back to the original date, so that this is no longer an issue.
    We have made this very clear. The Liberal minister has made it clear that he would follow the will of the committee. The Conservatives are against it. The Bloc is against it. The NDP is against it. This is no longer a part of this legislation that we need to be worrying about.
    Will the member share this with his constituents in Abbotsford, so they can also share the good news?
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP members, who are part of the disastrous coalition, are saying “trust us”. They will fix it at committee, but let it go ahead in this House. They are saying to let these pensions vest for MPs who are not going to get elected and should not have these pensions vested.
    The member is asking me whether, if this gets fixed at committee, I would support it. If this change did not come along, Conservatives would be very happy. Leave the fixed election date as it is. However, I am not prepared to, any longer, accept “trust us” as being the mantra coming from the Liberal-NDP coalition.
    Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that I believe today is the 50th anniversary of the member for Abbotsford's 19th birthday. I do wish him well on this special occasion.
    The member talked about foreign interference in Canadian elections. How concerned is the member about the government's response and the other coalition partner's response to foreign interference into Canadian elections? Does he share my concern that the government really has not lived up to its responsibilities in keeping Canadian elections safe from foreign interference?

(1220)

    Mr. Speaker, it is not only the member and I who have concerns about foreign interference. We, as Conservatives, have a real concern about foreign interference
     Canadians across this country are shocked to learn that the Prime Minister has already known for many years that foreign hostile actors were interfering in our elections. He knew about it, did not advise MPs who were affected by it, and did not put into place anything that would push back on efforts by foreign hostile regimes that were trying to manipulate our election outcomes.
    As we know, there are a number of MPs in Canada who likely lost their re-election because of interference from the Communist regime in Beijing. Did it affect the ultimate outcome of the election? No, but it certainly affected the lives and futures of those individual MPs.
    Mr. Speaker, imagine actually hearing such hypocrisy. The member is saying that the Conservative Party cares. That is a bunch of bull.
     At the end of the day, let us think about this. The leader of the Conservative-Reform party—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    I only interrupt when I hear disorder in the House. There was a statement there that the hon. member used. Members cannot do indirectly what they cannot do directly. The hon. parliamentary secretary should know better.
     Sometimes I get a little colourful, I guess, Mr. Speaker. I will delete the word “bull”.
    At the end of the day, the point is that the Conservative leader will not even get a briefing so he could find out which members of the Conservative Party might be interfered with on the international scene. He does not even want the briefing. He would rather be naive, unlike the NDP leader or the Green Party leader.
    Where does the member get off saying that the Conservatives are genuinely concerned about foreign interference, in any fashion whatsoever, when in fact their own leader will not get the security clearance to find out what is actually taking place?
     Mr. Speaker, as they have done many times before, our Liberal friends across the aisle are trying to muzzle our leader. That is not going to happen.
     Our leader will speak out on the issues of the day, especially foreign interference. Foreign interference is corrosive to our democracy. These folks over there are laughing at us. Look at them, Mr. Speaker. They are mocking us for taking foreign interference seriously.
     When Conservatives form government, we will take foreign interference seriously, and we will take steps to fight back and ensure that we remain free and sovereign.
     Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to stand today to speak to Bill C-65.
    First and foremost, because I do not want to forget, I want to thank and give a really big shout-out to my former colleague, past MP Daniel Blaikie, who did a tremendous amount of work on this file and deserves an acknowledgement for all the work he has done to date. I am going to try to carry the baton for the work he has handed to me. They are big shoes to fill, literally, but I will continue doing this important work.
    The bill we are talking about today is an important one. We know it is vitally important for Canadians to have access to voting in a way that is barrier-free to increase the participation of Canadians across the country, so they feel their vote counts. This is a time right now when it is vital for Canadians to know that our democracy is strong and that the process for everybody to vote is accessible.
    We are in a climate crisis. We are feeling the impacts of that right now with the heat wave here in Ottawa. We are seeing smoke-filled skies in British Columbia from forest fires. There is flooding. There are endless examples of the ways in which we are being impacted by the climate crisis. We know that people across Canada are struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head. Right now, Canadians deserve to know that our elections are fair and accessible, as well as that our democracy is strong. Therefore, it is vitally important that we are doing the work today to set Canadians up for success for elections to come.
    The bill would do a lot. One of the things, and I will get into some of them, is around the two additional days of advance voting. This is really important because we know Canadians are busy and we need to make sure they have access to be able to show up at the polls and cast their vote for the candidate they feel is the best fit. Expanding these days out allows Canadians more options for being able to do so. With the passing of the legislation, there would be a phased implementation for people to vote anywhere.
    I am sure that members have heard from their constituents, as I have in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, that there are barriers when people go to vote in federal elections. They show up at the poll, excited to cast their ballot, but are told that the polling station they need to go to is on the other side of town. Let us imagine a single mom who has worked all day, packing up her kids to get to the polling station and show her kids she is participating in our electoral system, but then being told that she has to go to the other end of town. This is a huge barrier. I hear this not only from constituents in my riding but also from Canadians across the country. They need to know that they can go to a polling station within their riding, similar to other levels of elections, and their vote will be counted.
    There are also improvements to the mail-in ballot process. We know that, in previous elections, there were barriers, particularly when people registered for mail-in ballots. If they received a ballot and forgot to mail it back, then showed up at the polling station, they would not be able to cast their vote. These are busy times and, of course, this happens. This is a huge problem and an issue that is being looked at in the legislation to ensure that people who register for a mail-in ballot can still vote at the polling station and have their vote count.
    There are a lot of good pieces. Another piece is around students voting. In 2015 and 2019, we had the vote on campus program, where we saw big turnouts of students showing up at the polls to cast their ballots. Unfortunately, that is no longer in place. The legislation would make the vote on campus program permanent in all general elections. It is vitally important for students to know that, while they are on campus, they can easily and accessibly cast their ballots.

(1225)

    This would offer an additional option for community members in the surrounding area to have another poll where they could go and cast their ballots. This is really important at a time when we need young people to participate in our elections. It is ultimately their futures that we are making decisions about today, and this is an important part of the bill.
     Another piece in the bill is around long-term care polling stations. We know that many people across the country are aging in long-term care homes. They would not need to leave their residence and could instead cast their ballot right at home, at their care home. This is a huge step in making sure that the people who have contributed to our communities across the country for years and years can continue to have their votes counted.
     I would like to point out something that is not in the legislation but that I would love for us to dig into further at committee stage. This is ensuring that we see an increase of polling stations, as well as having mandatory polling stations, on reserves and in Métis settlements. Because of the impacts of colonization throughout history, there are many reasons we are not seeing the participation of indigenous people across the country at the level that it should be. This would be a step in the right direction. It would make sure that indigenous people are able to vote accessibly right at home among community members.
    I found it interesting to learn, just today actually, of article 5 of UNDRIP, which I want to reiterate as a very important piece to this discussion that I hope to have at committee. Article 5 of UNDRIP says, “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.” I read that out because it is in UNDRIP, which is vitally important work that we all need to be paying attention to and prioritizing, as well as because of the fact that this could help to ensure that indigenous people understand their rights when they show up at the polls to vote for the candidate they see as the best fit at the federal level. This is work that needs to happen, and it needs to be prioritized.
    Another piece of the legislation, which is something I spoke to earlier in a question, would be ensuring that people who may be living with disabilities, as one example, are able to cast their ballots. Currently, there are restrictions on who can assist in casting ballots. However, the legislation is working to address that and broaden the scope of who can support electors, specifically allowing the elector to choose who can assist them. For example, somebody could have a support worker cast the ballot on their behalf, which is very important work in the right direction toward making sure that everybody's votes can count.
    In addition to that, once the bill gets to committee, we need to look at ways in which people with disabilities can maintain their autonomy and be able to cast their ballot independently, without the support of other individuals. Yes, again, I am an eternal optimist and hope that we can come together to see the bill at committee. It is great to set up those systems of support. Where we can, let us set up a system where all Canadians can show up at the polls and know that they can confidently and successfully cast their own ballot. I think about the tremendous amount of people who are reaching out with visual impairments as just one example. People with visual impairments could cast their own ballot if the systems were set up for them to do that on their own, so it is important that we look at this.

(1230)

    Another piece I want to cover is around the inclusion of Inuktut on federal ballots, which is vitally important. I had the honour of visiting my colleague, the member for Nunavut. In Nunavut we visited Pangnirtung and Iqaluit, and it is quite evident that there are a tremendous number of individuals living in Nunavut who speak Inuktut as their primary and first language, so making sure that the ballots have the language spoken by the residents in the area is vitally important to decrease barriers to participation and to ensure that people understand confidently whom it is they want to vote for.
    My colleague, the MP for Nunavut, has been doing an incredible amount of work on this. The member has put forward, for example, Bill C-297, which I wanted to highlight. The goal of this bill is that in an electoral district on indigenous land, the Chief Electoral Officer may require all the ballots for the electoral district to be prepared and printed in both official languages, as well as in the indigenous language or languages of the electors, using the appropriate writing systems for each language, including syllabics, if applicable. It is really important that we listen to indigenous people across the country and make sure that ballots are accessible for them to be able to vote as well. This is an example of important legislation that the government can be leaning on to move us in the right direction. I hope this is legislation that we will be reviewing very closely at committee stage.
    The MP for Nunavut did actually participate in the process of a report from the Standing Committee on Procedural and House of Affairs that is entitled “The Inclusion of Indigenous Languages on Federal Election Ballots: A Step Towards Reconciliation”. There were a couple of pieces in it that I wanted to highlight. The MP for Nunavut pointed out that “most elders in Nunavut cannot read English or French.” This expands on what I was just talking about. She spoke to the fact that in order “to make reconciliation meaningful, Indigenous languages needed to be protected and promoted.”
    She went on to point out that “unilingual Inuktitut speakers find the complaints process inaccessible”, so that makes it challenging for them to be able to voice the barriers that they are experiencing in being able to cast their ballots as a result of previous oppressive systems that they have experienced. Also, the MP for Nunavut told the committee that she heard of people who have been “turned away from voting in Nunavut because of language barriers.” This is clearly not good enough, and it is something we need to be looking at closely in committee to make sure that we are moving in the right direction.
    The proposed bill does have some pieces we need to be sure to look at in committee stage. One piece is around the third-party activities. I would like to reiterate that it is vitally important that unions are able to communicate with their members. We know that “at the core of a union's mandate and function is the ability to communicate freely and effectively with...members.” Workers across the country who are unionized are impacted dramatically by the decisions being made right here in the House. We know that these decisions are life-altering. It is important that people across the country are aware of these, and it is vitally important that union representatives are able to communicate these matters with their membership. With that, there is some work that needs to happen and that needs to be prioritized at committee stage to ensure that the bill is not taking away those rights of unions across the country.

(1235)

    I would be remiss if I did not speak about the issue that seems to be coming up over and over again in the House. There was a date proposed to push forward the date of the election by one week in the legislation. Unfortunately, this is highly problematic. I cannot speak to any other members' intentions. Whether intended or unintended, the consequence of this proposal would be that members of Parliament would receive a pension that they would not have otherwise been eligible for. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are so many people across the country struggling to make ends meet, and now is not the time for members of Parliament to think about their own financial gains or their own pensions. Now is the time for members of Parliament to create legislation that would truly help Canadians across the country.
     Therefore, I want to reiterate that first priority. Once we get this bill to committee, I would be moving an amendment to ensure that this date would be moved back to the original date so this would no longer be a concern of members of Parliament and of Canadians across the country. It is vitally important that we do what this legislation intends to do, which is to strengthen our democracy and to make sure that we reduce barriers so that people would be able to fully participate in our electoral system. There is important content within this legislation that we need to be moving forward with.
     Much to my surprise, but yet also not much to my surprise, in response to this portion of the legislation, the Conservatives came out with an amendment to cut and gut the entire legislation, which would see this legislation no longer move forward at all. With that, it would take all of the items that I have been talking about during my intervention today. It would take away the proposed increase in accessibility for people living with disabilities. It would take away having polls in long-term care homes or having polls on student campuses, and looking at increasing the advance polling days so that we are not so reliant on just one day. There are many important aspects in this bill.
     To see the Conservatives respond by saying that we just need to cut the whole thing is not surprising because, currently, we have a system that benefits the Conservatives. We know that the existing system, where we have barriers to participation that benefit the Conservatives' corporate friends, is exactly what the Conservatives want to see maintained. Therefore, instead of putting forward an amendment to cut and gut the legislation, my NDP colleagues and I are proposing a solution to the problem, which is to amend the existing legislation to move the election date back to the original date and to see that particular issue no longer in place in the bill so that we can move forward with strengthening our democracy and with making sure that Canadians can fully participate in the electoral processes.
     There is a lot of work that needs to be done to strengthen our democracy. This is an important step in the right direction, which I am fully in support of. The NDP has done a tremendous amount of work to make this legislation happen and to see all of this work put into place. There is more that needs to be done. I hope that my colleagues in this chamber will continue the important work of looking at electoral reform and looking at implementing a system of proportional representation.
    The Liberal Party campaigned on the 2015 election being the last first-past-the-post election. Now would be a really wonderful time to see the Liberals follow through with that promise so that Canadians could see their votes adequately and effectively represented right here in the House of Commons. With that, I will say that this is an important bill. There is some work that needs to be done, but it is vitally important that all members unite to see Canadians show up at polling stations, feeling confident in our democracy and in their votes.

(1240)

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, they are talking about dropping the idea of postponing the official election date, which is the third Monday in October, for a totally absurd reason. That is truly bizarre. I can find no other word for it. I wonder how that ended up in the bill. Why is that in the bill?
     In this discussion, the NDP has said that it will introduce an amendment, and that we should believe them. Of course everyone appears to want to introduce an amendment to this aspect if the bill is referred back to committee. Why do we not adopt the bill now, and settle once and for all the matter of postponing the date of the election so that it can be referred back to committee? I wonder what formal guarantee we have that it will disappear and we will not have to live with it.

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of responses around that. First of all, I am so pleased to hear that the member is in support of this legislation so that we can get it to committee to ensure that we are moving in the right direction. I am seeing a “no”, but I would like to clarify. That is what I heard, so I apologize if that is not what the member was saying. To clarify, first, this legislation needs to make sure we look at increasing accessibility for Canadians to be able to cast their ballots. We do need to look at other things that happen in those timelines.
    I believe that the strength in this legislation is that we would be looking at not having all of our options on one day. Rather, we would be looking at Canadians having multiple ways in which they could participate, such as expanding the advance voting days and having the polling stations accessible and available. We need to not have just one day as the main date. That would help resolve many issues we are talking about today.

(1245)

    Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the whole issue around changing the election date, I appreciate it, and I support the member's initiative to change the date. Maybe at committee they would find that a week earlier is better because it would help to accomplish a bunch of things, and I think that would be great.
     I took note about the issue of proportional representation the member talked about. If we go back to the supply and confidence agreement between the Liberals and the NDP, some issues listed under “democracy” are these: a “commitment to...work with Elections Canada to...expand [voter participation]”, a change of the election rules to “[allow] people to vote at any polling place”, “[improvements to]...mail-in ballots” so that “voters...are not disenfranchised” and a commitment “to ensuring that Quebec's number of seats in the House of Commons remains [consistent].” There was no talk, in the supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, about proportional representation. If it is an issue that is so important to the NDP, why did they not bring it up and put it into that agreement?
    Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I know, as a fact, that this issue was brought up by the NDP with the Liberals to try to get it into the supply and confidence agreement. We could not get the Liberals to agree. This is an unfortunate series of events.
    However, I would like to reiterate that there was an opportunity, aside from this legislation we are talking about today, for the Liberals to show their support for proportional representation and for electoral reform when I brought forward Motion No. 86, recently. That motion came to a vote, in this exact chamber, for members of Parliament to vote for a national citizens assembly on electoral reform so that Canadians could provide their voices on how to best move forward.
    An hon. member: I voted in favour.
    Ms. Lisa Marie Barron: Mr. Speaker, I heard that the member voted in favour, but many of the Liberals and the Conservatives, which I would like to call the “Conservative-Liberal coalition”, voted against the motion moving forward, so we did not see Motion No. 86 pass.
     Perhaps the Liberals, who are in the position of power, could put forward legislation to see electoral reform happen.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for her work and congratulate her on her speech.
     What we are seeing today with this bill is the NDP once again forcing the Liberals to make our voting system more accessible. As my colleague mentioned, that is the least of it for the New Democrats, who have far more ambitious goals. She spoke of her Motion No. 86, which, unfortunately, was rejected by both Liberal and Conservative members.
     My colleague also spoke about the Liberal Party's betrayal regarding electoral reform. The Liberals told us that the first-past-the-post system would never be used again. The New Democrats continue to promote a proportional representation system because it is fair, it fosters better democracy and it respects the will of the people and what Canadians want.
     Why is having proportional representation so important for the people my colleague represents and for our democracy?

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of his work. One thing that gave me optimism when putting forward Motion No. 86, despite it failing, was that members across party lines voted in favour of looking at how to improve our electoral system and strengthen our democracy. This gives me the optimism to believe that just because Motion No. 86 did not pass, it does not mean there are no opportunities for members of Parliament to make it happen. The Liberal government is in power right now, and it can make it happen today. It can follow through with its promise that the 2015 election would be the last first past the post election, but it is too late for that.
    How about this? The upcoming election will no longer be a first past the post election and we can move forward with a system of proportional representation. That can happen today. The Liberals can follow through with their promise, although with a very long delay. My hope is that will happen.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the fact that a lot of aspects in the legislation would provide strength to the Elections Act. It would make it stronger, healthier and better for Canadians and our democratic system as a whole. I cited things such as enhancing accountability for individuals donating to the campaign, issues like cryptocurrency and other ways to shed more light on it.
     I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on some of the things that we do not necessarily talk much about during this debate. A lot of detail within the legislation would add a great deal of value and strength to our elections.

(1250)

     Mr. Speaker, if anything has come to light in the last few months, it is the importance of all legislation looking at the potential of foreign interference, the prevention of and identification of foreign interference. This needs to be implemented in all legislation. Yes, there are some components within this bill that look at addressing that, as the member mentioned, such payments or donations that are not allowed to be made through money orders or cryptocurrencies, as well as looking at who can donate and ensuring they are permanent residents and Canadian residents. These components are part of a bigger puzzle of work that we need to be doing together to ensure that foreign interference is identified, prevented, avoided altogether and that there be accountability when it does happen.
    I was happy that all members of Parliament voted together on the recent foreign interference bill, Bill C-70. My hope is that we will see that work, and this work, strengthened, so this is no longer as problematic as has come to light in the last few months.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, let us acknowledge the fact that any legislation amending the Canada Elections Act is significant. This act is the cornerstone upon which the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, elected officials and, by extension, the government, lies.
     My first comment is that this important bill was introduced 48 hours before the summer break, along with a gag order. That is great for debate. They want to facilitate voter turnout. That is the obsession behind this bill, and yet the Canada Elections Act is one of the most lax when it comes to the ability to vote. I will get back to that later.
     This is an important bill, fundamental to the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, yet it was introduced with a gag order. They do not want much discussion. Moreover, people will go on vacation and they are supposed to know what is in the bill. The Liberals think that, during vacation, the bill will get media coverage; they will talk about it and list all of its benefits. Working this way is an affront to the intelligence of members of Parliament and voters.
     That is not all. The bill also proposes postponing an election set for a specific date. The October 20, 2025, election would be postponed to October 27, 2025, supposedly to accommodate the Hindu festival of lights, which is not a provincial or federal holiday.
     It may have been a noble intention, but this noble intention is hiding the elephant in the room, which is allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to get their pension. Let me point out that it is the Liberals who introduced the bill. They were one day short of eligibility for a pension. That is their true motivation.
     In my opinion, the rule of law should not be subject to religion. Anyone who has a modicum of respect for religion does not use a belief system to justify a pension. That is what this outgoing government is doing while claiming that it is a very important bill.
    Now we are being told that this part could always be removed from the bill. However, even if I had wanted to make an amendment, the Conservative Party's amendment does not allow me to introduce a sub-amendment.
     That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We cannot endorse such a travesty. We cannot endorse an affront to voters' intelligence. If there were only one day to vote, in addition to the two days of early voting, we might consider it. Now, if we add the two days proposed under Bill C‑65, there are six days of early voting. That is unheard of anywhere else in the country.

(1255)

    Why have six days of advance polling? It is because voters have developed a habit of going to the polls before election day. Add in election day and voters have seven days, yet that is still not enough. Not only are there six days of advance polling, but voters can go and vote every day at the returning officer's office.
    Now we are being told that there is a festival of lights, which will affect people's ability to go and vote on the big day. We pointed out that they can also vote by mail, but the government said no, we really must accommodate them. It truly feels the need to sacrifice the rule of law to religion, because it is a religious holiday. What a load of rubbish. That is why I am saying that this is an insult to voters' intelligence.
    When there are six days for advance polling, in addition to election day, when people can vote every day at the returning officer's office, when people can vote by mail, when there is a mobile polling station for people with reduced mobility and when people can vote in a long-term care home, I do not want to hear about how access to voting is being restricted. What more do they want? The next Elections Act will add two more advance polling days. Election day is no longer the only day when people go out to vote.
     We are being told that the election really needs to be put off by one week. This one-week postponement proves how little regard this government has for municipal democracy. In Quebec, there will be elections happening six days later in over 1,100 municipalities. In 2021, turnout fell by 6% because there was a federal election at the same time, although the federal election finished much earlier than the municipal election, which is also on a fixed date. It is not like anyone can claim to be unaware that there will be elections in Quebec in more than 1,100 municipalities. It is 1,108 or 1,109, if memory serves. It is not like no one knows about it. It is on a fixed date, so it always happens at the same time. This government has so little regard. There are municipalities where the turnout in 2021 was as low as 18%, despite a desire and indeed a need to treat municipal governance not as an administrative extension of the Quebec government, but as a full-fledged government in its own right, a local government.
     From a logistics standpoint, how will the Chief Electoral Officer go about finding polling places? I would love to hear someone explain that. That will really be something. In 2021, it was already difficult enough. It was a total mess. Now the Chief Electoral Officer will have to compete with municipal returning officers. Will the Chief Electoral Officer be able to use municipal facilities as polling places? The answer is no, not a chance. In Quebec, it is already hard to secure schools to use for advance polls. That is the reality. Those geniuses across the way say it is because they want to accommodate the festival of lights, but it was certainly not a brilliant decision on their part. That is the least we can say.
     There are some good things in this bill, to be sure. The problem is this obsession with voting accessibility.

(1300)

     This government is so obsessed with voting accessibility that it is forgetting the need to strike the right balance between preserving the integrity of the process and preserving voting accessibility.
     This bill could have been worded in such a way as to simply provide for polling stations in post-secondary institutions, two extra days of advance voting, an easier process for setting up polling stations in care homes, and better tools to combat foreign interference and to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Had the bill been worded that way, the Bloc Québécois would have considered it worthwhile, but what about municipal elections? Are municipal elections not important?
     Did my colleagues know that voter turnout was 44.7% in 2017? In 2021, it was 38.6%. Remember what happened in Quebec in 2008. We need to learn from the past, because these things really happened. In 2008, there was a federal election, and the Jean Charest government called an election in Quebec for six days after the federal election day. Voter turnout in Quebec had always been around 80%, 81%, 78% or 79%, but this time it dropped to 57%. Obviously, people thought he would be punished because he had just been elected. No one had decided to oust the minority government. He wanted to get both hands on the wheel. He focused on the economy, but Quebeckers' savings in the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were in free fall, and there was no more money under the mattress. The Caisse lost $40 billion. Because he did not want to face this economic disaster during an election, he called an election.
     We have fixed-date elections. Unless we bring down the government next spring if it presents a budget no one wants, the election date is set. Bill C-65 states that the Chief Electoral Officer can make accommodations if the fixed election date is in conflict with municipal elections. That is in the bill. However, they decided to choose the festival of lights, a religious holiday, over municipal democracy. Earlier, I heard someone say that Alberta would be holding municipal elections around the same time, and so will Quebec.
     In my opinion, someone who has their priorities straight, based on principle, does not subordinate the rule of law to religion, especially when the religious holiday in question is not even recognized as a statutory holiday. If we had to consider all of the different communities' holidays, we might have a hard time. This is creating a precedent. If we decide to accommodate everyone, we will have a bit of a problem. I do not think these communities are even asking us to do that. These people are not even asking for it, and for good reason. They will have plenty of ways to avoid losing their right to vote. For example, they could vote by mail. In fact, the bill would improve the conditions surrounding this special voting method.

(1305)

     It makes no sense. We understand what we need to understand: The government is weaponizing a religious belief, a religious holiday, for purely pecuniary and political purposes. Then it wonders why people are cynical about their representatives and why people do not bother to vote. Does anyone here think there will be enough lampposts during the next election to support the posters for all these municipal and federal political parties? The parties in the House of Commons are not the only ones that will be represented in the federal election. It will be chaos.
     The Liberals could at least have made some space and factored that into the bill. This would have given the Chief Electoral Officer the freedom he needs in the lead-up to the election to make sure the process goes smoothly, with no complications, because there are going to be insurmountable logistical problems on the ground.
    They should just go talk logistics with the returning officers. As candidates, we had to meet with the returning officers during the last election. They were tearing their hair out. I am anxious to see whether my returning officer has any left. I think it is the same person as in 2021.
     For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will definitely not be supporting this bill without any other guarantees, even in principle, because this was not an acceptable principle to present to the House.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, there is a double standard at play here that should be pointed out. The Bloc party articulated quite well, much like the member just did, why postponing the date of the election would have a negative impact on the province of Quebec because of Quebec's municipal elections.
    At the time when the Bloc first raised the issue, it was not even aware there was a municipal election taking place in the province of Alberta on the exact date of the next scheduled federal election. When I pointed that out to the member in the Bloc Party, the response what that it was not the Bloc's problem and that it represents Quebec.
    There are many members of Parliament who are national in their thinking. Many of them sit in the Alberta caucus in the Conservative ranks, and they seem to have completely forgotten that particular point. The minister made it very clear that he will support what the committee has to propose.
    The NDP is proposing we change the date. We are open to ideas. Should we be respectful of the municipal election, with Calgary and Edmonton having the same election date as the federal election? Those who live in Calgary and Edmonton would be going to vote for a mayor and a prime minister, their members of Parliament. Should we at least be open to the idea at the committee stage?

(1310)

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, it happens all too often that we show up in committee after having voted for a bill in principle, but we do not get a chance to introduce amendments because of the Liberal majority.
     The Canada Elections Act is too important to take that risk. There is no way we can trust people who had the gall to present what they did. It is crooked, and we do not trust people like that.
    Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He clearly explained the problems Quebec would have if a federal election were held a few days before or after municipal elections are held in every municipality in Quebec. It is very difficult.
     We went through this in 2021. We saw our municipal colleagues hold elections at the same time as ours. We would run into each other going door to door. That being said, I want to reach out to the NDP. If the NDP is prepared to bring down the government, we could have an election in the coming weeks. Would my colleague be amenable to that?
    Mr. Speaker, this is not enough to bring down a government.
     I would tell my colleague that I hope to get Bill C-282 passed for our farmers before triggering an election. This bill is now in the Senate and is being held up by Conservative and Liberal senators, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously in the House. I hope my colleague feels the same way I do.
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. I know how interested and passionate he is about democratic and electoral issues. We both sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform back when the Liberals were still claiming they wanted a different voting system, one that would be fairer, more democratic and more egalitarian. They have since changed their tune.
     We have all reached the same conclusion regarding this bill. By changing the date of the elections, this bill will allow a number of House members to qualify for a pension. The thinking is that perhaps the Liberals have bad intentions. The Conservatives are criticizing the Liberals today, but most of the members who would benefit from the date change are Conservatives. The hypocrisy on both sides of the House is indeed something to behold.
     The bill is not perfect, but does my colleague agree that adding advance polling days, improving voting by mail and special ballots, and allowing students to vote on campus are nonetheless steps in the right direction?
    Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, had the bill been drafted to include only those things, our position would probably have been different. I would add that, absent a guarantee that this crooked addition will be removed from the bill, there is no way we can support sending the bill to committee.
     This bill also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may consider conflicts with another election. This is an important measure. For my part, I do not question the Chief Electoral Officer's impartiality or logistical ability to organize elections worthy of a self-respecting parliamentary democracy.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, all I am asking the member to do is to apply to the province of Alberta the same standards he applies to the province of Quebec with respect to the election law. If the member is concerned about the municipal election in the province of Quebec, should he not at least be concerned about the municipal election in Alberta? It is an issue of fair treatment. Someone can be a separatist in Quebec and still be sympathetic to the democracy in other regions of the country.

(1315)

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that I am indeed a separatist, but if I am a separatist, it is because I am fundamentally a democrat, since the democratic ideal is contained in the idea of a people's sovereignty. Just because I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know everything, that does not mean I am against the idea of ensuring that the election in Alberta holds up. I too share this concern. Democracy means democracy for everyone, and not just here but the world over, because we are also fighting for democracy beyond our borders.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, I know that the member is from Quebec; usually I would speak French, but I want to be clear to the parliamentary secretary, who keeps raising the point, and I would like to hear the member on it.
    I am an Alberta MP. The Local Authorities Elections Act in my province, in section 11, says that any municipality can move up its election to the Saturday before a federal or a provincial election. It is a non-issue, and it is a talking point the Liberals keep abusing in order to try to curry favour or find a way to wedge the Bloc in its principal position on the bill.
    What does the member think about the issue? The Liberals seem to want to use Alberta as a talking point, the same way they sometimes use the member's province as a talking point, to further their political ambitions.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was a question for me. My colleague's comment was about what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said.
    As a reminder, members can ask questions or make comments.
     The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
    Mr. Speaker, the real question being asked today is this: What was the government's reason for pushing back the election date from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025? The reason it gave had nothing to do with municipal elections. It was about the Indian community's festival of lights.
    In my colleague's opinion, how could anyone draw a connection between a religious celebration and the date of a general election?
    Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is the elephant in the room. It is nothing but an excuse, a self-serving use of religion as a pretext for purely financial gain.
    It is unfortunate because it fuels public cynicism toward elected officials. It paints everyone in the House with the same brush.
    Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague.
    If I understand correctly, the Bloc Québécois is going to support the NDP's amendment to set things straight. The election will take place on the originally scheduled date.
    We saw this idea of taking voting rights away from a large number of Canadians emerge under the Conservatives, especially the voting rights of low-income and racialized people. We saw how the impact of the Harper government restricted Canadians' right to vote.
    Does my colleague agree that what the Harper government did should never happen again? All members should be pushing to ensure that everyone across Canada is able to vote in federal elections.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Harper government was penalized in 2015, so I think that the member has his answer.
     When a government goes beyond the democratic interest, the public is smart enough to penalize that government. I trust the public's intelligence. I trust voters' intelligence.
     Indeed, everyone must be allowed to vote. When a society allows an individual to vote, it is the ultimate gesture of integration. The social contract is sealed by this right to vote. In receiving this right, members of the public have the responsibility to prove their eligibility as voters.

(1320)

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today to speak to Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, which amends the Canada Elections Act.
     One of the cornerstones of our democracy is our electoral system, and at the root of that system is the Canada Elections Act. I would go so far as to say we all stand here today as beneficiaries of this key piece of legislation, having been chosen by Canadians through free and fair elections. The Canada Elections Act is already recognized worldwide for its robust rules, administrative procedures, tight political financing rules and strict spending limits. It is also recognized for how it promotes transparency, fairness and participation in elections.
     We know that Canada is not immune to the growing threats aimed at undermining confidence in the democratic electoral process around the world. For that reason, Bill C-65 proposes a number of improvements to the Canada Elections Act to continue to maintain the confidence of Canadians in our electoral system, which remains the envy of many countries.
     Bill C-65 addresses three targeted priorities. The first priority is to encourage participation in the electoral process. The second priority is to enhance the protection of Canadians' personal information. The third priority is to further safeguard the electoral process. Allow me to provide an overview on each of these priorities, starting with voter participation. Unfortunately, we know that voter turnout has been declining over the last two general elections. To help counter this trend, measures proposed in this bill aim to remove barriers to voting and expand the ability for people to participate in Canada's federal election.
     We also know that in recent decades, more and more Canadians are choosing to vote ahead of polling day, either through advance polls or voting by mail. In fact, voting at advance polls has increased in every general election since the year 2000, with over one-third of the voters choosing advance polls in the latest general election. To better respond to Canadians, Bill C-65 provides voters with an additional two days of advance polls. That means a total of six advance polling days in addition to election day, making it even more convenient for Canadians to cast their ballots.
    This would be a welcome addition, but we know it can be difficult for Elections Canada to hold advance polls in remote and isolated communities because of a lack of poll workers and suitable polling places. To overcome these challenges and ensure all electors have ample opportunity to vote, Bill C-65 provides new flexibility to set up advance polling stations for the days and hours needed to effectively serve electors in more remote communities, many of which are indigenous communities. Voting by mail, also known as voting by special ballot, is growing in popularity and this trend is expected to continue.
     This is why Bill C-65 proposes five improvements to the current special ballot process. First, for the fixed-date election, voters will be able to register earlier for a special ballot at the start of the pre-election period, which is June 30, to help reduce late ballots. Second, all electors will now be able to register online a convenient option for voters.
    Third, voters will be able to cast their ballot by returning their special ballots in person to a polling station rather than having to mail it back. This was a popular temporary measure tested in the 2021 election. Fourth, people who register for a special ballot but do not use it, for example, by not mailing it, before the deadline, will be able to vote in person at their polling station with safeguards in place to ensure no one votes twice.

(1325)

    Fifth, if a voter writes down a party's name on their special ballot, the ballot would be counted as a vote for the candidate, provided the party has endorsed a candidate in that riding.
    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate to interrupt my colleague in his speech, but there is a loud noise outside the chamber. I can hardly hear the person two seats away speaking.
    I appreciate the intervention. The Sergeant-at-Arms is going back there to see who is making all the noise.
     I just remind all of our members, when we are coming into our lobbies, to make sure we try to keep our volume down. The sound is coming from the back as people enter. Again, this is a reminder to members in our lobbies and all those who are here today.
     The hon. member for Nepean.
     Mr. Speaker, despite the growth in popularity of advance polls and special ballots, voting on polling day still remains the most popular option for how Canadians vote. That is why our government also wants to pave the way to make it easier and more convenient for those who vote on election day to eventually be able to vote at any polling station in their electoral district. This would shorten lineups for voting, provide more options for voting, make voting more convenient and allow election officers to make better use of their time. However, this significant change can only be done after the appropriate technology and procedures have been tested, to ensure the integrity of the voting process.
    This is why Bill C-65 asks the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare two reports for Parliament on implementing voting at any polling station through a phased approach.
    The first report, which must be tabled 120 days before the next fixed-date election, would outline the measures that would be put in place for the 2025 election, so that voters can vote at any table within their riding's polling station in 2025. This is a critical first step for voters, to be able to walk into their polling station and go to whoever is available to cast their ballot, rather than waiting in line based on alphabetical order of their last names. This is possible because Elections Canada has been testing the use of an electronic list of electors to ensure the success of this technology, including in the Durham by-election earlier this year.
    The second report, to be tabled in 2027, would look at what is needed for voters to be able to vote at any polling station anywhere in their riding by 2029. This report would outline expected costs, new technology and any legislative amendments needed for full implementation. These are critical milestones toward giving electors the flexibility to be able to vote in person anywhere in their riding.
     I also want to take a moment to highlight the targeted new initiatives that would make voting easier for post-secondary students, residents of long-term care facilities and electors who may require assistance in marking their own ballot, such as electors with disabilities.
    For students, Bill C-65 would enshrine the vote on campus program that Elections Canada has offered in past general elections. Working with willing post-secondary institutions, as it did in 2015 and 2019, Elections Canada would set up offices on campus so that Canadian students studying anywhere in Canada would be able to easily vote for any candidate in the student's home riding during a general election. In 2015, close to 70,000 electors cast their votes through this initiative at 39 post-secondary campuses. In 2019, more than 110,000 electors voted at approximately 100 post-secondary campuses. Currently, an estimated 120 campuses across the country are set to host the program at the next general election.
    With respect to residents in long-term care, the pandemic highlighted for all of us in this chamber the challenges faced by those residents when trying to vote. During the 2021 election, the Chief Electoral Officer rose to this challenge and established a process for those residing in long-term care facilities to vote safely. Bill C-65 would facilitate voting for the residents in long-term care homes across Canada, building on the success of the Chief Electoral Officer's temporary changes made in 2021.
    First, returning officers would work with the staff of these facilities to identify the most convenient dates and times for residents to vote. Voting would continue to be 12 hours in total but could be spread over more than one day to take into account the specific needs of residents.

(1330)

     Second, proof of address would no longer be required for those residents choosing to vote in their long-term care facilities. Many residents have difficulty proving their residence because identity documents are often in the possession of family members, or they no longer have a driver’s licence, which is the most common proof of residence. This change removes an unnecessary obstacle to voting for those in long-term care.
    In addition, the Canada Elections Act already permits electors to request and receive assistance at the polls, including to mark their ballot, from Elections Canada officials, friends or family. However, this assistance is currently limited to a friend, spouse or family member. Bill C-65 proposes to remove these restrictions and give electors the freedom to choose their assistant, including caregivers or personal support workers. To maintain both the integrity and the secrecy of the vote, a solemn declaration would continue to be required from the assistant. Election workers would also continue to be available to assist electors if needed.
    The final measure to support participation in our electoral process that I will speak to is the proposal that the Chief Electoral Officer prepare a report for Parliament on a three-day election period for any general elections held in 2029 and beyond. This report would allow for a detailed consideration of the feasibility and the path forward, given the considerable operational shift and electoral integrity implications that a three-day election period would bring. It would also identify challenges and potential solutions for implementation.
    The second key priority of Bill C-65 is further protecting the personal information of Canadians. In this day and age, personal information is a coveted commodity that must be protected, including in the electoral process and by federal political parties.
    In order to do so, the government took a first step in 2018 through Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act, introducing the first-ever policy requirements as a condition of party registration. Another step was taken last year through Bill C-47, the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, to affirm that the Canada Elections Act is the exclusive and national regime applicable to federal political parties and those acting on their behalf.
    Bill C-65 proposes to expand on these measures to better protect personal information. In order to be a duly registered political party with Elections Canada, each political party must already provide a policy on the protection of personal information. This condition of registration would be maintained, but Bill C-65 adds the following new privacy policy requirements.
     Political parties must have the appropriate physical, organizational and technological safeguards, such as locked filing cabinets, in place and must restrict access to those who need it. It would ensure that suppliers or contractors who receive personal information from political parties have the equivalent safeguards in place. Parties must notify affected individuals in the event of a serious breach. It would also prohibit political parties from selling personal information, providing false or misleading information regarding why personal information is collected, and disclosing personal information to cause harm.
    The privacy regime under the Canada Elections Act recognizes that outreach, communication and engagement between federal political parties and voters are essential to a healthy, modern democracy. Personal information is at the root of the dialogue between political parties and the Canadian electorate. It is therefore essential that this information be protected accordingly, which is exactly what Bill C-65 proposes to do.

(1335)

    Finally, I am proud to highlight the measures proposed in Bill C-65 to safeguard the electoral process.
    This year is an important year for elections around the world. While Canada's next federal election is not scheduled until 2025, over 60 countries, encompassing almost 50% of the world's population, will have elections in 2024. I would like to highlight the elections that were just concluded this month in the largest democracy in the world, India, where about one billion people were eligible to vote, approximately 900-odd million, with about 60% turnout. I think the elections were held over a period of seven to eight weeks. Interestingly, I am told that it is proposed, going forward, that in the next general elections in India, the federal elections will be held simultaneously with about 32 states, 32 provinces, in India.
     As I mentioned earlier, we are fortunate in Canada to have one of the most secure and reliable electoral systems in the world. Canada's electoral system is grounded in accessibility, fairness and integrity through the Canada Elections Act. Canadians have confidence in their electoral system. In a survey by Elections Canada following the 44th general election, 82% of participants felt that Canada's voting system was safe and reliable. Yet, Canada's democracy, like other democracies globally, is being tested. Rising security threats that undermine the credibility of democratic elections include foreign interference, disinformation, the misuse of evolving technologies and the threat against its participants.
    To address these concerns, Bill C-65 introduces a series of amendments to the Canada Elections Act to further protect the integrity of the electoral system from these threats.
    The Canada Elections Act already has strong and wide-ranging measures to help counter these threats to the electoral system. However, as the threats evolve, so too must our response. Currently, certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act apply only during elections. Since people and entities with ill intentions do not limit their activities to a specific time frame, Bill C-65 would expand certain provisions beyond the election period. This includes expanding existing bans so that they are not limited to the election period, specifically those against foreign influence on an elector to not vote or to vote in a certain way, and misleading publications that falsely purport to be from someone they are not, such as the Chief Electoral Officer or a political party.
    Like all my hon. colleagues in this House, I have great faith in, and a deep appreciation for, Canada and its democratic institutions. Bill C-65 would further strengthen Canada's world-renowned electoral system, which is at the heart of our democratic system.

(1340)

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, with this bill the government is proposing that the 2025 elections be held a week later than the date that had been set.
     The government claims that this is on account of a religious holiday, Diwali, a festival held by the Hindu religious group. Apparently there are other groups that celebrate it as well, namely the Sikhs and Buddhists.
     I quickly logged on to the Statistics Canada site to ascertain the proportion of religious groups present in Canada. The site counts over 21 religious groups. I noted that 2.3% of Canada's population is Hindu, 2.1% Sikh and 1% Buddhist.
     What this government is proposing to do, then, is to push back the elections to allow less than 4.5% of the Canadian population to celebrate their religious holiday. I would remind members that in Canada, over 34.6% of the population do not practise any religion and 29.9% are Catholic, so I find this a little curious. I have to ask myself whether it is not irresponsible, or even dangerous, to start changing such an important date as the federal election date on account of a religious holiday.
     I was speaking about the 21 religious groups identified. There are probably a number of religious holidays for these groups, perhaps more than 365, so if we try to be fair, we might end up never finding a day during the year to hold the federal elections.
     I wonder whether it is not irresponsible on the government's part to invoke this reason for postponing the elections.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, as a Hindu by religion, I do not need the election date to be postponed so I can celebrate my religious holiday. As the member mentioned, there are many religious groups in Canada. There are Jewish Canadians, Buddhist Canadians and Muslim Canadians. To accommodate every single religious day not being affected by election day would be very difficult going forward.
    One of the flexibilities proposed in this legislation is to provide the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to determine a fixed date on which the election should, depending on the circumstances surrounding that date. It can be similar to provincial or municipal elections. What we are promoting is to provide flexibility. I agree that we cannot start making exceptions based on the religious requirements of various Canadians.
    This is not the only issue on the election date. I was recently at committee when one of the major corporate players declined to appear, stating that it was during the quiet period enforced by the Ontario Securities Commission. Parliament is supreme. We cannot make exceptions based on witnesses called to appear before any parliamentary committee.
    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who has really opened the debate and discussion on electoral reform in this Parliament.
    One of the things the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith raised today was the opportunity for persons with disabilities to have an independent and private vote in an election, even from home, if we go to what could be telephone voting. I want to know what the member thinks about the fact that there are persons with disabilities who do not have the opportunity to secretly and privately vote in an election because they need an assistant.
     Mr. Speaker, one of the important things we have proposed is to ask the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a report on how we can make it easier for people with different abilities to actively participate in elections by using whatever technologies are made available.
    The member mentioned voting by telephone. I am not very sure that, as of today, the technology is secure enough for any Canadian to vote privately using the telephone as a voting system. Hopefully, in the future, the technology will advance so that every single Canadian, with whatever abilities, should be able to vote privately and securely.

(1345)

    Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about diversity in Canada. When I think of diversity, I think of Eid celebrations taking place today in our Muslim community, or Christmas celebrations in the month of December, or Diwali, a festival of lights, light over darkness, and I participate in that. We do not have to be of a particular faith to enjoy or participate in a celebration.
    We need to put into perspective that the suggestion brought forward also reflects on the fact that there is a municipal, province-wide election taking place in the province of Alberta, in Calgary and Edmonton, with two million-plus people. Is that not worth at least giving some thought to and, at the very least, sending this legislation to committee? The minister has indicated he will support the will of the committee.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. There is an municipal election in Alberta, with about two million Canadians participating, and we need to look at changing the date of the election. At the same time, as a Hindu by religion, I do not want it signalled that the Canadian government is making any concessions to Canadians, due to their religious faith and practices, that the election date needs to be changed.
    As the hon. member said, Diwali is not just celebrated by Hindu Canadians. Many other Canadians of different religious faith groups also participate, like we participate in all religious faith groups and heritage events of Canadians.
    Mr. Speaker, I have an interesting question related to the government's commitment to indigenous peoples. It has been very obvious that the government publicly has stated that it supports indigenous peoples' rights, most particularly the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Particular to that document, it suggests, in article 5, that:
    Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.
     Does the member have any comments as to when or how the government will continue to advance reconciliation, continue to advance the principles of the United Nations declaration, in particular to this legislation, and ensure that indigenous people can be seen as self-determining and even sovereign if they so choose?
    Could the member speak to his support, if he does have it, of indigenous people's pursuit of self-determination and sovereignty?
     Mr. Speaker, our government has done tremendous work on the reconciliation process with indigenous communities. Even in this bill specifically, I can state that for many indigenous people who live in the northern parts, in the remote parts, we have made specific efforts so that their participation in the electoral process is pain-free.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, as is often the case with the Liberals, this is a pretty hypocritical piece of legislation. On the pretext of expanding democracy or access to democracy for senior citizens, students and so forth, we are presented with a bill that is actually aimed at allowing Liberal members at risk of losing their election to qualify for a pension.
     If such a thing is even possible in the House, I would like my colleague to tell us in good conscience what he thinks of the substance of this bill. At a time when there is a housing crisis, when senior citizens are struggling and when every dollar is needed to help Canadians, what does he think of the fact that we are spending hours debating and voting on a bill aimed solely at allowing Liberal members to collect a pension? When he looks into his heart, what does he think of this?

(1350)

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, Canada's Canadian democratic system is the envy of the world. One of the reasons why we are the best in the world is that we always try to improve on what we have now.
     The member touched upon students and seniors in long-term care facilities. We have made provisions especially to encourage easier voting by seniors in long-term care facilities and voting by students on campus, which is increasing year by year. In 2015, around 70,000 students voted. That increased to more than 110,000 in 2019, and it will increase much further in 2025.
     Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
    The Liberals call it Bill C-65, the electoral participation act, but maybe it would be more accurately titled as the “Help our friends qualify for a pension act.” Perhaps that was an unwritten part of the deal by which the New Democrats have propped up the incompetent Liberal government for two years, two years that have shown us this was not a good deal for Canadians.
    The NDP pharmacare program only covers two types of medication, which is not what Canadians were promised. It is just another broken promise, like so many the NDP have supported.
    Now, though, there would be guaranteed pensions for those first elected to the House of Commons in the general election of 2019, pensions they would not qualify for if the 2025 election were held at its scheduled date of October 20, 2025. What a reward for propping up the Liberals.
    This bill, rather than encouraging electoral participation, would delay the day when Canadian voters can hold parliamentarians to account in a federal election. In the process, it ensures that taxpayers are on the hook for millions of dollars in pension payments that might not have been required.
    The government tells us that the next election cannot be held as scheduled on October 20, 2025, because it conflicts with Diwali, a festival celebrated by many Canadians. The Liberals want to move it a week later, to October 27. It is merely a coincidence that 80 members of Parliament would qualify for a pension on October 26, 2025, a pension they would not qualify for if they were to be defeated on October 20 or if they choose not to offer themselves to the voters once more.
    Of course, just about every day is a holiday or a special occasion for someone. October 20, 2025, is Guatemala's revolution day. It is also Heroes' Day in Kenya, Jamaica and the British Virgin Islands. For Jews, it is Sukkoth. Let us not forget the date is also International Chefs Day and World Osteoporosis Day. Serbia will be celebrating Belgrade Liberation Day on that day. In Vietnam, it is Women's Day. In Ukraine, it is breast cancer awareness day. Those are all dates worthy of celebrating, even if the Liberals do not mention them as important enough to mention as a reason for changing the fixed election date.
    There is no perfect date for an election, no date that does not conflict with something else for some people. That is why we already have advance polling in place. Even more, those unable to get to an advance poll can vote anytime at the returning office in their riding.
    No one is being forced to vote on Diwali. Who is the government trying to fool? The date change is not about Diwali; it is about securing pensions. If that were not the case, why not move the date earlier in October or even into September?
    The Canadian Taxpayers Federation tells us that the change means 80 additional MPs would be eligible to collect a pension. The estimated lifetime pension costs, should all 80 of those members lose their seats or opt to retire rather than face voters, is $120 million.
    We already know that $120 million means nothing to the Liberals. Having saddled Canadians with record deficits and the biggest national debt in our history, they apparently do not see that as an amount worth worrying about. What they do not seem to realize is that people care about government spending.
    Canadians understand debts must be repaid. Canadians know it is ludicrous to pay more on interest to service the debt than we pay on health care. Canadians realize that such a fiscal irresponsibility needs to stop. It is also too bad that Liberals and their NDP allies seem incapable of grasping the simple math involved.
    As custodians of the public purse, the $120 million should make us pause and think before supporting this legislation. However, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have shown any understanding of the value of a dollar. They seem to believe that government can spend and spend, and who cares if it is our grandchildren or great-grandchildren who have to pay the bills. All that matters is that they get their pensions.

(1355)

    I am sure that once I am finished and the floor is open to questions, some brave Liberals or New Democrats will point out to me that there are many Conservatives who would benefit if the bill passes. That is true, but Conservatives are united in their opposition to the legislation, even those who stand to benefit if it passes. This is a matter of principle and honour. Conservatives do not believe in changing the rules to benefit themselves.
     I would like to list the names of those who are set to benefit from the legislation. The Canadian people need to know who would make money from the change. I think those names should be in the record of the House; however, the rules prevent me from naming them. The rules and conventions of this place, as it is sometimes the case, allow members to pretend that the truth does not matter. What Canadians do know is that when the former members of Parliament receive the pension cheques, money that came from Canadian taxpayers, they will have the former members' names on them.
    They will not be addressed to “the minister of the environment” or to “President of the Treasury Board”. Nowhere will the cheques read “payable to the parliamentary secretary” or “payable to Minister of Environment and Climate Change”. Whether they are for the member of Parliament for Edmonton Strathcona or the member of Parliament for Don Valley North, the pension cheques will have their names, the names of real people, but under the rules, I cannot mention those names here.
    No wonder so many Canadians are fed up with this place and feel that all politicians are hypocrites. I should point out that any member who would be affected by the date change, anyone who was first elected in the general election of 2019, would be in a conflict of interest if they vote in favour of the bill.
    The Conflict of Interest Act is quite clear:
...a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.
    [Furthermore] no public office holder shall make a decision or participate in making a decision related to the exercise of an official power, duty or function if the public office holder knows or reasonably should know that, in the making of the decision, he or she would be in a conflict of interest.
    No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.

Statements By Members

[Statements By Members]

(1400)

[English]

National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism

     Mr. Speaker, June 23 is National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism. Thirty-nine years ago on this day, Air India Flight 182 was blown up mid-air by a bomb planted by Canadian Khalistani extremists. It killed all 329 passengers and crew members, and it is the largest mass killing in Canadian history.
    Unfortunately, many Canadians are not aware that even today the ideology responsible for this terrorist attack is still alive among a few people in Canada. The recent celebration of the assassination of Hindu Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi by Khalistan supporters, glorifying violence and hate, shows that the dark forces have been energized again and point to dreadful times ahead. Hindu Canadians are rightfully concerned.
    I stand in solidarity with the families of the victims of the Air India bombing.

Edmonton Oilers

     Mr. Speaker, 82 years ago, the Toronto Maple Leafs rallied from a 3-0 series deficit to win the Stanley Cup final. No team since has managed to do that in a final series.
     Our hopes and dreams, as a nation, now rest with the Edmonton Oilers in their quest to bring the cup home where it belongs. It has been 31 years since a Canadian team won the cup. The Oilers were down three to games to one, but Saturday night's 8-1 victory showed us that we are right to believe.
     The Oilers, like their fans, never give up. The team is battling back. Game five is tonight. As a nation, let us rally behind Canada's team, the Edmonton Oilers.
    The Stanley Cup belongs here. Let us bring it home.

Diversity and Inclusion

    Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I marched in the York Pride parade alongside York Pride, PFLag, the York Region Liberals and thousands of others who joined in unity to celebrate and support the 2SLGBTQI+ community.
    This past weekend also marked the beginning of Eid al-Adha, the Feast of Sacrifice, one of the most important celebrations in the Muslim community, which is observed by many in my riding. In the past I have also joined with them.
    When communities gather to celebrate, we all can observe or participate to learn more. With understanding and familiarity, we are able to accept and appreciate the unique and diverse neighbours we all have here in Canada. These occasions remind us to stand against discrimination and to ensure that everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity, religion or culture feels valued and safe.
     As we approach Canada Day, let us all do our part to ensure we are inclusive and proudly united as we work together to build an even better Canada.
    Happy Pride. Eid Mubarak. Happy Canada Day.

[Translation]

Maison des Cageux du fleuve Saint-Laurent

    Mr. Speaker, some folks from the Maison des Cageux in Lanoraie are on Parliament Hill today.
    Isabelle Regout and Alexandre Pampalon are walking encyclopaedias who know everything there is to know about raftsmen, expertly immersing their visitors in the impressive universe of these brave, adventurous men.
    Listening to the stories of Jules Verne, Charles Dickens, Joseph-Charles Taché and many others, one can imagine floating down the river on one of these wooden cages made up of several rafts, on often very rough waters.
    Thanks to Isabelle and Alexandre's efforts, many of the figures in these stories will soon be designated as historical figures who have shaped our heritage. One example is Jos Montferrand, renowned for his large stature and leaving his footprints on the ceiling. Another is Honoré Beaugrand, the author of the legendary Chasse-galerie, told in as many versions as there are storytellers.
    Congratulations to the folks at the Maison des Cageux. Their diligence and perseverance are keeping our collective memory alive.

[English]

Japanese Canadians

     Mr. Speaker, recently we celebrated Asian Heritage Month, a time when we honour the historic and profound contributions of Asian Canadians, who have shaped our nation.
     Growing up, I was fortunate to have a true Canadian hero, Art Miki, as my next-door neighbour. In 1988, Art successfully lobbied and worked alongside Prime Minister Brian Mulroney to have Canada officially apologize to and compensate Japanese Canadians for the horrific treatment they were subjected to, including forced confinement to internment camps during the Second World War.
    Art Miki's contributions extend beyond this historical achievement, as he continues to educate through a new book that has captured important chapters of Canadian history. Art continues to advocate for a Canada that is more inclusive, equitable and recognizing of our vast cultural mosaic. Individuals like Art Miki exemplify the best of Canada.
     I thank Art for the personal impact he has had on shaping me as an individual and for his lasting contributions to our country.

(1405)

[Translation]

Quebec's National Holiday

    Mr. Speaker, the francophonie is at the heart of Canadian identity. It represents a fundamental pillar of our history and culture. It is a source of pride for our country to count among us francophones who, across the country, contribute to Canada's vitality and linguistic diversity.
    On June 24, I am very proud as a Quebecker to celebrate Quebec's national holiday, an emblematic day that brings together Quebeckers and all those who carry in their hearts the love of our dynamic and endearing nation.
    How can we talk about Quebec's national holiday without talking about Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day? This celebration, that draws its origins from popular traditions, has become a time for festivities across Quebec, but also in countless francophone communities from coast to coast to coast.
    Throughout Canada's history, as Quebeckers, we have contributed to building a unique and prosperous country. I wish everyone a happy national holiday and a happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day.

Canada's National Hockey Teams

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize and celebrate the outstanding team captains who are visiting Ottawa today. Three of Canada's national hockey teams won gold medals at the world championships this year.

[English]

     Tyler McGregor, captain and top scorer of the men's national para hockey team, led his squad to gold at the World Para Hockey Championship. Porter Martone, who broke Canada's all-time tournament scoring record, was instrumental in the team's gold medal at the U18 world championship. Marie-Philip Poulin, “Captain Clutch” and three-time Olympic gold medalist, led the women's national team to its 13th gold medal at the women's world hockey championship.

[Translation]

    These remarkable athletes and their teammates have inspired players and fans across Canada with their performances on the ice and their commitment to their communities. I congratulate them all.

[English]

National Indigenous Peoples Month

    Mr. Speaker, it is National Indigenous Peoples Month, a time to recognize and honour the contributions of indigenous peoples, their knowledge and wisdom along with their continued commitment to protecting the land and the creation.
     This month I want to recognize and thank the countless elders, knowledge keepers and leaders from Batchewana, Garden River, Michipicoten, Mississauga, Sagamok, Missanabie Cree, Serpent River and Thessalon, along with the Sault Ste. Marie historic Métis community. They work tirelessly to teach and guide, and to pass down their sacred knowledge and their language.
    I also want to recognize the on-reserve and off-reserve indigenous peoples who inhabit Bawating and the surrounding area. They are integral to the prosperity of Algoma and are leaders in so many ways.
    I am going to spend this month continuing to educate myself on how we can continue to walk the path of reconciliation together. Happy National Indigenous Peoples Month.
    Chi-meegwetch.

Ethics

     Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister, the scandals are adding up and Canadians are paying the price. The Auditor General's damning revelations of the Liberals' green slush fund underscore the depths of corruption happening under the Prime Minister.
    The Auditor General made it clear that the blame lies directly at the feet of the industry minister, who failed in his duty to protect taxpayers. Over $123 million in contracts were illicitly awarded. There was $76 million to Liberal insiders, including the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair of the green slush fund, who siphoned off $217,000 to her own company.
    Conservatives demand accountability. We demand that every misspent dollar be returned immediately. Thanks to Conservative action, the RCMP now has access to all relevant documents allowing it to investigate and uncover the full extent of the rot.
    The Liberals have lost the moral authority to govern. Common-sense Conservatives are ready to clean house and end the Liberal corruption once and for all.

Children's Literature

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable constituent of mine, Varavadi Monaghan. When she arrived in Canada 30 years ago, the first books her husband, Harry, gave to her were the classic Anne of Green Gables series by L.M. Montgomery. She loved the books so much that she decided to translate them into Thai, her mother language. It took over a year to translate them; it was a true labour of love.
    It is a fitting tribute in a year that would have been L.M. Montgomery's 150th birthday. Ms. Monaghan is looking forward to travelling to Cavendish, P.E.I., which is the site that inspired the Anne of Green Gables series. The books will be presented to Thai and Canadian dignitaries as a symbol of the cultural bridge between our two countries. This is a testament to the universality and relevance of the stories of our iconic protagonist, Anne.
    Now, thanks to Varavadi, another generation of children can enjoy these inspiring tales.

(1410)

Taxation

     Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's latest tax hike is a direct hit to the Canadians who are lucky enough, after nine years of the Liberal government, to find themselves still in the middle class. Despite the government's attempts to start a class war, the real Canadians who would be hit the most by the tax are the middle class. They are the union leader and the worker selling the home they inherited from their parents, the small business owner trying to retire by selling their business and the farmer selling the family farm to their children. They are the real victims of the Liberal government's cruel tax hike, which would rob the working class and middle class to pay for the obese government and its reckless spending. The job-killing capital gains tax would make finding a family doctor even harder, raise food prices even higher, drive the number of home starts even lower and make starting a small business even pricier. Instead of Liberal-NDP tax hikes, we need common-sense tax reforms that will make taxes lower, simpler and fairer. This will bring home prosperity to all Canadians and all who live here.

Carbon Tax

     Mr. Speaker, after nine years under the current Prime Minister, his inflationary carbon tax is driving up the cost of everything, making life more expensive than ever before. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already proven that the carbon tax, just like the Prime Minister, is not worth the cost.
     As a result of Conservative pressure, the Liberals were finally forced to reveal the true damage to the Canadian economy caused by the carbon tax. That economic hit, adjusted for inflation, is $30 billion a year, or almost $2,000 per Canadian family. The government hid this number for years and even tried to silence the Parliamentary Budget Officer to keep him from exposing this information. The Prime Minister cannot be trusted to be honest with Canadians.
     Conservatives continue to call for the full release of all the data on how the carbon tax hurts Canadians. The NDP-Liberal coalition must be transparent in terms of the harm it is causing Canadians until common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax.

Eid al-Adha

    Mr. Speaker, this past weekend marked the beginning of Eid al-Adha. During Eid, families come together to pray, share meals and distribute food to those in need, stressing the importance of unity, charity and sacrifice. It is a time to deepen bonds with family and friends, to show kindness to others and to reflect on the blessings of life.
     As Eid passes this year, let us recognize the contributions of the Muslim community to our society and reaffirm our commitment to promoting diversity, understanding and respect for all faiths. Let us acknowledge the challenging times faced by many in our communities.
     As politicians, we must do more to combat all forms of racism, including Islamophobia, while ensuring all have access to proper mental health supports as we feel the devastating impacts of conflict and loss of innocent lives throughout the world. May Eid usher in a year of joy, peace and understanding.
    Eid Mubarak.

Indigenous Affairs

    Uqaqtittiji, for Indigenous peoples to celebrate National Indigenous History Month and the upcoming National Indigenous Peoples Day, a lot of hurdles must be dismantled. Gaps persist from the decades of underinvestment in ensuring indigenous peoples can thrive. While Conservatives made cuts, Liberals tout increases, but these do not come close to closing the gaps.
     Just these last weeks, we heard racist attitudes freely expressed without repercussions. Indeed, racist attitudes are protected in the House. When this happens, indigenous peoples suffer the consequences. It is indigenous peoples who will remain overrepresented in the justice system and who will have less access to health care. It is indigenous children who will keep going to school after sleeping in substandard, overcrowded housing conditions.
     I take this time to remind indigenous peoples to voice and stand for their rights, show their strength by using their cultures and speaking their languages, and celebrate their strength.

(1415)

[Translation]

Érik Canuel

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec recently lost one of its most brilliant film directors, Érik Canuel, to cancer at the age of 63.
    Érik Canuel got his start in the business producing ads and music videos for the likes of Sylvain Cossette, Sass Jordan and Vilain Pingouin. He quickly rose through the ranks to become an icon in the industry.
    He worked on the popular television series Fortier, but it was in film that he really made his mark. His works include The Pig's Law, Red Nose, The Last Tunnel, The Outlander and his 2007 mega-hit, Bon Cop, Bad Cop, which won the Genie for best picture and the billet d'or at the Jutra Awards.
    At a time when Quebec cinema seemed to swing from dark arthouse films to fluffy comedies, Érik Canuel set out to produce a clever blend of genres, always with a healthy dose of suspense and action.
    Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones, of course. I am grateful to Érik Canuel for proving that Quebec's film industry can do anything and can do it very well.

[English]

Leader of the New Democratic Party

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP government is not worth the cost or the corruption. Thanks to—
    I am going to interrupt the hon. member. I am going to ask the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay to please not speak unless he is recognized. I am going to ask the hon. member for—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    The Speaker: Order.
    I am going to ask the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore to start from the top.
     The hon. member has the floor.
    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP government is not worth the cost or the corruption. Thanks to the leader of the NDP, Canadians have been forced to endure one more year of this cover-up coalition avoiding accountability. From the $60-million arrive scam app to the $200 million spent on McKinsey and the $1-billion green slush fund, the NDP and its leader have been there to cover up for the Liberals at the expense of taxpayers. Now the NDP is putting forward motions at parliamentary committees to block any attempts to uncover the truth in those scandals over the summer.
    How many more billions of taxpayer dollars need to disappear for the leader of the NDP to finally stand up to corruption, stand up to the Prime Minister and say “enough is enough”? This summer, while they protect the Liberal Prime Minister, Conservatives will continue to fight not only for the truth but also for Canadians, each and every day.

John Murphy

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the passing of John Murphy, the former member of Parliament for Kings—Hants, who contributed a lifetime of work to advancing the public good.
    After obtaining his master's degree in social work, John became the director of the Fundy Mental Health Clinic and later a psychiatric social worker at the Valley Regional Hospital. He also taught at Acadia University. Following his time in Parliament, John served as the chair of the National Council of Welfare, advocating for initiatives to reduce poverty. He was awarded the Sovereign's Medal for Volunteers and the Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal for his many contributions to community.
    He was a man of faith, and when I visited him in his final days, he was not afraid of death. He knew he had lived a good life, a life worth living, He was enjoying one of his favourite songs, the Irish tune Danny Boy.
    I know I speak on behalf of all members of the House in extending condolences on John's passing to his wife, Julia; his children, Pat and Kelly; and the entire family. May he rest in peace.

Oral Questions

[Oral Questions]

(1420)

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

    Mr. Speaker, the radical Liberal Minister of Environment's decree is jeopardizing thousands of forestry jobs in Quebec.
    I will reverse this radical decree and protect those jobs, but, until then, the cost of wood for building housing is going to go up, and that is on top of the jobs that will be lost.
    How many Quebeckers are going to lose their jobs because of this radical Liberal decree?
    Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been responsible for protecting species at risk across the country for decades. When we need to protect species at risk, in this case caribou, we work with the provinces that have jurisdiction. We are looking at how to protect species at risk, as well as jobs.
    I look forward to continuing to work with the Quebec government to protect both the environment and jobs.
    Mr. Speaker, the Quebec nation is capable of doing both. This falls under provincial jurisdiction.
    It is because the Bloc Québécois has kept this radical Liberal government in power that this minister is now adopting this job-killing decree. What is more, the Bloc MP for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia said that the Bloc Québécois recognizes that Ottawa might interfere in this file.
    Why did the Prime Minister listen to the Bloc Québécois's advice about getting involved in Quebec's jurisdiction to kill jobs in the forestry sector?
    Mr. Speaker, every day brings fresh evidence that the Conservative Party absolutely does not understand that the way to build a strong future is to marry the environment and the economy. We cannot build a strong economy without protecting the environment. That is exactly what we are doing.
    On their side, they have neither the capacity, nor the plan, nor the interest in protecting species at risk, our environment or the future for children across the country.
    We need a plan to protect the environment. That is what we are providing, and it is something the Conservatives do not have.

[English]

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, it is not just common-sense Conservatives who are saying that the Prime Minister's latest tax hike on small businesses, farmers, home builders and health care is not worth the cost.
     Now, former Liberal Treasury Board president Scott Brison says the Prime Minister's support for the tax hike is a combination of moral sanctimony and economic complacency for ministers who simply do what PMO tells them. He calls it “socialist bafflegab.”
     Why is the Prime Minister going ahead with killing jobs and raising costs with what his own Liberals call socialist bafflegab?
    Mr. Speaker, despite the Conservative leader's partisan attacks, the rise in capital gains inclusion rates is very simple. If Canadians make more than $250,000 in profit from selling investments in a given year, we are asking them to share a little more of those profits with Canadians who need those investments.
    Whether it is by investing in housing, whether it is standing up for school food programs or whether it is delivering dental care to seniors, these are investments we are making to support Canadians by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share.

The Economy

    Mr. Speaker, it is not partisanship from me; it is his own former Liberal Treasury Board president who calls it socialist bafflegab. In fact, the tax begins applying on the very first dollar that a small business earns.
    He has been promising that raising taxes would make life fairer. We found out today from Food Banks Canada that a record-smashing 25% of Canadians now live in poverty after nine years of his taxes, his deficits and his doubling housing costs.
     Why is he going ahead with the same “wackonomics” that caused the poverty in order to solve it?

(1425)

    Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about affordability, but he is standing against raising taxes on the wealthiest so that we can give more supports to those who actually need it. He is standing against our school food program, which would help 400,000 kids across the country have fuller bellies as they study, and would take about $800 a year of pressure off of the families that are pressed with the cost of groceries. We are continuing to deliver dental care supports to seniors and, as of next week, we will be delivering dental care supports to young people and Canadians with disabilities. We are there for Canadians. He is voting against it.
    Mr. Speaker, it has been nine years that the Prime Minister has been promising trickle-down economics, where if he takes money away from small businesses and workers it will go from one level of government to another level of government to another level of government. It will trickle down.
    Right now, 25% of Canadians are living in poverty, which is something the Prime Minister tried to cover up, just like he covered up his own data that showed 25 billion dollars' worth of extra costs with the carbon tax, which is nearly $2,000 in carbon tax cover-up for every single family. How can we trust anything he says about taxes, poverty or money?
     Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition hid for eight weeks while he was trying to come up with an answer for us asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share so that we could invest in fairness for every generation. I think he needs to go back to the drawing board because his answer is completely illogical and unfounded.
    The reality is, when it comes to delivering for Canadians who are struggling with food prices, we have a national school food program that would help 400,000 kids, which his party is voting against. Conservatives talk about affordability, but they are only interested in themselves and their political advantage.

[Translation]

Democratic Institutions

    Mr. Speaker, the Premier of British Columbia, David Eby, wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to do a better job of sharing information on foreign interference with his province.
    We know that the Prime Minister is not very proactive when it comes to foreign interference. In a very partisan way, he would rather shut his eyes and hope that the problem goes away. However, as we saw in Quebec with Hydro-Québec, the problem is that foreign interference is not just happening at the federal level.
    Why is the Prime Minister refusing to share critical information on foreign interference with the Quebec and provincial governments?
    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are working with our security and intelligence services so that we can provide secret, classified information to the provincial premiers to better address the very real issue of foreign interference.
    Our government has also created more mechanisms and institutions to counter foreign interference than any other government. We will continue to be open, transparent and rigorous in the way that we counter foreign interference.
    I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for getting his security clearance. We would like the Conservatives to do the same.
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's scatterbrained, laissez-faire approach to domestic security has consequences.
    There are consequences to his refusal to provide information about the Winnipeg lab, to the point of suing the Speaker of the House, to his stubborn refusal to launch a commission of inquiry for months on end, to his refusal to co-operate with the Quebec and provincial governments on sharing information. The Prime Minister is part of the problem, not the solution. He needs to get his act together.
    What is he waiting for to provide Quebec and the provinces with the information in his possession?
    Mr. Speaker, we just passed Bill C-70 in the House, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, and sent it to the Senate for further study. This bill will allow for more rigorous and regular information sharing with the premiers of the provinces and territories on issues of foreign interference and national security that involve them.
    We are working in a respectful and collaborative way to fight to protect our democracy together.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, for three months, the Prime Minister has known about the serious allegations that parliamentarians are knowingly working with foreign governments to undermine our country, yet we do not know if he has had a single conversation with any member of his caucus. The Conservative Party leader does not even want to know about the serious allegations of foreign interference that directly impact his party. Why do both of these leaders put the interests of their parties ahead of the interests of our country?

(1430)

    Mr. Speaker, as all parliamentarians know—
    An hon. member: Oh, oh!
     The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot knows that he should not be speaking at this time.
    I would ask the right hon. Prime Minister to start from the top, please.
     Mr. Speaker, all parliamentarians in the House know how important it is to protect our democracy from foreign interference. That is why we have been working together, whether it is on the national security committee of parliamentarians that we created over the objections of the Conservative Party, through strengthened mechanisms within our national security universe or through election interference monitoring by top public servants. We have taken more actions on preventing foreign interference than any other government, and we have continued to work with independent commissions, such as the public inquiry, to get to the bottom of it.
    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has known and has not taken action.

[Translation]

    For three months, the Prime Minister has known about the allegations that parliamentarians are knowingly helping India and China. He thinks he is better than everyone else, but he has not taken action. As for the Conservative leader, he is hiding because he does not want to know the truth.
    Why are these two leaders putting their own interests ahead of the national interest?
    Mr. Speaker, one of the things we saw last week was that the leaders of the NDP and the Green Party obtained the security clearance to read the entire classified NSICOP report. That gave them a different perspective on this issue, from both sides of the coin.
    The Conservative leader, on the other hand, chose ignorance. He does not want to get the security clearance that would give him access to classified information, because he would rather just make partisan attacks.

[English]

Diversity and Inclusion

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister divides to distract. He turns groups against each other. He fans the flames. He gave funds to an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier. Even before October 7, hate crimes were up 162%.
    Since, we have seen the rise of Hamas-inspired hate camps at university campuses that intimidate Jewish students and promote genocide. Will the Prime Minister finally summon the courage to join with me and call for these hate camps to be shut down and closed up so that students can safely go back to school?
    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the Opposition recognizing the divisive rhetoric and the division that is occurring in Canadian society right now. We have a problem with hatred. We have to address that problem. We know that the statistics show that hate crimes are on the rise 130% in the last five years.
    That is why I was proud to stand with CIJA when we tabled Bill C-63, the online harms legislation that would improve penalties for hate crimes, provide a definition of hatred and ensure that we are keeping Canadian communities safe. The special envoy on anti-Semitism supports the bill. CIJA supports the bill. I am just wondering why the Leader of the Opposition does not.

Foreign Affairs

    Mr. Speaker, he is worried about those hate camps, all while he allows 700 agents of the Iranian regime to openly operate in Canada four years after they killed 55 Canadians and 30 permanent residents, and after they funded the brutal massacres of October 7. There have six years of excuses, and they did nothing, but with a by-election on Monday and the Prime Minister desperately needing to pad his margins, it turns out that there might be enough pressure for them to finally ban the IRGC terrorists, who they should have banned years ago before they set up shop here to terrorize our communities
     Why does the Prime Minister always put himself ahead of the safety of Canadians?
     Mr. Speaker, our government has taken a series of measures to hold the murderous Iranian regime to account. We have consistently set and taken measures, including under immigration legislation. We have listed the Revolutionary Guards Quds Force as being a terrorist entity. We take advice from national security agencies in listings, and we think that hon. members should allow that process to take place. When we have some news, we will be making an announcement appropriately.

(1435)

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

    Mr. Speaker, it is not for nothing that people are saying that the Minister of Environment needs to step down. Once again, he is going after forestry workers. He is jeopardizing thousands of jobs in Saguenay, even though Quebec has the largest network of protected areas for woodland caribou.
    He wants to go ahead and impose his decree without understanding the social and economic impacts. A minister who lives in Montreal will never understand our regional issues. It feels like they want to shut down the regions.
    When will the Minister of Environment stop punishing forestry workers, who are just trying to do their job and earn a living?
    Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to remind my colleague that I was born and raised in the very beautiful town of La Tuque, just south of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, in the very beautiful riding of my friend, the Minister of Industry.
    Second, Quebec itself has been promising to present a caribou recovery plan since 2016. In a joint letter between the federal government and the Government of Quebec in 2022, the Government of Quebec once again promised to put forward a caribou protection strategy and to protect at least 65% of the species' habitat.
    Mr. Speaker, how many times has the environment minister come to Saguenay to meet with forestry industry representatives? Once? Twice? No, it is zero times. He cannot even be bothered to leave Montreal.
    The forestry industry is crucial for us. He does not seem to understand that. He needs to stop being so stubborn and scrap his decree. Thousands of jobs are at stake, and that represents thousands of families. The Conservatives will always protect forestry workers' paycheques.
    Can the minister respect Quebec's jurisdictions once and for all and leave forestry workers alone?
    Mr. Speaker, a little guy from La Tuque and a little guy from Shawinigan are definitely not going to take lessons from the Conservatives on how to develop our regions and protect them.
    On our side of the House, we know how to balance the economy with our environmental obligations. We have always invested in the forestry industry, and we will always invest in the forestry industry.
    Workers watching at home know that on our side of the House, we will always do what it takes to stand up for them, build a stronger Canada and make sure there are jobs for this generation and generations to come.
    Mr. Speaker, nine years of this Liberal government is nine years of interference in Quebec's jurisdictions. The Minister of Environment wants to impose an emergency decree that will restrict the activities of forestry workers and jeopardize thousands of jobs in this sector in Quebec.
    Only a Conservative government will protect forestry workers' jobs. Strangely enough, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia supports this Minister of Environment, saying that he can interfere in provincial jurisdictions.
    When will this minister stop interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions with his radical ideas?
    Mr. Speaker, we understand that the forest is part of the DNA of our country and that the forestry workers who have worked in this industry are important.
    Not only are we investing in the industry, but we are in the process of considering and developing new technologies because we want to help the forestry industry. We want it to have a future not only in the 20th century, but also in the 21st century. We are working with our international partners and with innovative companies.
    The people watching us know that we will always be there for workers in the forestry industry.
    Mr. Speaker, after nine years in office, this Liberal government still does not know its place.
    It continues to impose its incompetence on the provinces. It wants to adopt an emergency decree to protect the boreal caribou and trample all over the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec, which is trying to protect jobs, nature and the economy. For some reason, the Bloc Québécois is helping the Liberals at every turn.
    Will the Minister of Environment set aside his radical ideas, mind his own business and let Quebec look after its own affairs?

(1440)

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have been here for nine years. They are waking up. Today is Groundhog Day. The Conservatives are waking up.
    We have been there for the forestry industry from the start. We have been there for years, we are there today and we will be there in the future. What we are doing is protecting the jobs of today and tomorrow. Forestry workers understand that.
    On this side of the House, we will continue to work, and we will let the Conservatives talk.

Seniors

    Mr. Speaker, the age well at home initiative is a perfect example of the federal government's heartlessness. Since 2022, the Government of Quebec has been asking Ottawa to send it the funds, given that the initiative concerns a Quebec jurisdiction, while Ottawa keeps trying to impose conditions.
    Today, the federal government would rather stop sending cheques to seniors than reach an agreement with Quebec. Clearly, this government's priority is not to help people, but to make all the decisions and then try to look good by handing out cheques with maple leaves on them.
    When is this government going to transfer the money instead of abandoning seniors?
    The age well at home initiative is a national program designed to help seniors age safely and with dignity. Our government has invested $90 million across the country so that community organizations can submit projects. Some organizations in Quebec have submitted projects, and we are going to work hard with the Government of Quebec to ensure that they receive their funding.
    Mr. Speaker, there is definitely a problem. This government had already created two classes of seniors. The government refuses to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, but seniors aged 75 and over are getting an increase.
    With its age well at home program, Ottawa is again creating two new classes of seniors, specifically seniors in Quebec and those in Canada. Seniors in Quebec will not receive assistance from Ottawa under the program, which helps them stay in their own homes and supports community organizations, but seniors in Canada will.
    What is the government waiting for to transfer the money? Why is it holding Quebec seniors hostage?
    Mr. Speaker, community organizations have been working hard to present and develop projects under this national program. Seniors need these projects, which involve things like delivering meals and helping with transportation.
    We are working on solutions with Quebec because we want to make sure that community organizations get the money they need to help seniors. There are not two classes of seniors; there is only one, and this government will be there to help them all.

Employment

    Mr. Speaker, training is the way to address the labour shortage. That is what guarantees a skilled workforce across all economic sectors. Everyone agrees. There is consensus among workers, employers and the government.
    However, Ottawa is cutting transfers and now there is a shortfall of $145 million. We know the government is tired, but it needs to wake up. Will it reconsider its decision to cut workforce training transfers?
    Mr. Speaker, when we came to power, we made significant investments in training several million workers from coast to coast to coast. The additional investment in question was not renewed in the 2024 budget because it was a temporary measure.
    We are here to work with the provinces. We are going to do that. We are going to continue to train nearly one million people a year. That is what we are doing. It is a shared jurisdiction. We are here for Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast.

[English]

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister is robbing hard-working Canadians to pay for his out-of-control spending. The level of that thievery was exposed last week when the Liberals were forced to admit that their carbon tax scam robs our economy of $30 billion a year and it picks the pockets of every single Canadian family of $2,000 a year. The environment minister is not worth the economic vandalism he has wrought on Canadians.
    Will the minister admit that his carbon tax is a scam and just resign?
     Mr. Speaker, a deception was revealed last week. The deception was the fake pose of the Conservatives to pretend to be on the side of working people. Last week, we gave them a choice. We said they could be on the side of a nurse or a welder, a Canadian who lives from paycheque to paycheque, or they could side with a multi-millionaire. It did not surprise anyone on this side of the House that the Conservatives, yet again, chose their rich lobbyist friends. Shame on them.

(1445)

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal carbon tax scam was exposed last week, and it confirms what every hard-working Canadian already knows: It makes life unaffordable. The Liberals' own data, which they desperately tried to hide, shows the Liberal carbon tax scam robs Canadian families of $2,000 a year. This is money that they would put on dance fees, hockey registration or a summer vacation, or just to put food on the table. The truth is hard-working Canadians cannot afford the environment minister's carbon tax scam.
    Will he admit it is a failure, just resign and give Canadians a break?
     Mr. Speaker, there really has been a scam that has been revealed. For weeks, for months, the Conservatives have been trying to distract and deceive. They have been trying to bamboozle Canadians. They have posed as being on the side of working people, on the side of people who live from paycheque to paycheque, but last week they showed their true colours and they voted against the plumber and the nurse. Now Canadians know whose side they are really on.
     Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has been caught covering up a damning secret from Canadians. After years of telling Canadians they would be better off from the carbon tax, his own government's data has proved him wrong. The carbon tax will cost the Canadian economy $30 billion every year. That is nearly $2,000 per Canadian family.
    Now that we know the environment minister chose to vandalize the Canadian economy with this carbon tax, will he do the right thing and resign?
    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that climate change has already cost Canadians $25 billion in the last 10 years alone. Not five years from now, not 10 years from now, it is already happening. If we do not do anything, it is going to be an extra $35 billion to Canadian taxpayers.
    What we are doing on this side of the House is we are helping Canadians fight climate change and we are helping Canadians win affordability, which is why eight out of 10 Canadian families get more money back from carbon pricing than what they pay.
    Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal costly coalition can no longer dispute the Parliamentary Budget Officer's finding that the carbon tax will cost most Canadians more than they pay in. The Liberals' own report, which Conservatives forced them to release, shows that carbon tax will cost every single family in Canada $2,000 per year and will cost the Canadian economy $30 billion per year. This is nothing short of economic vandalism.
    After nine years, will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and fire his environment minister, or will he once again prove he is not worth the cost?
    Mr. Speaker, let us go through the numbers yet again. For a family of four in Alberta, it is $1,800; in Manitoba, it is $1,200; in Ontario, it is $1,120; in Saskatchewan, it is $1,504; in New Brunswick, it is $760; in Nova Scotia, it is $824; in PEI, it is $880; and in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is $1,192 a year. To most people, that is a lot of money. To these guys, it is phony.

Grocery Industry

    Mr. Speaker, people are increasingly turning to food banks in Halifax because of sky-high grocery prices, with food bank visits having risen by 21% since last year. Instead of tackling the corporate greed gouging these families, the Liberals gutted the NDP's bill to address price-fixing and harmful mergers that are increasing prices for Canadians. Just like the Conservatives, they would rather protect CEO profits over lowering prices for Canadians.
    Why do the Liberals choose corporate power and profits over the people of Nova Scotia?

(1450)

     Mr. Speaker, we did not only choose the people of Nova Scotia, we chose all Canadians when we called all the CEOs of the grocery chains to come to explain themselves in Ottawa, to answer to this government and to answer to Canadians. We have introduced one of the most comprehensive reforms on competition because we want more choice, less consolidation and more competition. If the NDP and Conservatives want to do something, they should call Walmart and Costco, like I am doing, to ask them to sign the grocery code of conduct so we bring fairness in this country for all grocers across the nation.

Air Transportation

    Mr. Speaker, Air Canada made $2 billion in profits last year, but apparently that was not enough, because now Canadians are facing steep summer price hikes at a time when they can least afford it. WestJet is even charging people $25 just to book a ticket by phone. These costs affect northern communities super hard, because flying is often the only option for people there. The government's response has been crickets.
    Whether it is grocery chains, oil and gas companies or airlines, the Liberals seem perfectly fine with corporations gouging Canadians. Why is that?
     Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, WestJet makes its own business decisions, but charging extras for customers who book flights over the phone makes absolutely no sense.
     On this side of the aisle, we are working with the Canadian Transportation Agency to increase transparency of fees to make life more affordable. What are they doing? They are voting against all of that.

Indigenous Affairs

     Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month. It is time to reflect on the legacy and impacts of colonialism, and work together toward a better future. This is top of mind for the 12,000 first nations and non-indigenous residents who live in the Weeneebayko region in northern Ontario.
    Could the Minister of Indigenous Services tell us what the government is doing to ensure that everyone has fair access to quality health care?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton South for her advocacy. She is right that for too long indigenous people have been facing discrimination as they access health care. However, everyone in the country has the right to quality health care.
     In 2018, our government contributed $158 million to plan the replacement of the Weeneebayko hospital in northern Ontario. As I said in the House last month, we are going to get that health centre built. The federal government is contributing $1.2 billion so that all members in the Weeneebayko area region have equal access to health care.

Carbon Pricing

    Mr. Speaker, the $30 billion carbon tax cover-up has been exposed. The costly cover-up coalition hid a secret government report proving that the carbon tax scam commits $30 billion of economic vandalism. The culprit of this cover-up is the environment minister, who has a profound love of orange jumpsuits and handcuffs. He did it to protect the leader of the NDP's pension. Those champagne socialists are not worth the cover-up or the cost.
    Why has the environment minister not been fired for misleading Canadians?
     Mr. Speaker, the average income in Calgary Forest Lawn is $35,000. The average person in Calgary Forest Lawn can only dream of having an income of more than $250,000 a year. However, their MP thinks that the average person earning $35,000 in Calgary Forest Lawn should pay tax at a higher rate than a multi-millionaire making a profit of more than $250,000 a year. That is shameful.
    Mr. Speaker, it looks like the minister has a Ph.D. in wackonomics. Facts are like common sense. In the government, they are not so common.
     The proud socialist environment minister's woke, radical, extreme agenda sent two million Canadians to a food bank and one in four into poverty. His government hid a secret report that proves the carbon tax scam costs Canadians an extra $30 billion. If anyone in the private sector covered up a $30 billion loss from shareholders, they would be fired.
    How the hell does that guy still have a job?

(1455)

     This is a message for all hon. members to be very careful about the language they use in the House.
     The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
     Mr. Speaker, let me share some economic analysis, “Here we have a monstrous policy of transferring wealth from wage-earners to asset-holders, from the working class to the wealthy....Here we have a policy that is specifically designed to transfer wealth from those who earn wages to those who earn capital gains through their assets.” Who said that? The current Conservative leader. He was railing against the holders of assets and claiming to support working people, but we learned last week that is fake populism.
    Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada is on track for the worst living standards in 40 years.
     Now the Prime Minister and his radical finance minister are hiking taxes on farmers to pay for their inflationary spending, all during a food crisis. A new report indicates that the Liberal's job-killing tax hike will cost average farmers 30% more in taxes.
     Canadians know that when you tax a farmer who grows the food and tax a trucker who ships the food, it is all Canadians who pay the price. How is that fair?
     Mr. Speaker, as the proud daughter of a farmer, I know the huge contribution farmers make to our country. That is why I am glad that with these tax measures, we are able to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1.25 million for each farmer in Canada.
     I also know that farmers are hard-working people. They are on the side of the working people, not on the side of the multi-millionaires, but that is not the side the Conservatives are on.
    Mr. Speaker, more Canadians are struggling to feed their families, and 25% of Canadians are living in poverty. The Liberals can spin this a hundred different ways, but Canadians know the truth.
     First, the government punished Canadians with the carbon tax. Now, it is imposing a job-killing tax hike on the people who produce and provide the services we need to survive. The farmers, welders, plumbers, home builders, doctors and small business owners will all be decimated by this hike.
     Will the minister commit to exempting any Canadian earning less than $120,000 a year from this job-killing tax hike?
     Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are showing not only that they are fake populists, but also that they are populists who cannot do math.
     We have been really clear that the new level of capital gains inclusion kicks in only after each individual has made $250,000 in capital gains, and they can do that every single year. That is the reality, and the Conservatives are ashamed of themselves.

[Translation]

Official Languages

    Mr. Speaker, the federal government is slipping again when it comes to the French language. Canada Post is hiring unilingual anglophone mail carriers in Belœil and in Saint‑Rémi. Canada Post claims that people do not have to speak French to deliver the mail. Let us remind them that in Quebec, we work in French. We will not tolerate Canada Post anglicizing the workplace of Quebec employees.
    It is just further evidence that the Charter of the French Language should be paramount. Knowledge of French is essential in Quebec.
    Will the minister immediately set Canada Post straight?

(1500)

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me the chance to remind the entire House that all federal institutions, including Crown corporations like Canada Post, are subject to the Canadian government's Official Languages Act. The good news is that this act was strengthened in the past few years. For the first time in this country's history, this act and the Canadian government recognize that we must defend the French language throughout Canada, but especially in Quebec.
    This is everyone's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the Canadian government. What is more, we have a multi-billion dollar plan to help communities across the country.
    Mr. Speaker, by hiring unilingual anglophone employees, Canada Post is undermining the right of all its employees in Quebec to work in French. This issue is putting the reformed Official Languages Act to the test.
    Let us not forget that Quebec and the Liberals reached a compromise that does not require federal corporations to comply with the Charter of the French Language. Canada Post is using that compromise to anglicize its workplaces.
    Does the minister realize that this is further proof that, reform notwithstanding, the Official Languages Act still promotes the anglicization of Quebec?
    Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, for the first time in this country's history, the new Official Languages Act recognizes that French is in jeopardy in Quebec and that it must be protected across the country, but especially in Quebec. I have already answered that question. I made it clear that all Crown corporations are subject to the same treatment.
    I have a few seconds left, so, on behalf of all members, I want to thank the latest cohort of pages, who will soon be leaving us, for their outstanding service over the past year.

[English]

Taxation

     Mr. Speaker, Larry the plumber from Winnipeg told the finance committee this morning that the Liberal change to the capital gains tax is not fair to his generation. He is not wealthy. He does not have a gold-plated public sector pension or a trust fund to fall back on, like the Prime Minister
     Colleagues, I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member's question. I am going to ask him to start from the top.
    The hon. member.
     Mr. Speaker, Larry the plumber from Winnipeg told the finance committee this morning that the Liberal change to the capital gains tax is not fair to his generation. He is not wealthy. He does not have a gold-plated public sector pension or a trust fund to fall back on, like the Prime Minister. He worked hard to build a small plumbing company, to save for retirement, for his family, and now, the Prime Minister is pulling the rug out from his retirement plan, penalizing his hard work.
     Will the Prime Minister exempt plumbers like Larry from the capital gains increase, yes or no?
     Mr. Speaker, these deflecting and deceiving Conservatives should be a little bit careful when it comes to talking about gold-plated public pensions. After all, their leader has worked his entire life for the government. He currently lives in government accommodation—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Colleagues, like I was having difficulty hearing the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, I am also having difficulty hearing the Deputy Prime Minister.
     I would ask that the Deputy Prime Minister please respond again, from the top, and I am asking all members to please allow the Speaker to be able to hear the member.
    Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to do so.
     These deflecting and deceiving Conservatives should be a little careful when it comes to talking about gold-plated public pensions. After all, they are led by someone who has worked his entire life for the government and someone who currently lives in government, luxurious housing and has a government chef.
    Now, when it comes to working people, we are on their side. The Conservatives have just shown that they are not.

(1505)

[Translation]

Forestry Industry

    Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, is preparing to force more radical policies on Quebeckers by imposing a decree that will destroy the forestry industry in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
    TVA Nouvelles reports that the Bloc environment critic also believes that it is fine for Ottawa to get involved in the caribou issue. The Conservative Party is the only one defending Quebec's forestry workers.
    Can the Minister of Environment let Quebec manage its territory the way it sees fit?
    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He knows very well that we have always been there for the forestry industry. We will always be there for the forestry industry.
    Forestry workers understand that we have to balance the environment and the economy. They, too, want to ensure there are jobs now and for generations to come.
    That is why we will continue to invest in innovation, continue to support the industry and always side with forestry workers in Quebec and across the country.

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who never thinks about farmers or consults them.
    With help from the Bloc Québécois, she found a new way to undermine our farming sector. This new tax increase on capital gains will jeopardize the retirements and succession plans of our farming families. The president of the UPA, Martin Caron, wrote the minister a letter on June 6. It was a heartfelt plea denouncing this situation.
    Will she make a promise today that no farmer will lose their retirement because of this tax increase?
    Mr. Speaker, as a proud farmer's daughter, I truly want to reassure my hon. colleague that I often talk with farmers and I respect their work very much.
    That is why I am proud to announce that on June 25, we are increasing the lifetime capital gains exemption to $2.5 million for a couple. This is an important measure for farmers in Quebec and Canada.

Dental Care

    Mr. Speaker, thousands of seniors, including those in my riding of Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, have already been to see their dentist to get dental care. This shows the importance of implementing the Canadian dental care plan.
    Unfortunately, the opposition continues to oppose this program day after day.
    Can the Minister of Public Services and Procurement give us an update on how successful this program has been for seniors in Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel?
    Mr. Speaker, not only is the Conservative leader against the Canadian dental care plan, but he also misled seniors in Quebec City by saying on the radio just a few days ago that the Canadian dental care plan does not exist and that people should not try to register for it. That shows contempt for seniors in Quebec.
    The good news is that it is not working, because over one-third of the two million seniors who have already registered are in Quebec. Another piece of good news is that, next week, as of June 27, all children between the ages of zero and 18 and people with disabilities will also be able to sign up for the new Canadian dental care plan.

[English]

Taxation

    Mr. Speaker, congratulations for all the wrong reasons. Canada is now a world leader in high taxes. Ranked behind only Chile and Denmark, we now have the third highest capital gains tax rate in the world. In the midst of a productivity crisis, how can the Minister of Small Business support a tax hike that will kill jobs and decimate our entrepreneurs?
     Mr. Speaker, yet again, the Conservatives need to work just a little harder, not only on being less hypocritical about support for working Canadians, but also on just getting their facts straight. After this move, the capital gains rate in Canada will be lower than the tax paid in California or in New York City. Furthermore, the METR, Canada's marginal effective tax rate, is the lowest in the G7, and anyone who read the budget would have seen that.
    Mr. Speaker, after nine years, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Shaughn, a 20-year veteran planning to retire next year, is gutted that he will have to put that off, given the Liberal government's punitive policy on capital gains. It was not enough for the Prime Minister to leave veterans high and dry because they were asking for more than he could give. Now, despite Shaughn's decades of service and prudent planning for his retirement, the Prime Minister wants to take even more, so my question is this: How is that fair?

(1510)

    Mr. Speaker, we have already established that the Conservatives are not on the side of working Canadians. They are not on the side of the nurse, the plumber or the soldier who is living from paycheque to paycheque. They are on the side of the multi-millionaire who has already made $250,000 in capital gains profit in a given year. However, in opposing this measure, they are also opposing dental care that will help nine million Canadians, school food for 400,000 children and our plan to build four million homes in Canada. Shame on them.

Ethics

    Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is already under fire for his $30-billion carbon tax cover-up. He was a lobbyist for Cycle Capital. Cycle Capital companies got more than $200 million from the Liberal green slush fund. Now we learn that he is still a big shareholder in Cycle Capital, and since he became environment minister, Cycle Capital companies have gotten another $17 million from the green slush fund.
    Liberal insiders are getting rich on taxpayer money. There is a carbon tax cover-up. The environment minister is profiting from the green slush fund sleaze. When will Liberal corruption end?
    Mr. Speaker, do those members know what is profiting from all the work of this government and all the members in the House? It is record investment in green technologies in our country. We rank number one, ahead of China, for the battery ecosystem in the country and have more—
    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
    Colleagues, we are almost there. There are a couple of more sleeps.
    The hon. Minister of Innovation, from the top, please.
    Mr. Speaker, I have more to say for the sleepy Conservatives.
     On this side of the House, we know what we are doing. Thanks to the work of this government, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Environment and the Prime Minister, we have seen record investment in our country. We rank first in the world for the battery ecosystem, ahead of China. In Windsor, St. Thomas, Bécancour and Kingston, Canadians are winning, Canada is winning, and we will fight for Canada at every step of the way.

Dental Care

     Mr. Speaker, last month, eligible Canadians were able to begin receiving care under the Canadian dental care plan. In my community of Newmarket—Aurora and across Canada, many seniors who have not been able to afford a dentist are now able to visit participating dental providers.
     Could the Minister of Health update the House with respect to how many Canadians have already received care under the plan, and about the newest cohort that can begin applying for the Canadian dental plan?
     Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for his incredible advocacy, along with the parliamentarians in the House who are standing with vulnerable Canadians who need dental care.
     In just six weeks, more than 200,000 seniors from coast to coast to coast were able to receive dental care. To put that in practical terms, the call centre got a call yesterday from an 87-year-old woman, in tears, because for the first time since she was 11 years old, somebody allowed her to get her mouth taken care of.
     We are going to make sure that all nine million Canadians everywhere in the country get the care they need.

(1515)

National Defence

    Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been saying for years that their grievance system is broken. Today's ombudsman's report confirmed this. On average, Canadian Armed Forces members have to wait 1,000 days to get compensated when there is a mistake with their pay. People are frustrated, they are tired and they are angry. Our men and women who bravely serve our country and keep Canadians safe deserve better.
     The government keeps failing our armed forces. Will the minister tell us the steps he will take to implement the ombud's recommendations?
    Mr. Speaker, from COVID-19 to natural disasters and for their excellent work in Europe, our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have always been there for Canadians. It is our job to make sure that members of our forces and their families are well supported.
     That is why I have accepted all of the ombudsman's recommendations to transform and modernize our military grievance system. As well, we are making significant new investments to support those members, with $100 million for child care, nearly $300 million for a housing strategy and nearly $500 million to digitize the health care records. We and our government will always be there for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Veterans Affairs

     Mr. Speaker, between 2010 and 2020, 191 Canadian military personnel died by suicide. Instead of addressing mental health challenges, Liberal and Conservative governments have cut funding, putting veterans at risk.
     The Burns Way is ready to provide more trained, peer-to-peer support to our brave veterans, particularly for indigenous and 2SLGBTQIA+ veterans. They deserve nothing less.
    Will the minister commit today to funding The Burns Way, yes or no?
    Mr. Speaker, I first want to take a moment to thank the members of the veterans affairs committee for the important study they presented last week on women veterans. We certainly recognize that a lot of work needs to be done, and I want to commend all the members who worked on this report.
     On the issue of mental health services as well, two years ago the Department of Veterans Affairs Canada ensured that when members of the Canadian Armed Forces or veterans apply for mental health services, they can have access to those services immediately without any assessments. We want to make sure that when veterans are applying for services, they will have the care that they need when they need it the most.

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

    Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence in memory of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, assassinated in Surrey, British Columbia, one year ago today.
    I now invite hon. members to rise.
    [A moment of silence observed]

Government Orders

[Government Orders]

[Translation]

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

    The House resumed from June 17 consideration of Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
    It being 3:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C‑69.
    Call in the members.
     And the bells having rung:

(1520)

    The question is on Motion No. 1. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 2 to 31.

(1535)

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 831)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 117


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 207


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 to 31 defeated.
     The question is on Motion No. 32.

[Translation]

    A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 33.

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, it is the birthday of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, so I would like to say that, in his honour, we accept to apply the vote and we will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting against.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 32, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 832)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 32 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 33 defeated.

[English]

     The question is on Motion No. 34. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 35 to 37.
     Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement from all parties to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with the Liberal members voting nay.
     Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party of Canada will agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.

(1540)

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 34, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 833)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 34 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 35 to 37 defeated.

[English]

    The next question is on Motion No. 38.
     Mr. Speaker, again, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement among the parties to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote. Conservative members will be voting in favour of the motion.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 38, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 834)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 38 defeated.

[English]

    The next question is on Motion No. 39. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 40 and 41.
    Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting yea.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the result of the previous vote and is voting against the motion.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting no.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 39, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 835)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 39 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 40 and 41 defeated.

[English]

     The next question is on Motion No. 42. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 43.
     Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting nay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote. Conservative members will be voting in favour of the motion.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.

[English]

     Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, Greens agree to apply the vote, and we will be voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting yes.

(1545)

[English]

    (The House divided on Motion No. 42, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 836)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bergeron
Berthold
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Plamondon
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 148


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 174


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


    I declare Motion No. 42 defeated. Therefore, I declare Motion No. 43 defeated.
    The next question is on Motion No. 44. A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 45.
     Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results from the previous vote to this one, with Liberal members voting nay.
     Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the votes, with Conservatives voting yea.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[English]

     The New Democratic Party of Canada agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.
    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 44, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 837)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Garrison
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lemire
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Miao
Michaud
Miller
Morrice
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
Normandin
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Pauzé
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Rayes
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Savard-Tremblay
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Singh
Sorbara
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Onge
Sudds
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thériault
Therrien
Thompson
Trudeau
Trudel
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandal
Vandenbeld
Vignola
Villemure
Virani
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi

Total: -- 206


PAIRED

Members

Bérubé
Jones

Total: -- 2


     I declare Motion No. 44 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 45 defeated.

[English]

    The question is on Motion No. 46. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 47 and 48.
    Mr. Speaker, once again, I believe that if you seek it, you will find agreement to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting no.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote and will be voting no.
    Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting against.

[Translation]

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply and will be voting against.
    (The House divided on Motion No. 46, which was negatived on the following division:)
 

(Division No. 838)

YEAS

Members

Aboultaif
Aitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Berthold
Bezan
Block
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Carrie
Chambers
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Deltell
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lehoux
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Moore
Morantz
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perkins
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer

Total: -- 116


NAYS

Members

Alghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Bendayan
Bergeron
Bibeau
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chabot
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Champoux
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Collins (Victoria)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
DeBellefeuille
Desbiens
Desilets
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal