Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague opposite and was struck by some things I want to ask her about.

She said we need an action plan. I have been a minister of government, and I always used to say that programs are no substitute for actual results, and that spending is no substitute for getting some value for the people we are trying to assist. I heard the member say she will not support action but wants an action plan. This bill is an action plan.

Then the member said that the New Democrats had some amendments they wanted and that, unless they can get it perfect in their own view, they will not take any action. Would it not be better for the victims, the vulnerable people we are trying to protect with this bill, if we took this good action and then the New Democrats could argue for more or work for more later? It seems extremely short-sighted to hold everything up because, for good and sufficient reason, some of their amendments were not taken.

The member is saying that she and her party have a problem, but she is making all kinds of excuses not to take action. Why would that be?

Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very well reasoned and sensible response to the bill. He has some good suggestions and has raised some reasonable concerns. That is the kind of debate we should have.

I sat on the public safety committee this morning. We heard an expert on terrorism and radicalization tell us that there are materials being distributed in Canada today that say that beating women is an act of kindness and love and that women owe a duty to their husbands, a duty that includes obedience and not withholding intimacy.

There are documented activities taking place in our country that are not only physically dangerous to women but also hostile in a very cultural sense.

I would ask my colleague why we need to avoid the world “culture” when clearly there are cultural dimensions to this danger to women.

Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, “famous last words” is a well-known phrase. I will soon leave this place after two decades. What words come to mind?

It has been an honour and a privilege to serve. I have met amazing people, people who are smart, hard-working, and dedicated to Canada. Many will be lifelong friends.

The opportunity to make even a small contribution to building this great nation is humbling. We all owe so much to our families. They have sacrificed normal togetherness for this.

I give heartfelt thanks to the people who supported me, and to those who did not support me but put up with me kindly anyway.

Finally, at the end of the day, it is not about the blue team or the orange team or the red or the green; it is about our country and its wonderful people. It is about giving them the best, most secure, and brightest future possible.

I pass the torch. May it be held high.

God bless Canada.

Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I was a little shocked by the member's remarks. If I heard him correctly, he said not only that scientists should be able to speak about anything they might be working on within government but that they should be able to opine on any policy that might strike their fancy, as long as they say they are not speaking for the department.

Let us carry that a little bit further. Supposing any officers of departments, any bureaucrats, or any public officials decide they have something to say on a public issue, and they stand up and join the debate on public policy, which is usually confined to the House of Commons. We have a convention in this country of a neutral, objective public service that provides neutral advice to the government. Now, people would be standing in this place, so to speak, giving their opinions on this, that, and the other thing.

Does the member really think that this would be an enhancement of our democratic process? What about the neutrality of our public service?

Hon. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the Liberals are putting this motion forward, because I have been in the House for two decades and I remember that, when the Liberals were in government, there were a number of articles accusing the Liberal government of muzzling scientists. I am sure my friend opposite will remember some of those articles, as they are easily found on Google. I urge people to look them up.

There always seems to be this debate about the freedom of government-employed, publicly funded scientists. My friend who just spoke pointed out that government scientists are encouraged to publish their findings and publish their research.

I am curious about exactly where this whole idea of muzzling comes from, because from what I heard my friend say, there is no muzzling at all. I would like to hear his comments on that.