Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the Main Estimates 2024-25.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, entitled “Main Estimates 2024-25”.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians from all over the country, including 107 from my province of Saskatchewan. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support patient access, the funding of lung cancer therapies, and the approval and funding of new treatments and clinical trials, and to work with other stakeholders, such as provincial cancer agencies, health care providers, patient groups and drug manufacturers, to improve access and affordability of cancer drugs for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to the table two petitions on behalf of my constituents in New Brunswick Southwest. The first petition is concerning the rising rate of crime in rural communities. The petitioners no longer feel safe in their communities because of the soft-on-crime laws passed by the Liberal-NDP government. They note that Bill C-75 made it easier for repeat violent offenders to obtain bail, Bill C-5 removed mandatory prison time for serious gun, drugs and sex crimes, and Bill C-21 redirects valuable police resources away from our streets and toward too much back-office work. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to protect victims of crime by giving jail, not bail, to repeat dangerous offenders and to bring home safe streets for rural communities by immediately passing the Conservative reforms found in Bill C-325.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns the Liberal-NDP government's plan to restrict access to natural health products and traditional medicines in Canada. These important treatments are used by millions of Canadians on a daily basis. They are legally purchased from licensed pharmacists and grocery stores. The petitioners are shocked to learn that, through the government's latest omnibus budget bill supported by the NDP, new regulations were adopted by Health Canada that will increase the cost of vegan and gluten-free toothpaste, vitamins, probiotics and other natural health products. Petitioners would like to note the existing regulations are safe, effective and balanced. They call on the Government of Canada to reverse these reforms before it is too late. Focus on restricting access to illegal hard drugs that kill innocent Canadians every single day, and get back to basics.

Mr. Speaker, I too have two petitions I would like to present on behalf of Canadians across the country. The first is in relation to public service non-public funds workers of the Canadian Armed Forces. They are public servants under schedule V of the Financial Administration Act, which means they are limited, in terms of an exclusion order, from negotiating with the federal government, like most public servants. I am presenting a petition on their behalf, stating that the undersigned employees of the staff of Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces, citizens and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to abolish the exclusion order and to include the staff of the Non-Public Funds, Canadian Forces in the Public Service Employment Act.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I want to present today is in relation to animals being used for the defence department training exercises. Typically, piglets are used and are being killed. They are being stabbed, mutilated, exposed to radiation and chemical nerve agents for training purposes. There are alternative ways that the Canadian Armed Forces can do their necessary medical exercises, and therefore, with this petition, the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Minister of National Defence to end the use of animals in military medical training.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

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

With regard to the communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Carleton, since fiscal year 2005-06: (a) what are the federal infrastructure investments, including direct transfers to municipalities and First Nations, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (b) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to regional districts, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (c) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to Island Trusts; (d) what are the federal infrastructure investments transferred to First Nations, broken down by First Nation, fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; (e) what is the funding of highways, broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project; and (f) what other infrastructure investments are provided through the funding of national parks, highways, the Building Canada Fund, Infrastructure Canada, the Gas Tax Fund, Small Crafts and Harbours, etc., broken down by fiscal year, total expenditure, and project? With regard to government contracts for veterinary services provided by veterinarians in all federal departments, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of veterinarians provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on contracted services instead of employing veterinarians directly? With regard to loans and other repayable contributions made by government departments and agencies since November 4, 2015, excluding student loans and those made as part of emergency pandemic relief programs such as the Canada Emergency Business Account: (a) how many instances have occurred where loans or repayable contributions were made and the recipient did not repay the amount owed in accordance with the terms of the agreement, in total and broken down by program under which the funding was provided; (b) what is the dollar value of the loans and contributions in (a); (c) what is the breakdown of (a) and (b) by type of situation or reason (late payments, business insolvency, etc.); (d) of the amount which was not paid back in accordance with the terms of the agreement, how much (i) has been recovered to date, (ii) has not yet been recovered but is expected to be recovered, (iii) has been written-off, by the government; (e) what is the breakdown of (d) by funding program; and (f) what are the details of all instances where the amount written off by the government was in excess of $1 million, including, for each, the (i) recipient, (ii) original amount of funding, (iii) amount written off, (iv) purpose of the funding, (v) date the funding was provided, (vi) date the funding was written off, (vii) reason for the amount being written off? With regard to the cost to the government to administer remittances for the Goods and Services Tax and the Harmonized Sales Tax, broken down by year for each of the last three years: (a) what is the total amount spent to administer the remittances; and (b) what was the total amount spent to administer remittances to businesses generating (i) under $30,000, (ii) between $30,000 and $60,000, (iii) between $60,000 and $100,000, (iv) between $100,000 and $500,000, (v) over $500,000, in revenue? With regard to government investments in businesses that included a commitment to create more than 100 jobs as a result of the investment, since November 4, 2015: for each investment, what was the (i) recipient, (ii) amount of the federal investment, (iii) promised number of jobs created, (iv) number of jobs created to date, (v) date of the investment? With regard to the benefits received by Canadian Armed Forces veterans classified as wartime service veterans and benefits received by veterans who fought under the “special duty service” classification: (a) what are the benefits received by (i) wartime service veterans, (ii) special duty service veterans; (b) how many veterans are receiving “special duty service” benefits for the (i) Persian Gulf War, (ii) Bosnian War, (iii) Afghan War; (c) what is the cost of benefits provided to wartime service veterans in (a) for (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018, (vii) 2019, (viii) 2020, (ix) 2021, (x) 2022, (xi) 2023; (d) what is the cost of benefits provided to “special duty service” veterans in (a) for (i) 2013, (ii) 2014, (iii) 2015, (iv) 2016, (v) 2017, (vi) 2018, (vii) 2019, (viii) 2020, (ix) 2021, (x) 2022, (xi) 2023; (e) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Persian Gulf War veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023; (f) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Bosnian war veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023; and (g) what would be the increased cost to provide “wartime service” benefits to Afghan War veterans if benefits were applied for the year (i) 2018, (ii) 2019, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2021, (v) 2022, (vi) 2023? With regard to inmates in facilities operated by the Correctional Service of Canada, broken down by location, since 2015: (a) how many inmates were on opioid agonist therapy, including sublocade, suboxone or methadone as of January 1 of each year; (b) of the inmates in (a), how many were also concurrently accessing the needle exchange program as of January 1 of each year; (c) how many inmates in total used the needle exchange program each year; and (d) how many inmates accessed other forms of treatment and services, broken down by year and type of treatment and service? With regard to Health Canada (HC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) or the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) and the COVID-19 vaccines: (a) when did the (i) Chief Public Health Officer, (ii) Deputy Chief Public Health Officer, (iii) Chief Medical Officer at Health Canada, (iv) Minister of Health at the time, become aware that the COVID-19 vaccines did not prevent transmission of SARS CoV-2; (b) when were any of the federal health agencies in Canada made aware of this information and by who; (c) when was the information described in (a) delivered to (i) the Office of the Prime Minister, (ii) the Privy Council, (iii) the Cabinet, (iv) the members of the House of Commons; (d) what federal entity, ministry or minister first initiated the concept of “COVID-19 vaccine passports”; (e) on what date did the federal government implement vaccine passports for (i) federal employees, (ii) travel restrictions for all unvaccinated Canadians; (f) in 2021 and 2022, did any personnel from HC, PHAC or NACI engage with or share information about the vaccines’ inability to stop transmission of SARS-CoV-2 with any person involved with (i) the World Health Organization’s Strategic Group of Experts, (ii) Vaccines Together, (iii) the International Vaccine Institute, (iv) Dr. Hanna Nohynek, the World Health Organization’s Chair of Strategic Group of Experts on Immunization; and (g) if the answers to (f)(i) through to (f)(iv) are affirmative, what were the summaries of those discussions or correspondences in relation to the transmission question and the validity of vaccine passports? With regard to government contracts for psychological services and social workers within all federal departments, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed for (i) psychological services, (ii) social workers; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of psychologists or social workers provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on contracted services instead of employing psychologists and social workers directly? With regard to government contracts for medical services and nursing services within all federal departments, broken down by fiscal year, since 2017-18: (a) what is the total number of contracts signed for (i) medical services provided by a doctor of medicine, (ii) nursing services provided by registered nurses or nurse practitioners; (b) what are the details of all contracts signed, including the (i) agency contracted, (ii) value of the contract, (iii) number of medical doctors, registered nurses, or nurse practitioners provided, (iv) duration of the contract; and (c) what is the total amount of extra costs incurred as a result of relying on contracted services instead of employing medical doctors, registered nurses or nurse practitioners directly? With regard to the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, since January 1, 2021: (a) how many Canadian Armed Forces personnel are on a waitlist for military housing, broken down by month and year; and (b) what is the average time military members are on the agency’s waitlist?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my northern neighbour from St. Albert—Edmonton, cleared up quite a few issues in his speech. While we are hearing a lot of push-back from the government to his speech, I would just like to get a bit more feedback on whether the member really believes this is a pension bill for future Liberal losses for their benches or an actual change to the Electoral Participation Act. Why is it focusing so much on extending pension privileges for losing Liberal MPs, rather than focusing on helping Canadians in the election process?

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the bill ought to be called the “loser Liberal pension protection act”, and if it has nothing to do with pensions, then frankly, the government members should get on with what Canadians want so badly, which is for them to call a carbon tax election so that Canadians can once and for all rid themselves of arguably the most rotten and corrupt government in Canadian history.

Mr. Speaker, I actually want him to follow up a little more on that because maybe it has potential. I know we have heard an amendment from the NDP to potentially move the election date back to the normal date. Maybe another amendment would be just to move it a full month or a month and a half further into the future, or maybe even to next week. What does my colleague think about that?

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians would like it if the Prime Minister, this afternoon, went down to Rideau Hall and called a carbon tax election. That is what Canadians would like, but it will not happen because the Prime Minister knows, and the member for Winnipeg North knows, that they would be decimated.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that all the Conservatives want to say is to axe the tax and to call an election. That is all they ever say inside the House of Commons. They do not necessarily realize that there is still another year plus, in terms of the mandate that was provided. Here, we are talking about changes to the election that would enable more Canadians to potentially participate, such as increasing the number of advance voting days. Does the member support the recommendation to increase the number of advance voting days?

Mr. Speaker, yes. I do support that aspect of the bill, but there are other problems with the bill, which I outlined in my speech, with respect to some of the special balloting measures contained in the bill, the inadequacy of the amendments to the third-party financing regime, and above all else, the fact that the overriding purpose of the bill is to pad the pockets of soon-to-be defeated Liberal MPs.

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-65, tabled by the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. I want to give a bit of background on the content of the bill before delving into the details of the Bloc Québécois's position. The bill is presented as a means to encourage voter participation. It is hard to be against such an objective. I could talk about certain aspects of the bill, such as the idea of “two additional days of advance polling”. Giving voters two extra days to cast their ballot is certainly not a bad idea. We are not opposed to that. The bill also seeks to “authorize returning officers to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution, or part of an institution, where seniors or persons with a disability reside”. Basically, the goal is to set up polling stations in long-term care facilities or in residences for people who are elderly or who have severe disabilities or mobility issues, so that they can vote on site. Again, that is not something we are opposed to. It is actually rather positive. The bill seeks to “provide for the establishment of offices for voting by special ballot at post-secondary educational institutions”. The government wants to let people vote in schools. These are things that have already been done, particularly in Quebec. We do not have any problem with that. We tend to agree with that measure. Then, there are other measures that would not be implemented right away but that could be implemented later if the findings of the Chief Electoral Officer's reports show that they would be worthwhile. Those measures could be put into in a second bill later. The Chief Electoral Officer would be responsible for presenting a few reports on various topics, one of which is “the measures that need to be taken to implement a three-day polling period”. The government wants to determine how the Chief Electoral Officer can ensure that polling is carried out over three days rather than just one. We are talking about the final election or D-Day, as we say. The bill also provides for the Chief Electoral Officer to submit a “report on the measures that need to be taken to enable electors to vote at any place in their polling station”. Often, when people go to vote, there are several small polling stations scattered around. There are lists, and the polling stations are divided into several lists, so there are four or five polling stations. Thanks to this measure, people can go to any polling station to vote and will not have to wait if, for example, everyone happens to go vote at the same time and there is a line. That way, people can vote at the nearby polling station to avoid having to wait. This might speed up the processing rate. Again though, we will have to see how this measure can be implemented. How will we ensure that the right people are crossed off the right list? How will we ensure real-time monitoring? It will be up to the Chief Electoral Officer to tell us whether this is feasible or not. The same goes for the three-day voting period. It is already hard enough to find places for people to vote. I have worked on elections in the past and have had discussions with returning officers. Many facilities need to be found, because there are several polling stations in each riding. Then people are divided up based on where they live. We must find locations that are close to where people live and that are available during the hours in question. Is a three-day voting period a positive thing? If it is feasible, why not do it? It could be somewhat problematic. It will be up to the returning officer to determine whether there are possible solutions. For example, it would be hard to close schools for three days. If events are planned in certain locations, those rooms will have to be reserved. This can pose logistical problems. The Chief Electoral Officer will also have to provide “a report on the feasibility of enabling electors to vote at any polling station in their electoral district”. Electors will not only be able to go to a different polling station if theirs is busy, but they will be able to go to any polling station in their electoral district. For example, instead of voting at the community centre next door, the elector could go vote at the school in the neighbouring town, at a polling station three blocks down, or even at a church. That type of location is often used for this type of event. People will be allowed to walk from one polling station to another to go vote. Again, this poses the same problem: We will have to ensure that no individual can vote at three or four different stations. The lists will need to be monitored. The returning officer might tell us how to manage this part. There again, these are all things that we are prepared to look into to see how they could be implemented. They are not necessarily bad suggestions, on the contrary. They may even be good, if we can figure out a way to implement them properly. When it comes to extending the polling period to three days and adding two additional days of advance polling, the only thing that presents an additional problem is the impact that will have on election workers, who are often students or retirees, because people who work full time are at work or sometimes have a family that they need to look after. They do not necessarily have time to work at an election. If we ask election workers to do more, we may need more workers to cover all the shifts. That may mean hiring more election workers or asking the same election workers to do more. The Chief Electoral Officer may find it difficult to get enough people who are trained and available. We will see what the Chief Electoral Officer says, but there are definitely some potential problems. In Quebec, the returning officers are saying that it is already hard sometimes to find election workers. Finally, the bill provides for “a report proposing a process for the determination of whether a political party has as one of its fundamental purposes [or relies on] the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of persons.” No one wants to see hate speech or hateful politics directed at an identifiable group of persons. The Chief Electoral Officer will therefore take responsibility for examining this issue as well. All the items I mentioned are relatively worthwhile and positive. However, I wonder if anyone has considered the practical side of implementing all this. As I mentioned, the last items we talked about would not be implemented right away. They would be deferred until a later time. We therefore have time to think things through, although I believe that we have to consider practicalities before implementing anything, to nip all sorts of problems in the bud. As we know, our electoral system is important. People generally trust our electoral system. We do not want to break with that trust in the integrity of the electoral process. It is too valuable, just like the public's trust in the process is valuable. If we decide to do something, we need to do it right. However, there is something else in the bill that the Liberals are not talking about. We have been listening carefully, and so far, they have barely mentioned it in their speeches. Every time the Liberals introduce a bill, I always wonder why they are introducing it. Is it for partisan reasons? One has to wonder. The bill before us would delay the election by one week from October 20, 2025, to October 27, 2025. Why move the election by one week? The official reason we were given is that the government wants to accommodate Indian communities and their celebration of Diwali, which is a festival of lights. That is the reason the government gave us. If it were a statutory holiday, we could understand that, but I find it odd that an election would be moved because of a religious holiday. Canada is supposed to be a secular state. A secular state, by definition, is not supposed to bend to the whim of every religion. Whether it is Mardi Gras, the Feast of the Assumption or Palm Sunday, will the government start saying that we cannot vote because there is a religious holiday that day? If we take into consideration all the religious holidays that exist, we will never find a day to vote. It seems to me that this is a slippery slope and that it is not the right direction to take. I am even wondering whether that is the real reason. I would like to remind members that people already have six days to go to the advance polls, so if they want to celebrate Diwali, for example, then good for them. That does not prevent them from voting during the six days of advance polling, since this bill adds two additional days to the four advance polling days that we already have. They can also go to the returning officer's office to vote at any time. If people can already go vote at the office of the returning officer at any time during an election, is it really a major issue if the last day on which they can exercise their right to vote falls on a religious holiday? I am not so sure. People can also vote by mail. That was implemented during the last election and it is now more widespread. People can vote in schools. That was mentioned earlier. There are even going to be mobile voting options for people with reduced mobility. That means that if someone has difficulty getting around physically, because they are in a wheelchair, for example, someone will visit them so they can vote. People can also vote in long-term care facilities or CHSLDs. That is why I am not entirely sure that Diwali celebrations are the real reason behind this. This creates another problem. The Liberals did not think of it or maybe they do not care, but there will be municipal elections in 1,108 municipalities in Quebec at roughly the same time. In fact, the date of the municipal election is November 3, 2025. The date of the federal election was initially set for October 20, 2025. If it is moved to October 27, there will be six days between the two elections. I do not know if anyone has any idea of what that might look like. There will be signs for every federal party: the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the NDP and all the other possible parties. Add to that all the signs for all the municipal parties. There will be a fight to see who posts their signs first. This will also create a media situation where everyone is clamouring to be on the news. Everyone will be in battle mode to get media coverage. Will the coverage be on the municipal election or just the federal election? The journalists, whose numbers are already dwindling, will have difficulty finding the time to properly cover both election campaigns. All 1,108 municipalities will hold elections at the same time. It is not like one small remote town or a single school board was having an election—those do not exist anymore anyway. My point is, 1,108 municipalities is a lot of people. All these people will have to ponder, think, listen to debates, get informed—because not everyone is a full-time follower of politics—and make a choice. They will now have to do all of this twice in the same period. What is more, something tells me that there will not be enough space—mental space, space in the media, physical space and space for volunteers. We want people to get involved, but, judging by what I can see in my riding, it is the same people who are volunteering in municipal, provincial and federal elections. They are also the same people who organize social and community events. Very often, the same people are involved in everything. Now, we are going to tell these people that they have to take care of all the elections. Volunteers are not the only ones. There are also election workers. The people who work for municipalities during the elections and who get paid by returning officers will be called upon to work during the federal elections. This will create a competition of sorts. Federal and provincial polling stations will have to be set up and staff will need to be trained. That will quite the whirligig. I cannot understand why the Liberals overlooked that, unless they do not care. We know that they often skip over Quebec's cities, refuse to even listen to them and want nothing to do with them. For the Liberals, Quebec's cities do not exist. Sometimes, the Liberals even interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. We often talk about it in the House. I think it is sad, because it makes no sense. It almost seems like they are deliberately trying to confuse people. Why would they do such a thing? In fact, it is because the Liberals are a bit desperate. I visited the 338Canada site this morning. At the moment, the Liberals have 156 seats, but the latest projections show that they would win 71 seats if an election were held tomorrow morning, meaning that 85 Liberal MPs would lose their jobs. Some of them would lose more than just their jobs. If an election were held on the date originally scheduled, they would lose their pension too. If that date were pushed back a week, they would get it. As we understand it, the Liberals have found a way to say that they might be defeated in the next election, but they intend to give their friends a little parting gift, a bigger cheque, to make them richer on their way out the door. No member of the Liberal family will be abandoned or allowed to fall through the cracks. It is pathetic. Now the cat is out of the bag. All of the good intentions and positive measures in Bill C‑65 that the government has been bragging about do not seem quite so great when we find out why the bill was actually introduced. The real reason is that the Liberals want to treat themselves with taxpayers' money. I am rather taken aback by that. Over the past several weeks in the House, often during question period, the member for Honoré-Mercier, who is the Minister of Transport and the Quebec lieutenant, has sometimes been taking pleasure in answering the questions of Bloc Québécois members by saying that we are not here for our convictions but for our pensions. That is what he said. I am 35 years old, so I am not going to be getting a pension anytime soon. Now we are learning that, while the Liberals say that, what they are really doing is scheming, with the complicity of the NDP, to get themselves some nice pensions. Come on. Perhaps the NDP brought it up during question period because that is what they were thinking about. That is what was on their mind. The NDP was wondering how to make the Canada Elections Act best serve the interests of the Liberal Party. This reminds me of the infamous wage subsidy. The government said that it wanted to help struggling businesses keep their employees during the COVID-19 crisis so it would subsidize wages. The Liberals also found a clever trick with that program. They figured that they needed the money as well, so they got the wage subsidy. Nothing is too good for the Liberals. The same thing is happening again with Bill C-65. It is pretty discouraging. In fact, it is discouraging and sad because making changes to election legislation is a sensible thing. Making changes to election legislation is, in fact, the very essence of democracy. The public trust is sacred; we should not play around with it, indulge in self-serving largesse and constantly try to make it work to our advantage. In the end, these little Liberal shenanigans only serve to fuel public cynicism and make people feel more disconnected from our institutions. People tell themselves that this does not really represent them and that they do not trust it. For these reasons, we are obviously going to vote against the bill. We are saying no to chaos in municipal elections held at the same time as federal elections and no to accommodations for religious holidays when we are a secular state and we are told that religious holidays will determine the timing of elections. Who understands that? I do not. Above all, I say no to Liberals who decide to fatten up their pension funds just before they leave.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to designate Monday, June 3, as the day appointed for the conclusion of the debate on the motion to concur in the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.