Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I can tell by the sombreness of the hon. member's tone that he is taking this issue as seriously as it needs to be taken. When, or if, this goes to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the matter would need to be dealt with in an expedited manner. It would need to be dealt with within the next week, in my opinion and in the opinion of many members of the House, for PROC to make a recommendation to the House for some sort of outcome on what the Speaker has done. It speaks directly to not only the confidence in this institution but also the confidence of all members in the Speaker's ability to make decisions free of any partisanship. Can we expect this to be done quickly at PROC to ensure that the confidence of the House is maintained, as well as, certainly, the confidence in the Speaker's ability to make non-partisan decisions?

Mr. Speaker, I chuckled when the hon. member mentioned middle-class Canadians, or those aspiring to be. It is funny how, after eight years, middle-class Canadians are now just trying to stay in the middle class as a result of all the policies of the government, with the affordability and inflation crisis caused by overspending and the debt that has accumulated. I want to speak specifically about Bill C-34 and the mandatory notice regime. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty within industry right now as it relates to the applications that are in the process, in some cases by minority investors. As for the definition of the mandatory notice regime, and specifically what categories of investment would fall into that, there seems to be a little uncertainty. I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what that would be.

Mr. Speaker, I know the issue of sponsored travel is coming up frequently in this place. I brought this up before, and I am interested in the hon. member's take on this. The member for Timmins—James Bay, in 2022, took a sponsored travel trip to Berlin, Germany, which was an expensive $10,489. The trip was paid for by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation. In 2007, NGO Monitor found that FES partnered with politicized NGOs to attack Israel. Mossawa is one of the main Israeli-Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay actually held a joint press conference in 2004 with Hezbollah. My question—

Madam Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for York—Simcoe rose on that, because I was in the House when the member for Kings—Hants said that. I know the hon. member for York—Simcoe, and I know how he feels about this carbon tax and that he wants to see it scrapped across the country. I sat in the House, as I said, for the debate this morning. I listened to the NDP and the Liberals. For lack of a better term, there is a falsehood that is being spread in the House. The NDP is saying that they had a motion to remove the GST off home heating, when in fact it was a Conservative motion to scrap the carbon tax. The NDP actually tried to amend the motion. That is really where this misrepresentation is being spread. My question to the hon. member is this: Is that not factually what happened in the House a year ago?

Mr. Speaker, it is not a luxury for seniors, families and single-parent families to heat their homes, regardless of what type of fuel they use or what region of the country they are from. After eight years of the Prime Minister and a year and a half of the NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians realize they are not worth the cost. On Monday, NDP members will have a choice to make: support their constituents who are suffering from energy poverty or support a panicking Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister force the NDP members to support their coalition agreement, or, with what little dignity they have left, will they support the people they represent, to keep the tax off and the heat on?

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member was one of the 50 species of fish that swim in the Red River, he would certainly be swimming upstream on this issue. In late September, there was a Postmedia-Leger poll that found a clear majority of 55% of Canadians want the carbon tax reduced or eliminated entirely and that everyone thinks the federal plan to get to net zero is unrealistic. Of the respondents, 18% wanted the carbon tax reduced, 37% wanted it abolished, and 27% were fine to keep it as is. One thing I have never been able to understand and explain to the residents of Barrie—Innisfil is this: The government talks about them getting more money than what they pay into it, which the PBO has said is not the case. If I take a dollar from somebody and give that person their dollar back, how are they ahead? I would love to hear an explanation on that one.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to stand in this place and speak to legislation and, in this particular case, it is an honour to speak to the report stage of Bill C-34. Before I begin, having just spent the weekend back in my riding and arriving this morning back in Ottawa, at different events and in lots of interaction with my constituents, since we are speaking about competition, I cannot say enough about the impact of the Prime Minister's decision last Thursday to limit the carbon tax, or actually take away the carbon tax, on home heating oil within Atlantic Canada and how much of an impact that is having on the residents whom I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, in a negative way. Many are questioning and wondering why the same application of an exemption to the carbon tax was not applied equally across the country. I know the Prime Minister gave his rationale, but that is literally cold comfort to the people whom I represent, especially the seniors who are struggling to pay for groceries and to pay their natural gas bills. Many of them are sending me their natural gas bill, and the carbon price is oftentimes equal to the distribution charge of natural gas itself. There are families who are struggling to keep a roof over their heads, moms who are worried about paying the bills on a daily basis and, of course, single-parent families who are just struggling to make ends meet, buy nutritious food for their families and pay their gas bills, especially with winter coming up. It was quite the topic of conversation this week within my riding. Quite frankly, I did not have an answer for any of them because the Prime Minister's decision was to exclude solely Atlantic Canada when the rest of us are still paying the carbon tax for home heating in particular, and those prices are going to go up. The cost of distribution is going to go up and the cost of the carbon tax is going to go up. People in the riding I represent are quite concerned about the inequity of not having the same benefit other Canadians have. I wanted to share that message because it is something I heard on the weekend in my many interactions with the people whom I represent in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil. We are here today to speak to Bill C-34 at report stage with respect to the improvements, and some needed improvements, to the Investment Canada Act. It is important because we just finished, at the ethics committee, a study on foreign interference and the role that nations, particularly China and Russia, are playing as state-owned actors making investments into our economy for the purpose, quite frankly, of control, including controlling Canadian businesses, controlling Canadian minerals, controlling Canadian resources and controlling, in many cases as the hon. member just spoke about, some of our northern and offshore areas as well. Therefore, it becomes critically important for the government to keep a keen eye, and multiple eyes, in fact, on what is happening with foreign investment and the approvals. Bill C-34 highlights a few simple things. Number one, there are numerous foreign state-owned enterprises who have acquired interest and control in many Canadian companies, intellectual property, tangible assets and the data of our citizens. We are finding more and more that this access to data and theft of data are not just to use it for nefarious reasons but to propagate disinformation and misinformation to create societal chaos, so we have to be mindful of that. The government, quite frankly, would do very little to protect our national economic and security interests with this bill, despite what we are hearing the Liberals say today and other days during debate, and certainly at committee. We have to take sensitive transactions seriously, and we have failed to fully review some of the transactions, particularly as they relate to Chinese state-owned enterprises in the past. Later, I am going to be citing some examples of where we have put at risk not just Canadian intellectual property but also Canadians in general. One can agree with some of the principles of this bill, and we certainly agree with some of the principles, but it does not go far enough to address some of the risks faced by Canadians. That is why we worked to pass significant amendments in committee to better protect Canadian interests and Canadian assets. When I look through the list of amendments that were proposed for Bill C-34, only four were passed at committee out of the roughly 13 we proposed. One that was accepted was on reducing the threshold to trigger a national security review from $512 million to zero dollars for all state-owned enterprise investment made in Canada. Lowering that threshold was critical so that at least it would trigger and initiate a security review. The other amendment that was passed would ensure that items renewable under the national security review process include acquisitions of any assets by a state-owned enterprise. Again, this is all about protecting Canadians and protecting our valuable assets, our businesses and certainly our interests. The other one would ensure that an automatic national security review is conducted whenever a company has previously been convicted of corruption charges. If somebody had not supported that, I would have been surprised, quite frankly. It is one of the proposals at committee that were adopted. The last would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing the word “may” to “shall” to ensure a review is triggered whenever it is in the new threshold. This was quite frankly a no-brainer. However, there were some amendments proposed that were not accepted at committee and rejected. The one that concerns me the most is the one that would require the minister to conduct a national security review by changing “may” to “shall” to ensure the review is triggered whenever in the review threshold. One of the things we have to be mindful of is that anytime a transaction being proposed impacts the national security interests of our country, we have to make sure there is a review. One of the proposed amendments was to have a Governor in Council review of this so there is not just one eye on it, the minister's eye. It would go to the cabinet table so there are multiple eyes on it and multiple questions being asked, which is critical when we are dealing with sensitive national security interests. Why is this important? As I said earlier, there have been situations in the past where companies have not had the type of review they should have. That has been widely publicized. A Chinese takeover deal in 2015 had been previously rejected by the Conservative government, but it was approved in 2015. This was based on Hong Kong O-Net Technologies Group as it related to a business here. Having multiple eyes on the review therefore becomes critical. In fact, three years ago, a Deloitte study suggested to the government that we should not buy sensitive security IT from despotic regimes. That was in relation to a $6.8-million contract to supply security equipment to Canada's embassies. This was Nuctech, which is known as the Huawei of airport security. Some may recall that this involved X-ray machines being supplied for use by the Government of Canada. While there are some things to support in this bill, the amendments that were proposed by our Conservative colleagues in committee were reasonable and practicable and should have been applied to many aspects of the bill we are debating today.

Madam Speaker, I believe that all Canadian interests should be protected, including those of indigenous communities. As I said earlier, the national security interests of this country become paramount as we debate bills like this. As Canadians, as stewards of our land, protecting northern resources and northern offshore resources becomes critical. If we are going to be serious about the protection of our national interests as they relate to foreign investment, there should be a fulsome discussion around the cabinet table to discuss all aspects of that. This would include the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations as well, because there are certain things that this minister could bring to the table. Let us not just leave it with one minister.

Madam Speaker, it is strategically important that we look at this bill, because we have seen strategic investment drop by almost 20% in this country. We have to ask ourselves why. We have also seen, for example, that in the United States, the investment increases have been the reverse of that. There is no doubt that we have to look at the strategic investments. We have to look at the impact of what is going on as it relates to foreign investment. We have to understand why we have seen a decrease in foreign investment. There was a reaction on the other side. Foreign investment should not be confused with government investment. We have seen a significant amount of government investment over the last little while, some of which is questionable, but with foreign investment, we need to have a national security review and all eyes need to be on it.

Mr. Speaker, an obvious, desperate Prime Minister admitted his carbon tax is punishing Canadians and making life unaffordable. After eight years he finally proved to himself last Thursday that he is not worth the cost. His only strategy at this point is not about climate. It is about protecting his Liberal MPs. In Sudbury, in Nickel Belt, 55% of homes are heated by natural gas, yet for these struggling Canadians they get no exemption from heating their homes. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed to axe the tax in all forms of home heating for every Canadian. Will the Prime Minister agree with that?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be rising on Motion No. 96. As many people know, I spent 30 and a half years as a firefighter. I am actually trained as an aircraft rescue firefighter. I spent a week up at Base Borden trudging through AFFF, which I am now finding out is a cancerous material. Where I worked in Markham, we had Buttonville Airport. There was no active firefighting capabilities on site, and all of it was done through the municipality in Markham. I remember responding to several incidents of aircraft crashes, such as landing gear coming up and the aircraft not being able to land, and aircraft landing on top of buildings, so it was interesting. I enjoyed being an aircraft rescue firefighter, to be frank, because of the training involved, such as understanding the different aircraft and some of the emergencies that could occur, including making sure that a means of regress was the number one priority and protecting the exits of those aircraft that were in trouble. I dealt with multi-engine aircraft, but I never dealt with large aircraft that we would see, for example, at Pearson or Vancouver international airports. I want to thank the member for bringing Motion No. 96 forward. I think that it is well intentioned. I believe that none of us in this place want to limit or diminish the value of safety, either for the passengers, pilots and crew of an aircraft, or for those firefighters who are intended to respond. However, I am not sure that Motion No. 96 is the way to go about it, quite frankly. There are a lot of stakeholders who need to be involved in this process, not the least of which is the International Association of Fire Fighters, whom I spoke with this afternoon, along with airports and the Airports Council. There are other stakeholders that need to be included in the process, including, for example, the pilots associations, such as ACPA, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and regional airport authorities. They all need to be involved in this process of understanding the full impact of what the motion proposes. In my opinion, this motion would be better off going through the process of the committee, and I heard the member for Winnipeg North talk about that. That way, we could get all of the stakeholders together. How would this affect municipal agreements? There are many across this country in which local and regional airports have an agreement with a municipality. What are the impacts on cost? What are the impacts on personnel? These are the types of discussions that we should be having on this. The motion does identify a problem, and I can tell members that in my time of being here, every time I have met with the International Association of Fire Fighters and the Barrie firefighters, they come advocating for improved responses at airports. There is no question that this is an issue. In fact, the regulations have not been addressed since the 1990s, so it is time that we have this discussion. Furthermore, the government has within its power the ability to initiate the type of regulations that are required to increase safety at airports. The minister, in fact, could do it with one swoop of the pen if he wanted to. I believe that I will have more time to speak about the logistics of this at the next intervention, but as I stated, and I will make the point again, all of the stakeholders need to be involved in this process, and that would include the firefighters, the Airports Council, regional airport authorities, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association and a whole list of others. The only way that can be done is through the process that is in place, and that is through the transportation committee. Let us make sure that we get it there, have a fulsome discussion and look at the implications. I do not want to take away from the good nature of what the member is proposing here, because I believe it has been done in good faith, but this needs to be studied in its entirety to understand what the full impact is going to be on airports, on municipalities, certainly on our country and on safety as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with the honour of presenting, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Foreign Interference and the Threats to the Integrity of Democratic Institutions, Intellectual Property and the Canadian State”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. While I have the floor, I want to state how important this study is and what the committee heard. I want to mention the courage of the witnesses who came before our committee, in particular Pascale Fournier, who spoke truth to power, and members of our Chinese diaspora who deal with threats, intimidation and fear on a daily basis. They came before our committee to tell their stories. I hope that this report reflects those concerns accurately. More importantly, the report states what needs to be done in the recommendations to the government to deal with these threats of foreign interference, particularly by the Chinese Communist regime in Beijing. While I am standing, I also want to thank the Clerk, the analysts, the technicians, all the witnesses and all members of the committee for putting their hearts and souls into the issue of threats as a result of foreign interference. This is a very important issue for our country. I present this report on behalf of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to tell everyone my profound disappointment in the fact that the NDP-Liberal coalition chose to shut down and adjourn the meeting before it happened. I can assure members that proper notice was given. In fact, I emailed the vice-chairs of the committee, as well as other committee members, 72 hours before the meeting occurred. I took advantage, in my position as chair, to invite the RCMP given the latest information that had been released. The public safety minister suggested that if we had any questions for the RCMP, we pose questions to its members. I took that opportunity. I cannot tell the member when the next opportunity will be, but I hope it is soon.

Madam Speaker, it may surprise members that I, too, am looking forward to a just transition. I am looking forward to the Liberal Party's just transition to up by the interpreters after the next election. Here is the problem: Right now, Qatar, the U.S. and other nations are filling in the void of the natural gas requirements of Europe, the Netherlands and France. We have heard that deals have been struck recently with Qatar, with fewer environmental standards, fewer labour standards and fewer human rights standards. Qatar is a known supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. Meanwhile, in Canada, we are strangleholding our natural resource sector and our ability to supply natural gas, clean Canadian energy, to the rest of the world. The impact that is going to have on families and our economy is unconscionable. How can the member justify Qatar's supplying natural gas when Canada cannot?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did take the liberty of pulling out the declaration on order and decorum in the House by the Speaker yesterday. In there, it says: ...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them.... The hon. member just said “the member for Stornoway”, so I seek your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker, because this was your declaration, and I am asking you to enforce it.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member spent a lot of time on sponsored travel, so I would like to ask him a question. In 2022, he took a trip to Berlin, Germany that cost $10,500. The trip was paid for by the FES, partnered with politicized NGOs, to attack Israel, SHAML, a radical anti-Israel NGO, and Mossawa, which is one of the main Israeli Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel. He held a joint press conference with Hezbollah in 2004 and HDIP, which promotes international political attacks on Israel. How could he justify that?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hurting, and as we head into Thanksgiving, food banks are on the front line of the cost of living and food-insecurity crises created by eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. In Barrie, food bank usage is up 94% in one year. Executive director Sharon Palmer told Simcoe.com this week, “With rents where they are, the price of gas and food, we're seeing more families struggling.” There is no evidence anywhere that the promise the Prime Minister made three weeks ago has lowered grocery prices. Where are the grocery prices, and why have they not been lowered?

Mr. Speaker, the promise has not been kept. The cost of living and food-insecurity crises created after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government have also hit families hard as they go to buy turkey this weekend. Prices for turkeys have shot up 67% since 2015. On top of that, potatoes are up 77%, while carrots are up 74% in the same time. The legend of the bird's power to induce sleepiness, a sort of turkey coma, is proving to be a myth. Canadians have now awakened to the fact that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Where are the lower grocery prices he promised three weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker, with Thanksgiving coming, the Liberals have in the past issued what they call “turkey talking points” as a guide to what they want families to discuss at the dinner table. This year, their talking points should sound something like this: after eight years of this NDP-Liberal government, groceries, gas and home heating have become unaffordable because of their inflationary spending, the debt and the carbon tax. Housing costs are at 30-year highs, rent has doubled and young people have lost hope of ever owning a home. Three in five Canadians will be in financial trouble if interest rates increase. For many families, mortgage costs will double as renewals come due. Seven million Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, and 63% of Canadians spend what they make, while 30% spend more than they make each month. Violent crime is up 39% since 2015, and violent gun crime is up 101%. Finally, Canada has been humiliated and embarrassed on the world stage. As Canadians gather this weekend, let us consider this one last “turkey talking point”: this is a Prime Minister who cannot be redeemed at this point, he must be replaced. Oh and by the way, he is not worth the cost.

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here during question period and, like all Canadians, have listened to the Liberals deflect and place blame on the Speaker for a Nazi being allowed in this chamber. Like we have seen with so many others, the Prime Minister, and apparently his House leader, will go to any length to ruin personal and professional reputations to protect himself. After eight years, our nation is living through a rotating loop of international humiliation that lies solely at the feet of the Prime Minister. Why will the Prime Minister not accept responsibility and apologize to not only the House but to our nation, our international partners and those who have been retraumatized?

Mr. Speaker, this is how bad it is. Last week, I met a senior named Don in my Barrie—Innisfil office. He told me that when he renews his mortgage, he will be left with just $600 a month from his pension because of the increases in interest rates caused by this NDP-Liberal government's inflationary spending. In fact, recent CMHC data shows 24% of people with mortgages are struggling to make their monthly payments, and it is getting worse. Don, like many seniors, now realizes that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Will the Prime Minister finally stop his inflationary spending so Canadians can keep a roof over their heads?

With regard to the purchase of promotional products since January 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) what was the amount spent; (d) what was the price per unit; (e) if the products were purchased in relation to a specific event, what are the details of the event; (f) in what country was each product manufactured; and (g) what is the relevant file number for each purchase?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “The State of Canada’s Access to Information System”. While I am on my feet, I want to thank the members who participated in this report and the witnesses. I also want to thank Nancy Vohl, the clerk, and the analysts, Sabrina Charland and Alexandra Savoie, for their work on this. I hope this report reflects the seriousness of the current state of the access to information system. The recommendations in this report are meant and designed to fix what is a broken system.

Mr. Speaker, a few things come to mind as the government once again drops the hammer on closure. There are three things in particular. We are starting to see a decline in our democracy and the relevance of its institutions, and I take offence to what the Minister of Justice said with respect to debate. It is from debate, from the diverse ideas that come from right across the country, that we are able to produce good legislation. The challenge that we have now is that the government wants an audience, not an opposition. I will remind the minister that in September 2021, the Liberal government was voted in with a minority, and if not for the coalition agreement the Liberals have with the NDP, this legislation would be further debated. However, instead, the government House leader does not speak to the leader of the official opposition and does not speak to the Bloc. It just does an end-around to the NDP House leader and says, “Look, I want to invoke closure and this is what we are going to do.” They are ramming this legislation through. This is Parliament, which is from parler, or to talk. We debate diverse ideas from right across the country, and anything but that is happening in this place. Canadians are taking notice. I get a lot of eastern Europeans come to me in my office and say that they saw the same thing happen in their countries, this decline in democracy, this rise of authoritarianism, the government wanting an audience, not an opposition. Canadians are taking notice. Those people who come into my office say this: “Don't let what happened in my country happen to Canada, because it is.”

Madam Speaker, obviously, I feel profoundly disappointed again that we are here facing time allocation on a profoundly substantive change to the way Parliament functions. We have had just a few hours to discuss this. I am planning to speak to this issue later on. This is an issue that goes back to during the COVID pandemic. The government made its intentions very clear at that time that this is the direction it wanted to go. There are a lot of voices that want to speak on this issue because of the substantive nature of this change, and I cannot quite understand why the government is invoking time allocation on something that would have a profound impact on the way this place functions. Here we go again. I am not surprised that the government House leader has risen on this matter. Does he not understand how substantive this issue is and how many voices he is silencing in this place, the voices of members of Parliament in this place, who are representing millions of people across this country? It is just ridiculous.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments, I just want to express my concern about the situation that is unfolding in Manitoba. Tragically, by the latest account, 15 people have been killed in a traffic accident on the Trans-Canada Highway. My thoughts are with the families, obviously, with the victims and with the first responders as well. This is going to be a difficult night for people in Manitoba. I am actually profoundly disappointed that I am here again, as I was a year ago, when a similar motion to extend the hybrid sitting was proposed before Parliament. As the opposition House leader at the time, I actually spoke for almost two and a half hours on this issue. The theme of what I was talking about last year was, sadly, a decline in our democracy, a decline in our institutions, a lack of respect for the conventions of this place and how Parliament has functioned historically throughout the Westminster system, and particularly in this country for over 156 years. I just cannot express enough how profoundly disappointed I am that not only are we dealing with changes to the Standing Orders on a permanent basis without the consensus of parties, which has again been the convention of this place, but we are also dealing with it in a time allocation motion. Something that will make such a profound change in the way this place operates is being dealt with through just a few hours of debate, with a lack of consensus. It is extremely frustrating and disappointing. I think every Canadian should be concerned about the direction in which the government, aided and abetted by the NDP, is taking not just Parliament but also our institutions, as well as the general lack of respect they have for them. I recall back in 2020, at the height of the pandemic, that I was the deputy whip, and I happened to sit at PROC. Clearly, at the time, there was a lot of uncertainty and confusion about what was going on. That is when the issue of a hybrid Parliament and the voting app started really taking root in the psyche of parliamentarians. We had to function. We had to make sure that the business of the nation was going to continue, that there was some continuity. We sat down as the PROC committee. Again, I will remind members that it was a Liberal majority at the time, and there were certain patterns that were already starting to evolve. There were things that were being foretold back then that bring us to the day that we are facing today. I recall that the first issue we were dealing with was the voting application. The Conservative members of the committee issued a dissenting report at that time. There are some highlights of that report that I would like to mention now. One of them is that the “underlying Liberal motivations left us skeptical”. Members may recall that, back in 2015, when the manifesto of the Liberal campaign policy book was issued, it talked about restructuring the way Parliament functions, so this was their intent back in 2015. What they did was use the pandemic as a means to an end. That end was always to disrupt this place and not allow it to function in the manner in which it was designed. The other aspects of what we were discussing back then included that the “Liberals seemed committed not just to a direction, but to a specific outcome”, as I referenced before, because that was in their campaign policy book. The committee worked hard. There were long days throughout that summer that we discussed this because of the importance of the issue at the time, but it was all in the “service of a Liberal talking point”. In other words, the fix was in. They knew specifically where they were going. There were some other things. One of the things in our dissenting report that we highlighted was that the “House of Commons must—and can—[and should] conduct its business in person”. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills just spoke eloquently on that, so I am not going to expand on that. Later on, I am going to give some reasons and examples of why this is important. As we went on later that summer, we talked about the voting app, and we wrote the dissenting report. Again, a Liberal majority, not a Liberal minority propped up by the NDP, caused us to write this dissenting report. Several times today, the government members have said that they are surprised about the opposition position on this. Our position was made clear back in 2020 as it related to the hybrid sittings of this House. The report said, “The Official Opposition will strongly resist any effort to exploit the pandemic as a cover to implement a permanent virtual Parliament, with its reduced ability to hold government accountable, gravely undermining our democracy.” It was almost like prophecy back then. We were predicting exactly what was going to happen, that this day would come, and here we are. Why is it important? It is important because of accountability. In this place, when we gather 338 members, our constitutional obligation is to hold the government to account. As We saw throughout the pandemic, as we are seeing as recently as this week, just how difficult it is to hold the government to account when its members are not in this House or when they are simply voting by the app. It is not just parliamentarians holding the government to account. It is the media. In such a situation as we are seeing this week and over the past couple of weeks, with the Minister of Public Safety, how can the media, Canadians and their representatives in this place hold the government to account if its members are hiding out on a TV screen or if they are voting by app? There are so many things that I cannot even do them justice within 10 minutes as I discuss the challenges that this hybrid system presents. There is the fact that it is not being done on consensus but is being rammed down the throats of Canadians, fundamentally changing the way this institution operates. We cannot do it justice within 10 minutes, and we certainly cannot explain why this is an ill-conceived idea through the proposal of time allocation. Again, it was supposed to be temporary. Human-to-human interaction is critical in this place; it is critical that I, as a member of Parliament in the opposition, can go and speak to a minister who is present in this place. I will give an example. At ethics committee the other day, we were dealing with an issue on the access to information report, which we expect to be tabled at some point over the next few days. There was a discussion that was engaged in between members of the committee who were in that room. It was about how we were going to move forward on a stalemate situation that we were facing. As the meeting continued, those members from the Bloc, the NDP, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party got together and worked out a deal to end the stalemate. That cannot happen when we are sitting on a TV screen or voting on an app. Those things have to happen in person, and this is why it is critical that we do not support hybrid sittings. We are the only western democracy in the world and there is no other legislature in Canada that is voting by an app, that is not meeting in person or utilizing a hybrid system. There is not one, and that should tell members everything they need to know about why this proposition is wrong. If we cannot set the example of what this institution means to this country, as the premier democratic symbol in this country, then it is awfully difficult to expect others to follow suit. I happen to think that it still means a lot. There are legislatures in this country that are leaders in this regard, yet here we are, not the leader. There are a couple more issues that I want to touch on. The first is interpretation. We have seen an increase in injuries to our interpreters as a result of the hybrid system. The system has become better, but the problem still exists, and it is going to continue to exist as a result of this hybrid system. I cannot support this. We have to return in person for the sake of our democracy and not continue down this path. We need accountability. We need transparency. We cannot continue down this path as a democracy in decline. Sadly, this motion would do that.

Madam Speaker, I think I was pretty clear in what I said, which was that there is no other western democracy. I was referring specifically to national legislatures. There are provincial legislatures in Canada, but not one of them is using a hybrid model or a voting app. They have all returned to some sense of normalcy, and that is specifically where we need to go. We cannot continue down this path, because, as I said earlier, we are going to continue to see a further decline in democracy.

Madam Speaker, there is another example. Last year, the government did the same thing in June, with the NDP's help. They did it right before Canada Day. They said that if we did not vote, we would be staying here. They are using this issue as a hostage-taking exercise. This is why we are ending up at the end. However, on the point of not discussing, we have had consensus around this place on changes to the Standing Orders. That has been the convention, but obviously the government knows that it has NDP members in its hip pocket and it is using them to make these changes. I ran as an MP knowing the issue, knowing that I would be here in Ottawa, and I would suggest to anyone that if they do not understand the obligation of a member of Parliament to sit in Ottawa, in this seat of power, the constitutional place of power in this country, and if they cannot conform to that, then maybe they should run for mayor or maybe they should run for councillor or maybe they should run for public school trustee. I understand what my obligation is, as do many of the members, not just on our side but I suspect on the Bloc Québécois side as well. This is where people need to be.

Madam Speaker, I have heard this argument all day. The government, aided and abetted by the NDP, has set the rules. We are working within the rules. If those rules change and we get rid of the hybrid Parliament, every single Conservative will be in their seat representing their constituents and voting here on behalf of their constituents. However, the government set the rules. There is one thing that is critical about this, which is that we cannot continue on this hybrid system and not expect our democracy to decline. That is exactly what the NDP is contributing to by voting with the Liberals on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I echo those sentiments and I welcome back the member for Labrador. I am very proud to present petition e-4399 on behalf of the 965 Canadians who signed it. This petition follows up on e-petition 3217, which I presented in May of 2021, but it did not receive a government response because of the election. In the petition, Canadians call on the government to reclassify the Persian Gulf mission to “wartime service”. Petition e-4399 has support from all parties and a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. Persian Gulf veterans deserve to have the same classification as veterans from the Korean War and merchant mariners. Their classification was changed long after the Korean War and after the Second World War. I want to thank President Harold Davis of the Persian Gulf War Veterans of Canada; Mike McGlennon, vice-president; and all veterans of the Persian Gulf war. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank them for their service. Veterans are indeed the ties who bind this great nation together.

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague touched on something. We were both elected in 2015. There are partisan games played around this place when good ideas are presented. It should not matter whether they come from the Liberals, the NDP, the Conservatives or the Greens if ideas benefit Canadian families. Some of the amendments that we proposed at committee were rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition. Should it matter who proposes amendments to make legislation better, if Canadian families benefit?

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is the 37th time allocation motion that the NDP has supported thus far, showing that it is yet again a willing partner to the Liberals, aiding and abetting them in pushing time allocation. I did a little research comparing this NDP to the more historically principled NDP, from Tommy Douglas to Thomas Mulcair, and over the span of 17 Parliaments, it only supported time allocation and closure 14 times, averaging 1.2 times per Parliament. Here we are, for the 37th time, with the NDP supporting time allocation. Tommy Douglas must be rolling over in his grave. Five hours of debate is all we have had on this consequential piece of legislation. Why?

Madam Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order. I want to thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing this very important matter to your attention, because I too have a similar situation. I am not going to reference all of the Standing Orders, as I think the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has done that, but this is in relation to Question No. 1357. If you will indulge me, I asked this question of the government: With regard to government expenditures related to vacations by the Prime Minister outside of Canada, since November 4, 2015, broken down by each vacation: (a) what was the date and location of each trip; (b) for each vacation in (a), what were the total costs incurred by the government, including those incurred by security and support staff, for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses, broken down by type of expense; (c) what was the total amount of expenses related to the trips, such as flights, incurred by the government that were reimbursed by the Prime Minister; and (d) what number of travellers were [reimbursed].... It is not that the government did not respond within 45 days. It did not answer the questions that I had asked. It only referred to the Privy Council Office. Again I refer to the importance of the intervention by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. On behalf of Canadians and the people I represent in Barrie—Innisfil, I note that my question was not answered. The government needs to respond to ensure the transparency and openness that these Order Paper questions call for. I want you to consider that in your deliberations as well.

With regard to the increase in the number of public service employees between 2016 and 2023: (a) what was the total number of public service workers as of (i) January 1, 2016, (ii) January 1, 2023, in total and broken down by department or agency; and (b) what was the total number of positions added to the public service between January 1, 2016, and January 1, 2023, broken down by occupational group, level, Treasury Board classification, and department or agency?