SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 115 - Oct/21/22

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/21/22 10:27:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I am not sure if he is looking for his headset, but I know that he speaks excellent French. He spoke about section 102 and what the review panel can do if it dismisses a complaint against a judge. The panel can take several actions, which include ordering the judge to attend counselling or to apologize publicly. To come back to the member's proverb about sheep and wolves, it seems to me that, in this case, unfortunately, no one is thinking very much about the sheep. When a complaint is filed, it is because someone has been the victim of something. When the panel dismisses the complaint but actions such as therapy, counselling or a public apology are imposed on the judge, should the victim who filed the complaint be more included in the process? Should the inclusion of the victim in the complaint process be one of the things discussed by the committee following second reading of the bill?

171 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/21/22 10:28:23 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member is quite right. It would be interesting to take a closer look at clause 102, which deals with dismissal of the complaint and other actions that can be taken. There are perhaps two possibilities. The victim could be present when the decision is handed down, to find out what happens to the judge. We could also do what professional associations sometimes do and call on a member of the public. That individual, who would have no ties to the profession, the company or the employees involved, would attend and have the right to vote either way when decisions were being made. I used to belong to a professional association that had members of the public on our steering committee and disciplinary committee.

127 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Oct/21/22 10:29:10 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I have a huge amount of respect for my colleague. He talked about police officers and tackling real crime, and I really appreciate him talking about those who are on the front line. We have heard from the police chiefs association. We have heard from police. I have travelled the country, going to 12 cities for my bill regarding the toxic drug crisis. They are very clear and unequivocal that criminalizing people and charging people who have small amounts of drugs is causing more harm. Does my colleague agree that we should fast-track this legislation, because it is a pretty non-controversial bill? Does he agree we should proceed quickly, so we can create more reforms to the justice system to help us tackle the toxic drug crisis and actually work on the important reforms to the justice system that need to take place, and to address systemic racism as well?

154 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/21/22 10:30:08 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting question. Fast-tracking bills in the House, in my experience, has usually led to more work at committees. Oftentimes, members bring forward quotes, citations, references to articles, documents and reports that are then used by the committee to do its work. Any member of the House who wishes to rise and speak on behalf of their constituents should be allowed to do so on each and every single bill. I have spoken many times on standing order debates and on making changes. That should be the norm for all bills, including private members' bills.

100 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Oct/21/22 10:30:51 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard opened by saying that he was, perhaps, a bit too curmudgeonly, and that he was not around in 1971, so I do not know where that puts me, because I was around in 1971, so I may be on the other side of that. What we do share is that we are not burdened with a legal education, although one of my four daughters reminds me that perhaps I would benefit from her education, which is of a legal background. My question is more along the lines of the dynamic of federal-provincial relations. This act is addressing federally appointed judges and similar things. He mentioned at one point that perhaps provincial jurisdictions could benefit or could look at this, yet we also have the dynamic right now where provincial jurisdictions are pushing back on a federal initiative of a gun buyback. Could he comment on that dynamic between the federal government and the provinces with legislation and on the adaptability or the lack of suitability on different pieces of legislation?

179 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/21/22 10:31:50 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member asked an Albertan what he thinks about the federal government and, like in conciliatory or co-operative federalism, we have not seen a lot of co-operation, especially from the western provinces, with this federal government. I am sure my colleagues from Quebec, from all parties, would agree. Oftentimes, I find myself on the opposite side from members of the Bloc, for instance, but I know my colleagues from the Conservative caucus who are from Quebec agree on this too: The province has jurisdiction over its judicial course, and it can decide what to do. However, sometimes the federal government, through its amendments to legislation, puts forward a reasonable model that a province could adapt and vice versa. Sometimes the province is responsible for changes to its legislation, for how it operates, that are beneficial and should be adopted federally. We use this here quite often, but things like more virtual hearings for some of the preliminary work would expedite people's ability to access the courts. On the gun-grab issue, my province has been very clear: It will not support the federal government. It will not provide any resources on the ground, which I think is a very reasonable expression of provincial jurisdiction and provincial control over its own policing resources.

217 words

All Topics

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

Oct/21/22 10:33:12 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments my friend and colleague from Calgary made. I would invite him to expand, specifically on the interplay between the federal government and the province, especially when it comes to issues related to areas where there has been some tension as of late. How does that play into what many Canadians and members of the government have pointed to, which is an erosion of trust generally in some of our institutions? Can the member for Calgary Shepard comment on that?

85 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Oct/21/22 10:33:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Shoring our civic and democratic institutions, like I mentioned at the beginning of my intervention, comes in two ways. It comes by actions. The government can amend legislation to provide more transparency, better accountability and different mechanics. That gives certainty to the public that we are watching out for them. The judges are not the wolves. They are just sheep with little stilts. They are a bit higher, to make a decision that everybody can live more peacefully with. Peace, order and good government, POGG, as we often call it, is in the Constitution. The other way to do it is through words and deeds. Shoring our institutions is the responsibility of all public officials, both provincial and federal, to watch the terminology. I spend a lot of time trying to convince people and explain that our electoral system, for example, is one of the best in the world. We do not use machines. It is a paper ballot into a box. If someone does not like the outcome, I invite them to scrutineer an election. They can go and help out, and work or volunteer for Elections Canada. For words and deeds, the deeds part is the Government of Canada, a private member's bill on the opposition side, but the words part is shoring up institutions and explaining to people how they actually work. I cannot tell members how many times I have run into people who are still confused about how members of Parliament are selected, how legislators are generally selected, and whether there is a test we have to take. I was asked two parliaments ago whether it was an upgrading system, if we were first on a municipal council and then a provincial legislature, and then became a member of Parliament. That would seem to me like a doomed career path. Lucky are those who have gone through that path, but that is too much for me. The member asked an interesting question. Democratic institutions are shored up by those two things.

343 words

All Topics

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

Oct/21/22 10:35:47 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to rise in this place and enter into a discussion on the many important issues facing our constituents, our provinces and of course all Canadians. If you would permit me just a bit of latitude, it is an honour to not only stand today to debate Bill C-9, and I will get to the substance of that bill in a moment, which is an amendment to the Judges Act, but today represents three years since I and the class of 2019 were elected and had the honour of being able to take our seats in this place. Even as I was reflecting on that this morning, on Google Photos there were memories that came up. Looking back to this day in 2019 with so much appreciation, if you would permit me just a moment of my time to share again a couple of thank yous, these are similar thank yous to when I rose in my maiden speech back in 2019. On this day, I would like to thank my loving wife Danielle and my three boys. I did not have three at the time, but I do now. I am so thankful for the love and support they have given me. They are on the road right now, going to a funeral of a dear friend who passed away back in my constituency. I would have loved to be able to go with them today, but of course I am here in this place. I also thank my larger family, my parents, siblings, grandmothers and those who have poured into my life over the last 30-plus years. I also thank my staff. As I know you and all in this place know, we cannot do what we do unless we have good people. I often joke that the best way to be successful in politics is to hire people who are smarter than us to help us do our job. Certainly, I am so thankful for both my Ottawa office staff and my constituency office staff. I have a great team, and I am so blessed each and every day to be able to not just have them work for me, but to work with them as we serve the people of Battle River—Crowfoot. Then, of course, there are our EDAs and campaign teams. This is a shared experience, I am sure, with every person in this House. An election does not happen because of the person whose name is on the ballot—

430 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/21/22 10:38:25 a.m.
Watch

Hold on for one second, please. I would ask members to have their conversations in the lobby and not in the House. The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

30 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Oct/21/22 10:38:34 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, as I was sharing, we all have EDAs and campaign teams. Although it is our names on the ballots, there is a huge group of people, and I count almost 200 volunteers over the course of my last three or so years in politics, who have helped fight for the cause. I am so thankful and blessed because of my EDA and campaign team and all those people who have worked so hard to fight for the principles that I am so proud to stand in this place to represent. When it comes to the reason we are all here, I often joke when I speak with classes in my constituency that there are only three job qualifications to be a member of Parliament in Canada. Just three; that's it. Number one, we have to be Canadian. Number two, we have to be over the age of 18. Number three, we simply have to get more votes than the other guy or gal. That process, that participation in our democratic system that each parliamentarian has, with, at least in the current standing, 338 different paths, different types of individuals, different parties represented, different backgrounds, different experiences and different professions, brings a unique cross-section of Canadians to this place. I cannot thank the people of Battle River—Crowfoot enough for the last three years. I have spoken over 400 times in this place, being up in question period, giving speeches, speaking over 500 times in committee, being part of interparliamentary groups, meeting with delegations and being a part of international trips, representing the people of Battle River—Crowfoot here in Canada and around the world, voting almost 400 times, jointly seconding private members' bills, and all the various ways of communication. Last night we talked about mental health and being able to break some of the stigma surrounding things like mental illness. There are things like constituency communication, social media outreach, more than a dozen mail-outs and visiting 63 communities. I represent a constituency that is about the same size as the province of Nova Scotia and has about 60 or so self-governing municipalities. I have visited each one of those communities over the last three years, some more than once, and attended hundreds of events, doing dozens of town halls and helping when it comes to the base of what being an elected official is about: helping people and taking thousands of calls, helping with practical issues regarding case work or the Phoenix pay system, helping veterans and members of the military, and helping people with passport issues or immigration or whatever the case may be. There is so much that goes into what we do in this place. The headlines always grab the big news items of the day, but as I reflect on the last three or so years that I have had the honour of taking my seat in this place, looking back at my experiences, those who helped me get here, my family and the impact this has on them, and those who mentored me, I truly am very blessed and thankful for the opportunity to serve in this place. I appreciate the latitude given me for a moment to share some thoughts on three years of being able to serve in this place. To the substance of Bill C-9 before us, I would note that this is the sort of bill that should have been passed a while ago. I know there have been a few questions asked about why Conservatives are speaking to this bill. I am speaking for myself, and I think for many of my colleagues, when I say we like to do our jobs to make sure that we comprehensively look at, evaluate and examine everything that comes forward in this place. When the government talks about this bill in particular, I believe it was Bill S-5 in the last Parliament, and there is a constitutional intricacy that the government, especially, likes to dismiss or not elaborate on when it blames Conservatives for somehow obstructing the democratic process by doing our jobs. Bill S-5 was something that died on the Order Paper when an unnecessary election was called in the summer of last year. I could certainly get into the many aspects of that, with our returning to this place with almost an identical makeup, the frustrations that were felt by so many Canadians and the erosion of trust in our institutions. I will expand on that a bit more. I would share with the member for Durham how many of those frustrations manifested themselves over the course of that last campaign, with the selfishness of a Prime Minister who tried to use what seemed to be a few polls bending in his direction, even when he promised to do the exact opposite of what he did. The reason I bring that up today is not only to highlight the hypocrisy of government members. They seem to want to blame everybody but themselves for some of these things. I suggest they would be best positioned to look in the mirror to truly self-evaluate some of the reasons we find ourselves in those places. This is a bill that addresses a very practical issue, which is that over the course of the evolution of our legal system we have the need for changes to be made. Specifically, Bill C-9 addresses that there would have to be a review process, even though a judge is and should be a lifetime appointment. Certainly we see the consequences of when politics are injected into the selection of judges and some of the challenges associated with that, but there could be the need for a review. We saw that need in the case that brought this whole conversation forward a number of years ago, when a judge made some very disparaging comments that certainly called into question the integrity of his ability to oversee that specific court case. There has to be a process. There has to be the ability to discipline individuals on the bench. Of course, we all need to have accountability and integrity checks within each of our professions, whether it be in this place as members of Parliament, in Canada's Senate or in our judicial branch of government. We have created many instances of this with the Ethics Commissioner, the Lobbying Commissioner, reporting requirements and all of those associated things. Bill C-9 is just a practical response to ensure that we address one of the key aspects of where we have seen what I alluded to earlier, which is that erosion of trust in our institutions. There are many reasons for that erosion of trust, certainly some of which are very political and some of which are very practical. Many of which, I would suggest, need to be unpacked so that we can truly get to the bottom of them. Because this is a justice bill and specifically relates to the Judges Act, I am going to focus on some of my constituents' experiences when it comes to how they perceive the justice system. I have been asked a number of times by the Minister of Justice and other Liberal members why I do not trust judges. This bill actually speaks to why there has to be firm parliamentary oversight. In the Westminster system. Parliament is supreme, and I am thankful for that. That is one of the things that makes our system of government the best in the world: that Parliament and the voices of the people ultimately have that final say. One of the comments that is often made to me is that we do not have a justice system anymore, but we have a legal system and that legal system is failing. That is not my perception. That is the perception of many constituents who share with me those feelings and their experiences associated with it. I mentioned before that there are 338 different paths to get here, but I have no doubt that each and every person in this place will have heard from constituents who have had their own experiences when it comes to the way that the legal system, Canada's justice system, is not serving them well. I am going to highlight a few of those instances from the perspective of being a rural Canadian. I mentioned in my observations of being in Parliament for three years that I represent a large rural area. My constituency is 53,000 square kilometres of what I would suggest is the most beautiful countryside in the world. When somebody asks me what the area I represent is like, I say it is a lot like cowboy country. It is the beautiful rolling hills and wheat fields as far as the eye can see. The only thing dividing one piece of land and the next is a simple barbed wire fence, and even then sometimes it is hard to find those with how vast the space is. I think about the many people who live there, and although sometimes it is sparsely populated, it would work out to be about two individuals per square kilometre. That is the density of my constituency, approximately. We have some significant challenges. Specifically when it comes to our justice system, we see how the dynamics associated with rural crime have changed significantly in the last number of years. From both when I was elected in 2019 and also my work being involved in politics in the community prior to that, I have seen the crime severity index increase dramatically. It is astounding, some of the stories I hear from constituents, members of the community and law enforcement officers who are on the first line. There are crimes that just a few years would never have been thought possible to be committed in a small town of only a few hundred people, yet with the Internet and access to gangs, drugs and all of these associated things, some of the things that happen are astounding. Then, there is the revolving door of the justice system. Before I get to the revolving door of the justice system, I will share that I was invited to attend a town hall in a small town. It was about 200 people in this community. There were about 100 people who came to the town hall. It was on rural crime, organized by the mayor and council. They had invited their member of Parliament and their MLA, who was not able to make it, but also their local law enforcement, the RCMP. I got there and, as is often the case, the RCMP had planned to be there but got a call, so they were not able to be there when the town hall started. I listened for probably an hour to story after story, and we were not just talking about hypotheticals. We were talking about real lived experiences and tragic instances where people's homes were broken into and where individuals were terrorized, and after multiple instances of calling the police, somebody would be arrested and taken away, but a few days later they would be back in that same community terrorizing the streets again. There were dozens and dozens of examples, and there was a lot of frustration there. There was a lot of frustration at lawmakers and there was a lot of frustration at local law enforcement. It was one of the things I endeavoured to highlight during that time, and I was thankful that the RCMP came for the last third of the meeting. I would suggest it was providential that, when I stood up and said, to the room of about a hundred people, to be sure not to blame those men and women in uniform for some of the challenges and that they were working as hard as they possibly could, only a moment later the Mountie who serves the area, in a detachment with only three officers, walked into the town hall. I was happy to cede the floor to him, and it was amazing. We could see in the eyes of many that they were frustrated, because sometimes it would be a four- or five-hour response time after calling 911. With something like a serious break-in with a firearm, it could be four or five hours before a police officer even got to somebody's door. We are talking about serious stuff here, but that Mountie started to unpack what his days looked like and some of the rules and restrictions he, as a law enforcement and peace officer, was forced to abide by. I saw after that instance many others like it. I highlight specifically that town hall in the community of Amisk, but there have been many other instances like that, where we see that erosion of trust taking place within specifically, because we are talking about the Judges Act, the legal system in our country. Therefore, when the Minister of Justice stands up and says something like those who do serious crimes in this country will serve serious time, it is almost laughable. It is laughable I would suggest in a tragic way, because the experience of so many of my constituents speaks to the exact opposite of that. When I look back as a political observer, although I would have been quite young when there was a change from a past Liberal government to a Conservative government, I know that crime was a big issue. One thing that was interesting is this. The Liberals like to blame Stephen Harper somehow for imposing mandatory minimums. However, some of the mandatory minimums of Bill C-5 that the justice minister blames Harper for have actually been around significantly longer. I believe some of those were put into place by former prime ministers, including Chrétien, Mulroney and even Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Often the demand for mandatory minimums is something that comes from a true frustration from the public. I would suggest that if we are not careful, we will end up seeing that erosion of trust take place to the point where people may end up taking the law into their own hands. I do not think anybody in this place, regardless of party, wants to see that happen. When we see a government focus more on demonizing law-abiding firearms owners than dealing with smuggled guns coming across our border, that is a problem and it is demoralizing for those who have been robbed by a firearm or been the victim of a crime that should involve serious time. Therefore, when it comes to Bill C-9, we need to do everything we can to ensure that we address some of the erosion of trust within our institutions and, in this case, make sure there is a mechanism to ensure that those on the bench are held to a high account, as Canadians expect us to do. I believe we should expect those who are appointed as judges to be held to that higher account, and Bill C-9 is part of a practical mechanism to ensure that.

2539 words

All Topics

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

Oct/21/22 10:56:03 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, first off, I would echo some of the comments the member made with respect to our RCMP. The institution and the members of the force have contributed so much to public safety, so I would just like to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the service they provide our nation. I would like to ask the same question I had asked the previous member with respect to the Canadian Judicial Council, which had a semi-annual meeting in the province of Alberta. It expressed some disappointment that the legislation has not been moving forward and not passed to date. I wonder, given the fact that it appears the Conservative Party is supporting at least its passage to go to committee, if the member would agree that today would be a good day to see this bill sent to committee. It does not limit debate, but allows, fosters and encourages more debate at second reading, as well at the third reading stage that would follow.

166 words

Mr. Damien Kurek

Oct/21/22 10:57:09 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I would simply say this. If the member was so concerned about this bill being expedited through the process, back in the summer of 2020 he should have suggested it to his leader, who hoodwinked Canadians with his promise at the beginning of June to not call an election and only a couple of months later did exactly that, resetting the legislative agenda and sending this bill back to the drawing board. I know the member and I have had disagreements about the significant delays brought forward by the Prime Minister's calling for a prorogation that just happened to coincide with the release of what, certainly I think as a member of the ethics committee at the time, would have made him look really bad. He happened to prorogue Parliament the day those documents were to be released. Therefore, if the member wants to talk seriously about the legislative agenda, it is within the government's prerogative to do so. However, it should be quick to look at itself for the reasons why we find ourselves in a situation where realistically we could be years behind with respect to some of the things it now claims are the priorities of Canadians.

204 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Oct/21/22 10:58:48 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. Aside from the very specific subject matter of Bill C-9, he talked about a few things that can sometimes contribute to a loss of public trust in our institutions, particularly legal and judicial institutions. Given that Bill C-9 deals with what happens further downstream, that is, after judges are appointed, I wonder if my colleague could comment on what happens upstream, in other words, how judges are appointed. Would this not have been a good opportunity to review the judicial appointment system, so we will never again have to talk about the notorious “Liberalist”?

107 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Oct/21/22 10:59:26 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-9

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a good point. There have to be checks and balances in the process to ensure that we are appointing good people to the bench. Let me take advantage of this opportunity to share not just my concern when it comes to Liberal donors being appointed to the bench and how that seems to be a conflict of interest, but also some of the real challenges when it comes to the erosion of trust in our institutions in general. Many Canadians are not aware that when somebody is granted bail, it does not involve cash bonds anymore. In many cases, when a bond is set, only a fraction is required compared to the consequence if a perpetrator who, for example, has allegedly committed a crime and is charged ends up not showing up in court. There is a whole host of issues that need to be addressed here, and Bill C-9 addresses one small aspect of them related to a terrible instance. There are so many other things that have to be addressed to restore the trust in our institutions.

186 words

All Topics

Mr. Yasir Naqvi (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 11:00:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we are coming to the end of Small Business Week, let me take members on a very quick tour of the incredible small businesses in my community of Ottawa Centre. There is Devinder Chaudhary, owner of the Aiana Restaurant Collective in downtown Ottawa, who is changing the restaurant industry by paying his staff a living wage. Then there is Paula Naponse of Beandigen Cafe in Lansdowne Park, who is reinventing the coffee house model with an indigenous spin. I can also mention Justyna Borowska of Wedel Touch of Europe in Westboro, who is bringing authentic European cuisine to Ottawa. There are so many more examples of small businesses like these in my community of Ottawa Centre. I am proud to see new spaces emerging across my community to support small, local entrepreneurs from equity-deserving communities. Over the past year, we have seen the Black entrepreneurship knowledge hub at Carleton University's school of business and the ADAAWE indigenous business hub to support young indigenous entrepreneurs. I congratulate them all.

173 words

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Oct/21/22 11:01:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today I want to welcome and give congratulations to one of my constituents, Theresa Bailey, and her co-author, Terry Marcotte of Ottawa, for their recent publication of Hockey Moms: The Heart of the Game. This book is a collection of insightful stories from the perspective of Canadian hockey moms and celebrates the foundational strength that these women provide to families and hockey programs across Canada. This book is shifting the narrative of hockey in Canada to the potential ahead that results from diversity, inclusion and the common thread we as hockey moms and all Canadians value and share: the love of our children and the love of the game. I trust the House will join me in congratulating Theresa and Terry for this monumental milestone. Having grown up in Madoc, I know Theresa has made Hastings—Lennox and Addington very proud.

145 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/21/22 11:02:54 a.m.
Watch

I remind members that the use of props is not allowed, for future reference. The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

25 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Oct/21/22 11:03:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as we reach the end of Small Business Week, I want to thank our local small business employees and recognize that although Small Business Week is coming to an end, their work is continuing. These entrepreneurs and their teams are the backbone of our communities and local economies. While supporting financial well-being, they also bring community together and support local initiatives, even providing emotional well-being at times. In my riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, we are so fortunate to have small businesses to do just that. There are so many, but recently I had the pleasure to visit Jay at The STEAM Project in Richmond Hill, Penny at Zena Salon, Rosa at Royal Rose, Phiona at Coconut Village Nails Spa and Naiyer at Future Gadgets. Our government has supported these businesses and so many others through the pandemic. As part of our plan to build a robust economy that abandons no one, creates good-paying jobs and greens our economy, we will continue to support small and local businesses. We are committed to growing the economy today and tomorrow for all Canadians—

191 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/21/22 11:04:13 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

7 words