SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/3/22 4:03:09 p.m.
Watch

We are actually going to move to the next speaker and come back to the hon. member for Vancouver East once IT has had a chance to reach out to her. The hon. member will have seven minutes remaining once we can return to her. Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.

67 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

Feb/3/22 4:03:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8 Bill C-206

Mr. Speaker, I hope the member is able to get her technical problems resolved. I was looking forward to enjoying her speech. I know how challenging it can be with technical things. I want to start with the substance of my speech. Like everyone else today, I am addressing Bill C-8, which is a financial update to the fiscal update. I am going to talk about some specific issues. Over the next few days, we will have a well-rounded discussion, but today I really wanted to talk about one area specifically, and that is part 1(d). It has to do with the introduction of a refundable tax credit to return fuel charge proceeds to farming businesses in backstop jurisdictions. Before we get into that, I want to talk a little about farmers and how important they are to our economy. They provide the very sustenance we need every day, including throughout the pandemic. They actually account for nearly 7% of our GDP. In addition to feeding Canada and Canadians, people around the world are counting on our Canadian farmers. We are the fifth-largest agriculture exporter in the world and that provides nearly one in eight Canadians a job. We are one of the world's largest producers in flaxseed, canola, pulses, oats and durum. Our farmers, despite providing an incredible bounty for us and around the world, have undergone some significant challenges throughout the pandemic. Like everyone else, they fought through the challenges of the pandemic. They also had challenges going into the pandemic, like the harvest from hell in 2019, which had the significant challenge of crops literally rotting in the field because it was so wet and farmers were unable to dry their fields. That harvest exacerbated the challenges our farmers were already facing, such as the self-inflicted wounds from the government in the form of the carbon tax. The fact is that in some cases there is no doubt that the claims of revenue neutral do apply. If a person lives in a condo in downtown Toronto, there is a very good chance that their rebate is equal to the amount of the carbon tax they pay. However, if someone is a grain farmer in Saskatchewan, there is a very good chance and, in fact, a 100% chance, that they are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in carbon tax while receiving a mere pittance in return from the carbon tax rebate. That is what led me, after discussions with some of the great advocacy groups for our farmers, to bring in a private member's bill, Bill C-206. Bill C-206 was legislation that would have exempted propane and natural gas from the carbon tax for farmers. It was well received and it created some great discussion. Our stakeholders were very pleased with it. Initially, if one can believe this, the agriculture minister said that the carbon tax was not significant. Despite me and others receiving carbon tax bills from farmers around this great country in the amount of tens of thousands of dollars, she said it was not that significant. However, as the bill gained momentum, all of a sudden the tone changed, which was quite odd. She said that there now might very well be an issue. The minister went from “it is not significant” to “it might be an issue at some point”. Then, of course, as we know, later on in the fiscal update, she announced that there would be a rebate program. That rebate would be a $1.47 for every $1,000 of eligible farming expenses, or $1.73 in 2023. We will see the math, but we will see that is not nearly as much carbon tax as farmers are actually paying. Before we get into that, let us talk about a rebate versus an exemption and why we still need an exemption. A rebate takes money from the farmer, puts it in Ottawa and then takes it back to the farmer. Why would we go through that machination of having it go to Ottawa and then come back to the farmer? Why would we not just leave it in the pockets of farmers? I can only speculate but I have a couple of ideas. It might be that, in fact, the government wanted to take credit for an idea that came from farmers, and it wanted to have that credit. It just might be that the government wants control of that money. It is funny what happens sometimes when people's money goes to Ottawa. It tends to diminish. In talking to advocacy groups, whether in the agriculture committee or one-on-one conversations with farmers, we hear that they welcome the rebate but they would much prefer an exemption. Let us move on from there to see how this is calculated. It is calculated based on eligible farming expenses. For those of you who are not aware, who have never filled out a tax return for a farmer or done it for their own farm, a farmer has to state and list all of their expenses on their tax return. This bill says that, if they had $25,000 or more, based on the amount of those expenses, the more carbon tax rebate they will get. Therefore, they are using eligible expenses as a proxy for the amount. In other words, the more they burn the more they earn. Where have we heard that before? That is exactly how the system works. Only it does not work. In the proxy that they use, they are saying that with more eligible farming expenses there is more carbon tax rebate. The challenge with that is that not all farmers are the same and not all areas of the country are the same. The temperature is very different in the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia than it is in northern Alberta. Of course, the amount of fossil fuels, including natural gas and propane, is different. In addition to that, different industries have different routes to alternatives to fossil fuels. For certain industries, it may take years but it is relatively inexpensive to switch to alternative sources. In contrast, with other industries, it may take decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet we are blanketing it. We are using the same formula for different types of farms. I am pleased, once again, that the government is starting to recognize that the agriculture industry, in addition to being great stewards of our land, already carbon neutral and ahead of many other industries, is what is called “an emissions-intensive trade exposed industry”. That means that there are certain industries, of which agriculture is certainly one, that do not have the ability to switch to alternatives, and there are certain emissions that may take years, if not decades, to get out of the system, despite the best efforts of our farmers. The reason, as we heard over and over in the agriculture committee, is twofold. As I already said, there simply are not alternatives, so all this is an increased cost. There is no way to motivate farmers to do something that is impossible. The other part of it is that farmers are price-takers. The price that farmers get for their commodities off the gate is set by markets thousands of miles away from them. Therefore, they are unable to push that cost onto the consumer. That means many of our farmers are struggling to hang on and are struggling to get through Justinflation like everyone else, so it is a significant challenge. I will just wrap up here by going through an example of how ineffective and insignificant this rebate is. For example, if a grain farm in Manitoba had a gross income of $2 million, which could very easily be a net income of zero, a farmer could expect a rebate of $3,446. That same farm would be paying a carbon tax of almost $10,000. It is woefully insufficient. Farmers need an exemption, not a rebate. They need more money in their pockets, not in Ottawa bureaucrats'.

1362 words

All Topics

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

Feb/3/22 4:13:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the price on pollution. There was a time when the Conservative Party in opposition opposed a price on pollution. The Conservatives would call it a tax. Then they had a flip-flop and changed their position on it. I was glad to see that. I think most Canadians saw the value of having a price on pollution. I wonder if this member is shying away from having a price on pollution once again. Can we anticipate another flip-flop on this issue?

89 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/3/22 4:14:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, if you want to talk about flip-flops, your minister said this was not an issue. It is costing our farmers tens of thousands of dollars. After my bill, suddenly it is an issue and now you are introducing a rebate just for political points. That is disgusting.

50 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/3/22 4:14:33 p.m.
Watch

I want to remind the member that he is to address questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton West.

32 words

Remarks addressed to the Chair

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Feb/3/22 4:14:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech. It is very important for Canadians to understand the effects of the Liberal carbon tax on our farmers and on our cost of food. One of the things that we have been arguing about for years is that the government will say it is a levy and, therefore, it is not a tax. However, if we look at the OECD guidelines, a forced charge is a tax. This is a tax and they charged the GST on the carbon levy. The government will say it is okay, because it gives it all back in rebates. The public accounts, if anyone is interested in reading through them like I do, actually states that the government pocketed $136 million above what it actually returned to Canadians with its carbon tax. I would like my colleague to perhaps expand on what that is doing to farmers when we take that extra money out of their pockets.

166 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/3/22 4:15:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I had an interaction with a member of the ministry of finance at the agriculture committee who tried to say, no, it is actually the amount that goes in that comes out. I had read the public accounts, like the great member over there, and I knew that was not the case. They actually denied it at first. The fact remains that millions of dollars from the carbon tax stays with government and that is money that could be with our farmers. I believe that the best people to spend their money are the people themselves. The best people to plan their future are Canadians, not some bureaucrat in Ottawa.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Feb/3/22 4:16:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, since we are talking about agriculture, a subject that really matters to me, how can we help in the current context? We all agree that this government has not introduced very many measures. What concrete action can we take to help our farmers make ends meet? At the same time, how can we help them make the transition to a greener economy?

64 words

All Topics

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Feb/3/22 4:16:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, agriculture is very important to me, too, and to my constituency. I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is a good one. Farmers are incredibly important. I have spent my entire life working and surrounded by farmers and they are incredibly entrepreneurial, intelligent and thrifty individuals. If we leave that money in their pockets, they will do things, just like they already have with no-till technologies and otherwise. We need to make sure in our trade agreements that we are setting the economic table so they will be successful. Ultimately, the government just needs to get out of the way.

105 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/3/22 4:17:45 p.m.
Watch

We will resume debate and I will come back to the hon. member for Vancouver East. We are certainly hoping that everything has been resolved. The hon. member for Vancouver East has seven minutes.

34 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Feb/3/22 4:18:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I will pick up where I was before the technical issues. I was outlining the problems my constituents were having in their application for the benefits they need because of the pandemic. One constituent advised my office of their experience when they attempted to apply online. They were prompted to enter their postal code, which showed that they were from British Columbia. Even though the website stated that all regions in B.C. were eligible if employment had been impacted by COVID, they received a message saying that the region was not valid. These are the kinds of problems people are having. They cannot get through on the phone, or they wait for hours and get sent to different menu choices. They are trying online and are also getting these kinds of frustrating messages. People are desperate. This is a time when their resources are running dry. Rents are due and they cannot put food on the table, so this is just not acceptable. I sure hope the government will fix these problems. Then there are those who do not qualify for this program, such as artists, musicians, performers and cultural workers. They are among those who have been hardest hit by the pandemic. In Vancouver East, which is home to the most arts and cultural workers, on a per capita basis, of any riding in the country, the local arts and music scene is going through difficult times. I am very concerned that our community's cultural workers and venues alike face a longer road to recovery, which puts the live performance industry particularly at risk. Even before the pandemic, arts and performance venues were facing enormous pressures and challenges. The calls of the #ForTheLoveOfLIVE campaign went unanswered by the government. The federal government needs to do more to protect these small and medium-sized enterprises and their employees and to preserve the cultural industry within our communities. When we are talking about small businesses, I have to raise the issue of start-ups. They have been left out in the cold right from the start of the pandemic, and they continue to suffer. They continue to close down. The truth of the matter is that small businesses are the economic engine of our communities. If we do not support them to survive, our communities will not survive. That is our reality. In Vancouver's Chinatown in my riding, we still cannot get support from the federal government or a special grant such as the one for Granville Island. Granville Island received a special grant from the federal government at the beginning of the pandemic, to the tune of $17 million. It later received subsequent grants, as well. Vancouver's Chinatown could not get any support from the government. This is wrong. Chinatown is the jewel of our crown. It is recognized by the federal government as a national historic site, and we need to put the supports in place for small businesses and the community to survive. I opened my comments today with the issue of racism and discrimination. Chinatown also continues to face ongoing attacks on this front. The Chinese Cultural Centre and the Dr. Sun Yat-Sen gardens, among other iconic locations in our community, are being defaced with graffiti and racist comments. This also needs to be addressed, and we need the federal government to work with local communities, the provinces and the City to tackle this issue. We need to save Chinatown and preserve our history. I want to take a moment and turn to the issue of housing. Today is actually the first 100 days of the Liberal government, and it declared that it would do many things in the first 100 days. The Liberal government still has not appointed anybody to the position of federal housing advocate. The announcement of this new position was made in 2017. It has now been over a year since the government closed the job posting. In fact, it has been 13 months to be exact, yet there is still no progress. There is still no federal housing advocate. It should not take over 13 months for the government to hire someone after the job posting has closed. If the Liberals cannot even do that, how can they be expected to address the housing crisis that is precluding families and people from finding homes they can afford in the communities where they live and work? Right now, we know that housing costs have increased exponentially—in fact, by some 38%. People who wish to own a home cannot get into the market. People who rent are losing their homes and are faced with renovictions. Those who are on the streets, who are homeless, continue to be unhoused. The Liberals keep talking about their housing plan, but they continue to prevent scrutiny on it, which is not a surprise, I suppose, given how much the housing prices have gone up in the six years under this government. People cannot wait for the government keeps talking about it; we need action and we need it now. We need to address it. I would be remiss if I did not touch upon indigenous housing. The government promised a “for indigenous, by indigenous” national housing strategy. Budget after budget, there is still no funding allocation to it. It was not in this economic update, and it is shameful. The Aboriginal Housing Management Association in British Columbia just made an announcement and launched a plan to show how to do it and to showcase how this can be done. It needs to be done and it needs the federal government at the table to fund it so that we can ensure indigenous peoples have the proper housing that they deserve. There has been enough talk. It is time for action. Let us get on with it.

979 words

All Topics

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

Feb/3/22 4:24:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I am glad the member makes reference to the issue of housing, because within Bill C-8 there is a measure that will make a difference. For the first time, we are seeing a tax on non-residents and non-Canadians purchasing and possessing unused properties, either directly or indirectly. That is going to be an annual tax. I am hopeful that this measure will have at least some impact in conjunction with other actions by the government through the national housing strategy and a number of projects that the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion has alluded to time and time again. I believe that the federal government is showing goodwill in moving forward on the issue of housing for Canadians. What are the member's thoughts on the specific initiative of the annual tax within Bill C-8?

143 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Feb/3/22 4:25:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the measure the government introduced is minuscule, given the crisis we are faced with. A 1% tax is barely going to do it. What we are faced with is a huge financialization of housing, in which housing is being treated as though it is the stock market. Yes, we need a foreign buyers tax; actually, we need to ban foreign buyers at this point in time. We need to stop the financialization. We need to stop renovictions. We need to make sure that the government invests in housing, starting with a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy with real funding. We need to build 500,000 units of affordable and co-op housing in our communities. We need to fund non-profits so they can get into the market and buy up housing coming onto the market so it does not get swept up by others. This is what we need from the federal government.

159 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Feb/3/22 4:26:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, before my hon. colleague from Vancouver East was interrupted by technical difficulties, she spoke at length about the issue of seniors and the fact that they are the most vulnerable. Back in August, the Bloc Québécois wrote to the Minister of Finance to denounce the cuts to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors who had received CERB. On top of that, there is nothing in the economic update about providing assistance to seniors. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of increasing old age security starting at age 65 and supporting seniors before May.

105 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Feb/3/22 4:27:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, New Democrats were raising this issue even before the election, saying that seniors will be suffering because the GIS will be cut. The government did not take any action. It said it was going to do something about it in May. Well, seniors are being evicted right now, so that is not good enough. Aside from that, seniors actually need a boost in their incomes, not a differential treatment whereby seniors who turn 70 and those who have not yet done so have different payment increases. That is wrong. If someone retires at 65, they deserve to live in dignity. Seniors need to be supported throughout this pandemic and beyond.

112 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/3/22 4:28:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for highlighting the Liberal-Conservative coalition to protect the financialization of the housing industry. We keep hearing about affordability and the Liberal and Conservative definitions of what is affordable. Maybe the member could speak about how there is nothing in this bill to fix the broken language they have used in their definition of what is truly affordable.

66 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Feb/3/22 4:29:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government and the Conservatives over the years have actually co-opted the word “affordable”. In fact, some people actually think that this is a four-letter word, because there is no longer anything affordable, and saying that rentals being made available way above market are somehow affordable is an insult. That is what has to stop. We need to provide rent that meets core needs. That is what we need to do. By the way, I want to thank the member for the great bill he introduced today to address the opioid crisis and to call on the government to take action on decriminalization. It is time to save lives.

116 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/3/22 4:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Health; the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, Aviation Industry; the hon. member for York—Simcoe, Transport.

56 words

Mr. Scott Aitchison (Parry Sound—Muskoka, CPC)

Feb/3/22 4:30:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, it is an always an honour to stand in this place and speak on behalf of the people of Parry Sound—Muskoka from their seat here. I am speaking on Bill C-8 today, and I am excited to do so, because it is an important issue. I think that the Liberals like their talking points, and when they are asked legitimate questions about the reasonableness of their spending plan, they just spout talking points. I thought I would try to simplify things and get right to the point and see if we can maybe get some good questions. I would like to point out that of course this all started a couple of years ago at the beginning of the pandemic, and in many ways we in the House worked really well together. Pandemic supports were important, and all parties in the House worked well to improve many of the programs that the government offered and got them implemented as quickly as possible in the uncertain days at the beginning of the pandemic. I was really proud that we worked so well together. Fast-forward a couple of years and here we are, hopefully seeing light at the end of the tunnel. However, over the course of these two years, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that since the beginning of the pandemic, the government had spent or planned to spend almost $542 billion in new measures, but he also reported that clearly one-third of those new measures were not COVID-related at all. We are talking about almost $200 billion of new whims from this tax-and-spend Liberal government. In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the remaining platform measures that the Liberals are now talking about would be another $48.5 billion in net new spending between fiscal years 2021-22 and 2025-26. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, from a non-partisan office, pointed out the government's own fiscal guardrails. I am sure everyone recalls that when we were expressing concerns about the amount of deficit spending and borrowing that was being done, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister told us not to worry because we had these fiscal guardrails that were going to make sure we were in good shape. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has now told us, “The Government’s own fiscal guardrails would indicate that its latest round of stimulus spending should be wound down by the end of fiscal year 2021-22.” That is this March. “It appears to me, he said, “that the rationale for the additional spending initially set aside as 'stimulus' no longer exists.” That is the independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer. I do not know what is confusing about that to this government or to the Minister of Finance or her officials, but clearly it is. The Parliamentary Budget Officer was also asked in the finance committee if excessive deficits and borrowing can in fact lead to inflationary pressures. His answer was very simple. It was one word: “Yes.” Now, I will acknowledge that speaking points across the aisle are all about how inflation is a global issue, that there are global pressures, and I do not doubt that for one minute, but the fact of the matter is that we have a government that refuses to take responsibility for its own contributions to these inflationary pressures. That is real as well; the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us so, but the Liberals do not like to talk about that. However, the reason we need to talk about that is that when we stand here, we speak for Canadians struggling to make ends meet. We know what we are talking about when it comes to making ends meet. Trying to put food on the table is becoming more and more expensive for Canadian families. We know that chicken is up 6.2%, as we heard today. We know that beef is up almost 12%, bacon is up almost 20% and bread is up 5%. It is tough to make a sandwich with those numbers. The cost to put fuel in our cars is up 33%, and natural gas is up 19%. Now, that may not matter in some of the urban ridings that the Liberals hold, but in Parry Sound—Muskoka, where the median income is 20% below the provincial average, people are struggling to make ends meet, and they have to drive to get to their jobs because we do not have the option of the TTC or major transit. They have to drive. It is a rural community. What else do we have to do? In Parry Sound—Muskoka it is cold, and we have to heat our homes. There are an awful lot of people in Parry Sound—Muskoka who heat their homes, not with natural gas because they do not live in the smaller communities, but with propane and oil. On top of the inflationary pressures that we see on home heating fuels of all kinds, there is the carbon tax thrown on top of that as well. I cannot count the number of phone calls, emails and discussions I have had on the street with working families and seniors on fixed incomes. Seniors on fixed incomes call in tears, not sure how they are going to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. That is criminal in this country, yet all we hear is talking points and more stimulus borrowing that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said is not necessary. Everyone would like to think that Conservatives want to slash spending, and that is not what we are calling for. We are just saying, “Stop borrowing. It is not necessary. Just stop borrowing.” We do not need to borrow any more money. Maybe then we could help bring some of these costs down so that working-class Canadians, everyday folks, could afford to heat their homes, could afford to get to their jobs and could afford to put food on the table. We hear a lot about housing, and that is a significant issue in Parry Sound—Muskoka as well. I was pleased to hear the member for Vancouver East agreeing with a campaign pledge from the Conservative platform in the last election to actually ban foreign purchases of residential homes for up to two years. This tax is another example. The Liberals want to have a 1% tax on foreign purchases of homes, which would generate more money that they could spend on stimulus that is not necessary. However, it is a 1% tax that would actually have pretty much zero impact on people who are trying to buy and make investments in our real estate market from overseas. The Liberals would just collect more tax and not solve the problem, and that just makes it more difficult for Canadians to ever own a home. If the Liberals really cared about this issue, they would work collaboratively with the Conservatives and apparently with the NDP to ban the foreign purchase of residential homes for up to two years, but encourage foreign investment in the development of multiresidential rental properties, many of which could be affordable rentals. There is a desperate need for that in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across this country. I have said many times in this place that affordable housing and access to the housing market is not just an issue in the big cities. It is a major issue all across this country, in smaller communities and rural communities as well. The Liberal government has pretty much forgotten rural Canada when it comes to this issue. It is a real struggle on this side of the House to take the Liberals seriously when they refuse to listen to even the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If we want to make life more affordable for Canadians, if we want to help Canadians get ahead, we need to help reduce the pressures on their family budgets. All I am asking is why the Liberals will not use their own fiscal guardrails and get the spending under control.

1379 words

All Topics

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

Feb/3/22 4:39:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-8

Madam Speaker, in the speeches I have heard today from Conservatives, the right wing of the Conservative element, that Reform element is flying high. They have a number of ideas, I must say. On the one hand they are saying they do not want any more tax dollars being spent, and then on the other hand they are saying they still want some of the services. For the tax dollars, we often need to borrow money. For example, when we talk about the supports for businesses, the CERB and the increase to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors, these all cost money. Where would the member suggest that we start cutting back dollars? He is giving us ideas on how to spend money. Could he be specific on where he believes we should be cutting dollars?

136 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 23