OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 285 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Monday, February 26, 2024 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES February 26, 2024 DEBATES No. 285 No. 285 N o 285 Volume 151 285 26 02 2024 2024/02/26 11:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 11 a.m. Prayer

(1105) [ English ] Points of Order Amendments to Bill C-318 at Committee Stage—Speaker's Ruling Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised February 8, 2024, by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader concerning the admissibility of amendments made to Bill C-318 ,

an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents, by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary stated that the four amendments adopted by the committee during its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill not only exceeded the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading, but also required a royal recommendation, since they seek to authorize new and distinct spending not authorized by the Employment Insurance Act or any other statute or appropriation. In response, the member for Winnipeg Centre noted that since the adoption in the previous session of Bill C-15 ,

An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, all federal legislation must be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a goal her amendments sought to achieve. She also indicated that the government had the power to provide the royal recommendation required for these amendments. [ Translation ] The House will recall that on May 4, 2023, the Chair ruled that Bill C-318 required a royal recommendation when it stated at page 14043 of Debates, and I quote:

...clause 5 adds new

section 22.1 to the Employment Insurance Act to create a new type of special benefit, namely, a 15-week attachment benefit for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. The bill also provides for the duration of this new benefit to be extended for various reasons. Implementing Bill C-318 would create a new type of benefit, and therefore, lead to increasing public expenditures for purposes not currently authorized by the act. As a result, a new royal recommendation is required for the bill to receive a final vote in the House at third reading.

During the clause-by-clause study of the bill by the committee, four amendments moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre were adopted.

The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 apply to the Employment Insurance Act and the amendments to clause 14 and clause 17 apply to the Canada Labour Code. [ English ] The amendments to clauses 1 and 8 modify the bill to include, for the purposes of the new benefit created by the bill, a situation where one or more indigenous children could be placed with a claimant, other than the child’s parents, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong.

With the new provisions, the claimant could be entitled to obtain a 15-week benefit drawn from the treasury, a notion which is not currently provided for in the bill as adopted at second reading. Both amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee since they would create a new and distinct charge on the public treasury and as such would require a royal recommendation. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, at page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

(1110) [ Translation ] Bill C-318 also proposes amendments to the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave in the case of the transfer of a child through adoption or a child born through surrogacy. The amendments to clauses 14 and 17 create a new corresponding extended leave of absence to match the benefit established by the first two amendments to clauses 1 and 8. Here, the committee chair deemed both amendments to be beyond the scope of the bill and thus also ruled them inadmissible.

In the case of all four amendments, the committee chair’s rulings were challenged and overturned, and the amendments ultimately adopted. [ English ] As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene on matters upon which committees are competent to take decisions. However, the admissibility of any amendments adopted by a committee may be challenged on procedural grounds in the House after a bill is reported back. As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice , third edition, at page 779:

The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker’s own initiative.

[ Translation ] When called upon to deal with such matters, the Chair is guided by Speaker Fraser’s explanation of April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates, and I quote:

When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting that may be.

[ English ] In light of the arguments presented by both the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for Winnipeg Centre , the Chair has examined the four amendments at issue. The amendments to clause 1 and clause 8 do indeed propose a charge upon the public revenue and therefore infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

While the Chair recognizes that challenges may arise when a committee must examine a bill where the Speaker has previously determined that a royal recommendation will be required before putting the question at third reading, a committee must still carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers.

As explained by Speaker Milliken in his ruling from November 19, 2009, at page 6939 of the Debates: In my view, by adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiative of the Crown, even when it is directed at a clause itself needing a royal recommendation, a committee ventures beyond its mandate. [ Translation ] As previously stated, the bill aims to create a new benefit and corresponding extended leave for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy.

The amendments to clauses 8 and 14 provide that one or more indigenous children could be placed, in accordance with the customs or traditions of the indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, with a person other than the child’s parents. This person could be entitled to an extended leave, which introduces a new concept not found in the bill as adopted at second reading.

Thus, these amendments do go beyond the scope of Bill C-318 . (1115) [ English ] Consequently, I must order that all four amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering that the reprint of Bill C-318 , as ordered by the committee, be cancelled. The text of the bill as adopted at second reading will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.

Given that the bill is now reported back from committee without amendment, the requirement for a royal recommendation, as explained in the Chair's ruling from May 4, 2023, stands. Consequently, I will decline to put the question on third reading unless a royal recommendation is received. I thank all members for their attention.

Private Members' Business Private Members' Business

Criminal Code

Bill S-205. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-205,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another Act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders) , as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

[ English ] Speaker's Ruling

The Speaker :

There are 12 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill S-205 . Motions Nos. 1 to 12 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table. [ Translation ] I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 12 to the House.

[ English ] Motions in amendment

Ms. Michelle Ferreri (Peterborough—Kawartha, CPC)

Motion Nos. 1 to 12 moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill S-205, in Clause 1, be amended

(

a) by replacing lines 4 to 17 on page 1 with the following:

“1

(1) Section 515 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):

(3.1) Before making an order under subsection (2) in respect of an accused who is charged with an offence in the commission of which violence was used, threatened or attempted against the accused’s intimate partner, the justice must ask the prosecutor whether the intimate partner of the accused has been consulted about their safety and security needs.

(2) Subsection 515(4) of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (e):

(e.1) wear an electronic monitoring device, if the Attorney General makes the request;

(2.1) Subsection 515(4.2) of the Act is amended by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (a.1) and by repealing paragraph (a.2).

(3) Paragraph 515(6)(b.1) of the Act is replaced by”; and

(

b) by replacing line 1 on page 2 with the following:

“

(4) The Act is amended by adding the following”

Motion No. 2

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(

a) by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 2 with the following:

“810.03

(1) A person who fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner may lay an information”;

(

b) by replacing lines 32 and 33 on page 2 with the following:

“

(5) An order under either subsection (3) or (4) must be made in a timely manner.

(6) The provincial court judge may commit the defen-”;

(

c) by replacing line 1 on page 3 with the following:

“

(7) The provincial court judge may add any reasonable”;

(

d) by replacing lines 4 and 5 on page 3 with the following:

“or to secure the safety and security of the informant, their child or a child of the defendant, including condi-”;

(

e) by replacing line 20 on page 3 with the following:

“rectly, with the informant, a child of the informant or”;

(

f) by replacing lines 1 to 5 on page 4 with the following:

“

(8) The informant may provide submissions in writing on the conditions that the judge may add to the recognizance under subsection (7).

(9) The provincial court judge shall consider whether it is desirable, in the interests of the informant’s safety or”;

(

g) by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 4 with the following:

“

(10) If the provincial court judge adds a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the judge”;

(

h) by replacing lines 22 and 23 on page 4 with the following:

“

(11) If the provincial court judge does not add a condition described in subsection (9) to a recognizance, the”;

(

i) by replacing lines 26 and 27 on page 4 with the following:

“

(12) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in”;

(

j) by replacing lines 29 to 31 on page 4 with the following:

“

(13) When the defendant makes an application under subsection (12), the provincial court judge must, before varying any conditions, consult the informant about their”; and

(

k) by replacing line 33 on page 4 with the following:

“

(14) A warrant of committal to prison for failure or re-”

Motion No. 3

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing, in the English version, lines 15 and 16 on page 2 with the following:

“under subsection (1) may cause the informant and the person who is the subject of the information to appear”

Motion No. 4

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(

a) by replacing line 23 on page 2 with the following:

“not more than two years.”;

(

b) by replacing line 30 on page 2 with the following:

“into the recognizance for a period of not more than three”; and

(

c) by replacing line 35 on page 2 with the following:

“dant to prison for a term not exceeding two years if the”

Motion No. 5

That Bill S-205, in Clause 2, be amended

(

a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 3 with the following:

“(

f) to refrain from using social media;

(

g) to abstain from the consumption of drugs — ex-”;

(

b) by replacing line 28 on page 3 with the following:

“(

h) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”; and

c) by replacing line 38 on page 3 with the following:

“(

i) to provide, for the purpose of analysis, a sample of”

Motion No. 6

That Bill S-205, in Clause 3, be amended

(

a) by replacing line 10 on page 5 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(f), 810.011(6)(e), 810.03(7)(h),”;

(

b) by replacing line 15 on page 5 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(i)”; and

(

c) by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.011(6)(f), 810.03(7)(i), 810.1(3.02)(

i) or”

Motion No. 7

That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 34 and 35 on page 7 with the following:

“directly, with the informant, the informant’s child or any relative or close friend of the informant,”

Motion No. 8

That Bill S-205, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 7 with the following:

“(e.3) refrains from using social media (section 801.03 of the Criminal Code);”

Motion No. 9

That Bill S-205, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 8 with the following:

“810.01(4.1)(g), 810.03(7)(i), 810.011(6)(f), 810.1(3.02)(

i) and”

Motion No. 10

That Bill S-205, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 21 on page 8 with the following:

“fears on reasonable grounds that their intimate partner will commit an offence that will cause personal injury to them, to their child or to a child of that intimate partner, and a provincial”

Motion No. 11

That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the word “810.03(7)“ with the following:

“810.03(9)”

Motion No. 12

That Bill S-205, in Clause 10.1, be amended by replacing, in subclause (2), the words “the intimate partner’s safety” with the following:

“the informant’s safety”

(1130) She said: Mr. Speaker, people watching at home may think that these are just so many amendments. That is the essence of what I am going to talk about today. I must also always thank the people from Peterborough—Kawartha, my riding. It is always an honour to stand here and speak on something so critical that affects Canadians and families across this country. We are speaking today about domestic violence in particular. This is a bill, Bill S-205 , that was put forward by Senator Boisvenu.

I will be talking a lot about him in this speech today because it is a very personal story of what he did to put forward this bill. We had the chance to study this bill in my committee, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, also known as FEWO. Before we go into this and the amendments that we have put forward to this bill, I want to provide some stats for people watching at home, many of whom are living these stats. Domestic violence in this country is an epidemic, and 94 Ontario municipalities have declared intimate partner violence an epidemic.

In Ontario, 30 women were killed in a 30-week window between 2022 and 2023. Compared to 2014, intimate partner sexual assault was 163% higher. There has been an increase of 72% in domestic violence in this country. I think, right now, people really have on their minds, especially my Albertan colleagues, a tragic story that happened just weeks ago in front of a elementary school. The headline reads, “Man who killed his estranged wife outside Calgary school was facing domestic violence charges”.

The man who killed his estranged wife outside of a Calgary elementary school was facing criminal charges for domestic violence and was charged with twice violating a no-contact order. This woman was murdered in front of an elementary school. Her three children no longer have either parent. This bill that we are talking about today, Bill S-205 , could have prevented that tragedy. Let us break it down, and let us talk about why these amendments are critical and why I am asking every member in this House to support these amendments and to strengthen the bill that was originally created.

The senator who put forward this bill, Senator Boisvenu, is an incredible human. His daughter was murdered in 2002. She was 27 years old. She was randomly kidnapped and killed, because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a repeat violent offender. The senator said, “Changing the system takes a lot of energy. But I had no right to miss the mission that Julie had given me.... One day I will return to Julie, it will be her, my judge.

And I'm sure she'll tell me that we've done great things together, the two of us.” I think it is very important that members in the House, people at home and constituents recognize that the intention behind this bill comes from a very personal place of the lived experience of a man who lost his daughter to domestic violence. He did his due diligence. He spoke with stakeholders and did all the legal correspondence that was necessary to ensure this bill was done properly. When it went to the status of women committee, FEWO, it was watered down beyond belief.

The whole purpose of the bill was removed by the amendments put forward by the Liberals and the NDP. Today, we are asking them to reconsider what they are doing to this watered-down bill and to approve the amendments we have put forward, to leave the bill as it was and to put victims first. I want to give us some victim testimony from the committee that verifies what we are saying here today. This is from Ms. Diane Tremblay. She testified at FEWO on November 20, 2023, about Bill S-205 and said:

If my abuser had been required to wear an electronic bracelet under a recognizance order pursuant to

section 810 of the Criminal Code, as proposed in Senator Boisvenu's bill, my children and I would have been safer and I wouldn't have had to go through these attempted murders. Believe me, you don't emerge unhurt from an attempted murder. You suffer the after-effects for life.

I am asking the House of Commons, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Justice, the judges, all the provinces of Canada and the members to pass and enforce this new bill. It should be adopted immediately, without any amendments.

(1135) This is victim testimony.

It's very urgent. To conclude, I'd like to add that we have a right to live peacefully and safely under the law in our country.

For those watching at home and looking at these amendments, I will say that the Liberals removed the clause asking for the electronic bracelet to be worn by the attacker. That is the whole weight of the bill, the whole point of it. During the period of time between when a victim is strong enough and courageous enough to even report it, which is another issue, they are in a very dangerous position to be attacked or killed by their attacker, as are their children.

I think it is also really important for people at home to recognize something if we really want to think of the big picture and help prevent domestic violence. How many of those attackers grew up in a home where they witnessed domestic violence as children? We have to break the cycle. The impacts on children witnessing domestic violence are profound. I want to go on to another victim's testimony. It is by Martine Jeanson, president, founder and frontline worker of La Maison des Guerrières. She testified November 23, 2023, giving powerful testimony in the status of women committee. She said:

Over the past 20 years, I've worked with hundreds of women who needed help. There is no way to hide them. Men can track them down at their place of work or through their family. They can follow children to school or to their friends' homes. The man will never stop stalking them, following them, harassing them and harming them. Until an electronic bracelet is required, women and their children will never be protected. Electronic bracelets may not be perfect, but that's all we have for the time being. We have no protection. That's why we are asking you, on behalf of all women, to pass the bill [unamended].

This is victim testimony. I will reiterate this over and over again: We were elected to the House to elevate the voices of the people outside the House; we were not elected to push our own agenda and our own ideology. We were elected to make life better and safer, and right now, this country is not safe. There are serial killers who are eligible for day parole, retraumatizing their victims. There are children and mothers, people from all socio-economic classes, who are afraid to go to school. The men, the attackers, will find them wherever they are; they are stalkers.

They control them and their lives, and they ruin children's lives. They ruin the lives of all the people around them. The bill before us should be the most simple bill. We have an opportunity in the House to fix it. In committee, one of the members on the Liberals' side said they are just trying to keep it in line with how the current justice system works. The current justice system is broken, full stop. All we have to do is listen to the stats and read the paper. A CTV reporter tweeted this past weekend that she had someone criminally charged for harassing her.

She was told to contact the police the minute he contacted her again. He is supposed to be in jail, but he is out. That is the danger, and that is why the bill and the amendments were put forward. The bill would amend the Criminal Code with respect to bail pending trial and with respect to peace bonds, to provide that a judge, and in some cases a peace officer, may impose, as a condition of release, an electronic bracelet on an accused who is released pending trial or on a defendant who has entered into a

section 810 peace bond. Electronic monitoring creates a security perimeter between the two intimate partners. The victim can carry a transmitter with them at all times, allowing them to maintain the safety perimeter even if they are away from home, giving the power to the victim. I am asking every member of the House to please vote in support of the amendments. Let us strengthen our justice system and protect victims from domestic violence.

(1140) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the member said, and I think it goes without saying that every member of the House of Commons, of every political stripe, recognizes the gravity and importance of the issue. With respect to domestic violence, I like to think we have seen significant investments, both from budgetary measures of investments into shelters and transitional homes and through government and private member legislation.

I would remind the member about Bill C-233 , introduced by the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle , which recognizes the importance of electronic monitoring and which looks at specific cases dealing with domestic violence. These types of issues are very touching. Just a week or so ago a great tragedy took place in Manitoba, where a man killed his entire family: his wife and three children. Our hearts and prayers go out to the family, friends and members of the community. Recently, the Prime Minister made an announcement on health care with the premier.

The premier, as the Prime Minister has done, emphasized the importance of getting to some of the root causes. Let us find out what is taking place and what we can do. I think that as legislators, whether at the provincial or national level, we all have a role to play, as the member pointed out. In the past we have seen a great deal of co-operation among members that crosses party lines. In particular I would cite the private member's bill of the former Conservative leader Rona Ambrose that was an attempt to provide education through our judicial system.

The support for the legislation crossed party lines, and the bill passed virtually unanimously. There was a bit of a hiccup because of a Senate issue, so the government ultimately had to bring it forward in order for it to pass. I say that because, at the very beginning of her comments, the member pointed out that Bill S-205 received quite a few amendments. She is right. Although I was not at the committee, but I believe she was, that shows me that there was likely a great deal of dialogue with respect to the different amendments, and I suspect a number of them passed.

I have had the opportunity to look at a couple of them, and I believe that the legislation was enhanced by the passing of some of the amendments. When we look at the work the committee has done and how we continue to advance the issue, we see that there is a great deal of merit in voting for the legislation. The member spent a lot of her time talking about electronic monitoring. I first looked into electronic monitoring in, I guess, the nineties. I argued then, when I was the justice critic in the province of Manitoba, how that technology could enable us to improve the quality of our judicial system.

I believe that today it is a very effective tool that could in fact make a difference in a very real and tangible way. However, I think we have to be careful about electronic monitoring or ankle bracelets. Often they are of great value, but they are not necessarily the answer in all situations. They do not necessarily prevent a crime from happening, but I acknowledge that they can be an effective tool, if not directly then indirectly, in preventing crimes from happening.

(1145) That is one of the reasons why, when it came time for us to talk about Bill C-233 , there was support for the legislation from all political parties. I believe that legislators at that time recognized the true value of bringing in that sort of technology and encouraging our courts and the judicial system to better utilize, in certain situations, ankle bracelets. I saw that as a very strong positive. I am not too sure exactly why the member feels the legislation before us would be stronger than what Bill C-233 has actually done.

Maybe members who follow her would be able to provide further explanation as to how Bill C-233 would be complemented by what the Conservatives are currently talking about. When we look at the seriousness of the issue, it is important for us to highlight that victims of sexual assault are to be treated with dignity and respect throughout the entire process. It is one of the reasons we brought forward government legislation in the past to support victims. I can recall debates on the floor of the House about public disclosure and ensuring that we protect the identity of the victims.

At the same time, what we found was that there was a bit of a catch in the sense that there were a number of victims who wanted to be able to share their stories in certain situations, and how the law made that complicated. The government brought in the legislation to enable victims to share their stories in certain situations. There is an educational component that is very real. The member made reference to breaking the chain. At the end of the day, the federal government needs to demonstrate leadership through actions, and we have done that with legislative changes as well as budgetary measures.

We also need provinces, and even school divisions, to look at how they could contribute to the debate. I have always thought that in certain areas of public policy, there is great value in incorporating things into our educational system through our public curriculum. I think the potential of dealing with this specific issue is underestimated, whether through family, course-based curricula or looking at different ways that education could be elevated to a higher priority to deal with this very serious issue. It is important.

From a provincial perspective, we need to look at resources and to ensure that we have proper supports in place. Far too often, victims are put in a situation, out of fear, that may lead to a peace bond's not being issued, and legislation has enabled family members or others to be able to look at getting a peace bond issued. These are types of issues that the Crown and others have to deal with on a daily basis. We can look at how advocacy groups could further enhance the safety of women in their homes. This is critically important. I look forward to the ongoing debate.

Suffice it to say, all of us are concerned about intimate partner violence. We have to ensure that the victims of sexual assault are treated with respect and dignity.

(1150) [ Translation ]

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois’s position has not changed since the bill was introduced. Obviously, we are in favour of it, since it is consistent with initiatives aimed at strengthening the justice and police systems in their fight against all forms of violence, including repeat violence. Our thoughts go out to victims of domestic violence, women who are victims of domestic violence. Gender-based violence is a scourge on our society. Obviously, we need to do more to prevent it. I would like to begin by commending the sponsor of this bill, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu. We are all familiar with his story.

His daughter was murdered by a sexual predator in 2002. Following that event, he chose to dedicate his life to protecting crime victims and strengthening the rights of all victims of violence, and especially women, who make up the majority of victims. It is in a way his legacy to our institution. I hope that, with the contribution of all members of Parliament, this legislative measure will take effect very soon. I sincerely believe that it will help many people become more involved in the entire judicial process, which can be extremely trying for obvious reasons.

Despite our differences of opinion on various topics, the senator and I agree on this one. Protecting crime victims’ rights is a priority for the Bloc Québécois. I am very pleased to speak today on this extremely important subject. In Quebec and Canada, criminal and penal law must punish crime and ensure public safety. With the rise in the number of femicides and cases of domestic violence, it is important that we reinforce our mechanisms for protecting crime victims, as well as their children and other loved ones. This requires an amendment to the Criminal Code. Bill S-205 is a firm step in that direction.

It essentially seeks to get victims more involved in the judicial process by, for example, forcing the judge to consult them before issuing a release order with conditions. The conditions that justify detaining an accused awaiting trial are set out in the Criminal Code. Let us take a closer look at what subsection 515(10) has to say:

For the purposes of this section, the detention of an accused in custody is justified only on one or more of the following grounds:

(

a) where the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court in order to be dealt with according to law;

(

b) where the detention is necessary for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim of or witness to the offence, or any person under the age of 18 years, having regard to all the circumstances including any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence or interfere with the administration of justice; and

(

c) if the detention is necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to all the circumstances, including

(

i) the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case,

(ii) the gravity of the offence,

(iii) the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, including whether a firearm was used, and

(iv) the fact that the accused is liable, on conviction, for a potentially lengthy term of imprisonment or, in the case of an offence that involves, or whose subject-matter is, a firearm, a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of three years or more.

Consequently, the decision to detain someone awaiting trial depends on multiple factors specific to each situation. When the public interest justifies keeping the accused in detention, it must be recognized that they are being deprived of their basic rights, including the presumption of innocence, and the right to life, liberty and security. Allowing more victim involvement in the legal process that concerns them is a praiseworthy step that we can support without reservation. Victims do not have to fight every day for justice to be served.

The bill helps lower the barriers victims potentially face that could dissuade them from pursuing the courageous process of filing a complaint against their attacker. The Bloc Québécois has always strived to defend victims of crime. As I stated earlier, our thoughts are with women and victims of domestic violence. Every victim is one too many. Quebec is a world leader in protecting the victims of domestic and family violence.

(1155) Quebec's public safety department has launched an electronic monitoring device project province-wide. It is used to prevent femicides and to protect the victims of domestic violence or sexual exploitation. According to an

article in Le Devoir, “this protective measure was offered for the first time in the Quebec City area in 2022. It was then deployed [across Quebec].” The Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine and northern Quebec regions have had this service since last September. Simply put, it prevents offenders from approaching their victim. The

article goes on to say, “the system consists of two interconnected GPS tracking devices, a bracelet permanently affixed to the ankle of the accused...and a mobile application installed on a smartphone held by the person to be protected. If the offender enters defined restricted areas around the victim, a notification is sent to a monitoring centre, which can then view the location of each of the two parties on a screen. An agent will ask the wearer of the bracelet to move away. If they refuse or continue to approach, the agent will request police intervention.

Sometimes, the police are deployed immediately, without waiting for the offender's reaction”. In the article, Isabelle Mailloux, director general of security at Quebec's correctional services, said that the idea behind this measure is to give victims some peace of mind and ensure their safety. She also said, and I quote, “The bracelet may be imposed on offenders who are serving their sentence in the community, who are released pending trial, who are released on parole, or who have to meet certain conditions upon their release from prison.

In all cases, the victim must consent before the order for the bracelet to be worn is issued”. Isabelle Mailloux also pointed out that Quebec was a trailblazer when it implemented this protection system, and that it remains to this day the only Canadian province to use it. She also explained the following to Le Devoir: “Whenever I hear from a victim who tells me that she has regained some peace of mind, that she has started sleeping again at night, that, to me, is the best indicator of success”.

She said that it can have a deterrent effect on offenders when they realize that they really are being monitored and authorities will actually call them. As reported in the

article later on, she hopes that, if the program becomes well known, more women will be tempted to take

part in it if they ever need to. Personally, I hope that the rest of Canada will follow Quebec's example. I think it is time to come full circle and make inmates released from prison subject to the same restrictions across the country. Measures like those proposed in Bill S‑205 could have a very positive impact on the safety of our communities. These legislative changes are obviously an added value for victims. The justice system needs to be more effective and more transparent.

We must also make the judicial process easier for victims, their families and their loved ones when the fateful decision is made to release the offender. The bill could help build the public's trust in the justice system so that victims do not hesitate to report the crimes against them. We know that is far too often the case. The statistics are troubling and show how important it is to have the right legislative measures. Between 2009 and 2019, we saw a 7.5% rise in femicide and domestic violence. That number peaked in 2021: As many as 18,571 female victims were reported in Quebec, or 1,788 more than in 2020.

I think that as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to contribute to reversing this very troubling trend. I want to come back to the key components of the bill. I mentioned the requirement to consult the victim ahead of a release order with conditions. There is also the introduction of the concept of domestic violence, in which case a victim can apply to have the defendant enter into a recognizance to keep the peace. There is also the preponderance of the victim's version of events, which could influence the choice of conditions the defendant will be subject to under the recognizance.

The Bloc Québécois promised to help improve this bill. That is what we did in committee. We agreed with most of the amendments that were made to this bill, which mainly sought to strengthen it and provide more support for victims. There is just one thing that we did not support, and that was the amendment to decrease the maximum time for good behaviour from two years to 12 months. As we saw in the news recently, abusive partners can act out years later. It is therefore important to be vigilant when it comes to those with a violent past.

As for the rest, we will continue to support this bill, which I think will help keep our communities safe.

(1200) [ English ]

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of this bill, Bill S-205 , which was first introduced by Senator Boisvenu in 2021. First, I want to acknowledge his hard work and effort in putting this bill forward, as well as his courage in sharing his story about how gender-based violence impacted his own family. With that in mind, I think it was critical for him to ensure this bill passed through the House. In general, this bill sets out to protect survivors of intimate partner violence through various amendments to the Criminal Code.

These include ensuring judges consult the accused's intimate partner about their safety and security needs; allowing judges to consider the use of an electronic monitor for interim release; and establishing a new type of recognizance order, or peace bond, for survivors of intimate partner violence. If granted, the peace bond would allow the judge to impose conditions that could include electronic monitoring and a treatment or domestic violence counselling program.

Given that this bill is of great importance, especially because we know that rates of gender-based violence have increased since the pandemic, I can affirm the committee worked very hard to ensure that this bill was reviewed promptly so it could be passed into law. I am very excited to be here for the debate today and to keep this bill moving along. The committee also worked to make necessary amendments to address concerns expressed by the study's witnesses. While discussing the bill, it is important to emphasize that intimate partner violence is a national crisis.

We certainly know, as I indicated, that rates of violence within the home have increased since the pandemic. We also see a connection between intimate partner violence and the mental health crisis we are currently witnessing in Canada. In fact, every six days, a woman in Canada is killed by her intimate partner. Given the severity of intimate partner violence, some Canadian cities, including Ottawa, Toronto and Kitchener, have gone so far as to declare it an epidemic. Therefore, we know that we need to address this crisis of violence.

It is critical to put in place laws to ensure the safety of those who are experiencing violence. Rates of intimate partner violence have been on the rise in recent years, especially, as I said, since the COVID-19 pandemic. Between 2014 and 2022, intimate partner violence rates increased by an alarming 20%. Intimate partner violence overwhelmingly impacts women, particularly young women. Forty-four per cent of women, or 6.2 million women aged 15 and older, have reported some kind of abuse in their intimate partner relationship.

We often think about intimate partner violence in terms of those who are cohabiting, but even when we look at the impact on youth, the rates of intimate partner violence are alarming. Women are similarly overrepresented in intimate partner homicides, which make up nearly one-fifth of all solved homicides in Canada. We also know that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts low-income and indigenous women, as well as women who are visible minorities, disabled or 2SLGBTQ+. Particularly, there has been a rise of anti-trans hate happening in the country.

We saw the Leader of the Opposition , the member for Carleton, fuelling the fires of anti-trans rhetoric last week when talking about safe places that will now exclude trans women.

(1205) We need to be vigilant in all areas of society to protect women. We know that the consequences of intimate partner violence are also very costly. The Department of Justice, for example, estimated the cost of intimate partner violence to be roughly $7.4 billion. It not only costs dignity and safety, it also costs us financially by turning a blind eye to the crisis of intimate partner violence. One of the biggest concerns I had with this bill was the impact it might have on indigenous peoples.

We know that the Liberal government throwing out the amendments to Bill C-318 , as we heard this morning, is certainly not committed, but in the last Parliament, we did pass Bill C-15 , which includes clause 5.

It states, “The Government of Canada must, in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the Declaration.” Today, for example, it could have taken all the measures necessary to pass Bill C-13 and provide royal assent with the amendments to make sure it was consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It did not, but we know the Liberal government is not a champion of indigenous rights in this country as it continues to willfully violate our rights.

When we were amending Bill S-205 , one of the concerns I had was related to indigenous peoples due to the ongoing legacy of colonial-state policies and laws. Indigenous people, as a result, are overrepresented in Canada's criminal justice system. We must make sure that our criminal justice system is consistent with Bill C-15 , which affirms all legislation going forward. I know that this is a Senate bill, but, just as a matter of principle, it should be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In 2018, indigenous adults made up 30% of admissions to provincial and territorial custody and 29% of admissions to federal custody, while representing 4% of the population. Indigenous women made up an even greater share of those admitted into custody, at 42%. I moved an amendment in committee to add cases involving indigenous people to enable judges to consider alternative, culturally appropriate indigenous support services rather than imprisonment. This type of amendment is not only morally necessary, but also legally necessary as well.

Again, Bill C-15 requires all Canadian government legislation to be consistent with the United Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which includes requirements to prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions. The Gladue principles in Canadian law compel judges to recognize the unique experiences of indigenous peoples, including prevent discrimination against indigenous people and respect the integrity of indigenous cultures and traditions.

Given these considerations, judges must consider alternatives to prisons while sentencing, such as, for example, alternative restorative justice. I would like to thank everybody and congratulate Senator Boisvenu. I am looking forward to seeing this bill move quickly through the House. I would also like to thank the committee for the hard discussions we had getting this bill through committee.

(1210) Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill S-205 , a bill that comes from a Conservative senator and a Conservative member of Parliament. It is a Conservative initiative aimed at combatting domestic violence. Before I speak specifically about this bill, I do want to pay particular tribute to Senator Boisvenu, who is responsible for putting this bill forward. Senator Boisvenu has seen the impacts of this kind of violence on his family. He has turned personal tragedy into public advocacy, standing up for victims of crime.

He has devoted his energies in the Senate and outside of the Senate to standing for justice and for the inclusion of victims' voices in various processes. I want to take this opportunity to recognize his incredible work on this bill and on so many other different areas. He is now retiring, and I think all members from all sides in the other place and in this place would pay tribute to him, his commitment to public service and his work. Bill S-205 is one of many proposals he has put forward for combatting domestic violence and other forms of violence, as well as standing up for victims.

Bill S-205 seeks to deal with orders that go against perpetrators of domestic violence, which a judge would issue in order to protect victims and control the perpetrators' activities. In particular, it would create a mechanism where a judge can mandate that a perpetrator would wear an electronic monitoring device and also that victims would be consulted in the process of judges making decisions about the kinds of orders that apply to perpetrators. These initiatives make sense. They are common sense.

They would give victims of domestic violence a greater sense of security, and I believe they would reduce subsequent violence and would save lives. Unfortunately, what we have seen in the process of this bill making its way through Parliament is that members of the Liberal government supported amendments at committee that would weaken the bill, so here we are in the House at report stage, which is when this bill comes out of committee, and Conservatives are working to add back in some of those critical sections that were removed at committee.

There is a lot of discussion in this place about combatting domestic violence, but when the rubber hits the road, we have Liberals voting against critical measures that would actually protect victims of crime. Victims of crime are not primarily concerned about words of solidarity from politicians.

There are a lot of politicians who say they have had enough, that enough is enough and that it must stop, but the rubber hits the road with the concrete legislative initiatives we put forward that punish perpetrators of this horrible crime and that create the kinds of mechanisms, such as electronic monitoring, that will allow victims of these crimes to feel safer. It is disappointing that, while having words to say about the problem of domestic violence, Liberal members have not actually supported the constructive initiatives that Conservatives in the other place and in this place have put forward.

As well, I wanted to mention an issue I have been working on and advocating for, and that is more bystander intervention training. I think one of the ways we can combat crime, domestic violence and other forms of violence, is by empowering bystanders, people who may be outside of a situation and see things that are going on, to know how to respond, how to intervene and what kinds of tools are available to them. I have been to a number of bystander training events, including in my own community, and I think these are very powerful tools for combatting this kind of violence.

We have focused a lot, as we should, on punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim, but I think we can also look at other people, bystanders and potential bystanders, in terms of how to engage them. I have put forward Motion No. 57 in the House that deals with promoting more bystander intervention, awareness and training, which I think is another step we should be talking more about in terms of combatting domestic violence.

(1215) Fundamentally, this is a phenomenal bill, a great bill, and I want to again recognize the excellent work of Senator Boisvenu throughout his life and career standing for and with victims of crime. However, it is unfortunate to see efforts by Liberals and others to water down these kinds of initiatives. Words of solidarity are not enough. We need action, we need policy, to punish perpetrators and protect victims. Those concrete initiatives are going to really make a difference to vulnerable people in our society.

I hope that the House will support Conservative efforts to reverse the watering-down amendments at committee and to strengthen this bill again so that we can do the work that everybody talks about, which is to protect victims of domestic violence.

The Deputy Speaker :

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Government Orders Government Orders

[ Translation ] Government Business No. 35—Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

moved: Motion

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, for the duration of the session,

(a)

(

i) a minister of the Crown may, with the agreement of the House leader of another recognized party, at any time during a sitting, but no later than 6:30 p.m., request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a subsequent sitting be 12:00 a.m., provided that it be 10:00 p.m. on a day when a debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 or 53.1 is to take place, and that such a request shall be deemed adopted,

(ii) a minister of the Crown may request, at any time during a sitting, that a decision to extend a subsequent sitting, made pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i), be rescinded and such request shall be deemed adopted;

(

b) on a sitting day extended pursuant to subparagraph (a)(i),

(

i) proceedings on any opposition motion pursuant to Standing Order 81(16) shall conclude no later than 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, 6:30 p.m. on a Monday or 1:30 p.m. on a Friday, on an allotted day for the business of supply, except pursuant to Standing Order 81(18)(c),

(ii) after 6:30 p.m., the Speaker shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions, and shall only accept a request for unanimous consent after receiving a notice from the House leaders or whips of all recognized parties stating that they are in agreement with such a request,

(iii) motions to proceed to the orders of the day, and to adjourn the debate or the House may be moved after 6:30 p.m. by a minister of the Crown, including on a point of order, and such motions be deemed adopted,

(iv) the time provided for Government Orders shall not be extended pursuant to Standing Orders 33(2), 45(9) or 67.1(2);

(

c) during consideration of the estimates on the last allotted day of each supply period, pursuant to Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18),

(

i) when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings for the purpose of putting forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the estimates, all remaining motions to concur in the votes for which a notice of opposition was filed shall be deemed to have been moved and seconded, the questions deemed put and recorded divisions deemed requested,

(ii) when a supply bill is considered in a committee of the whole, if a recorded division is requested to any bill elements or motions required to dispose of that stage of the said bill, the results of the vote shall apply to the remaining bill elements and motions required to dispose of that stage and report the bill to the House;

(

d) a motion for third reading of a government bill may be made in the same sitting during which the said bill has been concurred in at report stage;

(

e) on the last three sitting days set forth in the House of Commons Calendar for the periods ending in June, as well as the last two sitting days of the periods ending in December, a minister of the Crown may move, without notice, a motion to adjourn the House, provided that,

(

i) the said motion shall be decided immediately without debate or amendment, and that the House shall be deemed adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28,

(ii) notwithstanding Standing Order 45, no recorded division requested between 2 p.m. on the third to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in June, respectively, and between 2 p.m. on the second to last scheduled sitting day and the adjournment on the last scheduled sitting day of the periods ending in December shall be deferred, except for any recorded division requested in regard to a Private Member's Business item, for which the provisions of Standing Orders 93 and 98 shall continue to apply; and

(

f) on any day, at midnight or thereafter, if the House has not completed a series of recorded divisions related to the business of supply or on any bill, a minister of the Crown may move, at any time, the suspension of the sitting of the House, which shall be deemed adopted, and the sitting of the House shall be suspended until 9:00 a.m., later that calendar day.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a motion being put forward by our government to improve the work of the House. We are at an important point in this parliamentary session. Our government has an ambitious agenda to improve the lives of Canadians. This means working hard here in the House of Commons to advance legislation for the people we represent. It means working with all parties in the House to get things done co-operatively, without partisanship or political games.

Members from all parties in this minority government are here to represent their constituents and to get things done on behalf of the people they represent. Unfortunately, one party is preventing that from happening. The Conservatives, led by the Leader of the Opposition have been behaving irresponsibly. They oppose for the sake of opposing, and they fail to propose responsible solutions. They are obstructing the work of every member of the House, all its committees, bodies and parties, solely for their own partisan interests.

They are using political delay tactics to prevent a number of bills from being voted on. We are all witnesses to this, even when it comes to bills they actually support. They impose all-night voting marathons and, in the process, vote against the very investments Canadians are counting on. (1220) [ English ] That is the agenda of the leader of the official opposition of the Conservative Party of Canada for the House. It is to delay, obstruct and create chaos.

By doing so, he hopes that Canadians will tune all of this out and not become invested in the work that we do here, the work that has positive impacts on Canadians every day. I will get to that in a moment. Before that, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives have prevented the House of Commons from doing its work and how their leader will never admit to Canadians what he and his MPs are doing. All his claims about who he is working for are nothing but a ruse. The leader of the official opposition is working for himself, for no one else, and the House of Commons is paying the price.

The motion we are debating today is designed to address the unfortunate place we now find ourselves because of the Conservatives' political agenda of chaos and obstruction. The motion is designed to allow the House to do its work. It is designed to provide extensive time to debate bills in the chamber, something that the Conservatives claim they want. It is designed to turn this place into a healthier workplace.

No one, whether one is a member of Parliament or an employee working in the House of Commons, should be forced to work throughout the night simply because the Leader of the Opposition wants to bully others into participating in his political games. Indeed, this motion reflects our government's view of what we should all want Parliament to be, which is a place for constructive debate, testing ideas, and reasoned and civil discussions. It should be a place where things get done.

Simply put, it should be a place that Canadians are proud of, not a place that Canadians look at and recoil in horror because of the games played, through the night, by the official opposition. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader wants to prevent all of this from happening. He wants to turn the House into a place of dysfunction. On our side of the aisle, and I believe this is true for other MPs in the chamber, we have a different view. We have a much greater respect for this place, for Parliament. We are here every day, working hard to help Canadians in a wide range of areas that touch their lives—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Deputy Speaker :

I will interrupt the hon. member for a moment. We might not agree with what is being said today, but we all have to give respect to the person who is speaking.

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, that makes the point quite eloquently. Does it not? This includes making life more affordable so Canadians can pay for their groceries and their housing. It includes protecting our environment from the catastrophic consequences of climate change. It also includes ensuring Canadian families have access to quality, affordable child care, which is something these Conservatives say they want, and have voted for, but they have refused to allow it to come to a vote so the House could pass child care for Canadian families from coast to coast to coast and start enjoying that now.

This includes having access to sustainable jobs and dental care, and having a strong armed forces that is helping to protect the people of Ukraine by sending equipment, supplies and trainers so the people of Ukraine can resist the illegal Russian invasion. (1225) [ Translation ] Unfortunately, the Conservatives are playing partisan games in the House, standing in the way of progress for all Canadians. They refuse to work with the other parties. They constantly obstruct the passage of laws. This behaviour has been going on since the beginning of this Parliament.

They blocked the budget, the fall economic statement, sustainable jobs for workers, child care services for Canadian families, the free trade agreement with Ukraine and a national council for reconciliation. Those are but six examples. This is parliamentary obstruction by stealth. Canadians deserve better. The Conservatives' actions are unhealthy for this Parliament as well as for democracy. We cannot allow members of all parties of this minority Parliament to be taken hostage by the egotistical political agenda of one party. We do not expect the Conservatives to change their stripes.

They will continue to play their parliamentary game to delay passing bills and adopting legislation. We have therefore prepared a response. The government is putting forward a motion aiming to guarantee that Canadians obtain results from their members. Our motion will make it possible to have evening sessions so we have more time to debate legislation, something my friends on the other side say they want. This motion is not without precedent. It is the third time we have deemed it necessary to propose a motion to extend the sitting hours of the House so members can do their work.

In the two previous cases, the House adopted motions to extend hours for a specified period. It is time to do it again. If this motion is adopted, the possibility of extending hours will remain in force until the House wraps up. The Conservatives say they want more time to debate before voting. This motion will allow that. Our motion therefore reinforces democracy. It will make it possible to better guarantee that one party, the Conservative Party, does not block the work of all the other parties in the House. Parliament works better when we work together, and not when one party obstructs progress.

This motion allows more time so members can debate in the evening, until midnight. This does not mean every sitting will be extended across the board. The extension will only take place when necessary, and will take place on a given day only if the government receives the support of another party for it to take place that day. This support would therefore constitute a majority of members in the House. [ English ] Moreover, this motion clearly indicates that the government could not surprise the House one day by stating that it will sit late that night.

The government has no intention of using this motion at a moment's notice to extend the sitting hours. Indeed, the motion we are debating today clearly states that advance notice for a late sitting is to be given the day prior. The motion would also provide for early adjournment of the House. Before we start hearing the Conservatives claim we are trying to shut down the House in the days and weeks ahead, let us put the facts on the table. Such an assertion from the Conservatives would be patently false.

The motion says that, in the last two sitting days of a fall sitting, the government could put forward a motion to adjourn the House early for the Christmas break. Similarly, it says that, in the last three days of a spring sitting, the government could put forward a motion to adjourn the House early for the summer break. In both instances, if this were to happen, adjourning early would not be something the government could do on its own. It would be a votable motion. The House would vote on whether to adjourn.

It would only pass if a majority of MPs decided that the business of the fall or spring sitting were substantively complete. Let us put aside any ludicrous claims from the Conservatives about adjourning early. We have too much work to do. If they make that claim, it is because they do not want to talk about the overarching intent of the motion, which is to extend the daily hours of the House so that MPs could debate bills and come to a vote. We want more time, not less, for MPs to do their work in the House. If Conservatives have a problem with this, then they need to explain why.

Finally, I would like to address another significant part of this motion. Last December, and we all remember this, in the final days of sitting, the Conservatives tried to turn the House of Commons into a sad spectacle to fulfill their leader's basic impulses as a political bully. The House was scheduled to vote on the budgetary estimates. This is a routine part of the parliamentary cycle and should have been dealt with through a handful of votes. Instead, the Conservatives decided to vote against the investments our government is making.

They forced more than 130 consecutive votes, which took place throughout the night, so they could vote against funds in a wide variety of areas. I would note for my friends that all of those votes are recorded for posterity. We know exactly who voted against what in the House.

Let me give some examples: constructing new homes; cracking down on terrorism financing; supporting communities recovering from hurricane Fiona, which is something the Speaker knows well; cracking down on firearms from illegally entering Canada; ending gender-based violence; supporting Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers; supporting the Montreal Holocaust Museum; training Ukrainian soldiers through Operation Unifier; and supporting our border guards to keep the Canadian border secure. The Conservatives stayed up all night, at least some of them did, to vote against all of these things.

Who did not stay up all night? The very person who said he was going to keep us here until Christmas to block all progress for Canadians, all measures for Canadians, all vital supports across the board—

(1230) Mr. Charlie Angus :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that we are not supposed to say when someone is not in the House, and it should be fair. The leader of the Conservative Party did show up in time to vote against Ukraine. Then he went home.

The Deputy Speaker :

I would suggest to everyone, as we dance on that line, that we are not supposed to say whether someone is here or not, whether that is in the future, in the past or even right now.

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, the point is well taken. However, I would point out that votes are recorded. We will be paying close attention to that, as we always have. What we went through was standing up for the kinds of things that Canadians expect Parliament to do. We were standing up for the kinds of things they expect their government to do, and standing up, yes, for the very essence of the democracy that happens in the chamber. We were determined to stay here all night to demonstrate to Canadians that we are standing on guard for the things they cherish.

We are standing on guard for the programs that they depend on the government for, and we are standing on guard for those things, despite the trickery and the maliciousness demonstrated by the official opposition.

An hon. member: Oh, oh

Hon. Steven MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, they joke about these things because it is all part of the plan. It is just a big joke for these Conservatives on the other side of the House. There is all this chaos and dysfunction they are bringing here on a daily basis, which is preventing us from voting on serious matters that Canadians are looking to us to provide. That is just a part of the long list of investments through which the Conservatives showed their true colours. The Conservatives have voted no, over and over again. (1235) [ Translation ] The Conservatives showed us their true colours.

The unfortunate outcome was a marathon voting session that lasted 30 hours straight. What does that mean? It means that members, their staff and House staff had to work all night to cater to the Leader of the Opposition 's whim. Not only was his attitude childish and politically irresponsible, but it also jeopardized the health of many of the people who use these corridors. This kind of thing must never happen again. Our motion proposes that, if another voting marathon were to occur in the future, it would proceed as follows: votes could take place throughout the day and even late into the evening.

However, as soon as the bells ring at midnight, the voting would stop. Members and staff would then be given time for a health break lasting several hours. They deserve the right to sleep. That is a perfectly reasonable request considering that we make decisions and allocate billions of dollars in support of Canadians. At 9 a.m. the next morning, the House would resume and the voting would continue. This would not prevent the Conservatives from chasing after their wild partisan objectives by launching another voting marathon.

It would simply spread it over a longer period of time to avoid compromising the health of members and other people who work here and who support us. I see no reason why the Conservatives would object to this proposal. We need to set politics aside and put the personal health of each and every one of us in this House ahead of partisan gains.

The purpose of this motion is to make this democratic chamber work better. [ English ] This motion is put forward in the spirit of making this place work better, to make this place more productive and to allow members from all sides of the House to vote, as we are sent here to do in the most democratic of ways on things we feel are important for the people we represent. [ Translation ] I will conclude my remarks there, and I look forward to questions from my colleagues.

[ English ]

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that type of revisionist history is why the Liberal polling numbers are so flaccid. Debate on legislation is why we are here. We are here to hold the government to account, and we are not here to make this easier for Liberal cabinet ministers because they failed to work plan. For example, responses to Supreme Court rulings, such as the one on MAID, have been introduced into the House at the last minute. The government then attempts to ram these things through without intervention, and that is because of its failure to work plan. It is often the Liberals who are holding up legislation.

It is often they who are delaying Parliament. For example, last week, a Liberal on the government operations committee filibustered to block a Conservative motion to compel the owners of GC Strategies, a company at the centre of the “arrive scam” debacle, to be questioned by parliamentarians. Is the real reason the Liberals are putting this motion forward that their cabinet has failed to work plan due to the legions of scandals the government is facing?

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, here is what I can say: Every time we bring a bill to this House for debate at second reading, it does not really matter what it is. It could be called the “the sky is blue act”. The Conservatives would pose dilatory motions. For Canadians who are watching this, what the Conservatives do is they move concurrence on a committee report from six months ago that no one has talked about since. They bring aimless and pointless questions of privilege to the floor, things that prevent us from getting to the work we have to do. The member voted for child care.

I will put it to her right now: Will she go to her leader and ask that we be able to put Bill C-35 to a vote today, at all stages, so that Albertans can have access to the child care they deserve?

(1240) Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, New Democratic Party MPs come to the House of Commons to work, as you have seen, for pharmacare, for dental care, for anti-scab legislation, for the grocery rebates and fighting back against food price gouging with enhancements to the Competition Act, for supports for clean energy and for affordable housing. All of those things have come through the NDP's being the effective opposition in the House and pushing the government to simply put in place programs that will actually help people.

As we know, Conservatives have done the opposite of that and voted instead to gut health care funding, housing and even things like CBSA, prisons and correctional services. They have voted to cut all of those things. What this motion represents is working smarter and working harder, having evening sessions that the NDP has long been a proponent of, but stopping the all-night voting marathons that have led to health issues with a number of members of Parliament and with staff. The NDP will be supporting this motion. Why have the Conservatives been so obstructionist during the course of this Parliament?

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the New Democratic Party asks why Conservatives have done this. We have seen this around the world. They think that if they come in and make these places, these precious chambers of democracy, so toxic, so laden with invective, so dripping with insult, Canadians will turn away and simply say that they do not want any part of it. That is how they come to suppress voting and try to get Canadians disillusioned with their politics rather than interested in the results that politics and government can have on their daily life.

My friend from New Westminster—Burnaby outlined many of them, such as dental care, lower grocery prices and child care. These are all things that we work in earnest every day to pass through this House in a democratic way but the Conservatives spend all of their time trying to tie up in procedure and nonsense.

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Mr. Speaker, the Greens, like the members of the NDP, are certainly here to work. We are happy to stay late to move forward with the business of Canadians and their priorities. I would like to put to the government House leader two examples of those. First, the member knows, as do all members, that Canadians with disabilities across the country continue to live in legislated poverty. The government has committed to the Canada disability benefit for many years. With this extra time, does that mean we are going to see the Canada disability benefit funded with expediency?

Second, as the member spoke about protecting our environment from the catastrophic effects of climate change, he likely knows that a climate no-brainer starting point is to give folks an incentive to retrofit their homes. There is a program that has been in place for 20 years in Ontario, called the greener homes grant. Ontarians are no longer eligible to apply for it right now. As a result of the extra time we are going to have here, will we be moving forward with significant measures to address the climate crisis, with the replenishment and expansion of the greener homes grant being an example of that?

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, debating things that help and have positive impacts for Canadians wherever they may live, in Ontario or elsewhere, on climate change, for disabled Canadians or in any other matter is precisely why we are making this place more open for debate, so that we can have greater productivity. We can debate more things and pass more measures that will help everyday Canadians.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would agree that the motion we are debating today is an admission of failure. In his speech, my colleague criticized all opposition members, insinuating that the opposition parties are to blame for the fact that we cannot seem to deal with the major problems that currently exist in Canada. However, it is the Liberals who are in government. They also have a strong ally who supports them at every turn, even when they are not asked to do so. The reality is that this is a majority government that still cannot deal with the problems.

We are grappling with a housing crisis, a climate crisis and a language crisis. The Liberals are telling us here this morning that the Conservatives and the opposition parties are to blame. Is this motion not inevitably an admission of failure?

(1245) Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, I salute my friend and the members from the Bloc Québécois for their constructive contribution. They are here to oppose. Sometimes they support our proposals, sometimes they reject them. However, they do not do what I criticize my friends in the official opposition of, namely using dilatory tactics that only create chaos and prevent my friend and all parliamentarians from expressing their point of view, taking a position and taking action in favour of Canadians or against something. Bills are introduced in the House so that we can debate them and vote on them.

Then, we have to take positions and defend them. The fact is that this motion is being moved for this member and for all members in the House, so that this seat of democracy can work better.

[ English ]

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we are having this debate and this discussion today. I believe that every member of Parliament is elected to represent their constituents. I am really honoured and privileged to represent the good people of the riding of Waterloo. What I have noticed, whether in the House or within committees, is that each party has priorities. Each has areas of focus. Whether it is the Bloc, the NDP, the Greens or the independents, there are areas of interest in which each party is trying to work with the government to ask how they can deliver for their constituents.

I echo the comments of the government House leader, that there is one party that believes that the role of the official opposition is to always oppose rather than actually constructively work with.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, they find it funny, and that is fine. We notice that when there are certain people speaking in the House, the volume in the House is a lot louder than when other people are speaking. I think that when it comes to this motion, what is important for us to actually focus on is how we deliver for Canadians. The leader of the official opposition lives in government-funded housing. Every member of Parliament is paid by the public purse. How do we ensure that we are delivering for Canadians? Government does have a role to play.

I would like to hear the government House leader's comments on how this motion might actually be able to make us more productive if members of Parliament chose to come here actually to work constructively together rather than blindly oppose.

Hon. Steven MacKinnon :

Mr. Speaker, that is a point that makes itself. We are sent here to make sure we get results for our constituents, that we participate positively in debates and that we put forward proposals and bills that help the people we represent. When we are blocked from doing that, systematically, by an opposition that consistently puts up procedural roadblocks to that, of course, any responsible government has to act in the way we are doing today.

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, while the Liberal Prime Minister proves day in and day out that he is not worth the cost or the corruption. What we are seeing today is a perfect example of how the government is focused on the wrong things.

While the Conservatives are putting forward tangible and practical measures that will lower costs, bring interest rates down, get homes built around the country and put dangerous criminals behind bars, the Liberal government is focused on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Canadians are going to food banks in record numbers. People have moved away from home and have found jobs. They are now finding themselves having to renew their mortgages and are being forced to move back with their parents.

Communities once safe and secure, where people would go to bed at night without locking their doors, are now investing in security cameras and other measures because their neighbourhoods have become so dangerous. All of this is going on in Canada, while the Prime Minister continues to break so many aspects of Canadian society. While the Liberals come in with a programming motion, using a valuable day of House time debating how bills are going to be debated and how many hours the House will sit, the Conservatives will continue to raise the important issues that Canadians face.

The Liberals want to debate and delay, have a day-or-two-long debate arguing about how the process should be handled in the House of Commons. We are not going to let them off the hook. Let us go through these points one by one. The government is saying that it has to do this to get its agenda through. We in the official opposition would happily help advance an agenda that would actually accomplish these priority items. If the Liberals were to bring in a bill to cancel the carbon tax or at least cancel the increase that they have scheduled for April 1, we would support that.

If they brought in tangible measures that would actually get homes built, we would support that. We found out just a couple of weeks ago that the current housing minister launched a brutal and devastating personal attack on the previous immigration minister, who, by the way, are the same people. The former immigration minister is now the current housing minister. The current housing minister attacked the former immigration minister, blaming himself for mismanaging the immigration system in our country, which has caused terrible consequences on the housing side of things.

After eight years of the Prime Minister , Canada builds fewer homes than the number of new Canadians added every year. The minister admitted at committee that all of the Liberals' billions of dollars, their fancy photo-ops and their repackaged announcements did not build specific homes. The vaunted and much-celebrated, in Liberal circles, housing accelerator fund sounds active. It is one of those buzzwords. I wonder how many consultants they had to hire to come up with a name like the housing accelerator fund. That sounds exciting. It sounds like it will really pick up the pace of home building.

We asked him a simple question. How many homes had this housing accelerator actually built? He said that it did not actually build any homes. Pardon the official opposition members if we come to this place to defend taxpayer dollars and if we oppose billions of dollars of spending that does not build new homes. One of my Conservative colleagues, and I believe it was my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa , asked a very simple question of the government when it came to the carbon tax.

He asked whether the government could tell Canadians how many greenhouse gas emissions were reduced by the carbon tax. We would think that if the signature economic policy of the government is the carbon tax that it might measure that, that it might actually count how many greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by its signature policy. However, the answer that came back was that it did not keep track of it. It does not know; it does not measure that.

(1250) The Liberals have imposed this carbon tax on Canadians and have hiked it year after year, after promising not to, by the way. Remember that promise going into the 2019 election when former Liberal environment minister, Catherine McKenna, promised that they were never going to raise the carbon tax? The Liberals attacked me for telling Canadians not to believe the Liberals, that once the election was over, when the Prime Minister did not need the votes of Canadians but still needed their money, he would absolutely raise the carbon tax.

Catherine McKenna's other famous comment was that if we repeated a lie louder and over and over again, eventually people would believe us. That certainly bears out how Liberals have communicated about the carbon tax. They promised not to raise it and now they are forcing a hike on everyone year after year. In the fiscal update in the fall of 2022, the Liberals promised that they would stop pouring inflationary fuel on the fire. The current Liberal finance minister said that in order to fight inflation, they had to get a grip on government spending, and there was that glimmer of hope.

After telling Canadians that the Prime Minister did not think about monetary policy, in the few days after the fall economic update in 2022, there was that brief moment of hope when Conservatives thought that maybe he finally got it, that maybe someone finally read that part of macroeconomics textbooks to the Prime Minister and explained to him how, when governments go deep into deficits and force central banks to create brand new money out of thin air to bankroll government spending, that caused inflation.

We thought maybe he finally got that and that the Liberals would work toward getting back to balanced budgets. Of course, that hope was very short-lived. Just a few weeks after that, they went right back to their Liberal ways, borrowing and spending, plunging the country deeper into deficit. Immediately afterward, inflation started going up again. That is why so many Canadians cringe every time interest rates go up, because the Bank of Canada has to raise interest rates to fight the inflation that it caused in the first place by bankrolling the government deficit spending.

The Conservatives want to stop the crime. After eight years of the Prime Minister , Canadians are less safe. In fact, many areas in Canada are experiencing a dramatic spike in violent crime, which we have not seen in decades, hitting all-time highs in many areas and for many different types of crime. Crime, like inflation, does not just happen. It is not like the weather. It is not like we can read the Farmers' Almanac one year and say that we will probably have an early frost or that inflation might hit 3.5%. Inflation and crime are directly linked to the government's policy decisions.

The previous Conservative government brought in tougher penalties for dangerous and repeat offenders. We are not talking about young people making a mistake for the first time in their lives. We are talking about hardened criminals, people who use dangerous weapons to commit their crimes, people who commit the same crime over and over again or people who cause grave bodily harm or even death in the commission of their crimes. We toughened those penalties. What did the Liberal Prime Minister do early on in his mandate?

He started repealing those common-sense Conservative tough-on-crime bills and made bail much easier to get. It used to be that if people had prior convictions, had proven to society and the courts that they were dangerous offenders and were accused of committing new crimes, it would be harder to get bail. In other words, it would be harder for them to be released before their trials. The Prime Minister 's ideological obsession with putting the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding Canadians decided to make bail easier to get.

He actually mandated judges to err on the side of granting bail, even for dangerous and repeat offenders. Again, we are not talking about a young offender being picked up for the first time for shoplifting or someone who has lost their temper for the first time and maybe lashed out at someone in a restaurant or a park. We are talking about people who commit the same crime over and over again. The government decided to put them back on the streets as early as possible. It is no surprise that crime started ticking up.

Now we are in the midst of a crime wave that we have not seen in over a generation, and it is all directly linked to the government's agenda.

(1255) The Conservatives offer practical solutions. We offer many different ways of providing Canadians tax relief when it comes to the carbon tax. Obviously, we would like the government to acknowledge the failure of its signature economic policy. It does nothing to reduce emissions. The government does not even count how many emissions are affected by the carbon tax. It increases the cost of literally everything.

Everything that needs to be produced, shipped, refrigerated, heated or sold in a store that has to have lights or any type of refrigerator or freezer has to pay the carbon tax, and that is built into the price that consumers pay. We are going to hear Liberals saying throughout the day, and we hear it all the time, that Canadians are better off with it, because of the rebate they cooked up.

What they do not tell Canadians is that the budget watchdog, the person the government appointed to scour through all the data and to go into a room, read all the reports and measure everything, account for everything and model everything, the non-partisan independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, has concluded that the vast majority of Canadians pay far more in the carbon tax than they hope to get back in any rebate. The reason for that is that when the Liberals designed it, they deliberately excluded the knock-on effects of the carbon tax.

Therefore, the only thing the rebate even contemplates, when it is being calculated, is the actual line item we might see on our bill when we fuel up or when we pay our utility. What we do not see, and what the calculation does not take into account, are all the price increases that go from farm to plate and from forest to Home Depot. All the aspects of the supply chain where costs are added on, the carbon tax applies every single step of the way and increases that price. We offered a common-sense plan to scrap the tax, and it was rejected.

Then we proposed to at the very least stop raising the carbon tax in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. When we are in a hole, we stop digging. Homer Simpson has the idea that when we are in a hole, we can try to dig up, but that does not work, and it certainly does not work to keep digging, to add on those costs. The government is hiking the carbon tax. It is due to go up again on April 1 by 23%. Media reports say that the rebate is only going to go up 17%. Even with the fact that the rebate does not cover all the costs, as the government hikes the carbon tax, the rebate does not keep up with it.

Canadians are falling further and further behind. We proposed to at the very least stop hiking the tax, and that was rejected. Then we talked about grocery prices going up. There is that heart-breaking scene that so many of us see when we go to the grocery stores in our communities. We see well-dressed men and women, often with children, going through the grocery aisle. They pick up a package of beef and they stare at it for sometimes a full minute or maybe even a minute and a half. Maybe they pick up something else to compare with it. Then they put both of them back because they cannot afford them.

Grocery prices have gone up so quickly and so dramatically because of the inflation and the carbon tax. What is the government's answer? It is to keep hiking it. We proposed to at least take the carbon tax off groceries and farmers, to remove the carbon tax off farm production so that we do not tax the farmer who grows the food and we do not tax the trucker who trucks the food or the retailer who sells the food. That was rejected too. The government does not want the carbon tax to be lifted off our agricultural producers. That is a tangible practical way we could bring costs down. The government rejected that.

We have proposed a common-sense approach to tackle car thefts. Our leader announced a signature policy to deal with this scourge that is now plaguing Canadians from coast to coast. Stolen cars are becoming one of Canada's fastest-growing exports after the Liberal government weakened penalties and made it easier to get bail. It also diverted much-needed resources from frontline border service agents, who have the responsibility to inspect and track things leaving the country, and it spent those resources on the arrive scam.

An app that should have cost $80,000 ballooned to over $60 million because of phony invoices, work that was never done and all kinds of corruption that we are uncovering. The government paid billions to consultants instead of investing in the frontline resources that would actually bring that crime down.

(1300) We offered to fast-track that bill too. We could have easily had those types of things passed. Instead, the government is doubling down on its failed agenda and using the coalition it has with the NDP to ram through more of the same agenda, the very same policies, the very same ideology that caused the cost of living crisis, the inflation, the massive interest rate hikes, the crime wave plaguing our cities and the housing shortage that has driven the dream of home ownership out of the reach of so many Canadians. The government wants to double, triple and quadruple down on that and ram its agenda through.

While Canadians are going through this cost of living crisis, as they have to pay more because of the Liberal Prime Minister , he has decided to put everything on pause and to use this valuable House time to effectively try to make changes to the Standing Orders. If one went door knocking in their constituency and hit 100 doors this evening, how many Canadians does one think would say they are really concerned about how the House of Commons manages its time and to please go back to Ottawa to sort that out?

The government is wasting the valuable time of the House and of members of Parliament because the government cannot admit its failures. The Liberals cannot put their egos aside. The Liberal Prime Minister cannot put his ego aside and admit he is the reason so many Canadians are suffering right now. The Liberals also have a coalition partner in the NDP. It used to be that the NDP and the Conservatives could agree on a few things. We disagreed on many policies. I live in Saskatchewan, and we know what NDP economic policies can do to a province over time.

NDP members promised in the last election that they would not enter into a coalition with the government. They broke that promise. Canadians believed them when they said they would not enter into a coalition. As soon as the election was over, they started hatching their scheme. One thing Liberals and Conservatives used to agree on is transparency and accountability. The NDP members have decided to protect the Prime Minister personally against political embarrassment and to help him cover up his corruption.

Time and time again at committee, we see the NDP vote against Conservative motions to investigate corruption and scandals, vote against our attempts to summon witnesses and vote, in essence, to protect the Prime Minister from his corruption being exposed. Their policy agenda is not working. That is why Conservatives are holding them to account. I will make one final point about how Liberals are handling the proposed changes to the way the House operates. These are substantive changes that would fundamentally alter the timeline for bills to be debated and moved through the House.

It would give the government incredible new powers that are not in the Standing Orders and that have not been contemplated by any of our procedural books. Normally, those types of major changes require all-party support and go through the proper process of procedure and House affairs examining the proposal, studying it and allowing all recognized parties to have some kind of say in it. The government is establishing a precedent today by using this type of motion.

I want to point out to the government that it is now doing, through government motions, what used to be done through consensus and through all-party support. If its members want to talk about protecting democracy, one of the most fundamental ways to protect a democracy is to ensure that even when there is a working majority, because of the NDP support, they still hold that tradition of not making major changes without all-party support.

That would mean any party could work with the government, in a minority parliament, and could ram through massive changes to the Standing Orders over the objections of other recognized parties. That has consequences. However, they are choosing to do it this way, and they are establishing a precedent for future governments. They cannot come to this place and start talking about the rights of members of Parliament and the ability of opposition parties to hold the government to account if they are going outside the normal process to make major changes in the House.

That being said, we are going to continue to oppose their agenda because it has failed. Their economic agenda continues to drive up inflation and interest rates. Their housing agenda continues to drive up home prices by rewarding local gatekeepers and by preventing new homes from entering the market. Their crime and justice agenda continues to let dangerous and repeat offenders back out into the streets where they terrorize law-abiding Canadians. For those reasons, we are going to oppose this motion, and we are going to oppose the rest of the government's agenda.

(1305) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech by the opposition House leader. He alluded to the fact that somehow the Conservatives did not win the last election or that he was not the party leader anymore because of something that the Liberals did. In fact, the reason that member is not the leader of the Conservative Party anymore is that it came out that he actually misused party funds to pay for private schooling for his children and to pay for clothing for himself and his children. I wonder if the member thinks it is common-sense economics to misuse funds to pay for private schooling for his children.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague reminded me of something that her House leader said during his speech when he talked about the toxicity in this place. This is from the Liberal Party whose leader violently elbowed a female MP in the chest because he did not get his own way. He threw a temper tantrum. This is the same leader who used the pandemic. Canadians were going through incredible hardship. Loved ones were dying alone because they were not allowed to receive visitors. Businesses were forced to close. People were going bankrupt. While that was going on, what did the Liberal Prime Minister do?

He took the time to reward his friends. Let us remember the WE scandal. He chose to use the pandemic as an excuse to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to his friends at an organization that had paid his personal family members massive speaking fees. How about the former Liberal member of Parliament who got a contract? He had never ran a business in the medical field at all, but when the pandemic rolled around, he got a sole-source contract from the current Liberal government.

We are in the middle of the arrive scam hearings where we are hearing about more sordid affairs about how a company got paid $20 million for doing IT even though it did not do any IT work. There are too many examples, in the short amount of time I have in this debate, to go over all the list of the ways the current Liberal government has wasted taxpayer money and has tried to cover up its corruption.

(1310) Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to see Liberals and Conservatives pointing fingers at each other. They are both bad, in our book, and we believe what we really need is a government of New Democrats that actually puts into place the kinds of practices most Canadians want to see. We have certainly proven that in the House by pushing for pharmacare, dental care, anti-scab legislation, grocery rebates and affordable housing, and I could go on and on, while Conservatives are fighting to cut all of those things.

My friend was mentioning in his speech, which really did not touch on the motion before us, the fact that he opposes the government's agenda, which is his right, and that is why he is opposing the motion. However, the motion calls for extended hours, which the NDP has always called for. I would remind the member, my colleague, that under the Harper regime, the Harper Conservatives extended the hours in the evening for week after week, unilaterally. This motion would require the consent of at least two parties in the House to do that. However, there is also the issue of the health impacts of voting marathons.

His leader, the member for Carleton , did not even show up for the 30-hour marathon. He showed up for one hour out of 30 hours.

Mr. Philip Lawrence :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is an experienced member of the House. He has done it repeatedly, and there should be more than an apology for this because the New Democrats have done it twice in just two hours. He knows that members cannot talk about whether a member is present or not. This is beyond the pale.

The Deputy Speaker :

This also does extend to previous sittings of the House, with respect to whether somebody was here or not. Of course, we can see voting records because that is online, but whether someone is here is a whole other issue. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

Mr. Peter Julian :

Mr. Speaker, the voting record speaks for itself. I want to come back to my colleague and the idea that we would force employees and all members to be in the House over a 30-hour period with all the health impacts that we know to be true. Does the member actually oppose the idea that we could have a health break so that when we go through those marathon votes, employees are respected and all members are respected, and that we could do the business of the House in a way that does not have a negative health impact? In the end, why is the member opposing a motion that makes good sense, that makes us work harder and that is also smart?

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, the NDP House leader talks about how the Liberal government is bad. If only there were a political party that could do something about that. If only there were someone in the House who could put an end to bad government. It is the NDP, but of course, it will not because its leader has not quite come to that point. Who knows what their motivation is for propping up the Liberal government? It used to be that they were interested in finding corruption and unearthing Liberal mismanagement and waste, but they have completely parked all that for their own personal and political gains.

They have never been so close to the reins of power, and I think that is their motivation. They actually enjoy the personal trappings of getting to sit down with Liberal ministers. Maybe they are impressed by Liberal cabinet ministers, and they are dazzled by things like that. Maybe it is because the NDP leader has not hit his six years yet, and he wants to get his pension vested before he goes back to the Canadian people.

I am not going to speculate on why the NDP continues to prop up a corrupt and tired Liberal government, a government that has imposed higher costs, more inflation, higher interest rates and a crime wave on Canadians and that has failed to get enough homes built to meet the demands of Canadians. We will continue to put forward the types of common-sense ideas that will help lower costs for Canadians and bring interest rates down as well. He talked about previous governments extending sittings. Those late-night extensions in June are actually in the Standing Orders.

Those are things that all political parties have agreed on over the years and are completely apples to oranges with what the government is doing here today, unilaterally, making major changes to the Standing Orders, over the objections of other opposition parties, because it has a trusted partner to help cover up its costs and its corruption.

(1315) Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, he was talking about the point of axing the tax. The Province of Saskatchewan, starting in January, told the Crown corporations to no longer collect the tax. The inflation in Saskatchewan has actually dropped almost a full point in the month of January. I am just wondering what his thoughts on that are.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes another great point, again, about how the carbon tax adds to inflation. We heard the Bank of Canada governor come to committee and explain that the carbon tax was responsible for about a third of the extra inflation that Canadians are suffering under. In Saskatchewan, we saw our premier, Scott Moe, have some compassion for the people of Saskatchewan. He saw the unfairness about how this Liberal government gave a carve-out to one particular region in Canada and ignored the concerns of people in the Prairies, in British Columbia and in Ontario.

Our premier decided that he is not going to do the Prime Minister 's dirty work. He is not going to collect the carbon tax. As a result, when the Government of Saskatchewan stopped collecting the carbon tax on behalf of the Liberal Prime Minister, guess what happened? Inflation went down in Saskatchewan. Not only the Bank of Canada admitted that it helps cause inflation in the first place, but also we now know, with empirical evidence, that when one removes the carbon tax, one lowers inflation.

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, was the reference the member opposite made about the Prime Minister appropriate in the House?

The Deputy Speaker :

I do not know what reference the hon. member is referring to. Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary leader to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to watch the former speaker, the former leader of the opposition, talk about how the Conservative Party tries to play a positive role inside the chamber when, in fact, we have witnessed a destructive force coming from the Conservative Party on the institution of the House of Commons. I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not want to work late into the evenings. Millions of Canadians across every region of the country recognize that, at times, one needs to work a little past 6:30 p.m.. The Conservative Party does not want to work late into the evenings.

The Conservative Party wants to be able to continue to filibuster. Will the member commit to not bringing forward, let us say, silly motions, like “the House now adjourn for the day” or “so and so now be heard to speak”, even though another Conservative was trying to speak, so that there is a competition between Conservatives, or like concurrence report after concurrence report to prevent government legislation from passing? Will he commit to getting serious and to starting to debate issues here in the House of Commons?

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Mr. Speaker, this is what Liberals do. They attack others for the very things that they are guilty of themselves. If this member wants to talk about respecting this institution, we can talk about how the access to information commissioner has said that it has never been harder to get information from a government than it has under the current Prime Minister . How about the fact that the government decided not to fund the Auditor General appropriately to do her important work of uncovering Liberal waste and mismanagement?

How about all the times the government has shut down debate before many members have even had a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents? The Liberals then come in and blame the opposition for all that. They are the ones who have the power to be more forthcoming with information. They fight and they redact. They try to keep documents hidden. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming, at committees and here in the House, just to provide factual information and copies of correspondence.

They do everything they can to block that, then they try to have some debate about when the House should adjourn, whether it should be 6:30 p.m. or midnight. They say that this is how they are protecting a democratic institution. That is baloney. The real way we can protect our institutions is to be open and accountable. Independent officers of Parliament have denounced the Liberal Prime Minister for the assault that he has launched against information accountability and transparency.

(1320) [ Translation ]

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ) :

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians clearly indicated that they wanted a minority government like the one they had between 2019 and 2021. They wanted to keep an eye on the government. That is the message they sent. That was the will of the Canadian and Quebec electorate. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. The government thumbed its nose at the will of Quebeckers and Canadians and chose to disregard its minority status and form a majority with another party. The result was the marriage of the Liberal Party with the New Democratic Party.

This marriage comes at a huge cost, both financially and democratically. Usually, when people get married, they pay for their own wedding. Sometimes their parents pay. It depends on the culture. In any case, we expect the happy couple to pay for the wedding. However, that is not what is happening here: Canadians and Quebeckers are paying for the huge cost of the wedding. That is what we are seeing now. We are paying for the two lovebirds. At some point the government needs to explain itself, and the Liberals claim that they need the NDP with them, that it is important.

Earlier, the government leader said that there was obstruction, that this was chaos. It does not take much to throw him off if he thinks this is chaos. I have been the opposition House leader for over four years. I can say that I have seen many things, but I have never seen chaos. I am concerned for the government leader. It does not take much to throw him off. I do not know if he watched The Walking Dead but, if he did, it must have given him a heart attack. On top of that, he says it is chaos because the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois ask too many questions. Of course, the NDP does not do that.

The Conservatives and the Bloc take too much time debating issues in the House. If we were spending 50 days debating a bill, I might agree, but representatives of the government would sometimes come to me to say they were imposing a gag order because they were tired and we had been debating a bill for too long. I answered that we had been debating the bill for five hours. They said they could not take it any more. Oh, brother. The bills we were debating were not small bills.

They were big bills, some of them economic updates, and the government quickly put a stop to the debate because they knew very well that there was no chance of my agreeing with them. Yet they knew that the New Democrats eat at the same trough. They knew that the NDP would be there for them. So it often happens that, after three, four or five hours of debate, the discussion is closed. Is that good for democracy? Is that good for members of Parliament? The only weapon we have to defend our constituents, our fellow citizens, is time.

It is the time we take to explain our position, propose changes, solutions, amendments, discuss better ways of improving life in our communities. That is what the government is always stopping us from doing here in the House. Since 2021 alone, the NDP has supported 14 closure motions and eight super closure motions. They have also supported 23 time allocation motions. Never in the history of Canada have members of the opposition been subjected to so many gag orders. It is as if we had nothing important to say and they decided to gag us. That is what it looks like.

Today we are discussing motion No. 35 aimed at extending sitting hours. We usually work by consensus. When we change parliamentary rules, we seek consensus. All four parties have to agree and give their reasoning. That is not, however, what is happening here. With a majority, the government is constantly changing parliamentary rules. Earlier, the government leader even boasted about it. He said that the Liberals had done so three times in two years, and boasted about it. I want to circle back to something terrible. The two parties did something terrible when they decided on the hybrid Parliament rules.

That was unprecedented. They changed the parliamentary rules, knowing full well that some parties did not agree. It is not because we were freaks. The Bloc Québécois never said that it was a ludicrous idea, but we were not even consulted.

(1325) Those parties just came along and said that, from now on, this is how the hybrid Parliament works. The House leader of the official opposition correctly said earlier that, if that is how they change the rules, that means that any majority government will be able to change the rules of Parliament. I do not know if my colleagues have seen the polls, but I have. There is a small chance that a Conservative government will be elected, and there is a small chance that it will be a majority government. Let us say Canadians elect a majority Conservative government.

That means that the Conservatives will be able to say, “These are the rules from now on”. When that happens, the NDP will get up and say that that is not right, yet they did it themselves in 2022. The Liberals will also get up and say that that is not right, yet they and the NDP did it themselves. The only party that will be able to stand up in the House and credibly tell the Conservatives that what they are doing is not right is our party, the Bloc Québécois. There is now a problem with the way we operate, because the government has created a fake majority.

That is what we are faced with again: procedural changes that reduce the opposition parties' speaking time and steamroll discussions, because they are going to limit the opposition's ability to stand up and defend their position. That is unacceptable. They want to change the rules, but I think we have a perfect example here of a government that is incapable of respecting Parliament. It seems unwilling to discuss its own bills. The bills are not always good, of course, but discussion is the way to improve them. That has always been the Bloc Québécois's goal.

Our goal is to be a constructive opposition and to tell the House that we are always thinking of Quebec and only Quebec. Oftentimes, Canada feels the same way Quebec does, so everyone is happy. Other times, we may disagree on a bill for whatever reason, so then we work to amend it in good faith. The only two tools we have for convincing the government are time and the parliamentary process. If our only tools are damaged, it diminishes the power of democracy in Parliament. It is a little strange that Parliament is working to reduce the power of democracy within its own walls.

I always feel a bit uneasy when it comes to the NDP. When members of the NDP rise in the House after question period, they wag their fingers and talk about how appalling ArriveCAN is. They rant and rave. It is not a pretty sight. They also say that this government is focused on oil production and that it is the worst government in history when it comes to Canadian oil production. They claim to be environmentalists and so on. When there are Liberal scandals and when the Prime Minister is caught red-handed, they rise to express their outrage.

However, when the lights go out, what we see is that the NDP always supports the Liberal Party. In all honesty, I would feel really uncomfortable with that, if I were a member of the NDP. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against the motion. We are simply going to do what it takes to defend the interests of Quebeckers, even though our right to speak is being undermined.

[ English ]

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started his speech by talking about the minority situation. Canadians elected a minority government. In a minority government, the government has the responsibility to consider what the