SoVote

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:06:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot. I will be sharing my time with my friend, the member for Calgary Shepard. We are here debating a motion that the NDP has put forward in which it is asking for action. The NDP is asking somebody to do something, anything, to address the skyrocketing costs of food. Now, I will agree that the price of food has gone up substantially, but here we are, as the NDP stands in this place and touts that somehow it is not responsible for voting constantly in favour of the measures this government puts forward, which is causing much of that price inflation. Further, its members are asking somebody to do something. In fact, the member who just spoke, the leader of the fourth party who spoke earlier this afternoon and the party's whip are all saying that it is time to do something concrete. The tragic irony is that the motion we are debating today would truly do nothing. New Democrats are accusing the government and saying that it is time to stop asking nicely. They are accusing the Conservatives of focusing too much on the fact that taxes are causing an increase to the cost of food. What are the NDP members doing? Well, instead of proposing measures that would lower the price of food, they are throwing a temper tantrum. They are shirking the responsibility and the opportunity to actually debate and challenge the government to address some of these things. They are simply saying, while stomping their feet, that it is simply time to stop these prices from going up. The tragic irony is that it was only yesterday when that NDP member and every other left-leaning member of Parliament in this place voted against the common-sense Conservative measure that would have axed all the federal taxes on fuel to give Canadians a fuel tax holiday this summer. That member is as responsible as every member of the government for the increased costs that Canadians are facing when it comes to food. I have heard throughout the debate today a pure lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles that are driving up the price of things such as food. In fact, we hear this from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance herself. She is celebrating the fact that inflation is now 2.7%, but that is a misnomer because, as the Liberals celebrate inflation, she says it herself that it has come down, which is misleading in every sense of the word because no costs have come down. What they are celebrating is that prices have increased dramatically, but they are just not quite increasing as quickly anymore. It is a pure example of the economic incompetence that we see in the Liberal government. Its front bench, backed up by a Liberal backbench and the New Democrats, seems to be unwilling to take into account basic economic principles. I am proud to represent a region of Alberta that has a whole host of farmers growing some of the most incredible agricultural products on the planet. My father Jay, my uncle Darren, my family friend Dale and my cousin Grainger are all in the field today planting crops. They are putting in the last of our spring planting season on the family farm and planting oats today. However, here is the reality that farmers face. They are subject to the carbon tax, but not just, as it seems the Liberals and the NDP like to suggest, on what they pay for the fuel that they put into their vehicles. No, it is much more than that. I want to share a basic economic principle here. It is that the carbon tax, by design, is meant to increase the cost of everything in order to drive consumer change. That is what the carbon tax is. Quite frankly, it was the Prime Minister who said it would never go above $50, prior to the 2019 election. After the 2019 election, all of a sudden it was that it would never go above $170. We know that some friends of the Liberals, the very same economists whom the Liberals quote and tout so often, are calling for the carbon tax to be raised to over $1,000. Can members believe that? I have asked the question directly to the Liberals, and they have refused to answer it. A basic economic principle is that a mechanism like the carbon tax drives up the cost of every part of the supply chain. From the farmer who plants, to every aspect of the agricultural operation; then the transportation of the harvested good; the storage of that good; the processing and production of whatever the secondary or tertiary product is; then the further transportation to a warehouse or further processing, or ultimately to a store or something like a grocery store or a warehouse; and then to a grocery store. The product is then sold to the consumer. Further, the consumer has to pay the carbon tax on every part of the process to purchase said product. Take a loaf of bread, for example. Consumers are paying the carbon tax on their home and on the fuel to go to the grocery store. At every single step of the supply chain, the carbon tax applies. By design, it is meant to increase costs. The Liberals have succeeded in accomplishing that objective. Further inflation in that process has had a significant impact in increased costs. What do we do about it? This is what the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, talks so often about. It is time to empower people within our country: farmers and producers, those who know how to get the job done. Let us lower costs for them. Let us make sure that we lower costs for every step of the food supply chain. As a result, we could see the price of groceries go down for Canadians. We could see Canadians save costs directly. We would see the indirect savings throughout every stage of the supply chain when it comes to food. The NDP members are acting like peacocks today. They are standing up, stomping their feet and yelling that somebody ought to do something. It is an acknowledgement, I would suggest, of what an abject failure their confidence and supply coalition agreement is with a Liberal Party that is truly not worth the cost. Conservatives have a practical plan to see costs lowered for Canadians and then, further, to make sure that we unleash the potential that exists in the Canadian economy, whether that be in energy, agriculture or manufacturing. Anything that can be done, I am confident that our country can do it. It is just that right now it is held back by an ideological Liberal-NDP government that truly does not understand the basic principles of what it is to see an economy prosper. When an economy prospers, it is the people who can benefit at every step of the process. Whether that be the producers or whether that be the buyers of the goods, when there is a free market that is functioning at its best, prosperity reigns. We can get back to that point when the member for Carleton becomes the prime minister and unleashes the true potential of our nation. That is why Conservatives are going to bring it home.

1261 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/4/24 5:16:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was here when the member for Carleton was actually on the front bench with Stephen Harper, and I remember their cutting the veterans office in my riding. It is interesting that one of the things that the Conservatives like to run away from, but is a real fact and truth, is that they were the ones who brought in the GST to this country, which is a consumer tax on citizens. Later on, the member for Carleton also championed and brought in the HST. To bring the HST in, we actually had to borrow money during a deficit, which we are still paying for to this day. Second, the former Conservative government had to provide $6 billion in payoffs to provinces to bring in a new tax for Canadians, including on groceries. How can the Conservatives continue to say that they are supportive of the passing-on of costs to consumers without taking full responsibility themselves? The Conservatives never did a single thing when competition issues came forth with the bread scandal, letting the CEOs and companies off while Canadians were actually being charged high prices, gouged, for the basic staple of bread. The Conservatives were complicit in working against Canadian consumers. They never did a single thing about that. The Conservatives have also been opposed to new Competition Act issues that we are finally bringing into place. How can they continue to do that to Canadians?

240 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/4/24 5:17:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that was an exposé in economic incompetence. I will give members a clear example as to why I say that definitively. We are talking about the previous Mulroney governments, so we are really reaching back more than three decades where there were a series of taxes levied against Canadians that were hidden in costs. What did Brian Mulroney do? He brought forward the GST, which Canadians could see. That should be proof positive that when the NDP is involved, economic incompetence reigns. When it comes to the motion before us, I am so proud that the legacy of the Conservative Party is one of building a nation that prospers, of building a nation where competition can reign and where there can be investment. When the private sector is able to build a future, it encourages Canadians to take the risk of being an entrepreneur. It encourages young Canadians to be able to take a risk to buy a home and be able to ensure that there is a future for them in our country. It is unfortunate that the socialist NDP that props up the Liberals wants to continue to keep Canadians from being able to reach the full potential that I truly believe they have.

209 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Jun/4/24 5:19:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the factors driving up food prices is climate change. The Retail Council of Canada representative explained that recent droughts and heat waves in California and western Canada have had a direct impact on the produce aisle. The price of lettuce and cauliflower increased by 30% during major heat waves that devastated crops, including in California, Arizona and Quebec. There are many other examples. What does my colleague think about the impact of climate change on rising food prices?

82 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Jun/4/24 5:19:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting that, as somebody who is proud to come from a farming background, I am lectured often by other members from different political parties about how farmers should address the challenges related to climate change. Farmers are up to the task. They are capable of ensuring that they can provide the high-quality products that Canadians need at an affordable price. However, I will tell the House what the biggest inhibiting factor to that is in our country today. It is a big, bloated government with a bureaucracy that is driving up the cost of everything and with policies that are intentionally designed to raise prices to change consumer behaviour. Those policies are supported in many cases by the Bloc Québécois. I would simply end my response to the member with this: If the member is concerned about rising costs, including the cost of energy that has an impact on the supply chain, then I hope he would take seriously the need to support Alberta energy's getting to global markets so that we can, in fact, be a world leader. We not only want to drive down emissions, but we also want to be able to provide high-quality goods, like food, to Canadians and to so many people around the planet, at a cost and with an environmental footprint that Canadians can and should truly be proud of.

240 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:21:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour, obviously, to rise and speak on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Shephard. I know that the residents have seen it fit to send me back here to speak on their behalf. One of the issues that I often get emails and phone calls about is the daily cost of living. Whether it is constituents' cellphone bill, rent, mortgages or prices at the grocery stores and elsewhere, the cost of goods and services is going up, and everybody sees it all around them. A lot of that is related to decisions that were made during the pandemic. The government massively increased the monetary supply and more than doubled the national debt at the time. We know from the Auditor General and the PBO that only about $205 billion of the $600 billion in spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. There is a lot of spending there. On this opposition day that has been put forward by the NDP, I heard one member on the other side whom I want to correct. The member for Edmonton Griesbach was talking about three apples for $7. My favourite store in Calgary is the Calgary Co-op. It is a co-op with 400,000 members, and I am a member. There is no way; one would have to buy a lot of apples. I highly recommend that the member drive down from Edmonton, go to the co-op in Calgary and purchase my favourite, which is Granny Smith apples, for $1.32 for every single apple. If he buys more, he gets a discount. It is highly recommended that he do so. Again, someone can pick and choose which grocery stores they want to go to. There is choice out there. One thing I will mention is that the federal government is making it making it more expensive to shop at Calgary Co-op because the government has banned the store's fully compostable green bags, which have no plastic in them whatsoever, from being used, despite the fact that the City of Calgary worked with Calgary Co-op to create a bag that was fully compostable in the city's composting system. Even the ink does not have any plastic in it. It is not artificial. It is a completely recyclable bag. I have tabled petitions on behalf of the residents in my riding. I have spoken up on it. I have sent the minister letters on this fact, pointing out to him that the City of Calgary is one of the first movers on compostable bags in its jurisdiction, trying to address the issue of single-use plastic bags. I will say that I prefer the compostable bags. There are many residents who have emailed me, many more than I ever thought would. There is now the ridiculous situation where one has to buy the bags in a roll. The clerks are not allowed to give them out. People have to buy them from a bin right before the cash and then have their groceries bagged. They are much more expensive than they were before, and that adds to the cost of buying groceries unless one remembers to bring cloth bags or one's own other bags. Many of us forget to do so. When someone has kids and the kids are hassling them, it is very difficult to do. That is just one very small example of what happens as the cost of daily living increases. Some of the examples that they have here include the government's ordering companies to reduce prices, as if that would work, when the government is pushing up prices because the supply chains are stressed and because the monetary supply has been vastly increased. There are more dollars chasing fewer goods and services. It is as true today as it has been for decades before. I especially find it concerning that the government would introduce price caps here. Price controls have never worked in any jurisdiction. It has been attempted. It leads to rationing by suppliers and by producers, because if someone cannot get the price that it costs to make the product and to ship it, so that it can be on our store shelves, that makes them not do it. Therefore we run short of goods. This was true in western Germany. It was true well after the war. It is true in many jurisdictions for different types of goods and services when the government puts a cap on prices. It was tried in Canada in the 1970s. Famously, it was tried in the United Kingdom by a Labour government, and it led to shortages of goods and services. In the United Kingdom, the national Labour government was actually setting tax rates. The national government of the U.K., in the 1970s, set tax rates. It is reported in one of Lady Thatcher's biographies in which she wrote about her time in government. I would think on (b) in the motion, with respect to the delays in long-needed reforms to the nutrition north program. I think many of us would actually agree that reforms are needed to the program. I do not think anybody disagrees. We have had some of the prices quoted back to us as to what it costs to live in the north. I think that for me and other members who have come to be educated thanks to others who have done the research and who have put forward the numbers, this is something we would generally agree with. However, it then goes on to say, “stop Liberal and Conservative corporate handouts to big grocers.” I wonder when the NDP leader is going to talk about his brother, who lobbies for Metro. I wonder when we will have a conversation about all the big, major corporations that are so busy lobbying ministers. Some of these ministers were lobbyists before they became ministers and are now buddies with the people they were lobbying. I would like to hear more about that. In Alberta, one of the major costs and cost drivers for suppliers of produce and grocery goods on the store shelves is the carbon tax. Before the rebate, the average family in Alberta will pay $2,943. Every Alberta family will be worse off in just a few years if they are not worse off right now, on average. Consistently, many constituents are sending me their Enmax bills and Hydro One bills, which show that they are paying a lot of money, sometimes more than they use in natural gas, just on the carbon tax. I have a great love for Yiddish proverbs, and I know there are those who appreciate it when I use them. A fool says what he knows, and a wise man knows what he says. Now I can transition to what I think is the greatest foolishness: budget 2024. The $61 billion of new spending in it will only drive up the cost of our goods and services even further. This is $61 billion of new government spending that the coalition has decided to support, further driving up the prices of goods and services in Canada. It is not just me saying this. RBC says it. CIBC says it. TD says it. The big banks are reporting it. Economists are saying it. Analysts are saying consistently that if we drive up public spending and drive up public borrowing, we will crowd out private spending and private borrowing because they become more expensive and there are fewer goods to go around. In fact, RBC's budget analysis headline for federal budget 2024 was “Lack of spending restraint offset by revenue surprise and tax hikes”. This is the last thing I want to raise. We often say in this place, and I hear rhetoric from the NDP side on it, that companies are being greedy and that usually it is just profit-making. Companies are trying to earn a profit, whether it is a family company or a company that has shareholders. What about government greed? What about the government incessantly raising taxes on everyone in this country and then expecting to get as much of that revenue into its pockets as possible so it can have a Liberal green slush fund? The Liberals are so embarrassed by it that now they are going to shut it down. What about government greed and the incessant voracious appetite for tax dollars so they can be misspent, thrown away and corruptly given to consultants? This is something I do not hear the New Democrats and Liberal MPs talk about enough. We have endless examples of corruption in different government bureaucracies. The latest is the SDTC's green slush fund, which the government has admitted to and is shutting down. The government is abandoning it and trying to run away from its own board members, whom it appointed. They corruptly gave money to the corporations they ran. However, that money came from taxpayers in each of our ridings, who paid more at the end of the day. Families in my riding, as I said, pay $2,943 more in carbon tax. That does not just raise the price of groceries. It is on their utility bills and it is for the staycation they want to take. It is in all the goods they are buying for their homes. All of those costs are incurred as part of it. There are shipping costs too. There are no farms in my riding. The closest connection we have to farms in my riding is the grocery stores, and it is the same thing for seafood. That is the closest connection we have to the food chain, and when we go to grocery stores, we see prices being inflated because the shipping costs have gone up so high.

1651 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:30:05 p.m.
Watch

It being 5:30, pursuant to order made Wednesday, February 28, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

83 words

Ms. Heather McPherson

Jun/4/24 5:30:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like a recorded division because all Canadians deserve to know which members of Parliament are fighting for lower grocery prices and which ones are not.

29 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 5, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

23 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-252

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-252, An Act respecting Jury Duty Appreciation Week.

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:07 p.m.
Watch

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

31 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

9 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I ask that it be carried on division.

10 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:50 p.m.
Watch

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

45 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/4/24 5:32:54 p.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:33:21 p.m.
Watch

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

11 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/4/24 5:33:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-332

She said: Madam Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that it is not often that all MPs agree in this chamber. Especially around this time of year, politics can be particularly divisive and partisan. However, all members from all parties have come together to support my private member's bill and support survivors of intimate partner violence, and I want to extend my gratitude. I hope that we can all think of this bill as an example of the great things we can accomplish when we reach across the aisle and collaborate. When we work together to put aside political differences, focusing on the needs of our constituents, we can change their lives for the better. In Canada, a woman is killed by an intimate partner every six days. Let that sink in. Every six days, we lose a woman to intimate partner violence, and it disproportionately impacts indigenous women. Of the women killed, 22% are indigenous. I want to acknowledge that yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report, and after five years, only two out of 231 calls for justice have been implemented. When the report was tabled, the commission confirmed that the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls crisis is a genocide, yet the government has delayed and delayed. Former commissioner Michèle Audette says that she has “lost faith” in the government's ability to tackle this issue. I want to remind my colleagues that as elected officials in Canada, we have a responsibility to stop the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The 2019 report highlights that intimate partner violence disproportionately impacts indigenous women and girls. In the same way that all parties have worked across party lines to support my bill on coercive control, I call on MPs in this House to put aside political differences, tackle the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and implement the calls for justice, including fully funding a red dress alert. I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her leadership and advocacy on this. We know that coercive control is one of the most common precursors to femicide, even when there have been no other instances of physical violence. I have spoken in the past about how coercive control has impacted my family, but I have also heard from hundreds of people across Canada who have written to me, met with me and spoken to me about how coercive control has impacted them either directly or through loved ones. Each person who shared their story told me how grateful they are that this piece of legislation exists and that they hope no one will ever have to go through what they experienced. While each story is unique, the pain is very similar. The pervasiveness of coercive control is all-encompassing, and the trauma is deeply rooted. One story that sticks with me is from a constituent of mine. She has asked me not to use her name out of fear of retribution from her abuser, but she has given me permission to share her story. For her anonymity, we will call her Lisa. Lisa spoke to me about how she experienced coercive control by her children's father. Her abuser had taken over every single aspect of her life, and like so many other stories, the abuse eventually became physical. When she was finally able to escape that relationship, her abuser began to control her through her children. The father of Lisa's children would withhold her children from her and threaten them. She had to do what he wanted just to see her own children. When the issue of child support was in front of the courts, the judges ignored the fact that Lisa had been sexually assaulted and abused by the father of her children, who were now being withheld from her. She spoke about how the legal system favours men so heavily that even when Lisa's daughter spoke to the lawyers and the judges about the situation with her parents and when she spoke about being scared, if she seemed prepared, there would be allegations that Lisa was coaching her and that she was manipulated. Then if the child's recounting of events was missing details, then there were doubts about the validity of the story. At the end of the day, both parents now have equal access to the children, despite the abuse, despite the coercive control and despite the harm that continues to be done to these children. The reality is that, currently, there is no law that protects people from situations like this, from situations like the one that Lisa went through. Lisa told me she is extremely grateful that this legislation is moving forward, but she spoke about how much more work needs to be done. She worries about the systemic issues that will still exist even if, and hopefully when, this bill, Bill C-332, is passed and implemented. A key part in Lisa's story is the fact that in every step of the judicial process, the system does not favour people who come forward and share about the abuse they are experiencing. When people report abuse to police, they are often turned away due to a lack of evidence. If their case is accepted by the officer and is brought forward to a judge, they risk the case being thrown out again. If they are one of the few who get to have their case heard in court, judges and lawyers have no requirement to be trauma-informed. Many judges, prosecutors and other individuals in the criminal justice system do not have the training needed to understand the dynamics of intimate partner violence. There are also judges who have made sexist and misogynist comments during trials and judges who have ill-informed preconceptions about victims of gender-based violence. The enforcement of this legislation would be incredibly important. While many judges who would oversee cases of coercive control would be provincial, the federal government has a responsibility to lead by example and to ensure that judges and lawyers who would work on cases of intimate partner violence, including coercive control, receive adequate training and that they be trauma-informed. Survivors of coercive control are not only abused by their partners but also face retraumatization by the legal system itself. This needs to end, but that will only be accomplished if the government stops delaying and dragging its feet, and makes the reforms needed to support survivors of intimate partner violence. Survivors need a criminal justice system that supports them instead of revictimizing them. Today, while Lisa is out of the relationship with her abuser, he is still able to control her through her children. While there are pieces of this legislation that touch on the fact that coercive control can include having children withheld from people or having threats of violence against children to control people, the topic of parental alienation is not considered in this legislation. We have heard from stakeholders like the National Association of Women and the Law that parental alienation is a controversial concept not founded in scientific evidence. It is used in clinical and legal settings to describe when children are refusing or resisting contact with a parent. Abusers use accusations of parental alienation as a form of coercive control. Unfortunately, this concept continues to be weaponized against women in abusive situations. It is weaponized to silence them, to remove children from their care and to remove them from the care of the victim of abuse, simply because the children do not want to spend time with the abusive parent. Organizations and frontline workers have been ringing the alarm bell on this. More than half of workers in women's shelters in Quebec describe the accusations of parental alienation as a core priority for their shelter or their organization. It is one of their primary concerns. It is a real issue that has impacts not only on mothers, but also on children who may be facing situations of abuse or witnessing that abuse. The impact of that abuse is so widespread, and it affects women who are in women's shelters or in the health care system, as they access our judicial system, and it has impacts on how they participate in our economy. While I hope that this bill, Bill C-332, can be voted on and passed, I urge parliamentarians to consider the very urgent need to train judges, to train everyone in our criminal justice system, to change the legislation, to better support victims of intimate partner violence and to better support parents facing discrimination in our criminal justice system. I want to take a moment to thank the many organizations that have come together to support this bill, Bill C-332, and who have had a hand in crafting it. I am thinking of Sagesse and many of the organizations in my home community of Victoria, which includes the Victoria Women's Transition House and the Cridge transition house. I want to thank my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, for his continued efforts to ensure that we criminalize coercive control. He first tabled a version of this bill in a previous Parliament and has been an incredible ally not only to victims of abuse, but also an ally to me in this Parliament and an ally to women who face gender-based violence on a daily basis. I also want to thank the courageous people who have come forward to share their stories, and they include the many survivors of intimate partner violence, the family members who have shared their stories of loss and the professionals who have been working on the front lines of the crisis of gender-based violence and the crisis of intimate partner violence and who have been continuing to advocate every day. I also want to thank my sister who shared her story and who allowed me to share her story. She has pushed and supported me throughout this process to make sure that we are better supporting survivors of intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. These issues are so deeply rooted in our society, and we must do more. As we have seen a rise in intimate partner violence, we know that the cost of living crisis, the pandemic and all of these stresses have a detrimental impact on intimate partner violence. We need to come together in this chamber not only to pass this bill, Bill C-332, but also to commit to giving victims and survivors the tools they need to not only leave abusive situations, but also to find justice in our justice system.

1804 words

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

Jun/4/24 5:47:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I noticed that there was a fairly high sense of co-operation at the committee stage. I understand that there were a number of government amendments accepted. I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regards to the process where it would appear as if there is virtually all-party support, and I think we saw some of that at the committee stage.

68 words

Ms. Laurel Collins

Jun/4/24 5:47:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we did see all-party support for this bill. I also want to highlight some of the important changes that were made at committee. I thank the members on the justice committee for ensuring that this piece of legislation is robust, that we have a more robust legal definition of what constitutes coercive control and that we actually address some concerns that were raised by organizations to make sure that judges take into account who the vulnerable party is when these situations occur. I have to mention that the justice committee has done incredible work, but it had this study two years ago. It has been two years, and the government, unfortunately, has waited for a private member's bill to take this step. I encourage it not to do the same thing when it comes to the other critical reforms that we need in our criminal justice system.

151 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Jun/4/24 5:48:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for this very important bill. I got out of a meeting just moments ago with somebody who was talking about parental alienation. Can the member share her thoughts on that? What does parental alienation look like? What are things that we should be aware of, especially when it comes to coercive control and understanding the complexity of it?

63 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 324