Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I was actually up in my office and I came down, because I was listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands speak as though there were some dirty little secret around here as to the way things operate. In fact, last night, through a unanimous consent motion, we actually moved Bill C-14 through the process. It is the government that actually sets the legislative agenda in this place, and it is the government that put Bill C-9 on the Order Paper today as a matter of business in this House. This bill was introduced in October. These are the first hours of debate, and there are 338 members in this House, who represent millions of voices of Canadians across this country, who have things to say on this bill, maybe to make it a little better. I am sorry if this taxes the patience of the member for Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps if he does not want to be a member of Parliament, he could go be the president of the local soccer association in his riding. We debate things in this place. This is Parliament. Does the hon. member believe that the voices of Canadians are important in this place and that debate matters?

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Judges Act, a bill that was originally introduced last year, and I may have referenced earlier that it was October 2021, but it was actually in December 2021. I will begin, and I know he is not going to like this because he is sitting just over my right shoulder here, with some praise for our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal. Since his re-election in 2019, he has had to deal with pieces of legislation, government legislation, government fixes to legislation that have been beyond any expectation of what any opposition critic, or shadow minister, as we now call them to mirror what the parliament of Britain calls their shadow ministers. He has done incredible work holding the government to account, and it is a complicated file to be able to disseminate what all of these pieces of legislation are, how they impact Canadians, and how they impact the judicial process and the court process. He has done that honourably and with great conviction. As we know, when we are dealing with these sorts of pieces of legislation, it is not just us, it is also policy advisors within our offices and legislative staff who comb through many of these pieces of legislation to try to make them better, to try to come up with legislation that is good for Canadians. I would argue that there is nothing more important when we deal with pieces of legislation than those dealing with our court system, those dealing with judges, those dealing with Criminal Code issues. I really want to thank our shadow minister for justice, the hon. member for Fundy Royal, for the work that he has done on many of these files. It is difficult because, when we are dealing with pieces of legislation like what we are dealing with today, Bill C-9, we know it was introduced in December 2021. This is a bill that has obviously languished in the legislative process. We are now at second reading debate on the bill and these hours of debate today are the first for this piece of legislation, but it is piece of legislation that has received broad support right across the country. My expectation is that it will move through the legislative process rather quickly. Some of that support has come, for example, from the Canadian Bar Association, which has expressed its support for the legislation. As I said earlier, it aims to change the judicial complaints process, which was first established 50 years ago. This is a piece of legislation that requires an update to reflect the realities of the current environment in this country. Bill C-9 proposes changes to the Judges Act to restructure the process for dealing with misconduct allegations against federally appointed judges. In particular, the bill will amend the process through which the Canadian Judicial Council reviews the conduct of these judges in three significant ways. One, it will create a process for reviewing allegations not serious enough to warrant removal from office. Two, it will improve the process by which recommendations on removal are made to the Minister of Justice. Three, it will ensure that the determination of pensionable service for judges ultimately removed from office reflects the actual time of service and excludes the time for review. As I said earlier, the Canadian Bar Association is clearly in support of this, and I expect that, when it gets through second reading and eventually ends up at committee, we are going to hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We will hear from other stakeholders as well, showing their strong support for review of a piece of legislation that has not been updated over the course of the last 50 years, so it is about time. One of the most important things about this place is that we have those voices of Canadians. There are 338 members in this place who are elected to express the views of their constituents. Those are important views, and these type of debates become increasingly important in a polarized society, so we can reflect on what the pieces of legislation can do and make these pieces of legislation better. I expect, at committee, the strong voices of those stakeholders and advocates who are for the bill or against the bill will perhaps come together and really reinforce or make this piece of legislation that much stronger. This is not the first iteration of what we have seen. The bill was originally introduced in the Senate as Bill S-5 on May 25, 2021. I went through the criteria of what the bill actually does fix, but again, like every other piece of legislation that was introduced, not only here in the House, but also in the Senate, before September of last year, this bill fell off of the Order Paper. If we look through some of the issues with the bill, one of the things that it focuses on is the issue of process reform and consultations as well. Bill C-9 follows the 2016 federal government's public consultations on potential reforms to the federal judicial discipline process. Within the consultation report, the judicial discipline proceedings had been marked by significant increases in costs and delays, and reforms were necessary to ensure that the process was cost-effective, efficient and transparent, and to preserve public confidence in the judicial system. Under the current system of CJC, interim or final decisions can be challenged through three layers of judicial review. One is the Federal Court, the other is the Federal Court of Appeal. There is also, with leave, the Supreme Court of Canada. As a result, the judicial conduct inquiries can be subject to multiple, drawn-out legal challenges that can take years to resolve. I mentioned the judicial conduct and review process, but there are several other key points in this legislation. It also addresses complaints. Under both existing and new processes, anyone may submit a complaint about a judge's conduct to the CJC. Under this new process, the CJC may make a complaint only when there are at least two of its members who have reasonable grounds to believe that the public's confidence in the judge's impartiality, integrity or independence, which is critical as we know, could be undermined for any of the reasons stipulated in proposed paragraphs 80(a) through (d). An anonymous complaint, for example, would face the same threshold test as a complaint made by the CJC. The other aspect of this bill is that it proposes a screening officer be added to the existing process. The CJC's executive director screens complaints and may dismiss those that are clearly without merit, do not involve a judge's conduct or are not in the public interest. Under the new process, the CJC designates a screening officer, who may be a judge, to conduct an initial assessment. This is proposed section 88 in the bill. Complaints may be dismissed if they are clearly without merit, are not related to one of the reasons listed in new section 80 or do not meet other screening criteria that may be established and published by the CJC under proposed section 90. A reviewing member, as in the existing system, and this is another important piece of the new process, holds the complaints that are not dismissed after being screened by a member of the CJC. That is in proposed section 91. The judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint may make written submissions at this stage under proposed section 93. There are more aspects of this bill that are important, but after 50 years, it is time for an update to this review system. I am glad that we are here today debating it in our House of Parliament, and I will be glad to answer any questions that anybody might have.

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for proposing Bill C-224. I also want to thank the hon. member for Saskatoon West, because just 10 minutes ago, he gave up his time so that I could speak to this bill. I want to thank him for that. In 1982, I was an 18-year-old kid. I had gone to Humber College for radio broadcasting. My first job was working the all-night shift at a country music radio station in Brandon, Manitoba. I had never listened to country music in my life. I grew up in Montreal and Toronto. I moved to Toronto when I was 12 years old. I realized very quickly, like most fledgling radio careers, that I was not going to make much money. My uncle was a firefighter in Toronto. My Uncle Pete—

Mr. Speaker, this culture of deception, deflection, not being accountable, blaming others, entitlement and division has been a culture created by the Prime Minister. He has set the example for others in his cabinet to follow, so it is no surprise to anyone to see the public safety minister using the tactics of his Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not hesitate to force out Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott for speaking the truth to his power. Will the Prime Minister for once do the right thing, do the honourable thing, and fire the Minister of Public Safety?

Mr. Speaker, on multiple occasions, the Minister of Public Safety said that police forces had requested the Emergencies Act. We now know that was not true. Even worse, the minister doubled down on his false claims on multiple occasions in the House, in committee and in the media. He even sent his deputy minister to committee to try to clean up his mess, saying he was misunderstood. There is no misunderstanding here. He knows exactly what he did. He misled Canadians and he knows there must be consequences. Will he do the honourable thing, the right thing, and announce his resignation today?

Mr. Speaker, what is critical here is getting to the truth, because the truth is critical for the parliamentary committee investigating the invocation of the act. The truth is also critical for the judicial inquiry charged with investigating the rationale for invoking the act. What is known is that the truth has been corrupted by the Minister of Public Safety. He knows his words matter. Making false claims in trying to justify invoking the Emergencies Act matters. It matters a lot. Will the minister do the right thing, the honourable thing, and resign?

Mr. Speaker, today's headline says it all: “Massive majority of Liberal caucus wants the Prime Minister to drop federal COVID mandates.” The report says that the Liberal member for Yukon, a doctor and former medical officer of health, has given multiple presentations at Liberal caucus meetings on why the mandates need to be dropped. The member is a real doctor, not a spin doctor, but has the Prime Minister listened to him? No. Finally, the incoherence of a policy that is punishing and limiting the rights of Canadians is being realized by Liberal MPs. The Prime Minister will not listen to Canadians, but will he listen to his caucus?

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer by the day that these mandates and restrictions have nothing to do with science or evidence-based decision-making. They are all about control. They are about the Prime Minister controlling Canadians travelling to see their families, controlling businesses recovering from COVID and controlling Liberal MPs by forcing them to be bit actors in his COVID theatre. People can watch them, when the cameras come on them, and how quickly they put on their masks. There is no coherent reason for these mandates to continue, other than control. Will the Prime Minister admit that he has lost the plot and that this is all about controlling Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals like importing American policies so much, in the 1990s the United States experimented with a tax on boats very similar to the one in this year's Liberal budget, but Congress ended up removing it just two years later because it was killing jobs and destroying the industry. It was so bad that the government ended up losing more money from the industry collapse than it generated from revenue. It was a net loss for the Treasury. Will the Liberals admit that there is absolutely no point in having this tax that will cost jobs and kill a sector of our economy that Canadian families enjoy, or is that their plan?

moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that, during its consideration of Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee, provided that the travel does not exceed 10 sitting days. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for seconding what I believe to be a very important motion. As members are aware, Motion No. 16 was presented today. It is basically a draconian way of dealing with issues and matters of the House by the government. It is a way of stifling debate. It is a way of silencing the voices of millions of Canadians who sent their elected representatives here to Ottawa. Bill C-11 has been universally panned, for lack of a better word, by content creators and others who are concerned about censorship on the Internet and concerned about content creation. We heard this morning the member for Perth—Wellington give a very good description of some of the concerns with this bill. Effectively, what Motion No. 16 has done is basically taken the work out of the hands of the committee on this extremely important bill. The government is ramming it through, with the help of its NDP partners, in order to get it passed through Parliament without addressing many of the concerns that are being brought up by those who, as I said earlier, are expressing significant concerns about issues related to censorship. I have been hearing from my constituents on this. Over the last two or three days, Canadians have become increasingly engaged on this issue. They are finding out what is going on. Similar to a previous iteration of this bill, Bill C-10, Canadians are concerned. In fact, I would suggest they are more concerned about what is going with Bill C-11 and the impact it is going to have on their ability to see what is on the Internet and produce what is on the Internet. There are concerns, as we heard, as to the power the bill gives the government and the censorship role it gives to the government. It contributes, in my opinion, even more to what we see as a decline in democracy here in Canada, whereby millions of voices, including the Speaker's voice, is silenced as a result of draconian measures. What this motion would do is allow the committee to travel across the country to hear from those who it has not heard from before. This motion is important because the Conservative opposition has said we are not going to agree to committee travel. The motion highlights the importance of hearing from those in Canada who are extremely concerned about this bill and the censorship it can create. It would allow the committee to do its work, function properly and hear the voices that are being silenced in this place. “Parliament” comes from parler, or “to speak”, yet we are being silenced on this bill. There is another interesting part to this. I have been watching closely the deliberations at the heritage committee and have been speaking to our shadow minister of heritage about the level of dysfunction that has been created as a result of the chair of the committee not coming to Ottawa and being on Zoom. It speaks to the overall dysfunction of this place. Hybrid Parliament is having such a tremendous impact on the ability of the committees to do their work, and there are health implications for the people who work here, namely the interpreters. In my opinion, it is time for hybrid Parliament to end. We need to get back to normal. That forms the basis of every argument we have been making in this place. I am moving this motion in the hopes that we can allow the committee to have its deliberations and speak to Canadians who are concerned about government censorship and the impact this bill will have. We need the support of Parliament to allow the committee to do its job.

Mr. Speaker, of course I can. There are committees of this Parliament that want to travel all around the world. They have moved motions to travel to places such as Brussels and other parts of the world that do not have the same restrictions as those the Liberal government is imposing on its own citizens. The hypocrisy is palpable. We are still allowed to travel domestically in Canada, and we think the committee can do it safely. The Liberal Party is imposing restrictions on Canadians for travel abroad, especially on those who are unvaccinated, and is putting parliamentarians at risk in other countries. We do not believe there is a risk, especially to travel here in Canada. As I mentioned at the onset, this is work that needs to be done. The voices being silenced are from those who are critical of this bill. We need the committee to travel to listen to those voices. Maybe the Liberals should end the mandates. Then maybe we could get on with normal life here in Canada, stop restricting Canadians from seeing their families and stop businesses from being affected by the resurgence of issues. Businesses want to succeed, not for the Liberals to get in the way.

Mr. Speaker, we have been seeing that all along, and it is a great point the hon. member brings up. We have seen the dysfunction of virtual Parliament. I mentioned that as I was speaking about the motion. We have seen the impacts that it has had on the translation bureau, for example. If the chair will not come to Ottawa, then, yes, maybe we need to take the committee out to Vancouver or other places to eliminate and stop the dysfunction. I think this speaks to the broader picture. The broader picture here is that the Liberals are misusing hybrid Parliament. We saw it today in question period. How many parliamentary secretaries, who should be here in the seat of power, in the seat of Parliament, are—

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that it would be enough to hear from both sides of the argument, those who are in favour of the bill and those who are opposed. Perhaps, as a result of those interactions, we could allow consequential amendments that would fix the bill. We have heard that there are some serious problems with this bill, not the least of which is proposed section 4.2. There are four substantive things we are concerned about. I am also concerned about the amendments we are hearing about from those who are looking at this bill and saying it needs to be fixed. It is not just those who understand these sorts of things, these censorship issues, but content creators too, so we need some substantive time to consider not just the bill itself, but amendments to the bill as well. By the way, Mr. Speaker, you are doing a great job up there.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a strong level of dysfunction going on among all committees because of the hybrid and virtual aspect of this Parliament and the decision to continue it. We are seeing that committees are being cancelled. We are seeing situations like the one the hon. member talked about. This has to stop. It is having a sincere and profound impact on our democracy, and it is contributing to a decline in it.

Madam Speaker, once again we are privy to a front-row seat to the decline in democracy. Bill C-5, the soft-on-crime bill, has gone through committee, and there have been thousands and millions of dissenting voices on this bill. There have been advocates and stakeholders, and there have been police chiefs and police forces across Canada that have spoken against this bill, because it does diminish mandatory minimum sentences. Just to give an example, Bill C-5 would eliminate a number of mandatory minimum sentences related to gun crimes, including robbery with a firearm, extortion with a firearm, and weapons trafficking excluding firearms and ammunition. This would only embolden criminals, make them more brazen, in our communities in Canada. The Liberals have been aided and abetted in this time allocation, this motion of closure, by their puppy-dog partners in the NDP. They have pulled the choke collar on the New Democrats to get them to conform and sit and be good partners in this. This decline in democracy, this assault, will not make our communities safer and will threaten the lives of Canadians across the country.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives believe that meaningful and effective steps must be taken to end gun violence and gun crime in Canada. Canadians need to be safe, and victims of domestic violence need to be protected. While there are aspects of Bill C-21 that we can agree on, specifically on domestic violence issues, the rest of the bill falls short and would do nothing to end gun violence. Will the Liberals agree to split Bill C-21 into two bills? One would be to protect the victims of domestic violence, while the other aspects of the bill would be reworked to offer real and effective solutions to gun crime and gun trafficking.

Mr. Speaker, divisive policies do not protect people. Fear does not protect people. Virtue-signalling does not protect people. The Liberals are using U.S.-style wedge politics for their own political gain. It will not keep Canadians safe, and it will not stop violence. Conservatives will be putting forward a sincere offer to split Bill C-21 so that victims of domestic violence can be protected as soon as possible. We can work together to get this done, but it is up to the Liberals. They have two options: They can either accept the offer to protect victims immediately, or they can reject it and continue with their divisive rhetoric, which would leave victims vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to see you in the chair. I hope you are getting your strength back. You sound like it. You are doing a good job of keeping everybody in good spirits. Before my question, there are a couple of issues that I want to bring to the attention of the government House leader. Number one is that we are requesting a take-note debate on the issue of food security, which is having a significant effect around the world, as members know, as a result of many geopolitical issues. The second thing is a request to split Bill C-21 so that we can work on victims and the protection of victims in domestic violence. The third thing is that there have been significant concerns among stakeholders and advocates right across the country regarding Bill C-11. We are seeing some draconian measures being proposed by the government to deal with this piece of legislation. I am concerned about that. Before I ask for the schedule, I am wondering what the government House leader's plan is to effectively silence the voices of millions of people who voted for opposition MPs in this place and, furthermore, what his plans are to contribute to a further decline in democracy in this place over the course of the next week.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention this evening was an important intervention. Obviously, the concern on our side is that, on the one hand, we see with Bill C-21 an appearance, real or otherwise, that the Liberals are increasing firearms laws, but on the other hand, with Bill C-5, there is actually an option for those offences to be minimized and not have mandatory sentences. An example the member mentioned was the illegal use of a firearm in the commission of a crime, and there is a whole series of things. I am wondering if he could comment on this: on the one hand, giving the appearance, as the Liberal government is doing, of strengthening gun laws, which will have no effect, and, on the other hand, diminishing that and allowing criminals to be even more emboldened, more brazen in their activities.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member from the Green Party raising this. It is convention around this place that petitions are presented by members, and I think the confusion may lie in the fact that the member for Milton referred to a member's support of the petition. It is convention around this place that when a member presents a petition, it is on behalf of their constituents and does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the petition nor whether they are contrary to the petition or not. They are doing the work on behalf of the people they represent. I think that is where the confusion may lie.

Madam Speaker, well, it is no surprise, commensurate to what is a decline in democracy in this country, we are actually seeing in lockstep a decline in the amount of time that debate happens in this place, despite the fact millions of people voted for an opposition party to hold the government to account and make it transparent and accountable with pieces of legislation. It is not surprising we are moving to time allocation. In this Parliament alone, more time allocation has been called than in the previous Parliament. We are just eight months into this one, and we were a year and a half into the previous Parliament. Of course, we would be hard pressed to find any opposition party that would have supported time allocation in the manner it has been proposed by the government more so than the coalition partners of the NDP, who used to rail against time allocation as being anti-democratic and anti-institution, but here we are. No doubt NDP members will be rising to support the government. Bill C-19, through committee stage, went through significant motions. It went through significant amendments. There are perhaps, as it comes back to report stage, more amendments in the debate that could happen here, but we have had one hour of debate on this important piece of legislation. I am wondering how the minister can justify to Canadians this further decline in democracy we are witnessing. The public faith in our institutions is in decline as well.

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party of Canada, I rise to congratulate Premier Doug Ford and his team of candidates on winning a strong and stable Progressive Conservative majority government. I also want to thank Andrea Horwath and Steven Del Duca. Leading a party through an election is a tough task and I wish them both the best of luck in their future endeavours. After a hard-fought election, the people of Ontario endorsed Premier Ford's plan to rebuild the provincial economy, control spending, keep the province open and build infrastructure like the Bradford Bypass. With the result last night, it is clear that working people have found a home in the Conservative movement, and while other parties engage in perpetual virtue signalling, the Conservatives stand with workers fighting for their jobs and the well-being of families. I also want to congratulate Andrea Khanjin, Caroline Mulroney, Jill Dunlop, Brian Saunderson and MPP Doug Downey for winning their seats. They will continue to serve the people of central Ontario with excellence. As a resident of Ontario, I look forward to watching the re-elected Ford government get it done.

Madam Speaker, two days ago, a 42-year-old man was gunned down in the middle of a crowded restaurant in Laval, Quebec. It happened in broad daylight in front of children. According to reports, police have linked this shooting to organized crime. Bill C-5 would mean that the criminal and gang member who did this could face a reduced sentence and be back in their community sooner than they would be without the Liberals' new soft-on-crime bill. The reality is that street gangs and criminals will become more emboldened if there is little price to pay for shooting up our streets. How can the Liberals justify this?

Madam Speaker, due to the Prime Minister's failed economic policies, Canadians are worse off now than they were when the Liberals formed government. Former finance minister Bill Morneau acknowledged that in a speech when he said, “I'm much more worried about our economic prospects today, in 2022, than I was seven years ago.” I am sure the Liberals will accuse Morneau of spreading disinformation. Young Canadians cannot afford a home, seniors cannot afford groceries and Canadians cannot afford to fill up their cars. The Liberals have completely mismanaged the Canadian economy. Why do they not just admit it, like Bill Morneau did?

Madam Speaker, while the lines of credit of Canadians go up, many people who work in the trades drive from job to job. They do not have a choice. Plumbers, electricians and other hard workers do not have the option of staying home and working virtually; they have to travel. Unfortunately, the government's policies have driven up the price of fuel to record levels. This is making life very difficult and expensive for tradespeople and businesses. Does the government realize how its harmful gas price policy is hard on the hardest-working Canadians and how it is destroying the bottom line of many who work and have businesses in skilled trades?

Mr. Speaker, let me again start by saying, on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition and our leader, the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar, just how happy we are to have you back in the seat. We are thankful for the great doctors in northern Ontario for looking after you so well. Unfortunately, we did not have a House leaders' meeting on Tuesday, so that brings up the importance of today's Thursday question about the calendar for the next week. I wonder if the hon. government House leader could advise the House and all Canadians what the business of the House will be over the next week.

Madam Speaker, my colleague the hon. deputy House leader brings up a very important point about debate in this place. What I see and what I have referred to today as you were in the chair is a decline in democracy. It seems as though bills are being rushed through. Very important pieces of legislation are being rushed through this place without proper debate and without proper input on behalf of members of the opposition. This decline in democracy that we are seeing is very real, as things are moving straight to committee rather than being debated in this place. I remind members that there are millions of voices represented in this place. There are millions of people who sent members of Parliament here to be their voices. I wonder if the member can comment on his perception of what we have been seeing throughout our institutions, which is a decline in democracy.

Madam Speaker, you and I are in a unique position: We both have front-row seats to what is becoming quickly a further decline of democracy here in Canada. The government has moved time allocation on this bill with just two hours of debate. One speaker on the official opposition side has spoken to this piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that has been universally panned. It is quite controversial and warrants further debate. This is the 101st time that the Liberal government has used time allocation and the 22nd time in this Parliament that their partners in the NDP, the NDP-Liberal coalition, have agreed to time allocation, which makes Motion No. 11 laughable, because the government's argument was that it was going to extend time to give more debate for members, which we now are seeing as a farce. My question for the minister is this: Given the controversial nature of this bill and the fact that it does warrant further debate, I am wondering how he feels his legacy will be seen in furthering a decline in democracy in this country by muting the voices, limiting the voices, of millions of people speaking through members elected in this place.

Madam Speaker, since we are making up numbers, I have a poll here stating that 100% of Liberal voters did not vote for an NDP-Liberal coalition, but that is where we are at. With how quickly and how far the New Democrats have fallen in holding the government to account as a fourth party, they sound like lapdogs to the Liberal Party. This is important because the government representative, the minister, is talking about obstruction that has been going on, but we have had two hours of debate on this bill. The official opposition, Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has had one member speak to this bill, which has been universally panned. There is no question that there is a need to fix this issue, but when we actively engage in vigorous debate in this place, ideas are formed. That is how better bills are passed. To see the heritage minister use obstruction as a reason for ramming this bill through the House is rather disingenuous. The minister's legacy will be a decline in democracy as it relates to this institution. We wonder why people are losing faith in our institutions, and this the exact reason: Voices are being silenced in this place, those of millions of people who voted for opposition parties, including the Conservatives. It is a legacy he will have to live with. A free and open democracy requires an independent news media. We agree with that, but this is not the way to get this done.

moved: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, the committee be granted the power to divide the bill into two pieces of legislation: (i) Bill C-19A, An Act to amend the Department of Employment and Social Development Act and other acts, containing divisions 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Part 5 and Schedule 3 of the bill, (ii) Bill C-19B, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures, containing all the remaining provisions of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not surprised that we are at this point of time allocation by the government considering it is being aided and abetted by the NDP, a party, by the way, that used to rail against time allocation every time it came up in the last Parliament, the Parliament before that and Parliaments before that. As the now moderate wing of the Liberal Party, the NDP is furthering a decline in democracy. Millions of people voted for opposition parties other than the NDP. Those voices are being silenced as these types of things happen, and it is unfortunate that we are seeing a further decline in our democracy. There is a decline in the faith people have in our institutions when these types of tactics are employed by the government, aided and abetted by its lapdogs in the NDP.

Madam Speaker, 2022 marks the 70th anniversary of Queen Elizabeth’s reign over the Commonwealth. To celebrate, in the absence of any formal federal recognition with a platinum jubilee medal, I will be awarding 70 specially designed platinum jubilee commemorative medallions to volunteers in Barrie—Innisfil who have gone above and beyond to selflessly help the residents and communities of Barrie—Innisfil. Over the past month, since we put out the call for nominations, my office has received amazing stories of these volunteers, and I am not in the least surprised by it. I encourage residents to nominate a deserving volunteer by visiting my website, johnbrassard.com. Over the summer, I will personally deliver these special medallions to these special volunteers. As we head into the first long weekend of the summer, I want to wish everyone a safe and restful weekend. I wish a happy Victoria Day to all members of this House and every resident of Barrie—Innisfil. God save the Queen and long may she reign.

Madam Speaker, across Canada, residents depend on police, fire and EMS services. These services, funded by tax dollars, are facing high gas and diesel prices to fuel their vehicles, which are on the roads in every community 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The cost of fuel is in many cases blowing past emergency service budgets. Taxpayers in these communities cannot afford additional increases in their property taxes to pay for these added costs. Why will the Liberals not scrap the carbon tax or lower the GST on fuel, not just to help Canadian families that are suffering from high gas prices, but for emergency services as well?