Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Question Nos. 1470, 1472 to 1474, 1476 to 1480, 1482 and 1483 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to government funding allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre for fiscal year 2022-23: what is the total funding amount broken down by (i) department or agency, (ii) initiative, (iii) amount? With regard to usage of the government's fleet of Challenger aircraft, since February 1, 2023: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or an estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? With regard to the Prime Minister's trip to New York in April 2023 for the Global Citizen summit: (a) what hotel did the Prime Minister stay at; (b) what was the paid room rate for the Prime Minister’s hotel room; (c) between April 25 and 29, 2023, what was the total amount spent on accommodations in the New York City area for the Canadian delegation or any other Canadian government official, including diplomats; (d) what are the details of all hotel accommodations in or around New York City that were paid for by either Global Affairs Canada, the Privy Council Office, or the Office of the Prime Minister between April 25 and 29, 2023, including, for each location where expenditures were made, the (i) name of the hotel, (ii) number of rooms for each night, (iii) room rate, (iv) total amount paid by the government? With regard to usage of the government's Airbus CC-150 Polaris aircraft, since February 1, 2023: what are the details of the legs of each flight, including the (i) date, (ii) point of departure, (iii) destination, (iv) number of passengers, (v) names and titles of the passengers, excluding security or Canadian Armed Forces members, (vi) total catering bill related to the flight, (vii) volume of fuel used, or estimate, (viii) amount spent on fuel? With regard to government grants and contributions since January 1, 2016, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total amount of government grants and program contributions given to any telecommunications company, broken down by (i) date, (ii) company, (iii) program, (iv) project description, (v) amount requested, (vi) amount received? With regard to disability benefit applications received by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) since January 1, 2016: (a) how many applications were received, broken down by medical condition; (b) for each medical condition for which applications were received, how many were (i) received, (ii) accepted, (iii) denied; and (c) how many instances have occurred where veterans who were medically released from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), had their VAC disability benefit application denied for the same condition from which they were released from the CAF? With regard to housing units owned by the Department of National Defence (DND): (a) how many housing units does DND own, broken down by location; and (b) how many and what percentage of the units in (a) are (i) occupied, (ii) vacant? With regard to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada’s auction of the 3,500 megahertz band of wireless spectrum, conducted on July 29, 2021: (a) for each of the wireless spectrum licences auctioned off, which entity (i) originally purchased the license at the auction, (ii) currently owns the licence; and (b) for each instance where the current owner is different than the original owner, what are the details of the transfer, including the (i) previous owner, (ii) new owner, (iii) license and description of what was transferred, (iv) date of the transaction, (v) date of the ministerial approval? With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, between January 1, 2020 and May 1, 2023: how much funding did Business Improvement Areas located within the City of Niagara Falls, the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, and the Town of Fort Erie receive each year, broken down by each individual Business Improvement Area? With regard to Health Canada’s website currently titled “Report a side effect to a vaccine: Consumers”: (a) why was the website changed in December 2020 to prevent consumers from reporting vaccine injuries directly to Health Canada; (b) why did the website change back on February 28, 2023 to allow consumers to resume reporting vaccine injuries to Health Canada; (c) who authorized the changes in (a) and (b); (d) how and on what dates were (i) health care providers, (ii) the general public, (iii) provincial and territorial health ministers, (iv) provincial and territorial immunization authorities, (v) regulatory bodies, (vi) local health authorities notified of each of these changes; (e) for each notification in (d) did it mention a legal obligation to report adverse reactions; (f) what efforts did Health Canada take to inform vaccine recipients of their ability to report adverse reactions through the website; and (g) what were the expenditures incurred by the government promoting the efforts in (f), broken down by type of expense? With regard to instances, since November 4, 2015, where the government awarded a grant or contribution to a for-profit corporation that has since went out of business or ceased operations: (a) how many such instances have occurred with respect to a grant or contribution valued over $10,000; and (b) what are the details of such instances, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) date the grant or contribution was awarded, (iii) type of grant or contribution (grant, non-repayable loan, etc.), (iv) purpose of the grant or the contribution, (v) announced value, (vi) amount paid out, (vii) amount recovered by the government, if applicable, (viii) summary of what happened to the company, if known, (ix) date the company went out of business or ceased operations, (x) location of the company headquarters?

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period. We will begin with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

moved: That in relation to Bill S-8, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and five hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration at report stage and the five hours provided for the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my hon. colleague and had the opportunity to spend my first few years as a member of Parliament on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with him. Unfortunately, in this particular instance I have a different perspective. The use of time allocation, I remind him, was a routine part of proceedings before we formed government in 2015. There are many hundreds of examples when former House leader Peter Van Loan used the exact same tool to put forward significant omnibus legislation when the opposition wanted to have a say. The reality is that, as a result of our trying to get a number of things done as we approach the summer session and as a result of certain tactics being deployed by His Majesty's loyal opposition, we found ourselves in a scenario where we were being threatened with filibusters that would potentially continue through to the end of the session and that were going to delay important things from getting done. This is a particular piece of legislation that has been well litigated in this chamber and the other, and we now have an opportunity to move forward on an issue for which I expect there is largely agreement between multiple parties. This will enable us to move over to other priorities I know people in parts of Canada care deeply about, whether it is protecting the environment, advancing health care reforms or including investments that will make life more affordable. We need to be able to have these debates and complete legislation in a timely way, and I am going to be pleased to see Bill S-8 form part of Canadian law hopefully in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that there was a problem with the interpretation as you were rereading the motion, but the interpretation was working when the government member read it, so we were able to hear it then. With that, I thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question for my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect, concerns the competence of his House leader. We have seen him run roughshod over the practices and traditions of the House by amending the Standing Orders without unanimous consent and by imposing time allocation. We sat late all week. We worked a lot of overtime last week and even before that. Summer is right around the corner, and several bills are being rushed through. We have been sitting a lot. Does my colleague think that in addition to trampling on the practices and traditions of the House, his House leader is bad at planning?

Mr. Speaker, to the contrary, my answer is no. I too have great respect for my colleague. Again, in this instance, I think it is appropriate to exercise the government's ability to use time allocation in order to complete a piece of legislation that would make a fundamentally important change to render people inadmissible to Canada who have been sanctioned for gross human rights violations, for corruption and now for serious injuries to international peace and security. This is something on which I do expect there is largely agreement among the parties. It would result in ensuring that the many people who have been sanctioned as a result of their participation in Russia's invasion into Ukraine or the massive abuses that are taking place against innocent people in Iran are not admissible to Canada. My view is that the House leader has done an exemplary job of managing the agenda of the House in order to implement important reforms that we have worked together with opposition parties to secure, and this is the latest example that will allow us to move forward expeditiously with legislation that would improve Canada's laws and better serve Canadians by rendering inadmissible people the government has sanctioned for serious injuries to international peace and security, which I hope is something that will receive the unanimous support of members in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times that there are two Bloc parties in the House of Commons. There is the Bloc Québécois and the “block everything” party. The “block everything” party, the Conservatives, have blocked everything from dental care to the grocery rebate to affordable housing. Yesterday, we will remember, they blocked the hybrid Parliament, except that two-thirds of Conservatives used the hybrid provisions to vote against the hybrid Parliament. We just cannot make this stuff up. Now they are blocking Bill S-8. My question to my hon. colleague is simply this. Why is the “block everything” party blocking everything that would actually help their constituents, including dental care, which would help about 10,000 people in each and every Conservative riding?

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but feel this question period is a reunion among friends. I mentioned my friend with whom I sat on the transport committee for a few years. The next two questioners I have spent considerable time on the finance committee with, which I very much enjoyed. I cannot speak for His Majesty's loyal opposition, but I can observe from my own perspective a desire to interfere with the government's agenda for fear that people may actually see that the government is advancing measures that help people in communities. I believe there is a dissonance between the Conservatives' perspective on time allocation today compared with when they actually held government prior to October of 2015, a time when we will see hundreds of examples of the government of the day using this very specific remedy in order to advance legislation when opposition parties were in disagreement. I sense that when time allocation is being objected to on an area where significant debate has already taken place and where I expect potential unanimous agreement, this is more about the political effort to make sure the government cannot advance its agenda to help Canadians rather than it is the need to exhaust debate further. These issues have been litigated in this chamber and in the other place. They would render inadmissible people conducting themselves in a way that seriously injures international peace and security. This is something I hope we can get behind, because the criminals responsible for Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the criminals responsible for the death of Mahsa Amini and for the many other protesters who have now been harassed, punished or killed do not deserve to come to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce what the minister is saying with regard to sanctions that are in place and preventing the individuals on whom the sanctions have been applied from being able to come into Canada. The minister is correct when he says there is broad support for it. Canadians as a whole, I believe, are behind the legislation. What we have seen in the debates I have witnessed in the chamber is that all parties will, in fact, be supporting the legislation. The minister said earlier in his first answer that, when legislation is receiving such good support, sometimes it is better to see it pass so we can get to other subject matters on which there might be more division, which would allow for additional debate, given the fact, and this is the big issue, that there is a finite amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I agree entirely with my hon. colleague who has posed the question. The reality is that I have to come to understand over my now nearly eight years in this institution, that the greatest currency that any of us have in Parliament is time. There are a finite number of legislative days in which we have to advance laws that will improve the quality of life that Canadians get to enjoy. This particular idea is one that will render inadmissible some of the people who are responsible for the greatest sins committed globally in recent history. Those people should be inadmissible to Canada. Where there is widespread agreement, particularly where this builds upon a multipartisan committee report and builds upon multipartisan support for the Magnitsky act sanctions that were put in place to begin with, we have an opportunity to quickly agree, do the right thing and then have serious debates on other issues that matter to Canadians. My constituents sent me because they wanted me to focus on things like making sure communities have access to primary care, making sure we protect our environment, making sure that we create jobs for people in our community and that life is more affordable for others. It is important that we get to these issues where there may be constructive debates and differing ideologies, but on the things where we truly agree, where debate has been exhausted, it is important we make a decision to improve the quality of the laws that exist in Canada so that we can focus on improving the quality of life Canadians get to enjoy.

Mr. Speaker, my concern around this legislation is not so much with the text of the bill as with the way that the government uses the sanctions tools that are available to it. Parliament gives the government sanctions tools, and then it is up to the government to determine how to use them. The government has been relatively limited and ineffective in its use of sanctions tools. There are also, I think, significant gaps in enforcement. I want to ask the government a particular question about their sanctions regime and I hope we will hear an answer. Why has the government stopped using the Magnitsky act to sanction human rights abusers? It has been a number of years since that particular legislative tool has been used.

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy questions from the hon. member. I find them to be thoughtful, even though we often find ourselves in disagreement. I think to have respectful engagement on issues that matter is very important. With respect, there are a number of different kinds of sanctions that may be most appropriate for different kinds of scenarios. In fact, before the changes to Bill S-8, there are certain kinds, including for human rights abuses, that could be launched more through our sanctions regime. We also had the opportunity to sanction individuals for significant acts of corruption, both of which could have rendered a person inadmissible. Going forward, we will be able to render people inadmissible as well for violations that cause interruptions to global peace and security. For what it is worth, there is another expansion that will ensure that we are not just dealing with acts committed by countries but also substate actors and terror organizations. I think, going forward, when the facts justify it, it may be most appropriate to use sanctions for human rights abuses, but in the present instance we have seen a significant increase, as a result, in particular, of Russia's latest invasion into Ukraine, of bad actors who I think are complicit in those kinds of actions that have interrupted global peace and security. Whether it is for gross and systematic human rights violations, whether it is for significant acts of corruption or whether it is for this new power that will be rendering people inadmissible based on their erosion of international peace and security, I think all of those groups deserve to be sanctioned with inadmissibility, not just the pre-existing consequences that were available under the particular piece of legislation that is at issue in this particular debate.

Mr. Speaker, I recall a very dismal decade of the Harper regime where time allocation was used all the time, but always to eliminate or push down rights or strip away things from people. We saw time allocation used to strip away pensions, forcing seniors to work longer years of their lives, often in physical labour. I spoke on the floor of the House of Commons, members will recall, about the damage that the Harper regime was doing. They forced that through. They stripped away environmental protections. They covered up their myriad scandals over the period of a decade, all using time allocation, 150 times. Now, in this Parliament, we see time allocation having to be used because of the Conservatives blocking things such as a sanctions list or an improved sanctions regime. It just does not seem to make sense. I wanted to ask my colleague what the logic is around this, when Conservatives block important legislation that will actually benefit the country. What does my colleague think is behind that approach of blocking every single piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, to respond to my hon. colleague, it is important that we understand that time allocation is not inherently a good nor a bad thing. The appropriateness of its use depends on how it is implemented in a given set of circumstances. To one extreme, if the government is using time allocation to stifle debate or avoid accountability, I think most people would agree that is a bad thing, but on the other side of the equation, it is possible that time allocation can be used to get things done, particularly in an instance such as this, where there is widespread agreement on an issue and where there has been debate. To answer the member's question specifically, my belief is that the opposition by the Conservatives to the use of time allocation in this instance is driven by a desire to eat up some of the legislative time that remains to avoid having the government accomplish other things it has committed to doing to improve the quality of life of Canadians. Of course, when we go home in the summer, having completed debates and passed good laws, it is something we will want to talk to people about in our communities. To the extent that Conservatives see government members or other members of this House talking about the good they have done for Canadians, there may be a partisan disadvantage to having had Parliament accomplish more things. My view is that we should spend less time thinking about the partisan advantage we may gain and more time trying to get things done, so we can serve the people who have sent us here from our communities right across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I can recall the days when I was in opposition, and I spent a good number of days in opposition. Even back then I would articulate as to why time allocation can be an effective tool in getting legislation through. Opposition at times can, in fact, cause a great deal of frustration of the legislative process, because it does not take much to prevent legislation from being passed. All it needs is putting up speakers or possibly moving an amendment. A classroom of grade 12 students from any high school in Winnipeg North, I can assure members, would be able to prevent any legislation from ultimately being passed or force the government to bring in time allocation. It does not take much. The issue is having an adequate amount of debate, and looking for that support, as the minister says, such as with Bill C-35, on the national child care program. Everyone was supporting it. Everyone said they were going to be voting in favour of it. We can look at the amount of debate. Without time allocation, we never would have gotten it passed earlier. I have a question for the member, and he has already spoken to a good part of it already. There is a need. It can be a useful tool, and I think we have been able to demonstrate good decision-making in terms of when we need to bring in time allocation. That is more of a comment than a question, but the member can feel free to provide other thoughts.