House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 135
CONTENTS
Friday, June 12, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 135
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, June 12, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30
Hon. Eleanor Olszewski (for the Minister of Transport)
moved: That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be disposed of as follows:
(a) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that, during its consideration of the bill,
(i) the committee shall meet at 9:00 a.m. on the sitting day following the adoption of this order for the purpose of completing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill,
(ii) if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 9:30 a.m. that day, all remaining amendments that were submitted to the committee by June 9, 2026, shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill,
(iii) the committee shall have first priority for the use of House resources for this meeting,
(iv) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House no later than 12:00 p.m. on the sitting day following the completion of the committee stage of the bill, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House;
(b) the bill may be taken up on any sitting day following the completion of paragraph (a)(iv) of this order, and be deemed to have been concurred in, as amended, at the report stage;
(c) a motion for third reading may be made immediately after the bill has been concurred in, as amended, at report stage;
(d) when the House begins debate at the third reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party, a member of the New Democratic Party, and the member of the Green Party, may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;
(e) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the third reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall not be deferred; and
(f) when the bill is considered at report stage and at the third reading stage, after 6:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent, except from a minister of the Crown, shall be received by the Chair. (Government Business No. 12)
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and to speak to Bill C‑30 and the programming motion about how the government is going to pass it. Bill C‑30 is a continuation of the good news we heard in the spring economic update, Bill C‑31. We know there were positive economic signs. The deficit was $11 billion less than expected, which is good, and there is a plan to balance the operating budget in just a few years, which is a good sign. We have the highest growth in the G7, three times the rate of Italy and twice the rate of Germany and Japan, which is also good news.
All these things are indicators that the economy is starting to click. There has definitely been a pause, but we are getting back to a good place. The investment per capita is also the highest in the G7. This is really good news, because for a while, foreign investment was fleeing the country, so to have it returning, as well as to have the highest investment per capita, is another positive indicator.
I am personally quite proud of the Prime Minister's efforts to diversify our trade. In just one year, there have been 21 agreements made, and project announcements are coming forward, such as the Bombardier $15‑billion plane announcement and a number of the projects that are starting to roll. These are all signs that our diversification of trade away from the U.S., so we are not so dependent on it, is working. There was a lovely graph in the spring economic update. If people have not seen it, they should look. It showed the progress we are making. These are all signs that we are going in the direction of good.
People are still suffering under the affordability crisis, for sure, but wages are increasing at a greater rate than inflation. It is the first time that has happened in quite a while, which is also a very good sign. In addition to that, the government's plan is working in terms of creating jobs. The jobs numbers are starting to come up. I heard the Minister of Industry announce the other day that 88,000 jobs were created in the last month.
We know that the jobs are going to come with the major projects we are building, the 14 major projects in that category, and there are all kinds of other ones as well. I was really interested to hear of a particular one. I have been talking for a long time about aluminum and the unjustified tariffs with the U.S. We should not be shipping our aluminum to the U.S., having it turned into beer cans and pop cans and bringing them back to Canada at a higher cost. We should be making those things here. I have just heard that there are three plants that are going to be making those cans here in Canada, creating jobs for Canadians and reducing the damage we are suffering from the unjustified tariff war. I think that is a very good thing as well.
In terms of some of the programs that are coming, build Canada strong is something everybody can get behind. We all want the country to flourish. There is a combination of things that are needed in order to make that happen. I spoke a bit about the major projects, which is a key thing, but we also know that we need to build affordable housing. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, this is the number one priority. We have a gap of about 1,800 affordable spaces that are needed, and that is in just one riding. Think about that added up all over the country. The need is great.
Our new government has done great on focusing plans and putting incentives in place that will not just build homes but also make those homes more affordable. The initiative to work with, for example, the province of Ontario to get rid of permitting fees will take about $200,000 off the price of a house. That is really substantial, especially for first-time homebuyers who are trying to get into the market. Taking the GST off homes up to a value of $1 million is also tangible evidence that we are getting the price of houses down. Across the nation, the price of houses is down 20%, and rents are down 9%, other encouraging signs. I feel a little like the Minister of Finance, saying, “more good news”, because there is a lot of good news to be shared with the House.
The other thing I really like is building team Canada, right from starting off with something that is near and dear to my heart and my riding: $6 billion announced for apprenticeships to get Red Seal certification. We have about 6,000 trades and, I would say, one of the world‑class quality, safety and productivity trades in Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. I was really pleased to have the Secretary of State for Labour come meet with LiUNA and St. Clair Mechanical, the shops that do the training of these apprentices. As members may know, one of the apprentices we met actually won a gold medal in Ontario for the welding competition and is on his way to nationals, so I send a shout‑out to Ryan Beattie for that.
Making sure that our young people have well‑paying jobs is just one of the things we need to do. There are measures as well that will give them some relief on their student debt, and there are incentives in this budget that are going to open doors. I love the playground to podium initiative, because we all need to get interested in sports. In my long life so far, I have been involved in many areas of sport. I received my black belt in tae kwon do, was a triathlete and did long‑distance running. I was also a spin cycling instructor.
We know that for people who get involved in sport, it is not just about being healthy. It also teaches us a lot about leadership, teamwork and other things we need. We are so proud, and it really unites the country, when we see Canada on the podium winning gold. It does not matter what the sport is. Everybody has their favourite. I am sure there are people out there right now who just cannot wait for the FIFA games to begin. I am married to a hockey player, a guy who loves hockey, so hockey is a 24‑7 passion in our house. Whatever the sport is, we need to invest in making sure Canada is represented and can be proud on the world stage. That is another very good thing.
We live in a very volatile world, one that is increasingly dangerous, and it is really nice that we are starting to recognize we need to reinvest in our defence, reinvest in our military. I was disheartened to find out, as one of the military members told me, that we have only about 12 hours' worth of ammunition. If we ever get into a conflict, that is it, and we do not have any domestic production. However, there is more good news: A munitions plant is going to be built in Ingersoll. There is more to come on all this.
These are great things, and this is a way as well that we can protect ourselves from the unjustified tariffs from the U.S. A lot of the manufacturers and tool and die folks, especially in southwestern Ontario, have been hugely impacted by the section 232 tariffs. Not only has our government provided relief to get them through, such as $1 billion from the BDC and another $500 million in tariff relief funds, which were responsibly brought to the table when these tariffs arrived, but we are also seeing that people can pivot into the defence industry.
With our having rolled out the buy Canadian procurement, everyone who has a business can sign up and get their number registered so they can see what government contracts are being let that they would be qualified to provide a service for. This will get more people to work and will, again, drive the economy. There is a lot of upside to that.
I am very proud that we are increasing wages for the members who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are men and women who sacrifice. They sacrifice with their families. They sacrifice with their bodies. They sacrifice a lot to be in these situations, so they deserve to be well rewarded.
I would be remiss if I did not talk a bit about the measures to address affordability, because people are struggling. I hear about it in my riding, especially from single seniors. The ones on a fixed income are probably some of the poorest in our country, and it is a shame because many of them built the country, and they deserve to live with dignity. There are many measures the government has brought, such as the grocery benefit, which is $1,900 for a family of four and $800 for an individual, and the tax cut for 22 million people.
There are the various programs for addressing the school food program. I do not know if members saw the announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about food security and a huge investment of $3 billion to try to make sure that we can get food prices down and that we can produce more of our food supply domestically and become less dependent on others in the world.
All of these are extremely good measures. This is the good news that we heard in the spring economic update, and it is just continuing on in Bill C‑30.
One of the ideas in the bill is to modify the labour mobility deduction for eligible tradespeople. I know our new government has leveraged a lot of ideas from the members opposite, and I remember that one coming forward. It would also be making permanent the capital gains exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co‑operative. This would be critical because a lot of people who own small businesses are getting long in the tooth and they are looking for a succession plan. In order to facilitate that succession plan, they need to have this kind of relief.
There are many other things in Bill C‑30. Some are in regard to taxation measures and excise tax. I like the reduction of the amount people have to pay in to get CPP. I think it has been increased a number of times over the last decade, and it is nice to see some relief coming there for employers and for individuals.
I want to provide some clarification on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have a lot of farmers in my riding, a lot of very innovative farmers who are into organic farming and some of the new things that are coming on. The CFIA needs this modernization activity that the government is focusing on. I think that is a very good thing.
If we look at our core mission of building the infrastructure, empowering Canadians by lowering costs and protecting our communities, all of these things are intertwined. I can put an example out there of what the build Canada fund is going to provide. In my riding, I need seven stormwater and waste water upgrades in order to facilitate affordable house building. This is the kind of funding that is needed by the municipalities. I am sure I will not get all seven, but I will keep pestering until I get as many as I can. That is what we need. It is fundamental.
As for the the building communities fund, Sarnia is the only city that does not have a rec centre of size. This building Canadian communities fund is a good fund to support things like that. We have been awarded the international plowing match in 2027. For those who have not seen an international plowing match, it is something to be seen. It attracts visitors from all over. There is huge economic development and huge economic activity, and some infrastructure is needed to prepare the grounds that the event will take place on. Again, the build Canada communities fund would be very useful for that.
All in all, I would say our new government is on the right track. We are going to build Canada strong. We are already seeing the signs that things are going in the direction of good. We just need to keep on, we need to diversify away from the U.S., and we need to address CUSMA. All of these things are things the government is seized with, and we will continue to work for the good of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong has certainly been drinking the Liberal Kool‑Aid, with her jargon, “build Canada strong” and “investment”.
One important industry she did not really refer to is the automobile industry and how it has dropped from over 2.5 million units to, now, under one million. There has been a free fall there. That is one sector. There is also EV manufacturing. I think of the different companies. Honda's $15‑billion EV and battery complex has been scrapped. Northvolt has been cut. It has been a free fall.
I wonder if the member would agree with me that these Liberal investments have actually been very dubious and unfruitful.
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to say is that I actually believe the things that I just said, that it is very good news and that we are moving in a positive direction.
If I were prime minister, what would I do? I would diversify trade from the U.S. I would build major projects in infrastructure in Canada. I would work to address the affordability issues. All of the things our government is doing are the things I would do myself.
The member raised the issue of EVs, and of course, everything I think about EVs has been clear on the public record for years and years, but the automotive sector has been super hard hit by these unjustified tariffs from the U.S. The President in the south's idea is to take apart the supply chain. I am old enough to remember when the supply chain was first put together. This is going to be punishment that we will have to support industry through for quite a while.
Mr. Speaker, the member just responded to my colleague and said, “I believe the things I say.” She also concluded her speech with, “Our new government is on the right track.”
I want to read a quote from March 10 of this year: “Mr. Speaker, the motion we are going to vote on today is another example of the government's overreach and tyranny and of how it always wants to shut down debate, especially when it comes to freedom of expression and freedom of religion.”
As for the member's response of “I believe the things I say,” how does she reconcile those two quotes from herself?
Actually, Mr. Speaker, everything that I have ever said is on the public record in Hansard. Every Liberal on this side knows everything I said, the Prime Minister knows everything I said, and they all know everything I think. They welcomed me inside the tent to help build Canada strong, to put my talents to work, and to use my wisdom, my skills and my experience to drive Canada in the right direction.
I am super proud to be part of this team, and that is why it is easy for me to get up and bring the good news. I do believe it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what troubles me about Bill C‑30 are the changes regarding the approval of pesticides and herbicides. Under this bill, for economic reasons or in emergency situations, cabinet will be allowed to decide whether to use hazardous products. These people are not scientists and do not know what impact the use of these chemicals could have on nature, the environment, the plants intended for human consumption and, most importantly, the workers who will be spreading them. I have serious concerns about this.
That was not what agricultural groups were complaining about. Their issue was with the inefficiency of the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, which is now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate. Rather than making this body more efficient, the government is going to let the minister decide when hazardous products can be applied.
What does my colleague think about that? Can she offer me any reassurance? I am still not reassured.
Mr. Speaker, I have a science background, and I think that we need evidence before making a decision. I know that cabinet has consulted research from around the world. A lot of research has been done in other countries. We cannot replicate every study that has been done. I think that we are going to make the right decisions based on evidence.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the excellent speech she made and also for underlining her commitment to this country and to progress. I thank her for that and welcome her, again, to the group.
I have a question about the economic update and Bill C‑30. Could my colleague speak to the fact that the government continues to intervene to protect industries that are at risk from the U.S. trade war, and could she speak to the measures we continue to put in place to support industries at risk?
Mr. Speaker, our government is coming with remedies for every sector that is impacted. We saw the recent announcement for Rio Tinto, an aluminum provider that has been really hard hit. We have seen the aid brought to the automotive sector. We know that we will continue to support the automotive sector. We have seen the aid brought to people who were punished by the section 232 tariffs, the manufacturers, especially in southwestern Ontario.
I appreciate that the government, when there is a problem, is coming with a solution. We want to keep our domestic capability and our domestic production while we get through these headwinds.
Mr. Speaker, a number of months ago, my hon. colleague was talking about how food inflation is up 6.2% and how 2.2 million Canadians are currently lined up at food banks. She said that this is because of the Liberal government's industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax.
Does the member still believe that Canadians are lined up at food banks because of her government's carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we play for the team we play for. I called for the removal of the consumer carbon tax for 10 years. I am super proud that our government is the one that removed it. I think the measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday to address food security and bring food prices down are some of the measures we need.
The government has also introduced $1 billion for shelters and transitional housing to try to address the homelessness issue. The Reaching Home program has been infused with more money. The government recognizes that there are many people homeless, and we are committed to finding solutions.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the questions my Conservative colleagues are asking today are intended just to go after this member's character. The irony is that she has shown character in her willingness to properly represent her community, to stand for her constituents and to work on behalf of her constituents to make their lives even better.
I wonder if she can reflect on how she feels now that she has joined the governing caucus and how she sees that translating into a very positive message and positive outcome for her community specifically.
Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it has been a joy being on this side where people work as a team.
I have had Minister Solomon come to the riding and look at AI opportunities in my area. The Secretary of State for Labour came. There are more ministers who want to come and take a look. For all of the projects we have been trying to advocate for, I have audiences. This is how it begins. This is how we build Canada, and this is how we build Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.
I would remind the member not to use the proper names of members of the House.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague as well for her excellent speech and her commitment to Canada.
Could she elaborate on what she just mentioned, about the work that she is doing with the government on behalf of her community to ensure that her riding also fully participates in the Canadian economy?
Mr. Speaker, we need affordable housing in my riding. We are facing a real crisis. I had the opportunity to discuss this with the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. There are also lots of projects in the energy sector, along with some emerging opportunities. I have spoken with people who have money to invest in Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 12, a motion that would dramatically curtail Parliament's ability to properly scrutinize Bill C-30, the Liberal budget implementation act.
The government says it wants to move quickly, but Canadians want us to move carefully. When Liberals ask Parliament to fast-track another budget bill and limit scrutiny, Canadians have every right to ask a simple question: What has the last decade of Liberal economic management delivered for ordinary families? When I return home to Prince George, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and the communities throughout Cariboo—Prince George, I do not hear people saying that life is more affordable than it was 10 years ago. I hear quite the opposite. I hear from young families that have given up the hope of home ownership. I hear from seniors who never imagined that they would have to worry about affording groceries after a lifetime of work. I hear from small business owners struggling with rising costs and shrinking margins. I hear from forestry workers worried about whether their mill will still be operating next year. I hear from the hundreds, if not thousands, of forestry workers who are now out of work because of mill closures that happened under the Liberal government.
The simple fact is that after 11 years of Liberal management, Canadians are not better off. Our communities are being punished. Rural and remote communities, specifically, are being punished with the catch-and-release policies. It is getting harder and harder for Canadians to make ends meet. I stand in this House, day in and day out, and I champion those in my riding and across Canada who are facing hardship and who are facing mental health crises and addiction crises that have not been seen in generations. Since 2016, more Canadians have died from overdose than in World War II. It is hard to sit and listen, whether I was at home in recovery or here in the House, to the talking points from the other side.
We have a former Conservative colleague, now on the other side, who just gave a speech for 10 or 15 minutes with the Liberal talking points. It is a sad day for me, because I was elected with her. I have a lot of respect for her, but now we see her kind of changing her tune and spewing the very things that we fought against.
The truth of the matter is that over 2.5 million Canadians are using food banks every month. More and more Canadians are a paycheque away from insolvency or bankruptcy. It is getting harder and harder for Canadians to make ends meet or to live that Canadian dream. It is hard to sit and watch and listen to the talking points being spewed. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not quite sure of the world that some of my colleagues live in. It is hard. In British Columbia, we have had over 35 mills close in the last 10 years, many of those in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. Those are high-paying, generational jobs. Many of those mills have been operating for a number of years, with generations of a single family working in the same mill because it is a great job. They were the number one employer in most of our communities. When those mills close, there is not another major industry coming behind them.
What the Liberal government has created over the last 10 years is not an environment where we are open for business. It is an environment where investors really, truly question whether they want to invest in our country and where we have major producers looking elsewhere to relocate their businesses. That is the reality we live in. We talk about the last election, and the Liberals say this is a new government with a man with a plan. The Prime Minister was elected as being the man with the plan. He comes with a pretty impressive résumé, I will say that. However, everywhere he has gone, he has left a wake of economic devastation.
We are the only G7 country and the only G20 country that is currently in a recession. Now, people will say, “What is the G7?” We always talk about these acronyms. It is a packed gallery here on a Friday, and I know that the viewership goes up when they hear that the member for Cariboo—Prince George is speaking, every time, so the bandwidth is just crazy right now. People are definitely going to be smarter at the end of this speech. There are no two questions about that.
We talk about the group of seven, the G7. Let me just tell those at home what this means, in case anyone is confused about it. The G7 is a coalition of countries that share core values: pluralism, liberal democracy and free market capitalism. They meet annually to coordinate global economic policy. Members include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. We are the only G7 country in that list that is technically in a recession. We cannot figure out whether it is a technical recession or whether we are actually in a recession. As I have said before, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If we are technically in a recession, we are in a recession.
We talk about Canada being the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is the G20? Well, it is the same as the G7 countries, plus Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey. Canada, once again, is the only country out of that mix that is in a recession.
The Liberals will stand up and say that their plan is working. Was their plan for us to fail? It is not working. They can be tone-deaf. They can be ignorant of the facts. However, the facts are these: More businesses are fleeing our country; more jobs are fleeing our country, regardless of whether they say the job numbers are up or not; and more Canadians are lining up at food banks. That is the truth. There is no misinformation or disinformation or whatever they want to say. It is reality. Food banks all across our country are saying that they are in dire need because more and more Canadians are accessing their services.
We talk with those on the ground. In Prince George, the food banks and community organizations are facing demand levels that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. The Salvation Army in Prince George reported unprecedented demand and significant increase in food bank usage, with many clients citing the rising cost of food, rent, utilities and fuel as the reason they needed help. Think about that. People who have worked their entire lives, people who never thought they would need assistance, people who did everything society asked of them, today are lining up for food hampers because the cost of living has risen faster than their paycheques.
Nationally, food bank visits have reached nearly 2.5 million in a single month, the highest number ever recorded in Canadian history. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019. Many of those seeking assistance are actually employed Canadians who simply cannot keep up with the rising costs. What does that say about the state of the country, when people working full-time jobs cannot afford groceries? What does it say when families are skipping meals so that their children can eat? I know it is happening all across our country. We see the number of encampments of RVs that people are being forced to move into. They cannot afford a home and they cannot afford rent, so they are moving into these rest areas in RVs, or tents in some cases.
That is the reality. It is not misinformation; it is not disinformation. I ask any of those who are paying attention today to take a look around their neighbourhood and take a look around their community. Does it look the same as it did 10 years ago, or is their community, like mine and many others, riddled with crime and addiction? It is absolutely heartbreaking. There are people on the streets in a state of overdose or in some form of addiction or mental health crisis, and it has almost become the norm. People just walk by it, when normally they would want to stop and help. Many times I do not know whether a person is alive. It is unbelievable.
What does it say when a food bank has become a permanent part of household budgeting? This is not the Canada that previous generations built. Housing tells a similar story. For generations, home ownership represented the Canadian dream. People worked hard, saved their money and eventually bought a home. Today, many young Canadians have stopped believing that this dream is achievable. Many young Canadians have had to move back home into their parents' basement. People worked hard, saved their money and eventually bought a home. Now they cannot. Now they do not see that dream as possible.
I recently spoke with a young couple in Prince George. Both have great jobs. Both are responsible. Both have done everything right, yet they feel like they are running on a treadmill. Every month they save money, but every month housing costs seem to rise even faster. The down payment they need keeps moving further and further away. They are not asking for a handout. They are just asking for a chance. They are asking for the same opportunity their parents and grandparents had. Unfortunately, after 10 years of costly Liberal policies, that opportunity is becoming increasingly difficult to find.
I touched a little on the forestry sector earlier. Few regions understand the consequences of economic mismanagement better than northern British Columbia. Where I come from, forestry is so much more than just an industry. It is families. It is communities. It is minor league hockey team sponsorships. It is swim team sponsorships. It is high school sponsorships. When forestry dollars are earned, forestry dollars are spent in the communities they are earned in, and when those businesses go out and those jobs are lost, those dollars are no longer in those communities.
Our region has absolutely been decimated. I rose in the House last fall to talk about 100 Mile House, a community in my riding that lost its last mill, which represented half of its municipal tax base. When a forestry job is lost, it is not just that job. If their spouse is a teacher or a nurse, those jobs are lost when they leave our communities. When they leave our region, they are not coming back, because there is nothing there for them.
Entire towns are built around the jobs that forestry provides. Over the past 10 years, forestry communities have faced uncertainty, curtailments, shutdowns and job losses. In late 2025 alone, temporary closures and curtailments affected hundreds of workers in Prince George, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and all areas in between. Those are all communities in my riding.
In the last 10 years, we have seen thousands of job losses. Our forestry industry, once a cornerstone industry in our country, has been all but decimated by this government. It has honestly been 10 years of mismanagement. I do not think there is anybody on that side who can say that they have handled the forestry file correctly. When the Liberals took office in 2015, there was a one-year grace period on the softwood lumber agreement that our former Conservative government had negotiated. The Conservatives put to bed one of the longest-standing trade disagreements with our U.S. counterparts and negotiated a one-year grace period, knowing that 2015 represented an election year.
The former Conservative government got that agreement, literally, if anyone is a sports fanatic like I am, to the one‑yard mark. The next government, whichever that was, just needed to get it into the end zone. It was there for the taking. I stood in the House for my maiden speech. I reminded the new government at that time of the importance of this. I said, “If this is not secured in the one year, in the grace period that you have, we are going to face the downfall of an industry. Now is the time.” We were told at the time that there was a new‑found bromance between the incoming, new Prime Minister and the U.S. administration at that time, and that they had it handled. “Don't worry about it. We've got it handled.”
Ten years later, we are seeing a cornerstone industry in our country absolutely decimated. There were job losses in the tens of thousands, not just in my province of British Columbia, where softwood was the number one export at one time. Over 65% of our softwood lumber exports went to the U.S., and the industry was decimated. Now we have a president in the United States who is saying that they do not need anything from Canada, as things have gone sideways.
When the Liberals say that their plan is working, it is so frustrating. I guess their plan was total economic destruction, Every time a shift is lost, a family feels it. Every time a mill closes, local businesses feel it. Every time a forestry job disappears, a community loses part of its economic foundation, yet the government comes to this House and says we should spend less time examining legislation that will affect the economy. That is exactly ass‑backwards. After 10 years of rising costs and economic uncertainty, Parliament should be asking more questions, not fewer. We should be demanding more accountability, not less. We should be examining every dollar of spending, every new program and every economic proposal with greater scrutiny than ever before.
The owners of small businesses in Williams Lake review every invoice before they sign it. The ranch near 100 Mile House reviews expenses before making a major purchase. A family in Quesnel studies its household budget before taking on new debt, yet somehow the federal government believes Parliament should spend less time reviewing legislation that affects billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. It makes no sense.
Now the Liberals say they want to work collaboratively. They say they are working for the people, and they invite collaboration from all sides. However, we have seen quite the opposite. Once they got their false majority, committees were shut down and filibustered. We see more and more time allocation motions, such as the one that we are debating today. There is no collaboration. They say they need to rush this through, and they talk about the obstructionist Conservatives and opposition. The government has a majority. It controls the legislative calendar. The government controls when bills are introduced. The government controls its priorities. After creating the timetable, it now wants Parliament to surrender its responsibility to scrutinize the details. That is not accountability, that is not transparency and that is not good government.
When I go home to Cariboo—Prince George, nobody tells me, “Todd, stop asking questions.” Nobody says that we should vote faster. What they tell me is that groceries cost too much, housing costs too much, fuel costs too much and life costs too much. They want someone in Ottawa to ask hard questions on their behalf. That is why this motion is so troubling. After 10 years of Liberal economic management, Canadians have earned the right to expect more scrutiny, not less.
If the government's economic plan is sound, it should survive debate and hard questions. If its spending priorities are justified, they should survive a committee review. If its legislation is well crafted, it should survive amendment and examination. Accountability should never be viewed as an inconvenience. It is the very reason Parliament exists.
At its core, this debate is about accountability. It is about whether Parliament will continue to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to examine legislation, challenge government spending and ensure that Canadians receive value for the billions and billions of dollars being taken from their pockets. Let me remind those in this House and those listening that the money being spent is not the government's money. It is taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, this motion moves us in the opposite direction. The Liberal government is once again asking Parliament to surrender its ability to carefully examine legislation. It is asking members to accept less debate and less committee scrutiny, to accept fewer opportunities for amendments and to identify mistakes before they become law. That should concern every member of this House, regardless of political affiliation.
Let me remind this House and those listening, and I say this often in my speeches, this House is not ours. This House belongs to Canadians, those who elected us to be here to speak on their behalf, represent them, scrutinize the government and provide support where necessary, but to challenge the government. This House is not the government's House. It belongs to those in the gallery and those watching from all across our country. Committees exist for a reason. Debate exists for a reason. Committees are where legislation receives detailed examination. They are where experts testify. They are where stakeholders identify unintended consequences of poor legislation. They are where parliamentarians from all parties can propose amendments and improvements to legislation.
The government now proposes to impose an artificial deadline on the finance committee study of Bill C‑30, and if the committee members have not completed their work by a predetermined hour, all remaining amendments would simply be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. Let us think about that for a moment. Regardless of how many clauses or amendments remain, regardless of how many concerns experts or stakeholders have raised, regardless of how many concerns Canadians have raised, regardless of whether parliamentarians have had the opportunity to fully disclose and discuss those proposals, the Liberal government wants the process to stop and votes to begin, essentially silencing the Canadians and stakeholders who elected us to be here. This is not the thoughtful law‑making that Canadians expect from their Parliament.
Bill C‑30 is not a minor piece of legislation. Like many budget implementation acts before it, it contains numerous measures affecting Canadians, businesses, taxpayers and communities across the country. When legislation is broad in scope, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. The larger the bill, the greater the need for committee review. The more spending involved, the more questions are needed. The more power that is granted to the government or the ministers to make decisions without scrutiny, the more oversight should occur. Instead, the government is proposing exactly the opposite.
Canadians are being told that Parliament should simply hurry up and approve legislation. That is not how a responsible government works. Parliament should not just act as a rubber stamp. Members of Parliament are not spectators. We are sent here to ask questions, challenge assumptions and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. When governments become impatient with accountability, Canadians should start paying attention, because accountability is not an inconvenience. It is the very foundation of parliamentary democracy.
Canadians are already struggling. Families are struggling with affordability, businesses are struggling with uncertainty and communities across northern and rural Canada are struggling with economic pressures, labour shortages and declining opportunities.
People want to know how their government intends to spend their money. They want to know whether programs are effective and they want to know whether commitments made in Ottawa will actually deliver results on the ground.
Committee study helps answer those questions. This motion would limit those opportunities.
The government argues that legislation must move quickly. However, whose fault is it when Parliament is presented with a massive omnibus piece of legislation requiring extensive examination? Whose fault is it when complex measures are bundled together? Whose fault is it when committees are given insufficient time to hear witnesses and review evidence? Whose fault is it when Canadians are not heard?
The answer is obvious. Governments control their legislative agenda and control the timing of legislation. Governments determine when bills are introduced. Time and again, Liberal governments create their own scheduling problems and then use those problems as justification for limiting parliamentary scrutiny.
That pattern has become all too familiar. Whenever questions become uncomfortable, debate is shortened. Whenever scrutiny becomes inconvenient, deadlines are imposed. Whenever opposition members attempt to improve legislation, procedural tools are used to limit discussion.
Canadians deserve better.
There is another important principle at stake. Good legislation benefits from criticism. Strong legislation survives scrutiny. Effective legislation is improved by debate. Governments should welcome examination if they are confident in their proposals. Instead, this motion suggests that the government sees scrutiny as an obstacle rather than a safeguard. That is troubling.
Every member of the House has seen examples of legislation that required amendment after flaws were discovered. Every member has seen examples where witness testimony highlighted concerns that government had overlooked. Every member has seen examples where committee work improved legislation. That work becomes more difficult when Parliament is placed under a procedural guillotine.
Representing northern British Columbia has taught me an important lesson. People do not expect perfection from the government and do not expect transparency. However, they do expect accountability and they do expect their elected representative to ask tough questions before billions of taxpayer dollars are committed.
Whether someone lives in Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Vanderhoof, Lone Butte, 100 Mile House, Horsefly, Likely or any other community I represent, they understand a simple principle: When someone asks for more money, people deserve to know how it will be spent. The same principle should apply here. The government should welcome scrutiny. It should welcome questions. It should welcome accountability. Instead, government Motion No. 12 seeks to reduce all three.
The House should be very cautious whenever a government asks Parliament to do less of its most important work. Debate matters, committee study matters, amendments matter and accountability matters. Parliament exists to examine legislation on behalf of Canadians, not merely to accelerate government timelines.
For those reasons, I cannot support this motion. I believe Canadians deserve a Parliament that scrutinizes legislation thoroughly, examines spending carefully and holds government accountable every step of the way. That is our responsibility, it is our duty and it is exactly what we should continue doing.
After 10 years of deficits, rising debt and an affordability crisis, the Liberal government's answer is less accountability, less scrutiny, weaker communities and weaker democracy. Canadians should be asking themselves a very simple question: If this budget is so good, why is the government so afraid of letting Parliament fully examine it?
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights:
That the motion be amended:
(a) in paragraph (a),
(i) by replacing the word “completing”, in subparagraph (i), with the word “continuing”, and
(ii) by deleting subparagraphs (ii) and (iv); and
(b) by deleting paragraphs (b) to (f).
The amendment is in order.
Before we go to questions and comments, I remind the member that he had a bit of a slip of the tongue earlier that might be considered unparliamentary, and I would not want that to linger, so I will just remind members to be judicious.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for about one year, and all I hear from the other side is doom and gloom.
I would like to talk about some positive stuff that is happening in our area. I too have a forestry sector in my riding. Forestry is a challenge. However, I was lucky enough to go to the opening of a graphite mine that will be the biggest in the G7. There are a lot of mining opportunities in B.C. and in Quebec.
I would like to know what the member opposite thinks of all these mining investments and our focus on critical minerals.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack there. Our oil and gas and mining sectors are truly important sectors for our country. Some great announcements have been made, but I highlighted that over 35 mills have closed unnecessarily in the province of British Columbia, and tens of thousands of British Columbians are out of work. There are not tens of thousands of jobs they can move to.
The fact of the matter is that over two and a half million Canadians are accessing food banks. It is not getting easier or better for Canadians. It is getting harder under the Liberal government, which should wake up and see that its plan is not working, because Canadians are not better off with it at the wheel.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Filipino Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Philippine Independence Day and to celebrate Filipino Heritage Month across Canada.
I was honoured to join many friends in the Filipino Canadian community for the annual flag raising ceremony at Filipino Plaza in the heart of Vancouver Kingsway. It was a proud celebration of bayanihan, representing unity, co-operation and selfless aid. I give many thanks to the United Filipino Canadian Associations in British Columbia for organizing this fabulous event.
More than one million Filipino Canadians call Canada home, and their contributions strengthen our nation economically, culturally, politically and socially. In every vocation and profession from health care to education, skilled trades, business and public service, Filipino Canadians play an essential role in building our country. Their generosity, resilience, faith and love of life enrich our society and inspire us all.
I thank the Filipino Canadian community for everything they contribute to our world.
Maligayang Araw ng Kalayaan. Mabuhay.
Filipino Heritage Month
Mr. Speaker, mabuhay. We had a wonderful ceremony yesterday: a flag raising on Parliament Hill. We also had a wonderful reception last night that was co-hosted with Ambassador Chan-Gonzaga and the embassy. They did an outstanding job working with the Canada parliamentary friendship group with the Philippines.
The Philippines is a part of Canada's very fabric. In the month of June, not only do we celebrate Philippine Independence Day, but we also recognize just how important the Filipino Canadian community is. It is one million people strong and has an impact and is part of our fabric in every region of our great nation.
We have flag raising ceremonies, as was pointed out, in Vancouver and in Winnipeg. There are all sorts of celebrations. Enjoy the month of June, and let us celebrate Filipino culture and heritage.
Seniors in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes
Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Seniors Month, I was pleased to join with MPP Steve Clark to host our first annual Seniors Expo.
This week at New Hope Church in Brockville, in partnership with Senior Support Services Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, we welcomed more than 160 seniors and dozens of exhibitors. We heard from great presenters, including the Leeds Grenville Paramedic Service, the Brockville General Hospital's hospital-to-home program, the Brockville 50+ Activity Centre, the Stroke Network of Southeastern Ontario, Rideau Community Health Services dental programs and many others.
Complete with fitness breaks and lunch, this event was open to seniors at no cost. It was a wonderful way to bring our community together, share helpful resources that support seniors and their families, and recognize the incredible contributions of our seniors.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who built our country and built our community. Happy Seniors Month.
Birthday Congratulations
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the heart and soul of music and theatre in Morin-Heights, and that heart is named Penny Rose.
Penny came to us in the sixties and opened Rose's Cantina, one of the first live music venues in our community, where people would come from near and far to be entertained. Over the years, music has become a way of life in our town, and Penny has always been leading the way. Be it the Joyful Noise Choir, Theatre Morin Heights or now our famous SuperFolk festival, Penny volunteered for it all.
Morin-Heights' music scene is best known for the Commons Bar and Le Studio, where bands such as Rush, The Police, and Bryan Adams recorded some of their best music. However, for the last 60 years, it has been Penny's work that has deeply left its mark.
On July 2, Penny Rose will be 80 years old. She is still going strong and will host the biggest live music party that our town has seen in a long time. From all of us here in the House of Commons, I wish the one and only Penny Rose a very happy birthday.
Tarun Bali
Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Constable Tarun Bali, who passed away tragically in the line of duty in northern Ontario.
Constable Bali was a member of the Dufferin OPP in my home riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know the men and women who serve in the Dufferin OPP. They are incredibly dedicated, community-oriented officers. Constable Bali was described by his colleagues as a man of bravery, dedication and incredible community service. Police officers come under incredible scrutiny and criticism these days, yet they put on the uniform every day, knowing that they might not come home to their loved ones.
I want Constable Bali's family to know that the community of Dufferin—Caledon will never forget his service and his sacrifice for our community.
[Translation]
Oral Health Care
Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for the national capital region and eastern Ontario. Collège La Cité has received an investment of over $1.6 million to improve access to oral health care. This funding will be used to establish a mobile dental clinic providing services directly in our communities, including services for seniors and children, to reduce barriers to care.
[English]
Each outreach visit will be staffed with two dental technologists and two to four students, for whom this initiative will provide a valuable, hands-on internship experience.
[Translation]
The Collège La Cité clinic will also get a treatment room adapted for neurodivergent young people or those with other special needs. Through this initiative, families will be able to get care close to home in a welcoming, inclusive environment adapted to their needs.
[English]
The investment shows the engagement of the Government of Canada to make health care more accessible and equitable for all.
[Translation]
That is how we are building Canada strong.
[English]
Women Veterans
Mr. Speaker, two years ago, the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs unanimously tabled a pivotal report, “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. That title means something only because more than 50 women made it true. They sat before committee and relived military sexual trauma, wounds inflicted, at times by the very people who were supposed to stand beside them. They knew the cost, but they spoke anyway for every woman who has not served yet and deserves better. Angel, a veteran and survivor of military sexual trauma, did not testify, but she recognized herself in every word those women spoke. She wore the country's uniform with pride, yet something happened in that uniform, done by someone who should have had her back.
Those women kept their promise to Canada, but two years later, Canada is still working on keeping its promise to them. To the women veterans with us today and to those watching from home, this was not a plea for sympathy; it was a blueprint. They do not owe us anything more. We owe them so they will be invisible no more and not ignored again.
Beyond Housing
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary community leader in Kitchener—Conestoga, Mr. Martin Buhr.
For decades, Martin has worked tirelessly to ensure that people in need have a safe, affordable place to call home. As founding member of MennoHomes, which is now known as Beyond Housing, he built a legacy of compassion, inclusion and service that continues to strengthen our community.
This year, as Beyond Housing marks his 25th anniversary and Martin celebrates his 87th birthday, he is preparing for his final Out-Spok'n Bike-a-thon, a community event uniting riders, sponsors and supporters committed to affordable housing. Over the years, through this ride, Martin has raised more than $387,000, with a goal of reaching $500,000. Proceeds will support a 30-unit accessible apartment in Elmira. Martin's leadership has inspired countless people across Waterloo Region and reminds us about the difference one person can make.
On behalf of the grateful community in Kitchener—Conestoga, I thank him and wish him every success in his final ride. I will see Mr. Buhr tomorrow.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, we may well be the only G20 country in a recession. Why? It is because the Liberals are throwing taxpayers' money out the window. The Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on meals for just 14 flights in a single year.
The fact is that from May 16 to 19, 2025, from Ottawa to Rome, he spent $93,780 on food. That is a fact.
From November 18 to 24, 2025, from Ottawa to Athens via Johannesburg, he spent on $159,781 on food. That is another fact.
From January 5 to 7, 2026, from Ottawa to Paris, he spent $74,000 on food. That is another fact.
From January 13 to 22, 2026, from Ottawa to Zurich, he spent $175,248 on fine dining. That is another fact.
Clearly, the problem is not a lack of money. The problem is a lack of respect and accountability toward Canadians.
Michelin-Starred Inn in Mauricie
Mr. Speaker, June 12 is Quebec buy local day. To celebrate, I invite my colleagues to treat themselves to an unforgettable getaway at Auberge Saint-Mathieu, an inn in Saint-Mathieu-du-Parc that is renowned for its superlative cuisine.
After earning a green star from the famous Michelin Guide last year, this exceptional establishment was honoured once again this year with its first Michelin red star. These prestigious accolades recognize not only culinary excellence and refined flavours, but also this idyllic resort's deep commitment to sustainable gastronomy.
At this country inn nestled in a picture-perfect forest, chef Samy Benabed, who also won the Michelin Guide Quebec 2026 Young Chef Award, crafts locally sourced cuisine, harmoniously blending smoky barbecue aromas with Quebec spices and citrus fruits.
Congratulations to the entire team on this inspiring blend of flavours, local ingredients, and respect for the environment.
[English]
Multicultural Broadcasting
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an institution that has helped tell and shape the stories of a multicultural Canada for 60 years, CHIN Radio.
When founded in 1966 by the late Johnny Lombardi, who was a proud son of Italian immigrants, CHIN gave a voice to newcomers from around the world and helped pioneer multicultural broadcasting in Canada. Today, under the equally visionary leadership of his son, Lenny Lombardi, CHIN continues to build on that remarkable legacy, broadcasting to over 100 cultural communities in more than 50 languages.
As Toronto prepares to celebrate the Taste of Little Italy festival this weekend, we honour the Lombardi family's lasting contributions. We thank Lenny, and everyone at CHIN Radio, on the 60th anniversary of a remarkable institution that has helped to build an inclusive, vibrant Canada.
Grazie.
100th Anniversary of Picture Butte
Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise in the House today to extend congratulations to the town of Picture Butte on its 100th anniversary.
For a century, Picture Butte has been shaped by the values that define rural Canada: hard work, family and community spirit. What began as a small prairie settlement, marked by the establishment of its post office, has now grown into the livestock feeding capital of the entire country. That title reflects more than just an industry. It reflects generations of farmers, ranchers, workers and families whose dedication has helped feed Canadians and strengthen southern Alberta's economy.
From its farms and local businesses to its schools, churches and volunteers, Picture Butte continues to represent the very best of southern Alberta. To everyone who has built, served and strengthened this community over the past century, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude. Their legacy is one of vision, determination and generosity. As the member of Parliament for Lethbridge, I congratulate them on 100 years.
[Translation]
Artificial Intelligence
Mr. Speaker, people are coming out of the woodwork every day claiming to be AI experts. Some have contacted me, others have tried to meet with me and, recently, someone insisted that I read his book. I thought to myself, “Oh no, not another one!” I decided to take his advice anyway and read his book. Well, I followed his advice. The book showcases the extraordinary work of local entrepreneur Patrick Chenel, co-founder of ConqrAI and an AI strategy specialist with over 30 years of experience working with Quebec's biggest companies.
In his book AI‑Driven Enterprise, he proposes a concrete framework that focuses on three key dimensions: knowledge management, knowledge sovereignty and human-centred AI governance. At a time when Canada is adopting an AI strategy, that kind of thinking needs to be highlighted. It reminds us that AI must also be human-centred.
I call on the House to recognize Mr. Chenel's contribution to the public debate on AI and to encourage dialogue among the political, business and innovation communities.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in, and the Prime Minister is in way over his head. He is the only leader, not just in the G7 but also in the G20, who has led his country into a recession. What does this mean practically?
Since the Prime Minister will not stand in this place to answer questions about his record, I will: two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table; 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their personal finances; 40% lose sleep over how far they can stretch their paycheques; 38% face food insecurity; and last year, a whopping 2.2 million Canadians visited a food bank in a single month.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's office spent nearly $1 million in the last year alone on luxury inflight catering, including $175,000 for one trip last November. That catering bill would have been enough to feed a Canadian family for 55 years. Every dollar spent on luxury catering is a dollar that cannot go towards lowering taxes, building homes, improving public safety or helping Canadians put food on their own tables.
Conservatives are here and ready to get to work. Where is the Prime Minister?
Chief Curator of the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of Johanna Mizgala, chief curator of the House of Commons, who will leave the House at the end of September.
A few months after she started working in the House, Ms. Mizgala showed leadership and grace under actual fire, keeping a group of parliamentary guides calm as shots rang out and she led them to safety.
As Speaker, I saw her love and passion first-hand as she worked to preserve our history and heritage for all Canadians.
[Translation]
She helped bring our history to life through interviews and reports on significant milestones, such as the centenary of the Parliament Hill fire, and key events in our history, such as the 20th anniversary of Nunavut and the 150th anniversary of Confederation. She also helped create the Room of Remembrance in West Block.
[English]
Many of us know her personally, as she shared her expertise widely. We thank her for her remarkable service and wish her every success in her next chapter.
Affordability
Mr. Speaker, Canadian food banks continue to see record increases. Back home, the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank's demand has tripled in just five years. Canadians do not need Liberal talking heads on TV or members across the aisle to tell them that we are in a recession. They feel it every day when trying to feed their families. We have two out of five Canadians struggling to put food on the table, 60% feeling anxiety about their personal finances and 40% literally losing sleep wondering how they are going to make ends meet.
At the same time, the Prime Minister has spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering over the last year, a catering bill that could feed a Canadian family for years. Clearly, when the Prime Minister told Canadians to make sacrifices, he was talking about common people feeding their families and not his mile-high caviar and champagne menu.
Why is it that we always get lectures and gaslighting from the elitist net-zero banker class while ordinary people who build the country are the ones who have to pay the price?
Women Veterans
Mr. Speaker, today is the second anniversary of the tabling of the ACVA committee report entitled “Invisible No More. The Experiences of Canadian Women Veterans”. The report makes 42 recommendations and emphasizes the need to address health and research gaps, economic and social challenges, military sexual trauma, and the systemic barriers for women getting the services they are entitled to. Behind every recommendation was a woman who came forward to share her story. These are stories of service, of sacrifice, of resilience and too often, of feeling unseen.
Many of those women are here in Parliament today. As co-chair of the parliamentary friendship group for veterans, I will share that we will be hosting a round table discussion this afternoon with the Invisible No More project to talk about the progress made on the recommendations and what remains to be done.
As we mark this anniversary, I thank all women veterans. We see them and we hear them.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, Canada mourns the loss of Constable Marc Pinizzotto. The Globe has reported that a search warrant executed yesterday related to the shootings at a synagogue and the U.S. consulate. U.S. prosecutors linked these shootings to an IRGC‑backed terrorist network that is behind 18 attacks in the U.S., Canada and Europe.
A year ago, the government identified nearly 30 Iranian regime operatives who should be deported. Since then, only one has been deported. What action is the minister taking to protect Canadians from IRGC operatives on Canadian soil?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.
The government has taken all necessary measures. We are taking this situation very seriously. We have reviewed 18,000 Iranian visas. All men of military age have been screened and scrutinized. We subsequently carried out 280 investigations and concluded that 30 Iranian residents may have to return to their country.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the government is carrying out a great deal of analysis.
[English]
The death of Constable Marc Pinizzotto is not an isolated incident.
Canadians are afraid. People are shooting bullets at synagogues, community centres, businesses and, now, the U.S. consulate in Toronto. Public safety is a national security matter. Canadians deserve answers.
What new action is the government taking to protect Canadians and foreign diplomats from IRGC operatives operating here in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Constable Pinizzotto, as well as officers of the Toronto Police Service. Constable Pinizzotto was killed while participating in an investigation relating to multiple shootings in Toronto, including the shooting of the U.S. consulate. Updates will be provided as more information is available. We will know more in the next day as the investigation progresses. We will make this information—
Mr. Speaker, U.S. prosecutors have linked the U.S. consulate and synagogue shootings to an IRGC terrorist network. In 2023, Global News reported that upward of 700 regime‑linked associates could be operating in Canada. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 Iranian regime operatives who were here in Canada should be deported. Since then, reports have indicated that only one has been deported.
Can the government confirm if more than one individual has been deported in the last year?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, we heard from the Conservatives and the government. In a rare moment of unity, we expressed sympathy with what has happened. We condemned what has happened, and we continue to condemn what has happened.
The hon. member knows very well that the IRGC has been listed as a terrorist entity since 2024 in this country, and we will always continue to act in accordance with public safety. Investigations on visas are ongoing as well. We will continue to do everything we have to do to keep Canadians safe. That is what we will do.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Prime Minister said that the PRC's foreign interference was the greatest threat to the security of Canada. The government now has a strategic partnership with the PRC. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 operatives linked to the Iranian regime were here in Canada and should be deported. A year later, only one has been deported.
How can Canadians believe that the government is treating foreign interference seriously and taking actions to protect them here on Canadian soil?
Mr. Speaker, we continue to entrust law enforcement, in particular the men and women of the Canada Border Services Agency, to do what is necessary to keep Canadians safe. As I said before, since 2024, the IRGC has been recognized as a terrorist entity. Everything we do will be in accordance with public safety. Individuals who break the law are absolutely the focus of the government and the CBSA, and they can be deported.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are with the police officer's family.
Two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, food banks are breaking records and workers are being forced to live in their trailers when that is all they can afford. However, the Prime Minister is continuing with the extravagant spending and the inflationary policies that have plunged Canada into a recession. It is the only G20 country in a recession.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to admit that his decisions are hurting Canadian families?
Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for my colleague. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced Canada's national food security strategy.
This strategy is built on four key pillars: investing in our regional food infrastructure to increase choice and competition, processing more food here in Canada, increasing year-round production of fruits and vegetables, and cutting red tape. That is how we will put more Canadian food on the table and bring down the cost of groceries.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has been in power for 11 years and it is still coming up with plans and conducting analyses. Meanwhile, Canadians are desperate.
While 2.2 million Canadians are being forced to turn to food banks, 38% are experiencing food insecurity and families are spending more than 120% of their income on housing and groceries, the Liberals are continuing with their inflationary spending.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to admit that his policies created this cost of living crisis?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the national food security strategy will lower the cost of groceries.
More specifically, we will invest $1 billion to boost food processing here in Canada. Right now, we are sending our agricultural products abroad for processing. Now, we will invest in this sector. That will give Canadians more choice, put more Canadian foods on grocery stores shelves and make groceries a lot more affordable for Canadian families.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, changes to the New Horizons for Seniors program are threatening hundreds of community projects.
Organizations have barely a month to register as a business, obtain a registration number and then submit their projects. Otherwise, they will be disqualified. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Seniors responded to this concern by telling them to figure it out themselves, that there is still plenty of time. For these volunteers who have no resources, July 14 may as well be tomorrow.
Will the government delay its changes instead of treating our community organizations with contempt?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we announced these changes to the New Horizons for Seniors program almost a month before the applications opened up, and we made these changes, requiring the CRA business number, to ensure the integrity of the program.
Here is what CanAge has to say about these changes. It has said that it is pleased to see this important step to ensure the integrity of the program. It believes that the simplified grant format, ease of reporting requirements and significant supports available for community-based organizations ensure that this program remains accessible and inclusive.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, anyone who has ever dealt with the Canada Revenue Agency or Service Canada knows that it is never that straightforward.
We are talking about volunteers who take care of seniors, not experts on red tape. All the minister is being asked to do is to postpone her reform until the organizations that are eligible to register have a chance to do so, with enough time to ensure that the smallest local organizations that cannot register are not unfairly disqualified.
Is it too much to ask that a little empathy be shown for our volunteers?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, these changes are important to ensure the integrity of the program, but we also want to make sure that all of the wonderful senior-servicing organizations across Canada have the support they need. That is why Service Canada has provided additional resources to ensure that signing up for the business number is easy.
There is a 15- to 30-minute process to make sure that this happens online, but there are also supports available to help seniors over the phone. More than that, there are supports through their local MPs' offices. If the member had attended our sessions, he would know that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this government is showing a lack of empathy for seniors and community organizations with its hasty reform of the New Horizons for Seniors program. Its attitude is jeopardizing hundreds of projects that break seniors' isolation and encourage them to have an active social life. The federal government should be thanking the volunteers who dedicate their time and effort to these projects, not treating them like potential fraudsters. All these organizations want is for the government to delay its reform to ensure that seniors are not left behind.
Will the government delay the reform?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from seniors organizations across this country applauding the changes we have made to the New Horizons for Seniors program, which are ensuring that we have doubled the amount available to senior-servicing organizations but also ensuring the integrity of the program for years to come. This was one of the very few grants left in the Government of Canada that did not have these requirements, and this will ensure for years to come that this program is something seniors can rely on.
Mr. Speaker, CTV reported that seniors in Richmond Centre—Marpole are sleeping in Tim Hortons because they cannot afford a place to live, while the Prime Minister spends nearly $1 million on luxury catering in his taxpayer-funded aircraft. Canada is the only G20 country in recession. Canadians cannot afford food, rent or housing.
Why does the Prime Minister refuse to accept the fact that his policies are failing Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, seniors across this country know that they can rely on this Liberal government to support them and have their backs. While it is heartbreaking to read about what is happening to some of these seniors, including in Richmond, that party over there would do nothing for them. It would walk away from the problem and say, “Pull yourselves up by your bootstraps.”
What we are doing is providing a social safety net, including old age security, the groceries and essentials benefit and the newly announced food security strategy. More than that, we are building over 500,000 homes a year.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is seeing a growing homeless senior population. Emergency shelters are overflowing, and seniors are saying that they do not feel safe staying in them. After working their entire lives, seniors surviving on a pension should not be sleeping in restaurants or searching for a safe place to spend the night. Canadians deserve better than this Liberal-made affordability crisis.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that created this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?
Mr. Speaker, maybe that member of Parliament wants to look at the voting record of his party. In fact, the Conservatives have fought against seniors. They have fought against increases to OAS, and they have fought against increases to GIS, very important supplements to seniors' income. Every step of the way, as we have given seniors the support and the dignity they need, the Conservatives have voted against those measures. It is shameful to hear them get up in this House and talk about supporting seniors when they could very easily lend their hand to the work.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, of all the countries in the G20, Canada is the only one in a recession, and it is no mystery why. The Liberals' inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies created this recession and cost of living crisis. It is not global forces; it is Liberal choices.
Why can the Prime Minister not understand that Canadians cannot afford to make ends meet, that his costly policies are driving the G20's only recession and that his policies are failing Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the members opposite on how to grow the economy. They have been here collectively 51,000 days. That is how long the Conservatives from Saskatchewan have sat here and done absolutely nothing to help Saskatchewan or our Canadian economy.
We are grappling with tariffs, trade uncertainty and conflicts, but the work will continue. Since September, we have created over 164 new jobs in this Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberal member from Saskatchewan does not know what he is talking about. I have been here for a lot less than 10 years, and before I was elected, a Liberal MP represented my riding. During that time, the Liberals gave us the carbon tax, the “no more pipelines” bill and the west coast tanker ban, which led to thousands of job losses in the Saskatchewan oil patch.
On the rare occasion when this member does attend a cabinet meeting, will he tell the Prime Minister to reverse his costly policies so that Canadians can afford to live again?
As a correction, Mr. Speaker, we have created 164,000 new jobs since September.
The member from Regina mentioned a great leader from Saskatchewan. I will compare Ralph Goodale's record to the entire Conservative caucus from Saskatchewan any day of the week. I want to point out that he did more in his time as an MP than the entire Conservative caucus. I want to repeat that—
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country with a prime minister to take the nation into recession. Full-time workers are living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford homes. Families are spending more on food and rent than they are earning. People are making impossible choices just to survive. At the same time, every single day we learn about another instance of wasteful spending by the Prime Minister that exceeds even Justin Trudeau's record.
Will the Prime Minister finally reverse the costly Liberal policies that caused the recession?
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Canadian economy prove to be much more resilient than anticipated. We had $11.5 billion less of a deficit. The economy, in the last job numbers, added 88,000 jobs, 800%, exceeding expectations, recovering 80% of job losses due to the trade war with the United States. That is good news for our country, but it is not the only good news. We also had a 1.5% increase in consumer spending. We have wages outpacing inflation in every month this government has been in power. That is good news for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to take his nation into recession, and Canadians are paying the price. The average family now works 160 days a year just to pay taxes. It means people will work until this week just to pay the government before they can actually start earning for themselves. At a time when families are struggling, the Liberals keep spending, borrowing and wasting more taxpayer dollars.
Why do the Liberals refuse to admit that their costly policies have driven Canada into recession and are failing Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, if Conservatives are so concerned with supporting Canadians' affordability and the economy and wanting to keep people employed and supported, why did they spend 25 hours this week filibustering a bill that would support workers across Canada? That bill has tax deductions, the labour mobility tax deduction, which would support workers who travel for work, and would put $6,000 more in those workers' pockets every single year moving forward.
We see job numbers going up, especially in the skilled trades in this country, due to our government—
Mr. Speaker, while the high-flying Prime Minister is racking up a $1-million debt for luxury inflight catering, many Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table. There were 2.2 million Canadians who went to a food bank in one month last year alone, but the Prime Minister is living the high life, even though he is leading the only G20 country into a recession.
Will the Prime Minister reverse his failed policies that are causing this food affordability crisis so that Canadians can afford to live again?
Mr. Speaker, I did not think they would have the guts to ask a question on that basis, given that we just found out the leader of the Conservative Party squandered over $8 million on Stornoway. If we want to talk about accountability in terms of leaders' expenses, I think those on the other side should look in the mirror, where they will witness a massive abuse of tax dollars by the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.
[Translation]
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, 70 scientists from 17 countries updated the climate change data from the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Paris Agreement's global warming target is no longer achievable. Sea levels continue to rise at twice the previous rate, and the number of days with extreme marine heat has tripled. What is to blame? Well, it is fossil fuels. What is the government doing? It is building a new pipeline and new gas pipelines without conducting an environmental assessment.
How can the Liberals follow the Prime Minister in this madness?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we cannot build a clean Canada if we are not working together. We are thinking differently and strategically to deliver results for Canadians. We have introduced new methane regulations. We have brought Alberta to the table. We have actually brought Canada's largest-emitting province to the table. We will soon also be launching our clean electricity strategy to double our grid in the next number of years. It is something we have promised Canadians. We are going to give this to Canadians today, tomorrow and for future generations, and that is why I am proud to stand on this side of the aisle.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not listening to the science when it comes to the environment, just as he does not listen to his former environment ministers, his net-zero advisory body, whose members have resigned, or even his own members, according to media reports. He does not listen to anyone except the interests of American oil and gas company owners. He is keeping all the power in his own hands to build pipelines that line the pockets of Americans.
If this is the strong Canada that the Liberals want to build, then do they realize that we are going to pass on that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, on top of what I just said, we have also released the nature strategy. We are going to be protecting 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. In fact, about two weeks ago, I went to Klemtu on the coast of British Columbia, where I was standing with the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. We announced with seven first nations in the province of British Columbia a plan to protect over 6,700 square kilometres of coast. That is equivalent to 1.5 times the size of Banff National Park and larger than Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, we all know the Liberals' economic plan. It involves $141 billion in new spending, a $67-billion deficit in just one year and a budget that repeats the word “investment” 786 times but spends like there is no tomorrow.
Canada is the only G20 country in a recession because of those decisions. Recently, 6,000 Canadians wrote to me, and their key message was clear: The cost of living is crushing them.
After 11 years of Liberal decisions that have held back Canada's development and that tax Canadians, their decisions have led us to a recession and a position of weakness.
When will the Liberals admit that they need to urgently change course?
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been doing for the past year: changing course.
We recognize that we are in a very complicated situation because of the tariff war and the global economic situation. That is why we have introduced policies to help diversify our economy.
Now, I also want to tell my colleague that, over the weekend, perhaps he could consult the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council to get a real definition of what is going on right now.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to point the finger at others, but when we see a prime minister spending $159,000 on inflight meals for a single trip, we understand why his decisions have led us straight into a recession.
While Quebeckers are counting every penny at the grocery store, the Liberals are spending taxpayers' money as if it were Monopoly money.
When will the government show some respect for taxpayers' money and start making decisions that ease their financial burden rather than always raising taxes to fund the Liberal pharaoh's ideological projects?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should recognize that the expertise of the International Monetary Fund and the OECD is well recognized across the globe. They say that Canada's economy has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. It is expected to have the second-highest growth. That is good news for our country. I know it sounds like bad news to Conservatives, but it is good news for Canada. We have the fiscal capacity and we are using it to invest in the growth of our economy to make sure we have prosperity for future generations. That is good-paying jobs for Canadians for generations—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it has been a year since the Prime Minister took office. Over that year, the situation in Canada has deteriorated.
Just imagine: Under his leadership as a well-known international banker, the result is that Canada, under this Prime Minister, is the only G20 country in recession. Inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development policies have created this recession and, above all, have led to a cost-of-living crisis.
When will we see concrete results for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, once again, I suggest that our colleagues in the Conservative Party consult the C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council over the weekend to gain a proper understanding of what is currently happening in the Canadian economy.
Beyond that, I would also like to mention to the House that short-term and long-term interest rates in Canada are stable. What does that mean?
It indicates that the financial markets have full confidence in the Canadian economy and full confidence in how the Government of Canada is managing the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member and parliamentary secretary is going to spend the weekend carefully looking over Statistics Canada data, which state that over the past four quarters under the new Prime Minister's leadership, the results have been negative three times. That is the reality.
The reality is also that Canada has the worst inflation in the G7. The reality is also that 2.2 million Canadians have to use food banks to eat. That is the reality.
The Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he would be judged on the prices at the grocery store. Does he think of those prices when he invoices $1 million to eat on his airplane?
Mr. Speaker, there is a whole jumble of things in there. Anyway, let us focus on what I think is the main thing: the statistics.
Let us look at the statistics. What the statistics also say is that Canada's economy created 88,000 jobs in May, including 150,000 full-time jobs. Most of these new jobs were in construction. I am assuming that if people are being hired to work in construction, the purpose is to build something. There are indeed 27,000 new jobs in construction. That is where we are headed.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' out-of-control spending has plunged Canada into a recession. While Canadians are working hard just to put food on the table, the Prime Minister is treating himself on the taxpayers' dime. He spent $1 million on meals for just 14 flights. Here is a sample of what the Prime Minister enjoys: Normandy butter cups that cost $593. Unbelievable. He also enjoys crème brûlée that cost $4,213, chocolate mousse that cost $3,008 and $17,000 worth of salmon in just three flights. That must have been some very fresh salmon.
Can the Prime Minister show a little respect for our taxpayers?
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel all over Quebec last summer and to meet with farmers in my colleague's region. I can say one thing. Farmers are very happy with the national food security strategy. One way to make food more affordable for Canadian families is to do more processing here in Canada. We are investing $3.2 billion in the food supply chain in Quebec and across Canada.
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, Canada's hearts are broken at the loss of two of our frontline police officers, two brave individuals who gave their lives protecting our communities. Our frontline officers put themselves in harm's way every single day to keep us all safe, and this tragedy is being deeply felt across the entire policing community and by all Canadians.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety speak to the courage and sacrifice of these two officers?
Mr. Speaker, I was heartbroken to learn about Toronto Police Constable Marc Pinizzotto, who was killed in the line of duty yesterday. My heart is with his family and loved ones. With an 18-year stellar record, Marc was known as someone who was courageous and respected, and a man who put others before himself. His death comes only days after OPP Constable Tarun Bali was also killed in the line of duty. Mr. Bali was known as someone who just wanted to help others.
To all our frontline officers, we thank for them work they do each and every day to keep all Canadians safe. We appreciate their service.
Health
Mr. Speaker, 300 million tax dollars were wasted on PrescribeIT. Liberal members of the health committee have refused every request to answer why or how. The Minister of Health and the CEO must testify. Canadians want to know how their tax dollars were wasted on this boondoggle.
Will the Liberal minister agree it is time to stop the secrets, keep the cameras on and investigate PrescribeIT in public?
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the minister has answered this question many times in question period and many times during committee work. We have been very open and transparent. Infoway has dismissed the CEO. We supported that decision. We are also reviewing the Infoway mandate to make sure it aligns with opening up health data for Canadians. The funding decision will be made after the review.
Mr. Speaker, I would take that member more seriously if she did not keep turning the cameras off and voting to seal committee records for 30 years when we call for an audit. Conservatives have been clear that we will work through the summer to get a full accounting on $300 million wasted on PrescribeIT, but they must leave the cameras on.
Canadians want to know: Will they hear about PrescribeIT on Tuesday or will the Liberal parliamentary secretary turn the cameras off again?
Mr. Speaker, as the Conservatives farm outrage, we are working hard on behalf of Canadians.
I am glad that member brought it up. That party has spent over 20 hours obstructing a Liberal motion to study HIV in Manitoba. How can they claim they care about Canadians' health when they block motions like that? I think Canadians can see the difference.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, the $300 million Liberal cover-up continues.
Liberals at the health committee continue blocking the investigation into PrescribeIT and hoping Canadians forget about the scandal that is turning into a possible contempt of Parliament. Even the Liberals were frustrated when they did not get answers from disgraced former CEO Michael Green, but then the Prime Minister yelled, “Be quiet,” and the cover-up began.
When will the Liberals at the health committee find their spine and finally end the cover-up?
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, so far in 2026, the U.S. Customs authority has blocked 1,198 shipments worth about $75 million on concerns with forced labour. I know this because the U.S. authorities make their data publicly available. I checked it this morning.
In contrast, the Liberal government does not. When I asked for this information at the Standing Committee on International Trade, I received a written response that said the government is “unable to provide the requested information”.
If the U.S. authorities can make their data publicly available to see, why can the Liberal government not?
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, Canada and the United States share the goal of keeping goods produced through forced labour out of our supply chains.
Canada already has strong protections in place, and we will take further action to strengthen them through new legislation. We will continue to work closely with our partners to uphold high labour standards and ensure fair rules-based trade.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the law, whether that is the current law or any subsequent law the government may introduce. The issue is the Liberal government's complete and utter negligence in enforcing the current law.
Now the Liberals have been caught, and that failure is threatening our entire economy with new tariffs. The U.S. regularly blocks shipments. Last year, they blocked shipments from the world's largest bicycle manufacturer, Giant Manufacturing Company. Those bicycles are available in Canada today, at two stores in Ottawa and three in the Toronto region.
Can the government confirm for the House whether or not those bicycles available today were made with forced labour?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has been taking concrete action to combat forced labour through the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act, which the Liberal government passed in 2024.
Under this act, government institutions and businesses must report on the risks of forced and child labour in their supply chains, and outline the steps they are taking to address them. This is about increasing transparency, strengthening accountability and ensuring Canadian supply chains reflect Canadian values.
Labour
Mr. Speaker, Port aux Basques and Argentia ferries are critical to Newfoundland's economy. They supply our food, medication and everything else. However, the union's agreement ended in December. The unions have been fighting for a deal ever since.
This Prime Minister was elected on the premise that he was supposed to be a great negotiator, the one to go against Trump, the saviour in the Trump negotiations, and yet we are 17 days away from a strike.
Is it that the Prime Minister is not able to make a deal or that he refuses to make it a priority?
Mr. Speaker, first, let me be clear, it is not the Prime Minister or the Government of Canada that is going to make a deal. In fact, it is the employer and the union. That is how labour relations work in this country.
We do have a federal mediation service. Federal mediation service is with the parties. We urge the parties to continue to negotiate for a fair collective agreement. We will be there with all of the support necessary to get that agreement in place.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to let that minister in on a little secret. These ferries are a federal Crown corporation. Canada has just entered into a recession. Tourism businesses across this country are still having to pay off COVID debt. More small businesses in this country are closing than opening. Insolvencies are higher since 2000.
Nobody in Canada and in Newfoundland can afford this strike, including the union workers. Will this federal Crown corporation and these Liberals take responsibility, and get a fair deal for Marine Atlantic workers?
Mr. Speaker, I think the president of the Crown corporation might be a bit surprised if the Prime Minister showed up to negotiate this collective agreement. Instead, we will do what we have done for centuries. We will let employers work with employees. We will provide them with the support through the federal mediation service so they can negotiate this collective agreement, and we will help make sure they get that over the finish line.
That is how labour negotiations are done in this country, with respect for employers and for unions, something this member ought to know.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, there we go again. While one in five Canadians goes hungry, the Prime Minister is somewhere over the Atlantic tucking into another three‑course meal on the taxpayers' dime. In the last year, he spent nearly $1 million on luxury inflight catering, and now he is on another trip, leaving behind countless Canadians wondering how they will afford their next meal.
When will this high-flying, fine-dining Prime Minister stop wasting taxpayer dollars so Canadians can eat again?
Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the member opposite. Just yesterday, Canada announced the first‑ever national food security strategy, with over $3 billion in investments, and investments that are strategic. They are smart investments in building regional supply chain capacity, ensuring that we can have shorter and more resilient supply chains in Canada, that we can support independent grocers and that we can have more competition and bring down prices for the average Canadian. That is exactly what Canadians want to see. They want to see progress at the grocery store—
Mr. Speaker, is that member picking up what I am laying down? That strategy will not feed a single Canadian who cannot afford groceries today because of Liberal policies that have put us in a recession. Maybe the Prime Minister would know this if he was not so eager to flee the country and the people his policies are hurting the most. Instead of champagne wishes and caviar dreams in Paris, why does the Prime Minister not come home and face the 2.2 million Canadians lined up at the food banks?
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite has the Holland Marsh in his riding, a lot of fruit and vegetable growers who are growing great produce for Canadian and Ontarian families. I know that his riding and people in his riding would support a national food security strategy that invests in seasonal extension and that builds processing and distribution capacity in regions across Ontario and across Canada alike.
That will improve our economy. That will improve competition. That will bring down grocery prices in the long term. These are the root causes of insecurity in Canada, and we are dealing with them.
[Translation]
Youth
Mr. Speaker, happy Friday. One in four young Canadians between 12 and 17 years of age has been the victim of cyberbullying. Not only that, youths who are victimized online are three times more likely to have suicidal thoughts. Stakeholders nationwide are sounding the alarm.
Can the Secretary of State for Children and Youth tell the House what the government is doing to protect our children from the dangers they are exposed to online?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Parents are asking us to help protect their children from being harmed by social media and we are listening. The safe social media act implements a minimum age requirement of 16 years to access social media, and three strict duties: the duty to protect children, the duty to act responsibly and the duty to make certain content inaccessible.
We are taking action because our children deserve it.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, luxury Normandy butter cups, beef tenderloin, braised beef with wine reduction and crème brûlée were included in 95,000 dollars' worth of luxury meals on one flight, $1 million in the last 12 months. Meanwhile, a quarter of Canadians are food-insecure. Surely there is not a Liberal member who is going to stand up and justify that, when 2.2 million Canadians go to an increasingly empty food bank every single month.
Mr. Speaker, I would look to Conservative Party members to actually demonstrate genuine sympathy and capacity to come up with ideas that will make a positive difference. The national food strategy that was announced yesterday is tangible. Unlike the Conservatives, as a government we provide good ideas that will make a difference. The Conservatives continue to vote against them, such as the national food program in our schools, which they called “garbage”.
We will be there to have the backs of Canadians, contrary to the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th time the Liberals have announced they are going to make food cheaper for Canadians. Forgive me if I do not believe a single word that these guys say. It is another national program to do something to deliver something, like the housing accelerator, which did not accelerate anything except giving money to municipalities that actually did not build more homes.
If they want to get food affordability under control, they can cut the expensive things they have done, like increasing the cost of packaging and making fresh food more expensive with their plastics regulations. Why do they not cut their costly plans and taxes to make food affordable for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, stakeholders across Canada are saying that this $3.2-billion strategy on food security will make food affordable for Canadians. There will be four key strategies. We will build local, regional infrastructure so that we have more options and more affordability. We will produce more. We will transform more of our own food here in Canada. We will create more jobs, and we will grow, all year long, fruits and vegetables.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians strength and stability, but under his watch, Canada became the only G20 country in a recession. That is the result of Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and anti-development policies that have crushed workers, businesses and families. Canadians deserve a Prime Minister who takes responsibility, not one who hides behind excuses.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his policies caused the crisis, or will he keep pretending Canadians are not struggling under his watch?
Mr. Speaker, if Conservatives ever wonder why Canadians do not trust them and elect them as government, it is unserious questions like this, and what we continue to see in this House is great evidence of this.
As all Canadians know, we are living in some very challenging times. We are engaged in an unjustified trade war with the United States. There are wars that are going on in the world that have an impact not only on the Canadian economy, but on the economy worldwide. However, we are focused on building our economy by making sure that we are engaged in diversifying our trade. We will continue to do that work to create good-paying jobs for all Canadians.
Employment
Mr. Speaker, in South Shore—St. Margarets, every summer we see young people across our communities stepping into jobs, gaining confidence, experiences and new skills and contributing to the local businesses and organizations that make our region so vibrant. This summer, the government has added an additional 25,000 jobs to the Canada summer jobs program, giving the opportunity for 100,000 kids to gain hands-on experience. In my riding, there are over 300.
Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please share how this program is helping communities?
Mr. Speaker, I thank that member for her hard work representing her constituency, which I have had the honour of visiting. In fact, many programs in her riding, and indeed across Canada, hire students for the summer through the Canada summer jobs program, over 100,000 students this summer. This provides young people an opportunity, quality work experience that they can add to their résumés and some earnings that they can use for their education. It also provides employers a source of new talent, something that many rural communities know is needed.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, as a cop, I was trained to ask questions when the facts did not match the story. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister said the Gordie Howe bridge was opening this weekend, and yesterday he said Canada agreed to a delay at the request of the U.S., because of technical issues, apparently. When asked the question of what the issue was, he had no answer. The bridge is built, and the staff are in place. The people in Windsor have been patient for years. Now they are getting fed up and tired of this drama, so what is the real reason for this delay, and why will the Liberal government not be honest with Canadians, who paid $6.4 billion U.S. for this bridge?
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that the Gordie Howe International Bridge is a vital economic link between Canada and the United States. As we work toward an opening date, we are taking a collaborative approach, reflecting our shared ambition for this important trade corridor. As an entire team, we are committed to the timely opening of the bridge, and I hope the member opposite is ready to work with us to deliver on this important national infrastructure project as we take a team Canada approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the genocide in Gaza has claimed 70,000 lives, including 20,000 children. The humanitarian situation remains dire, with infrastructure in ruins. In the meantime, life for Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is appalling. Illegal settlements are multiplying. Palestinian villages, homes and farms are being destroyed on a regular basis. According to the UN, there are an average of six attacks per day against Palestinians in the West Bank. I repeat: six per day.
When are the Liberals going to take action and suspend our trade relations with the Netanyahu regime?
Mr. Speaker, today, I want to share the fact that Canada is taking concrete steps to support a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
We have joined forces with Australia and the United Kingdom to establish a new International Peace Fund. Canada will contribute $2 million over three years alongside its partners, and the funding will be provided to recognized and trusted civil society organizations.
This initiative demonstrates our firm commitment to a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side.
[English]
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have been advocating for a Filipino cultural centre in metro Vancouver for many years. Our persistence resulted in the federal budget committing to fund this much-needed community resource. After the Lapu-Lapu tragedy, this centre is needed now more than ever. The Filipino Canadian community contributes so much to our country. It deserves a place to call home.
When will the government honour its promise and deliver the funds necessary to make the Filipino cultural centre a reality?
Mr. Speaker, this is a timely question, as it is Filipino Heritage Month. As the member knows, we are making historic investments in infrastructure with the build communities strong fund. We are investing from coast to coast to coast. We look forward to working alongside that member and alongside communities so that we can build Canada strong.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
Office of the Veterans Ombud
[English]
Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson
Ban on Importing Goods Made with Forced Labour Act
Hon. Sean Fraser (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour.(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Interparliamentary Delegations
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas GLOBE COP27 Legislators Summit, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, November 6-18, 2022; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of ParlAmericas Open Parliament Network, Santiago, Chile, April 20-22, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 7th Gathering of the ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and the 15th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network Gender Equality, Mexico City, Mexico, September 27-29, 2023; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Visit to Costa Rica and Dominican Republic, San José, Costa Rica, and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, March 11-15, 2024; a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas 8th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network on Climate Change and Sustainability and 16th Gathering of ParlAmericas Parliamentary Network for Gender Equality, San José, Costa Rica, October 23-25, 2024; and, finally, a report of the Canadian Section of ParlAmericas Bilateral Mission, Guatemala City, Guatemala, November 13-15, 2024.
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development: the ninth report, entitled “Amplifying Canada's Africa Strategy”, and the 10th report, entitled “Standing with Democracy and Human Rights Defenders: Strengthening Support at a Critical Time”, by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
Used Car Tax Cut Act
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (used motor vehicles).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise for the first time as a member of Parliament to present a private member's bill. I will give a little bit of context. Since 2019, the price of a used car in Canada has doubled. Even though new automobiles are taxed at the full rate, when cars are resold, Canadians have to pay tax yet again, being doubly taxed for something, and potentially being taxed triply or quadruply.
For most Canadians, especially in rural areas, driving is a necessity. This is a very important affordability measure I am putting forward in the bill, which would cut the GST on used cars, saving Canadians thousands of dollars and standing up for the middle class. It is a great honour to present this private member's bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture. The petitioners are concerned that the current health of animals regulations allow the export of live horses for slaughter. Petitioners are concerned that this causes suffering due to long journeys and inhumane conditions.
The petitioners call for a ban on the export of live horses for slaughter.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a couple of petitions from Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, which I am honoured to represent.
The first petition has to do with rural transit, which is vital in our communities. The petitioners are concerned that the Government of Canada's rural transit solutions fund has invested in bus transit feasibility studies in rural Ontario and Alberta, but Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has been poorly served by the loss of Greyhound buses in 2018, and there is no transit service available for residents that they can rely on.
Transport Canada is owner and operator of the Penticton Airport. Many times, airports are being utilized across the country as hubs for bus services, so the petitioners are asking that we establish in their communities a rural transit options service for residents and communities in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay and to declare that Penticton Airport be available for private busing operators who wish to utilize it as a passenger hub.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition relates to the Government of Canada's gun buyback plan. The Liberals call it a gun buyback plan, but it is obviously not working. It should be focused on gun violence and illegal guns being smuggled, from the United States in particular. We have six border crossings in our riding, so one can imagine that residents are very concerned about smuggled guns, as everyone member of the House is.
Instead, right now, the plan places new burdens on law-abiding firearms owners, who already follow some of the strictest rules in the world for owning firearms. The program is expected to cost more than $700 million.
Therefore, the petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada scrap what it calls the gun buyback program, and focus on border security, stopping illegal gun smuggling and going after real criminals, rather than targeting responsible gun owners in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great honour to present a petition on behalf of the Gwich'in, Na-cho Nyäk Dun, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in and Inuvialuit peoples. The petition was signed while I was present in the beautiful community of Old Crow, Yukon, during our annual Vadzaih Choo Drin, Big Caribou Days, celebration in May.
The essence of this petition is to ensure that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the place the Gwich'in call Iizhik Gwats’an Gwandaii Goodlit, the sacred place where life begins, calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herd, continues to be protected from oil and gas leasing and development.
For generations, the Vuntut Gwitchin have lived alongside and cared for the herd. They understand that protecting the porcupine caribou herd means protecting the heart of who they are as Gwich'in and safeguarding the continued health, culture and sovereignty of their community. At Vadzaih Choo Drin, I heard directly from young people who spoke passionately about what the caribou mean to their future. Their message was simple and powerful: Caribou is life.
Allow me to briefly refer to some clauses in the petition. Any oil and gas leasing and development within the refuge represents a direct threat to the health of the herd and the well-being of the Gwich'in and other first nations and Inuvialuit users of the herd. The caribou, along with numerous other migratory bird and fish species within the refuge, are culturally and substantially important to the people of Yukon and Northwest Territories as a whole.
The petitioning citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to take all steps necessary to uphold the rights of the Gwich'in, Na-cho Nyäk Dun, Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in and Inuvialuit, and to protect the porcupine caribou herd and its sacred calving grounds from U.S. oil and gas leasing and development, in keeping with Canada's commitments under international and Canadian law and the will of the Yukon people.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition signed by hundreds of citizens. In light of the 70,000 Palestinians killed by bombings in Gaza, including 350 since the ceasefire, the failure to comply with several UN resolutions and the illegal boarding of several ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to denounce before the UN General Assembly these illegal acts committed by the current government of Israel and the failure to comply with UN resolutions; to call for a full ceasefire and the restoration of humanitarian aid to enable the peaceful reconstruction of Gaza; and to announce, in the same address to the UN, its intention to implement a full economic embargo, inviting other countries to join the embargo, citing the past initiative that brought an end to apartheid, in which Canada played a leading role at the time.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of Windsor-Essex, such as Mike Fisher and The Friends of Ojibway Prairie, regarding the future of national urban parks and the proposed Ojibway National Urban Park.
The petitioners recognize Canada's commitment to establish up to 15 national urban parks and believe these important national spaces require clear legislative protection, ecologically grounded boundaries, and governance that includes the meaningful participation of indigenous nations and local communities. They also know the ecological significance of the Ojibway Prairie Complex and other nationally important landscapes.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to establish a legislative framework for national urban parks and to expedite the creation of this important network of protected spaces across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by nearly 1,000 Canadians, mainly from my riding of Richmond Centre—Marpole, who are concerned about mental health and about suicide prevention in Canada.
The petitioners note that one in five Canadians experiences a mental health challenge each year, that many youth are affected and that suicide remains the second-leading cause of death among Canadians aged 15 to 34. They believe that people struggling with mental illness deserve treatment, support and a message of hope, not an option of death.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-218 to exclude mental illness from MAID, and to invest in critical resources in mental health services for Canadians.
I thank the petitioners for bringing this important matter before Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petition e-6791, signed by 1,084 people. I imagine that most of them are from the disability community.
The petition is heart-wrenching to read. I know I cannot read it aloud but must summarize it. It is about the number of Canadians with disabilities who are living in deep poverty. The petitioners say that disabled people have lost hope that anyone cares. Many are turning to MAID because they cannot afford to live, and they are asking why they are not supported to live but have easy supports to die. Many disabled people have fallen off the financial cliff.
The petition goes on, but the bottom line is that the citizens and residents of Canada who have signed the petition call on the government to show disabled people that it will fix the pressures from the rising costs of everyday life and to give every disabled person across Canada and people on disability supports a tax-free emergency support of $5,000 that is not means-tested and cannot be clawed back.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Carmanville and surrounding communities. The petition is based on a concern for the lack of RCMP presence within those communities. This is the situation: There is a police station, and there are multiple homes owned by the RCMP to house officers, but there are no staff actually working at the station or living in the homes.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the federal government to staff the police station and put people in those homes so the people of those communities can be safe on the streets.
Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.
The first petition is with respect to a young man from Bolton, Ontario, Gabriel Arshad, who was critically injured on July 5, 2025 in a devastating four-vehicle collision. The collision was caused by a man with five prior drunk-driving convictions who, to no surprise to any member of the chamber, was out on bail.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to take immediate action to reform Canada's bail system and sentencing laws to keep repeat and violent offenders in jail where they belong.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to present petition e-7326 in the House of Commons. This petition has been signed by over 1,800 Canadians who are concerned about human rights abroad, particularly the case of former Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan. For more than three years, Imran Khan has been left to languish in prison in what the United Nations working committee on human rights has described as an arbitrary detention and a violation of the universal declaration of human rights.
Petitioners are asking for the Government of Canada to publicly call for the immediate release of Imran Khan, as well as all political prisoners in Pakistan. They also want Imran Khan to have access to medical treatment and his family, as well as Canada's high commissioner to Pakistan, in order to confirm his condition. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition here today in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to table a petition on behalf of constituents from my riding. It is signed by members of the Tseshaht and Hupačasath nations in Nuu-chah-nulth territory. They highlight that an essential part of reconciliation is addressing the harms first nations have experienced, including the devastating loss of language and culture; that there is a growing number of indigenous language learners, but the number of remaining fluent speakers is falling; that the changes to federal funding for indigenous language programming, especially in British Columbia, have put the preservation and revitalization of first nation languages and cultural heritage at risk; and that there is an urgent need to invest in indigenous language revitalization before it is too late.
The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that there is fair, adequate, long-term funding to protect indigenous languages and for indigenous language programming.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition on behalf of concerned Canadians about the plight of Christians in Africa, specifically in Nigeria, Congo and Mozambique, who are being attacked and murdered by groups such as Boko Haram, Islamic State and other terrorist groups for the simple reason that they are Christians. According to reports such as those from the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa, in many communities, millions of people have been forced to flee their homes. In Nigeria alone, the petitioners note, it is estimated that 30 Christians are murdered every day.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to do the following: unequivocally condemn the ongoing persecution of Christians in Africa; engage diplomatically with these countries in Africa to both defend Christians and seek justice for them; provide humanitarian and reconstruction relief to these communities; and lastly, ensure that Canada's foreign policy continues to defend the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion of all people globally.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for return and that they be tabled immediately?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act
Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of Senate amendments to the Bill; and
That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side.
Members should keep their interventions brief, and they may speak more than once. I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
The hon. member for Bow River.
Mr. Speaker, I know the provisions of Bill C-14 have great utility for the people of Canada right now. They have suffered for a decade or more under Liberal rule and a system that allows repeat offenders out on bail to wreak havoc in communities. What I do not think is acceptable is the lack of transparency and the use of routine, normal negotiations to get this bill through the House expeditiously. I find the concept of closure anti-democratic, and the lack of transparency is absolutely against the interests of Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I heard a question in the intervention; however, I am happy to address the issue the member put forward.
It is very clear, given the limited nature of the amendments, that there is no need for a multi-day, months-long debate that would extend into the fall the measures that every premier in this country is demanding the House take action on, that members of all parties in the House are asking us to expedite and that have been studied in depth at the committee. There are a small number of simple amendments that are easy to deal with. We have an opportunity to do something to promote public safety and to do it today.
I hope we will not waste this particular moment in time because as the House very well knows, given the remaining sitting calendar of the House, the consequences of delaying further the consideration of this bill would delay its implementation for many months, which Canadians and communities across this country cannot afford.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said that the amendments returned to us by the Senate are relatively simple to deal with. Like my Conservative colleague earlier, I was of the impression that the House would likely pass this bill fairly quickly once it returned from the Senate.
I wonder what message the government is sending by imposing time allocation on a bill on which there otherwise seems to be consensus. What does that say about the government's way of doing things? When the government decides to impose closure, even on bills for which there is a consensus, it seems to me that this sends a very bad message.
Can the minister tell me if discussions on passing Bill C-14 were stalling? I really do not get that impression. Imposing time allocation at this point in time seems all the more unjustified, to me.
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The recent amendments made by the Senate are, indeed, fairly easy to deal with.
[English]
It is my view that we can ill afford to risk the potential consequences of delays now. Even one or two days of delay in this chamber could lead to a months-long delay on the measures when it comes to violent repeat offenders. We just heard a petition read out in this regard.
We have an opportunity to make a difference. The only choice that we have before us, given the seeming collaboration of different parties, is whether we are going to make the difference today, this week, or we are going to kick the can down the road and delay the implementation of the protections that Canadian communities are asking for and that every premier in this country has forcefully argued must be implemented right away.
Mr. Speaker, while I agree that there is a time and place where time allocation makes sense, this is not one of those times. This is an important piece of legislation that does not have unanimous consent in the House and therefore needs debate.
Can the minister please explain why the Liberals want to shut down debate on the legislation at this point in time?
Mr. Speaker, I am finding it fascinating that the position the Conservatives have adopted in this debate is to delay the implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act. This is something for which they have been asking for many months now. It is something that premiers of all parties, including conservative parties across the country, are saying in public must be implemented right away. There is widespread consensus among many members of the House that the measures included in this bill would lead to a greater degree of public safety for Canadians. Communities are asking for this bill.
I have no appetite to delay further after many months of filibustering at the justice committee. We have an opportunity to make a difference, and we cannot let this narrow window of time before the House rises for the summer months prevent the protections for Canadians from coming into place expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting, listening to Conservatives talk about accountability and how dare we use this opportunity to move closure. Yesterday we moved closure on Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, which was supported unanimously in the PROC committee and then got to the House. They forced us to move closure on it just so they could vote on it as well. It passed unanimously in the House too. It is clear that all the Conservatives are doing is using any possible delay tactic, regardless of whether they even support a bill.
Would the minister not agree that perhaps it is time for the Conservatives to put down the tool of forcing us to use time allocation just because they know they can delay until the point that we have to do this, so they can then use the 30 minutes to stand in the House and say, “Oh, how dare you disrupt accountability?” Meanwhile, it is all about the games that they are playing.
Mr. Speaker, let me be specific in response to the member's question, the spirit of which I agree with wholeheartedly. Over the past few days, we have seen repeated dilatory motions put forward in the House to adjourn the debate or adjourn the House for the day, knowing the limited amount of time that must take place before a piece of legislation can move forward. In particular, the protecting victims act was delayed by an entire day in going to the Senate, which further jeopardized the possibility that those protections would be in place before the House rises for the summer.
We cannot, on the one hand, have the Conservative Party demanding that we take action, that we move more quickly, and, on the other hand, accept sincerely its position in this debate that we need to further delay the implementation of these measures. The Conservatives' argument has become self-defeating. What is most important, though, is not the procedural tactics at play. It is delivering protections to Canadians to make communities safer.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the minister was concerned that the House might adjourn on Friday, June 19 without having passed Bill C-14. There are still five sitting days left next week, and I was really under the impression that Bill C-14 would pass following the normal process by June 19. I am having a hard time understanding this time allocation motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the reason is that there is a heightened degree of anxiety on my part, given the procedural tactics we have seen play out in this chamber over the past number of days. I just cited an example, in response to the last questioner, of a very specific series of motions that in fact delayed the advancement of criminal justice reforms to the Senate in hopes that we can adopt them before the end of this sitting. I do think there is risk, depending on the level of collaboration that we see or do not see with other parties, but it is a risk that we can ill afford to take.
There is no world in which I would feel good going home in the summer knowing that we did not do everything we could to ensure that we advance measures that protect against the harms from violent repeat offenders. The kinds of things we are talking about are harms to first responders and tougher bail rules. I see I am running out of time, but I think the member gets the spirit of the response.
First, Mr. Speaker, no one is arguing the importance of this bill. However, there are Senate amendments that are very good and that we support. The government rejected them. Now it is proposing closure instead of having proper debate on the bill. We want to get it right. I think that is important. I think we all want to work together in the House to make sure we have the best legislation and in moving it forward quickly. At the same time, this is not the right tool for us to have the proper debate, which has not been held in the House. Closure is not the right tool.
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my friend from the opposite coast of this country. We have many issues of common concern. I am glad he recognizes the importance of the bill, but just as a matter of fact, I do need to correct the record. He suggested that the amendments are simply being dismissed.
With respect to the amendment on the implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, that is an amendment that we are accepting. With the proposed amendments impacting the role of sureties, that is something we are willing to accept. When it comes to doing a better job of collecting and reporting on bail data, we are not just accepting the amendment, but we are actually going to be funding provincial governments, which are the custodians of that data.
Given the widespread agreement among members of the House, and given the work that we have done in collaboration with the Senate, there is not a significant need to debate endlessly the narrow set of reforms that have been proposed. We need to move and we need to move quickly if we are going to ensure that this bill becomes law expeditiously.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice will remember that several times in the House I have raised the issue of a three-year-old little toddler in my riding who was brutally raped and beaten and left for dead. About a week and a half ago, survivors of sexual assault from early age to adulthood came to Ottawa to talk to members of the House about their stories of survival. This is not a partisan issue for me. This is something that we need to do as a country. These survivors came to Ottawa and asked me to ask the Minister of Justice why it is that we continually see people being given bail after being convicted of sexual assaults against children and adults.
Will he commit to ensuring that if this legislation does not go far enough, there will be amendments made in the future to ensure that for the perpetrators of these vile crimes against children, it never happens again?
Mr. Speaker, let me signal, as a sign of good faith, that it is not a partisan issue when we are dealing with something as heinous as sexual crimes committed against children.
Though this bill is focused more squarely on bail and sentencing, I would point the member to changes that would be made in this act when it comes to conditional sentencing orders for sexual offences, including sexual offences against children, which would no longer be available should this bill pass. In addition to the issue that squarely addresses the member's concern, in this bill we are proposing a series of changes that would make it more difficult for violent and repeat offenders to receive bail and would result in harsher sentences.
The spirit of his question is reflected in the text of the bill. I hope we can use that as motivation to quickly implement the measures so families and survivors, as he has referenced, have the protections that this bill would provide.
Mr. Speaker, just today, I received multiple calls from my constituents about why this bill is delayed. For months, it has been on the table.
Could the minister explain to us why this bill is so crucial to pass and how it would help Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her continued advocacy on behalf of public safety in the community she represents. She has been a tremendous advocate, saying that we need to ensure the bail provisions in the Criminal Code and the sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes she has witnessed in her own community, with a view to improving public safety.
Very specifically, we have an opportunity to ensure the Criminal Code treats more seriously violent and repeat offenders and gives courts the tools they need to ensure that when public safety is at risk, there are stronger grounds to detain a person so that we do not pass the risk on to the general public. Whether we are dealing with home invasions, auto theft, violent extortion or crimes committed against our first responders, there is a very clear need to ensure that we strengthen the criminal law reform as part of the public safety strategy, which would also include more support for the front line and upstream investments to end violent crime in the long term.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the minister was not here during the last Conservative government. There are members across the way who were here, and they may recall the outrage whenever the Harper government used time allocation. If we look at the number of sitting days the Liberal government has had in place since it got its majority, it is on a vastly higher pace in the use of time allocation.
I would like to read a quote from the debate on Bill C‑38. It said that the government has consistently demonstrated a lack of respect for democracy and the parliamentary process when discussing the use of time allocation. Who said that? It was the member for Winnipeg North.
I am wondering if the minister could explain to us how the glass house he lives in is different now than it was 12 years ago when the member for Winnipeg North was yelling about the same issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is a failure of logic to assume the same rule can be applied across a very different set of facts in every instance and result in the same outcome.
One of the reasons we are forced to move forward with time allocation ties back to the issue that I raised months ago when the member's Conservative colleagues were filibustering for months at the justice committee. I warned them at the time that was going to delay the potential implementation of the bail and sentencing reform act and the protecting victims act. Despite the fact that there is widespread agreement on many of the measures included in both of those bills, the filibuster continued for months. We saw on the video clips members talking about their preference for puppies or kittens rather than how we can strengthen the criminal law response.
I would dare argue in this House that as a result of those delays, we have a limited choice. Do we want to move forward expeditiously using the procedural tools to implement these reforms this week or do we want to simply throw our hands up and say this can wait several months down the road? Canadians are telling us they cannot wait, and I agree.
Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now.
They are closing down debate. We have a role to play. I am sure the Liberals would prefer there not be an opposition. We have a responsibility to bring forward amendments as the opposition on behalf of Canadians, because almost all the time the Liberals get it wrong.
Mr. Speaker, there was not a question that I could observe in the member's statement, but he did cite that he has an obligation as a member of the opposition. I would ask him to talk to his colleagues on the justice committee, who, in my view, have failed to live up to that obligation. He says they should raise issues to improve the strength of the bill when they spent months filibustering, again talking about their preference for puppies or kittens, knowing they were going to delay the implementation of these measures. We have an opportunity to move forward with the measures the Conservative Party says it supports, but yet delays the implementation of them.
We should get beyond the political back-and-forth and realize where we have widespread consensus, supported by law enforcement, provincial governments, cities and parliamentarians in the House and in the Senate from a wide range of regions and political affiliations. I suggest we should take the opportunity before us to implement these measures today.
Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Justice says we have a very small window to push through legislation, that is entirely due to the government's decision to adjourn two days early. I wish the government had come to me and asked how I would feel about staying later this summer to properly study bills and not push through the destruction of pesticide regulations in an omnibus budget bill.
I know it is not the minister's problem, but we are being pushed to the last minute and told we could not debate something as important as the Senate amendments to Bill C‑14. I opposed Bill C‑14. It was never passed unanimously, contrary to what the Liberal deputy House leader said. It was on division because members like me, who are not in a recognized party, cannot even stand up and scream “no” when they decide to vote on division.
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the potential adjournment date the House may be looking at, but I do know that the sitting schedule, as broadcasted publicly, is set to expire at the end of next week.
I have a responsibility, in my view, to make good on the commitments that I have made and to respect the feedback I have received from premiers, mayors and law enforcement leaders across this country, to implement the criminal law reforms that I believe will contribute to public safety. This is a key piece of the puzzle. We also need to support those on the front line, both police and community organizations, and make upstream investments in mental health and addictions, affordable housing and programs that support at-risk youth.
However, I do not think we can afford to delay, potentially months, the implementation of the measures that I know our counterparts from different walks of life across this country are screaming for and demanding that this House take action on expeditiously.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I love my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands but, unfortunately, when she raises her voice, that risks damaging the interpreters' hearing.
I urge all members of the House to be conscientious. Sudden outbursts like that can unfortunately affect other people.
I thank the hon. member for her intervention. Indeed, we must be careful in the House. Interpreters play a vital role in the proceedings of the House.
[English]
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, my priority is the residents of Winnipeg North. I know, in the last election, a commitment was made to deal with the issue of crime. The Prime Minister made it a part of our election platform.
This is something we have taken very seriously. We have brought forward a number of pieces of legislation to protect our communities and make them safer. I am tired of the Conservatives filibustering on all these crime initiatives. Bill C‑14 deals with bail reform and has wide support from many different stakeholders, virtually all stakeholders. I understand even the Conservatives might support it.
How important is it for us to be able to get our crime agenda through? After all, it was in the election platform.
Mr. Speaker, let us just draw into focus what is at stake. We asked law enforcement leaders, community leaders and elected officials what the priorities are in their communities when it comes to public safety. They said, “We want you to do more when it comes to auto theft. We want you to do more when it comes to home invasions. We want you to do more when it comes to violent extortion and when it comes to sexual assaults. We want you to address specifically the challenges in the bail system and the challenges when it comes to sentencing for these horrific crimes.”
We have listened to that feedback. This process has been a model of collaboration with provincial governments, with police leaders and with advocates for public safety. We have an opportunity to directly implement the solutions that we know communities are calling for.
The only question we have, as a House, is whether we want to take advantage of the opportunity to do that now, or whether we can kick the can down the road for several months. In my view, when we have an opportunity to make a difference that is going to serve the interests of Canadians, reduce crime in this country and promote public safety, we should take it at the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the government thinks it can fix the chaos it created by rushing legislation and shutting down debate. I am hearing directly from survivors, women who have faced repeat violent offenders, and they are asking for stronger protections, not weaker laws. Organized crime has taken over, as criminals know there are no real consequences. There are real amendments that need to be made to better protect Canadians, yet the government is cutting off debate and limiting committee work.
Why are the Liberals shutting down debate instead of strengthening the law to keep Canadians safe?
Mr. Speaker, in the preamble to the member's question, she drew into focus the importance of dealing with survivors who are faced with gender-based violence and sexual crimes. We need to move. However, it is hypocrisy in the extreme when the member yesterday voted against the protecting victims act, which deals specifically with the issues that she has just raised. The kind of action that she is asking for in her question is represented in the bill that she is now seeking to delay. We do not need to wait to implement the solutions that are widely agreed upon in this House; they come directly from police leaders, community organizations, mayors and premiers.
It is extraordinary to me that the Conservatives have adopted the position, months after this debate has started, that we need to delay action on bail reform. I disagree.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice referenced the procedural tools of the trade that are used. He decried the Conservative Party's use of the tools in the past and justified the use of the tools in this present hour.
How is the Conservative Party's use of procedural tools equivalent when comparing what is being done to stifle debate at the health committee by going in camera on PrescribeIT versus what we are witnessing here today?
Mr. Speaker, I question the relevance of the member's question on a debate about time allocation for the bail and sentencing reform act. I have not been at the committee to which he refers, but it is important to recognize that we use a tool where it is appropriate for a particular job.
The member suggested that I decried the use of this tool in other circumstances. If members check the record, I did no such thing. However, I recognize that sometimes people have to realize that a scalpel and a sledgehammer are appropriate for different items. When it comes to this particular use of time allocation, we are responding to the urgent call for action from premiers, mayors, law enforcement and concerned Canadians who care about public safety.
The Conservative position that we should delay action on bail and sentencing in the face of these calls for action from the parties I just listed is bizarre to me. They have been demanding that I take action, that I implement the very reforms they have an opportunity to vote for, which they supported in the past, and now they are saying we should kick the can down the road. This is a failure of logic in the extreme.
Mr. Speaker, when I debated on Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, I spoke clearly to my community to say that I am not voting wholeheartedly against this piece of legislation. I am not voting against protecting victims. I am not voting against protecting intimate partner violence victims, but I am voting against completely negating the entire thing by making mandatory minimums optional. I knew this was going to happen, that we would be told that we voted against protecting victims. That is untrue.
This is exactly the importance of debate in this House. Why is the government shutting down debate? Do they want to silence our voices so they can gaslight Canadians and say we vote against everything?
Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. member that with her vote yesterday, she placed her objection to one narrow portion of the bill, which only deals with situations where there would be a grossly disproportionate outcome. She said with her vote yesterday that it was more important than dealing with AI deepfakes when it comes to non-consensual intimate images, more important than protecting the victims of child sexual exploitation, more important than the child-luring provisions, more important than the criminal harassment provisions, more important than the femicide provisions and more important than the coercive control provisions.
Members may come to realize, as they spend more time in this place, that there is a range of different perspectives and that sometimes perfection can be the enemy of the good. We are not always going to agree on everything, but she should not colour the historical record and say she voted for something when she voted—
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Canadians want, need and deserve to feel safer in their communities, especially after the Liberal government has unleashed a crime wave across the country.
The minister, of course, acknowledged here today that Canadians want this urgently. They urgently want some changes to the situation that the Liberal government has caused. However, the Conservatives have brought forward a number of proposals, including Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act that would keep serious offenders behind bars and not out on bail, yet that was defeated by these Liberals.
How can the minister stand here today and talk about the urgency of addressing the issue that the Liberals caused in the first place with their own reckless policies, when they voted against our common-sense proposals to keep serious offenders behind bars?
Mr. Speaker, the private member's bill to which the hon. member refers did have some shortcomings, some provisions that I questioned as to whether they would actually promote public safety, other provisions that I questioned about their constitutional validity. However, where there were common ideas that we could collaborate on, we can actually see some of those ideas that came from Conservative members in this bill, one of which is the subject of a further amendment from the Senate committee involving a more restrictive use of sureties for people who have an indictment on their criminal record within the previous 10 years. There are other ideas that were of mutual concern that were reflected in both of our parties' platforms.
However, the measures proposed in this bill are far more reaching, more extensive and more clearly reflect the feedback of the Canadian Association of the Chiefs of Police, the Ontario Police Association, even in my own community, the New Glasgow Regional Police. We can look at communities across Canada, we can look at provincial governments across Canada, and see ideas from Liberal, NDP and Conservative Party members alike that found their way into this bill. This has been a model of collaboration through the process.
I thank Conservative members for their contribution. I find it objectionable that they seek to now delay some of the advice they provided to me, in terms of the content of this bill that should be implemented.
Mr. Speaker, six months ago I was standing in this very place, literally pleading with Conservative Party members to allow passage of Bill C‑14, recognizing just how popular this legislation was and the support it had. I literally was begging, saying we would sit until midnight and extend the sitting, how nice it would be to see this bill actually pass before Christmas, yet, once again, here we stand waiting for the Conservative Party to recognize just how important this legislation is and that it needs to pass.
I am afraid that without this tool being used, it would be the intention of the Conservative Party to continue to postpone and never let this bill pass. Could the minister comment?
Mr. Speaker, if we go back to the timeline the hon. member is citing, I raised with colleagues in different parties in the House my concern about the shenanigans being played out at justice committee that were preventing the advancement of this bill and the protecting victims act. We are now in a position that reflects precisely the advice we provided to the opposition at the time, which was that we would potentially see months-long delays in the implementation of these bills, which they claim to support.
We have an opportunity to take action today to combat extortion, home invasions, auto theft and sexual assault. The only question is whether we are going to act today or months down the road. That kind of delay is senseless and would not offer an ounce of contribution to public safety. We are moving forward. I would ask that all members recognize the urgency with which communities are calling for these measures so we can implement them in law before Parliament rises for the summer.
Mr. Speaker, I find it so rich that the Liberals now find some urgency to do this. The Conservatives have offered multiple times at committee to advance this legislation, bring it forward faster, get things done, include common-sense amendments and deal with the loopholes that could have been presented.
Now we have loopholes that have again been put into the bill through the amendments from the Senate. These need to be addressed. Those loopholes need to be removed to make this a solid bill so that the Canadian public can once and for all have safe streets again, after 11 years of the Liberals' mismanagement of the justice file, among every other file.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is characterizing amendments from the Senate as loopholes. One of the amendments proposes that we do a better job of collecting and reporting data on bail. We are not just reporting and collecting; we are going to contribute financially to provinces' exercises to do that. Another loophole would be the delayed implementation of certain measures on the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that comes as a direct request from the Conservative government in Ontario because it has to make sure its system is ready to handle changes to the law. Another proposed amendment is being rejected on the basis of its redundancy.
To the extent the member is pointing to loopholes, I would ask him to identify them, because simply, I do not see them.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion.
[English]
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.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 155)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Total: -- 166
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tolmie
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 158
PAIRED
Members
AnandBrunelle-Duceppe
Dabrusin
Fuhr
Hodgson
Kronis
Plamondon
Shipley
Thériault
Zuberi
Total: -- 10
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Ukrainian Heritage Month Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-210, An Act respecting Ukrainian Heritage Month, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
There being no motion 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.
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.
[Translation]
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here to speak to Bill S-210. If passed, this bill will designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada.
[English]
As the sponsor of this bill in the House, I will give brief remarks today. I will not be using all of my time. The government side will not be putting up any other speakers, and the majority of the parties in the House have agreed not to have MPs speak to this bill today, to ensure that we can have debate collapse today on this bill so debate ends before the time allocated for it comes to a close.
Why is this happening? All parties support the passage of this bill. We know that because it has been unanimously supported at second reading and unanimously supported at the heritage committee, and it has come back from the committee to the House without amendments. There is no doubt about that. If the bill continues on a normal schedule, it will likely pass sometime in the fall.
Normally, this would be just fine, but former senator Stan Kutcher, who is the Senate sponsor of this bill, and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress have made the request that we expedite the passage of this bill so a final vote on this bill can be held next week. They have done so because the former senator is in poor health. In fact, that is why the former senator resigned his seat in the Senate several weeks ago, because his health did not allow him to continue his work.
As the House sponsor, I have spoken with many colleagues about this, on all sides of the House. I want to be clear that I have no personal political interest in seeing this happen. I know that the bill will pass soon. I know it will probably pass in the fall. However, I do have an interest in this on a personal level, as I think all of us in the House do as well. Because the senator is in poor health, I believe it is the compassionate and humane thing to do to set aside the various political considerations we all have all the time and pass this bill while the senator's health allows him to be here to watch it happen.
The senator, members of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, who are watching this debate, and I have reached out to all parties over the past few months to ask for help in expediting the passage of this bill for this reason. From my end, I want members to know that I have done what I can as the House sponsor. I have traded up with other MPs so the bill gets debated sooner than it would have been otherwise. Normally, we would be at this stage in the fall. I have spoken with members of the heritage committee to ask for their help in this, and they have helped with this. I thank the heritage committee members for that. I have reached out to all parties in advance of this debate, as has the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, to ask for their help in allowing debate to collapse today.
The reason this is important, for those who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure, is that if debate collapses today, the bill can go to a final vote next week and pass. If debate does not collapse today, the bill would probably not get to a final vote until at least the fall. My request to all MPs of all parties is that we allow the debate to collapse today. The majority of the parties have agreed to do what they can to make this happen. I appeal to members of all parties to allow debate to end before the allotted time is complete today so this bill can go to a final vote next week and so that former senator Kutcher can be here to watch it pass.
For the benefit of those watching at home who have not followed the debate, I just want to say a few words about the bill.
The first Ukrainian immigrants to Canada arrived on September 7, 1891. Since then, generation upon generation of Ukrainians have come to Canada, many of them fleeing oppression and seeking a better life. They found that life here in Canada. Ukrainian Canadians have helped to make Canada the great country it is today, and their contributions span our political, economic and social life, and much more.
That is why, for example, in 2011, the Ontario legislature passed a law, unanimously supported by all parties at that time, to declare September 7 Ukrainian Heritage Day in Ontario. At the time, I was president of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress - Ontario Provincial Council, and I was proud to have been one of the people who wrote that bill and helped to get it passed.
That is also why I am proud to have introduced my own Ukrainian heritage month legislation in each of the last three Parliaments to do the same thing this bill would do, designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada.
Some have asked me why the three bills I introduced have not passed. The reason is that after every election, as all members know, MPs are put into a lottery to determine the order in which their bills come up for debate here in the House. Usually, in a four-year term, I believe about 60 to 80 MPs can have their bills debated and voted on. After each election, I have not been lucky enough to be in the top 80 in that lottery. I have been too far down. This time around, I think I am 218 or so. I have not been able to have a bill I have introduced here come to a vote. I want to be clear that this is not for lack of effort on my part. I have done everything I can to pass it, but it has simply not been possible.
In fact, we can all think of examples of this on all sides. We have members here who have been elected for decades and have never had a bill pass. We recently had a member on our side who, after over 20 years in elected office, finally had a bill pass for the first time. That is how hard it is to pass a bill, because of the procedure. The fact that the bill we are debating today was introduced by a senator who was high enough in the order in the Senate, and given that it was passed in the Senate, it was given priority here in the House, is what gives us the opportunity to pass it. I just want folks to understand those dynamics.
The reasons to support this bill, I think, are pretty clear. We have debated them before. First, it is an opportunity to celebrate Ukrainian heritage, which we see in our communities and every one of our ridings from coast to coast to coast. Second, it is a national acknowledgement of the people whose contributions have shaped Canada for about 135 years. Third, since 1891, Ukrainian Canadians have come to Canada seeking a better life, and since 1891, Canada has supported them. That is why Canada was the first country in the world to recognize Ukraine's independence in 1991. That is why Canada was among the first countries in the world to recognize the Holodomor as a genocide. That is why our government has been a global leader in supporting the people of Ukraine as they bravely defend themselves against Russia's brutal invasion.
I would argue that there has never been a more important time to pass this bill than now. For the past four years, Ukrainians have been defending themselves against that invasion, and Canada has been a global leader in supporting them. I believe there are two key reasons we support the people of Ukraine. The first is that it is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. The second reason is that it is the right thing for Canada. This is because I believe Ukraine's victory is vital to Canada's security. If Russia wins, we know it will not stop at Ukraine. We know this because Vladimir Putin has told us so. He is leading a hybrid war against European countries right now. He has sent drones over military bases in NATO. He has claimed, in the past, parts of the Canadian Arctic as Russian territory. European, French and German military and political leaders are publicly saying that their people have to be ready for a land war with Russia in the next five years.
Therefore, Russia's invasion is not just about Ukraine. Ukraine is just the first step in Putin's expansionist ambitions. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, make no mistake that NATO will be next. That means we will be next. We will be fighting to defend ourselves against Russian aggression, whether in Europe, the Canadian Arctic or somewhere else, so either we pay a small price now to help Ukraine win, or we pay a much bigger price later, in Canadian dollars and in Canadian lives. That is why I believe we have to stand with the Ukrainian people until they win. That is why Canada has been a global leader in supporting Ukraine, with over $25 billion in support since 2022: military, humanitarian, financial and more.
Ukraine is fighting on the front lines of the global struggle between democracy and tyranny. Its struggle is our struggle. That is why there has never been a more important time to adopt this bill.
[Translation]
This bill honours the past, strengthens the present and inspires the future.
[English]
Ukrainian heritage month would offer a special opportunity for us to celebrate Ukrainian heritage, the role that Canada has played in supporting Ukrainian Canadians, and the contributions that Ukrainian Canadians have made to Canada. I hope all members of this House will not only support this bill, because I know all members of this House do support it, but join us in allowing debate to collapse today so we can pass it next week, with the former senator watching, and designate each September, including this coming September, as Ukrainian heritage month across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. He has been such an ambassador for Ukraine in this House, and I appreciate his efforts to see this bill expedited.
I wonder if he could reiterate the importance of letting the debate collapse today and why that is so important.
Mr. Speaker, I will briefly say that the value of having the debate collapse today is that it would ensure that the bill goes to a final vote next week, which would allow it to pass. This would honour former senator Kutcher's health and his request, so he can be here to watch it pass.
Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member has chosen to spend the majority of his speech on process, I will ask him a process question.
The current government, the Liberals, they are the ones who sponsored this bill; the hon. member did, from that side of the House. They also control the agenda for this place and would therefore have the ability to move this bill, in its second hour of debate at third reading, to next week before the House rises. They could trade it up in the system, as we say. For whatever reason, they have chosen not to do that. I am curious as to why, if they want this bill passed so quickly, they are not taking that responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, September has always felt like a month of beginnings. The quiet of summer gives way to something busier and more purposeful. In Cambridge and North Dumfries, where I am from, we feel a shift. There is a particular energy to September that other months do not quite carry, a sense that something is being picked up and continued.
Therefore, when I look at Bill S‑210, a Senate bill now at report stage in this House, sponsored by the member for Etobicoke Centre, which would designate September as Ukrainian heritage month, I see an opportunity to combine the vitality of that season with the pride of a community that has shaped Canada's character for generations. That is why I could offer my support. I want to take a few minutes to talk about why, and what I genuinely hope it accomplishes.
The Ukrainian Canadian community's patience has outlasted more than one Parliament already, a testament to its perseverance and its faith in this institution. I have some personal understanding of what it means to leave a country and build a life somewhere new. That was my family's story. What I know from growing up with that history is that people do not leave easily. They leave because they have to, or because they believe the sacrifice is worth what is waiting on the other side. They carry what they can, and they let go of what they must. Then they get to work, because that is the only way forward.
What heritage actually looks like, in my experience, is not the declared kind. It is the lived kind, and the two are not always the same thing. I grew up in Cambridge, Ontario. It is a city with deep roots and a proud identity built over generations by families who came from different corners of the world and decided to invest their full energy and hope in making this their home. The families I grew up alongside came from Portugal, from Scotland, from Germany, from all across this country and from across the world. What they brought with them was not only language or food or tradition, though all of that came too. They brought a way of working, a standard for how people treat their neighbours and a belief that if they show up and do the job right, this place will give something back. Over time, those values merged into something distinctly Cambridge, a city that is just as proud of where it came from as where it is going. That is what heritage looks like when it is working: not a flag on a building or a line in a speech, but real people making real choices, and those choices feeding generations of rich community.
The first wave of Ukrainian settlers arrived in Canada in September 1891, and it is precisely that first recorded arrival that gives the month chosen for this bill its significance. Most of these settlers were farmers who broke ground on the Prairies and created communities from conditions that would have turned most people back. They settled in places like Chipman, Alberta, and Stuartburn, Manitoba, places that were barely names on maps when they arrived. They did not treat being Ukrainian and being Canadian as separate identities—
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, whom I respect immensely, the issue we are dealing with is that there is an urgency on this particular bill. The mover of the bill said that the sponsor of the bill is in a critical phase of his life, and we are trying to get this passed while he is still with us. I am not sure that the member fully grasped the intent—
I thank the member for her intervention, but it does fall on the side of debate and not a point of order.
The hon. member for Cambridge has time remaining in her speech.
Mr. Speaker, they did not treat being Ukrainian and being Canadian as separate identities. They recognize that being one deepened what it meant to be the other. They held on to their language, their faith and their traditions, while also becoming some of the most committed Canadians this country has ever seen. They knew that they could love where they came from and love where they were. Canadians recognize this truth instinctively because it mirrors the story of so many families who have made this country home.
By 1914, approximately 170,000 Ukrainians had made Canada their home. They established newspapers to preserve their language while learning English. They sent their children to Canadian schools while teaching them Ukrainian songs. They carried something heavier too: the memory of the Holodomor, the Soviet-engineered famine, of 1932 and 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The grief of this travesty was carried across an ocean where it was held quietly for generations and where it still lingers in the hearts of their descendants.
The fact that a community carrying that kind of loss still chose to build here, still chose to invest everything in this country, says something profound both about their resilience and about what Canada offered them. Continuing waves arrived after the Second World War, carrying the weight of further displacement and loss, but no less determined to build something beautiful. Another wave came after 1991, when independence opened a door that had been closed for generations. Most recently, since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Canadians from coast to coast have opened their communities to families arriving under circumstances no one should ever face.
Each wave made the same essential decision to start over, to rebuild, and to give their children and grandchildren something reliable when everything solid had been taken from them. That decision, made when nothing was certain and everything mattered, demands a kind of resolve that deserves more than brief recognition. Ontario and Manitoba have already designated September as Ukrainian Heritage Month. Alberta and Saskatchewan have followed suit.
Parliament is, in a real sense, catching up to what those provinces recognized some time ago. Federal recognition carries a unique weight, and it matters that this House adds its voice to what the provinces have already affirmed. When we designate Ukrainian heritage month federally, we are not just recognizing a community. We are inviting the entire country to see their story reflected in our shared Canadian story.
Every May, communities across Canada mark Vyshyvanka Day, a celebration of Ukrainian culture and identity expressed through the embroidered shirts that have become a symbol of heritage and resilience. In Toronto, thousands gather at Nathan Phillips Square. In Edmonton, families fill Churchill Square. In Winnipeg, the celebration has grown into one of the city's largest cultural events. That is the spirit September heritage month should aspire to match.
Someone can walk through Cambridge on any weekend and they will see that same spirit. They will see people who have been here for generations standing beside people who arrived recently, working on the same fundraiser or coaching the same team. There are firefighters, police officers, teachers, innovators, builders and workers. People do not focus on their differences. They focus on building the community together.
That is what Cambridge does, and from what I see, it is what most Canadian communities do when given half a chance. The spirit of showing up, pitching in and not making a production of it is one of the most genuinely Canadian things I know. It exists because generations of people from different places brought their best and added it to something larger than themselves. That is the community I am proud to represent. That is the foundation that Bill S-210 is, in its own way, asking us to honour.
I have met with farming families in North Dumfries who have worked the same land for four generations, watching the world change around them while holding on to a deep connection to this country and their community. They still gather for Easter dinner, whipped up from their family recipes handed down through generations. They still know the songs their great-grandmother sang, but they are also innovating with precision the sustainable farming practices their great-grandmother could not have imagined.
Being that deeply rooted, combined with forward momentum, deserves recognition alongside the stories of those who crossed an ocean to build life here. These stories do not all follow the same path, but they share something: a decision made at some point to commit, to stay, to build and to trust that the place they chose would be worth it.
This is how heritage months can carry real potential and how they can also carry a real risk. The potential is that they give communities a legitimate occasion to bring forward stories that might otherwise find no voice, stories that, once told, have a way of changing how people see each other and how they understand the country they share. The risk is that we stop at the declaration, that we mark it on the calendar and move on, having made a gesture without doing the harder work of actually listening.
Canadians notice the difference between genuine respect and political convenience. What I hope Bill S-210 produces is something genuine: community gatherings and conversations in community centres, in church halls and around kitchen tables that would not happen without this invitation to begin them.
There is the grandfather who arrived with almost nothing and who built something their grandchildren are still proud of, and the young person who is only beginning to understand what their family community gave up so they could have a better future. These stories exist in every riding in the country. September gives us a reason to find them and bring them forward, and that is worth supporting.
I would encourage every member in the House, as September approaches, to do more than issue a press release. Members should find a story in their riding that they did not already know; sit down with someone from the Ukrainian community or from any community whose history they had not yet taken the time to understand; ask them what they brought when they started over; ask them what they sacrificed to get here; and ask them what they pray their grandchildren will remember 50 years from now.
Those conversations are worth more than anything we can pass in the chamber. If Bill S-210 opens the door for more of those conversations to happen across Canada, it will have accomplished something that lasts past September and past this Parliament.
September is a good time to start listening.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S‑210 to designate September as Ukrainian heritage month in Canada, not merely as a matter of multicultural courtesy but an act of moral clarity, historical justice and national affirmation.
This bill is not symbolic in the diminishing sense of the word. It is substantively symbolic, the kind of recognition that tells a community we see them, we remember with them and we stand beside them. In this moment, when the soil of Ukraine runs red from Russian bombardment and when cities that Ukrainian Canadians' grandparents once called home are being reduced to rubble by an imperial aggressor, the passage of this bill carries a weight that goes far beyond ceremony. It is a declaration of who we are as Canadians.
Let us begin with history, because history is where the story starts. When the first great wave of Ukrainian immigration to Canada began in the 1890s, tens of thousands of women, men, farmers, labourers and dreamers crossed an ocean to escape poverty, land scarcity and political oppression under Russian imperial and Austro-Hungarian rule. They came at the invitation of the Canadian government that needed settlers for a vast, unbroken prairie west. They came with almost nothing. They were given land, raw, stubborn land that had to be cleared by hand, broken by oxen and coaxed into yield through sheer endurance. They built homes from sod and timber. They raised churches with onion domes on the Saskatchewan horizon. They planted sunflowers beside wheat fields in Manitoba and Alberta. They gave the Prairies a soul.
In Alberta, Ukrainian settlers established hundreds of communities from Vegreville to Mundare, from Two Hills to Smoky Lake. In Saskatchewan, Canora, Yorkton and Foam Lake became centres of Ukrainian cultural life. In Manitoba, the north end of Winnipeg became a vibrant Ukrainian corridor, home to cultural halls, Orthodox and Greek Catholic parishes and newspapers printed in Ukrainian. The Ukrainian contribution to Canada did not stay on the Prairies. In Ontario, Ukrainian communities built cultural institutions in Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton. In Quebec, Ukrainian immigrants added their voices to an already‑complex multicultural chorus. In British Columbia, communities in Vancouver carried forward traditions that connected generations to a homeland thousands of kilometres away.
Over 1.3 million Canadians today identify as having Ukraine heritage. Four Governors General have been of Ukrainian descent. Ukrainian Canadians have served in our military, on our supreme courts and in our legislatures, shaped by culture that prizes resilience, community and a ferocious attachment to freedom. One such individual is a man that I worked for as a member of Parliament for Edmonton East. In 1984 he was elected. He was a proud Ukrainian Canadian. He often told me stories of how his family came over here from Ukraine. I was proud to spend a few years with Bill Lesick, the MP for Edmonton East. I will never forget his passion for Canada. He ended his career as a citizenship judge, which reflected his commitment to his country.
His attachment to freedom brings me to the present moment, and I will not mince words. On February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched a full‑scale invasion of a sovereign democratic nation. Russia did not stumble into war. It chose war deliberately, systematically and with the stated ambition of erasing Ukrainian national identity from the map of the world. Putin has said explicitly that Ukraine is not a real country, that Ukrainians are not a real people and that their language, culture and history, the very things that this bill celebrates, are fabrications to be corrected by force. This is not a border dispute or a regional conflict. This is a genocidal ideology expressed through artillery shells and mass graves.
When this Parliament debates Ukrainian heritage month, we are debating it against the backdrop of Mariupol, Bucha and Kherson, while Ukrainian families in Canada carry the grief of relatives killed under Russian occupation. To pass this bill is to say the culture Russia is trying to destroy is a culture Canada honours. The identity Russia calls fictional is an identity Canada celebrates. There is no more powerful rebuttal to imperial erasure than democratic recognition.
That resolve is alive right here in our own communities. In Hamilton, Ontario, a drone manufacturer called Sentinel Research and Development, founded in 2023 specifically because of Russia's war of aggression, is now part of the Canada‑Ukraine defence partnership. When the Russian government responded with threats, CEO Kath Intson did not flinch. She called it what it was, which was “political posturing”, saying, “It does not affect our way forward in any way whatsoever”. This is the Canadian answer to Russian intimidation: not retreat, not appeasement, but moving forward. Sentinel is cut from the same cloth as those prairie settlers. The geography has changed; the adversary has not.
Some will ask why we need a dedicated month. The designation matters because it would create space in schools, communities and public life for structured reflection and education. It would mean teachers have a framework to bring Ukrainian history into classrooms. It would mean that Ukrainian Canadians, particularly the younger generation, the grandchildren of those prairie settlers, would see their inheritance acknowledged at the highest level of democratic governance. Given the current war and Russia's documented attempts to suppress Ukrainian cultural expression, ban the Ukrainian language in occupied territories, destroy cultural monuments and abduct children, the designation of Ukrainian heritage month is an act of cultural solidarity. It says that, what they are burning, we are keeping alive.
Let me close with an image. Somewhere on the Prairies, perhaps in Alberta, perhaps in Saskatchewan, there is a small Ukrainian Orthodox church, white-walled and blue-domed, standing alone in a field of wheat. It was built over 100 years ago by hands calloused from a hard crossing and harder work. Around that church are the graves of men and women who arrived with nothing and gave everything to this country. Those graves are Canadian soil. That church is Canadian heritage. The culture it represents is alive in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and my riding of Niagara South.
There are 1.3 million Canadians who carry that Ukrainian heritage with them. They deserve a month. They deserve this bill. In passing it, we would send a message heard far beyond our borders, which is that Canada does not only welcome the people of Ukraine, but also preserves what those who wish to destroy Ukraine are trying to erase. I ask members to vote yes, support this bill, honour the heritage and stand with Ukraine.
Slava Ukraini.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak in favour of Bill S‑210, which would designate the month of September as Ukrainian heritage month. This bill is particularly relevant to Saskatchewan and the Prairies as a whole because of the long and rich history of Ukrainians and Ukrainian communities that has contributed to the development of that region of the country.
The settlement of western Canada was one of the most transformational events in Canadian history. In the late 1800s, the land that would eventually become Saskatchewan had a population of approximately 10,000 people. That number would increase nearly a hundredfold by the 1920s. Homesteaders from all across Europe, including some of my great-grandparents, moved to Saskatchewan because of the promise of free farmland and a better life. Many of these settlers came from Ukraine. In addition to their farming practices, they brought with them their language, their culture and their traditions, many of which can still be seen today across the Prairies.
The town of Hafford, Saskatchewan, proudly displays Ukrainian-language street signs as a tribute to the Ukrainians who first homesteaded and settled in that area. What would become the Ukrainian Museum of Canada was established in Saskatoon in 1941 by the Ukrainian Women's Association of Canada before it expanded into a national network of museums. The town of Vegreville, Alberta, is home to the world's largest pysanka, or Ukrainian Easter egg, outside of Ukraine. This Ukrainian Easter egg is one of the most popular tourist stops along the Yellowhead Highway, visited by thousands of tourists every year, including my fiancé and me just last summer.
Of course, many Ukrainian Canadians, as well as Canadians without Ukrainian heritage, celebrate Vyshyvanka Day every year on the third Thursday in May. The vyshyvanka is the traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt. I know I enjoyed wearing my vyshyvanka and spending time with members of the Regina chapter of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress when we celebrated this occasion in Regina just last month.
With the possible exception of the grain elevators, I would argue that few buildings have defined the prairie landscape more than Ukrainian churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. There are two of these churches in particular that I would like to mention. The first is St. Michael's Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Regina, which will be celebrating its 100th anniversary next year. I know that I and many members of the community are looking forward to the centennial celebrations.
The second is St. Onuphrius Ukrainian Catholic Church. This church was originally built in Smoky Lake County, northeast of Edmonton, between 1915 and 1928. In the 1990s, the building was meticulously disassembled and relocated to the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, where it was reassembled in the Canadian history hall, where it stands today for all to see.
While the history of Ukrainians in Canada has been mostly positive for over a century, we recently entered some very sad and dark times in February 2022, with Russia's illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. We all remember the images on TV of Russian tanks rolling across the border into Ukraine. I remember having many conversations with members of Regina's Ukrainian community. I would ask them, “Do you have any friends or family members who are close to the fighting?” The answer was invariably yes. Practically everyone had received an email or text message, or had had a phone call, from a friend or family member not far from the fighting, and practically all of them had fled with nothing more than the shirts on their backs. It is certainly a tragedy that they will remember for the rest of their lives, but as Mr. Rogers famously said, whenever there is a catastrophe, always “look for the helpers”, because if we look for the helpers, we will know that there is hope. When the people of Ukraine needed help, the people of Saskatchewan provided that hope.
All of a sudden, a century of Ukrainian heritage in Saskatchewan kicked into action. Cousins, aunts and uncles started texting each other to arrange for spare bedrooms and clothing and to make all of the necessary arrangements to welcome their Ukrainian friends and family members who were coming to Saskatchewan to flee the war zone. People who had taken Ukrainian language classes in Saskatchewan schools had a newfound use for their language skills, as newcomers from Ukraine were given work placements on farms, oil rigs and local businesses. Masses and services at Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox churches were, all of a sudden, standing room only on Sunday morning. Overall, on a per capita basis, Saskatchewan welcomed more Ukrainians than any other province in the months following Russia's invasion.
I have to say that designating Ukrainian heritage month is a fine idea, particularly for the people of Saskatchewan. Therefore, I certainly support Bill S-210. However, it is important to keep in mind that Bill S-210 is only a symbolic gesture. That is not to say that symbols are not important, because in a way, they are, but I wish the Liberal government would take some more tangible, concrete steps to support our friends and allies in Ukraine through their current struggles against the Russian invasion. In particular, the single most beneficial action that Canada could take to help Ukraine would be to sell more Canadian oil and gas to western Europe so those countries could stop buying from Russia. In fact, I said as much in a speech in the House four years ago.
When then finance minister Chrystia Freeland made her 2022 budget speech in the House, she received one standing ovation from all members of all parties. It was when she said that the Russian army invading Ukraine needed to be vanquished. I agreed then and I agree now that nothing would be better for the Ukrainian people than to get the Russian army off of Ukrainian soil. The best way to do this would be to displace Russian oil and gas sales to western Europe with Canadian oil and gas exports, thus making it financially impossible for Russia to continue the war.
As I said in my speech four years ago, exporting oil and gas to Europe requires pipelines. We need to build pipelines in this country by repealing the Liberals' anti-energy laws, including Bill C-69, the no more pipelines law, and Bill C-48, the west coast tanker ban, so that we could export Canadian energy and be a force for good in the world instead of enriching dictators such as Vladimir Putin and enabling them to wage war against Ukraine.
In the following four years since Chrystia Freeland's speech in the House of Commons, the inaction from the Liberal government has been disappointing to say the least. The Chancellor of Germany, the Prime Minister of Greece, the President of Poland and the President of the European Union have all asked the Liberal government for more Canadian energy exports to Europe, only to be told, quite famously by Justin Trudeau, that there was no strong business case for LNG exports from Canada to Europe. As a result, Russian troops continue to occupy Ukrainian soil, Russian rockets continue to rain down on Ukrainian cities and Ukrainians continue to suffer.
In conclusion, I support Bill S-210 to officially recognize Ukrainian heritage month, and I encourage all members to vote in favour of the bill. I also hope that it serves as a reminder to the Liberal government that there are some very tangible measures that it could be taking to help our friends and allies in Ukraine that would ensure that their culture and heritage remain strong for generations to come.
Slava Ukraini.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to the chamber. I come today representing, especially, both the people of Ukrainian ethnicity and those of Ukrainian heritage. There is actually a difference, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. Of course, we are talking today about Bill S-210, about designating September as Ukrainian heritage month.
Here are some ties that bind our country of Canada and our country of Ukraine. Canada is home to approximately 1.4 million people of Ukrainian descent, and I am referring to ethnic descent. That actually represents 4% of Canada's population. Canada has the second-largest Ukrainian diaspora outside Russia in the world. The first Ukrainians came to Canada in 1891, with about 150,000 estimated to have landed between 1891 and 1914. These figures come from the Government of Canada in 2020, and I am actually going to dispute some of the numbers in a moment.
Most Ukrainians from this period settled in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which we have heard from other interventions today. They came to obtain farmland, bringing their rich heritage of agricultural expertise from the steppes of what was Russia at the time and is now Ukraine, here to Canada, to our untamed west at the time and to Ontario. In fact, 28% of Canadians identifying as being of Ukrainian ethnic descent live in Ontario.
These are the statistics from Canadians who identify as being of Ukrainian ethnicity, but as I mentioned earlier, there are others who claim Ukrainian heritage, and I count myself among that group. As many members know, I am from a Mennonite background, and there are a number of Mennonites here in the chamber who have the honour of representing their constituencies. This year marks 100 years since all four of my grandparents came to Canada from, at the time, the steppes of Russia, which is now part of Ukraine. All four of them were actually part of the second wave of Mennonites who left Ukraine and chose Canada as their home.
The first wave came in the 1870s and settled in southern Manitoba, primarily in the east and west reserves. They were also fleeing the greater intervention of the Russian government at the time into their way of life in the colonies of what we call Russia. I consider myself of Russian Mennonite background. There are two streams: Russian Mennonite background and Swiss Mennonite background. I could spend my 10 minutes and the next three hours talking about that wave of history, as Mennonites have fled war and persecution from the Russians from the late 1500s to Danzig in northern Poland, and then to Ukraine.
I am going to talk specifically for a moment about the ties that bind my own family, specifically my Epp lineage, but I am fairly confident that my Neufeld, my Reimer and my Rempel sides also trace this same path of immigration into Ukraine in 1804. My ancestors spent 122 years in Ukraine and now 100 years in Canada. They came to Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great.
This is important because, again, they were fleeing, at the time, greater government intervention in their lives in Gdańsk, called Danzig at the time of the Austrian Hapsburg empire, in northern Poland. They came to the steps of Ukraine at the invitation of Catherine the Great to farm, to break those steppes of Ukraine, and they turned that into part of the breadbasket of Europe. That heritage is in my blood today.
They were told, actually, that the territory at the time was empty. Reflecting now and looking at history, that actually is not true. The Tatars had been cleared of that area, and the land was given to my forebears in 1804. It was the second wave that came into southern Ukraine. The first wave of Mennonites who came from the Prussian empire actually came in 1789, settled into the Khortytsya region, which is called Zaporizhzhya today. My ancestors, as I stated, came in 1804, settling into the Molotschna region, which is near the present-day city of Tokmak. I will come to that.
They left 100 years later. They came into Ukraine and left Ukraine for the same reason, and that same reason is actually one of the reasons we are talking about the bill today. It was the fact that they were experiencing both war and revolution. Mennonites have a complicated relationship with government. When they feel that their allegiance to their faith is superseded by government, historically they have fled or moved, but we must not mistake that for a lack of service to country. That is evidenced by the members of the chamber, and it is evidenced by my own family history.
I am going to get into two short stories. My great-grandfather Gerhard Neufeld was drafted into the service, in 1904, of Czar Nicholas II. Rather than serving in the army, he served in what was called the Forsteidienst, the forestry service, so he was stationed on the banks of the Black Sea at the czar's summer resort, Yalta. My mother's father's family, the Neufelds, came from wealth, so my great-grandfather had been educated in Europe and knew that the phylloxera virus was spread by the aphid, and he saved the czar's vineyards from the phylloxera virus. He was decorated with a silver pocket watch, which remains in our family to this day. It was given to him in 1904.
Those who know me personally know that I do enjoy the odd sip of wine. I do that not for enjoyment reasons but obviously because I am genetically predisposed to enjoy wine, given my Neufeld heritage. My Neufeld family, on August 1 and 2 of this year is celebrating 100 years of settlement in Canada. We are celebrating that in the Vineland region, where my great-grandmother is buried. That same Gerhard Neufeld who was decorated by the czar was shot dead in his bed, five days before they came to Canada. My great-grandmother left, bringing five children, and I and my mother are here because of that history.
On my father's side is my Epp heritage. In 1926, my great-grandfather Epp bought, yes, bought, a passport in order to flee. He saw what was coming. My grandfather came to Canada on that passport at the age of 22. His parents were going to come that fall. When they had finished the harvest in southern Ukraine, they were going to join their family. For seven years, there were letters that went back and forth between my grandfather and his parents, and here is where those histories of ethnic Ukrainians and heritage Ukrainians unite.
Stalin slammed the door shut on my great-grandparents. Their visas and passports were never honoured. They tried and retried. Those seven years of letters became increasingly desperate, and eventually a letter came from my great-grandfather to my grandfather stating that his mother had passed away at the beginning of the Holodomor. My great-grandfather would follow, dying of starvation in 1933.
My own heritage is intertwined with the conflict that comes from war and revolution. My parents never had a desire to visit Ukraine, and neither did any of my grandparents, even when those opportunities opened up again post-1991. I, on the other hand, have been back three times. I have been to that soil, but it actually has not been my own heritage that has allowed me to go back. It has always been tomatoes and the Ukrainian involvement in the tomato industry. I could spend another hour talking just about that, but I will not.
In the final minute of my speech, I want to talk about other areas in which Canada and Ukraine have become close and have supported each other. Canada was the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence, and since then, we have maintained a close bilateral relationship. Canada is one of the leading bilateral development assistance partners of Ukraine, and many of us continue in that work today. Our free trade agreement has allowed for the further expansion of trade.
Of course, time will not allow me to get into the last four years, but it is war, again, that has brought our relationship even closer. I stand here proudly today, as proud as a humble Mennonite can be proud, to support Canada's relationship with Ukraine and the designation of September as Ukrainian heritage month.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great opportunity for me to rise to speak to Bill S-210.
I just want to commend all the speakers today, particularly the last speaker, my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I love history, and hearing the stories of people's families, where they have come from and the challenges they have overcome is always an inspiration to me. I thank the member for sharing. I know that many members of the House who are of Ukrainian heritage, or of that region, have shared stories of the hardships their families endured to come here and make Canada their home and to build a life for themselves and the generations after them in our great country. I must say, I am inspired by that.
What the legislation is seeking to do is to honour the contributions of over 1.3 million Canadians who have Ukrainian heritage, including many of my friends. My stepfather is also a man of Ukrainian heritage, and I am proud to represent thousands of people of Ukrainian heritage in my constituency, Parkland, just outside Edmonton.
The story of Ukrainian Canadians is inseparable from the story of western Canada and, particularly, Alberta. When the first Ukrainian settlers arrived in what is now Alberta in 1892, they came seeking freedom and opportunity to build a better life for their families. The Prairies were a vast, isolated region, largely undeveloped, yet through determination and hard work, these Ukrainian settlers transformed the landscape and turned western Canada into the developed agricultural region that it is today.
Ukrainian settlers in Alberta, in particular, established farms. They built churches, opened businesses and created communities. These communities quickly became hubs for agricultural knowledge; cultural traditions such as language, music and dance; and a strong sense of community. Their contributions formed economic and social foundations for western Canada. Some of the earliest Ukrainian settlements in Canada were established just east of what is now my constituency, Parkland, and these communities still stand today.
I want to talk about the service that Ukrainian Canadians have given to their adopted country, Canada. During the First World War, many Ukrainian Canadians demonstrated great loyalty to Canada by volunteering to serve in the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Thousands answered the call to defend the country they had chosen as their home, including Ukrainian Canadian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest medal of valour in the British Empire, Filip Konowal, who was also a member of the Governor General's Foot Guards, which is a regiment I serve in today.
At the same time, though, there is a tragic history. Many thousands of Ukrainians who had immigrated to Canada were classified as enemy aliens by the federal government. Ukraine was not a country at that time. It was under the control of either Russia or Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary was a member of the Central Powers, so many Ukrainians, unfortunately, were lumped in with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which we were at war with, and thus were interned in camps across Canada. They were forced to perform labour under very difficult conditions. Many were sent to very remote locations, including areas that would become part of Banff National Park and Jasper National Park.
I think it is important that, when we pass bills such as the one that is before us, we recognize the great sacrifices that Ukrainians made, not only in standing up for our country of Canada but also the sacrifices of the Ukrainians who were put through deprivations by the government at that time.
The loyalty of Ukrainian Canadians was demonstrated further during the Second World War. I just recently learned this in my research for the bill. Ukrainian Canadians enlisted in the Canadian military at the highest rate of any demographic other than English Canadians or French Canadians. They served with distinction in every branch of the armed forces. They fought tyranny overseas, and they fought to secure the freedoms we continue to enjoy today.
Ukrainians have a very real experience with oppression, knowing what their ancestors faced under the Russian Empire, under Austria-Hungary and under the Soviets, and they understood the value of liberty in a way that many people could take for granted. Those Ukrainian Canadians knew exactly what they were fighting for.
Since the arrival of the first Ukrainians in Canada over 135 years ago, they have enriched our country in countless ways. They have contributed to agriculture, business, science, education, public service and art across Canada and, might I say, they produced some of the best hockey players we have ever seen in Canadian history. They have preserved and shared their vibrant culture, including the Vyshyvanka, which continues to thrive across Canada. Ukrainian festivals and heritage celebrations are some of the most wonderful events that people can attend in this country.
In my own constituency, we have an organization of Ukrainian dancers who play an important role in preserving and sharing Ukrainian traditions. Since 1983, they have connected countless young Canadians with their heritage through dance, music and cultural education while also recognizing and welcoming those who want to learn more about Ukrainian culture. These organizations have been critical in recent years, as we have seen many Ukrainian war refugees coming to Canada. It is always really interesting to see how people who have been in Canada for over 100 years are connecting with Ukrainians who are just coming to Canada today, in the things that they are learning about each other and the traditions that they are reviving together. These organizations are doing more than just preserving traditions. They are building bridges.
My home province of Alberta is home to many significant symbols of Ukrainian heritage. The giants of the Prairies, for one, are icons of Ukrainian heritage. This includes the world's largest perogy, as well as Canada's largest Easter egg. The Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, which is just 30 minutes east of Edmonton, captures the early pioneering spirit of Ukrainian Canadians. This is an open-air museum and it hosts authentically restored buildings from across the Prairies. It is host to many school programs that provide generations of Albertans with a closer understanding of Ukrainian settlement in Alberta. The Ukrainian village suffered a devastating fire back in April 2025, but I want everyone in this House and across Canada to know that the village has finally reopened this year, as of May 16, for visitors. If they do have the chance, I highly encourage visiting this.
The influence of Ukrainian Canadians is found not only in the west. It is found right here in Ottawa, where the St. Onuphrius Ukrainian Catholic Church has been preserved at the Canadian Museum of History. The original prairies church is still an active parish and provides visitors to the museum a glimpse of the faith that remains the strongest among Ukrainian Canadians today.
Canada has also hosted a number of firsts for the Ukrainian community, with one of the most important being the erection of the first monument to the Holodomor. This was completed in Edmonton in 1983 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of this famine genocide. We know in this House and across the world that between 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by the Soviet Union. This is not natural in any way. This was not the result of a drought or a failed harvest. It was a man-made famine designed to crush the Ukrainian people. For decades, Soviet authorities sought to suppress the knowledge of these atrocities, but the truth has prevailed through the witness testimony of survivors and through the determination of Ukrainian Canadians who have sought justice and have sought to preserve the memory of those lost. Long before the world recognized the Holodomor, members of the Canadian Ukrainian community were fighting to ensure that this crime against humanity would never be forgotten.
Conservatives are proud of our long record of standing beside Ukraine and the Ukrainian community within Canada. In fact, Canada was one of the first countries to recognize Ukrainian independence from the Soviets, and Canada became the first western nation to formally recognize Ukraine's independence. In 2008, I was proud that Prime Minister Stephen Harper officially recognized the Holodomor as a genocide. This recognition honoured the memory of those victims. Further, in 2014, when the Russians illegally annexed Crimea, it was Conservatives who stood up under Stephen Harper and delivered a clear message to Vladimir Putin that Russia must respect Ukrainian sovereignty. Once again, I am very proud to speak in favour of this legislation.
Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30
[S. O. 57]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Bail and Sentencing Reform Act
The House resumed from June 10 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C‑14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing)
Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour to rise today to represent the people of Bow River, and the river keeps flowing.
I rise to speak to Bill C‑14 and to the Senate amendments that have been returned to the House.
Before addressing those amendments themselves, I want to return to my maiden speech, which was not much more than a year ago. I came to Ottawa because I was tired of watching common‑sense Canadians feel like nobody was listening to them. I came here because farmers and families, teachers and nurses, doctors, mechanics, oil field workers, seniors and residents across Bow River told me they were worried about the direction of this country. They were worried about a government that seemed increasingly disconnected from everyday realities. They were worried about public safety, and they were tired of hearing the same stories over and over again.
Just this year, a man from Okotoks was charged after police found more than 500,000 images and videos of child sexual abuse material in his home. Investigators described it as one of the largest collections they had ever encountered and involved tens of thousands of victims. Following his arrest, he was released on bail, which sparked outrage and concern throughout the community. The RCMP warned the public against retaliation, threats and vigilante actions. A criminologist from Mount Royal University, Kelly Sundberg, said that stricter bail conditions could help the community feel at ease.
I need to mention that after years of Liberal judicial appointments, the Liberals have established a culture in the judiciary to defer to the perpetrator. This is maybe not deliberate by every judge. It is maybe not a grand scheme, but it is a culture that has insidiously infected our judiciary and that has resulted in deference to the perpetrator. Where does this leave victims? Where does this leave the public when they are worried about crime? The crime wave that is sweeping across this country, which we have been enduring for years, is sometimes bringing our communities to its knees.
The people I represent do not believe public safety should be controversial. They do not believe accountability should be controversial. They certainly do not believe that protecting victims should take a back seat to protecting criminals. That is why Bill C‑14 matters. This bill is really important.
The original purpose of Bill C‑14 was straightforward. It was intended to strengthen Canada's bail system and restore confidence to a justice system that many Canadians believe has become far too lenient toward repeat offenders and violent offenders. The intent was to ensure that meaningful safeguards were in place when accused persons were released into our communities.
I just spoke about how our communities feel and how they feel unsafe. These safeguards are what Canadians expected from Parliament when it began studying this legislation. Unfortunately, we are here today because the Senate has chosen to weaken one of those safeguards.
Before turning to the amendment itself, Canadians and parliamentarians need to understand the broader context. Throughout this Parliament, Liberals repeatedly stood in the way of common-sense criminal justice reforms. They voted down Bill C‑220. They voted down Bill C‑242. They voted down Bill C‑246. These were not half measures, but substantive legislative proposals designed to address real and growing public safety concerns facing Canadians.
Bill C‑242, the jail not bail act, would have strengthened Canada's bail system for repeat violent offenders. Canadians have watched too many tragic cases unfold, where dangerous individuals repeatedly cycle through the justice system and are released back into communities despite extensive criminal records. The principle behind that legislation was simple: Public safety should come first. The Liberals voted it down.
Bill C‑246 would have strengthened sentencing provisions for serious sexual offences and recognized the profound and lasting harm that these crimes inflict on victims. Victims deserve confidence that the offenders will face consequences that reflect the severity of their crimes. The Liberals voted it down.
Bill C-220 represented another serious effort to strengthen accountability within our justice system and restore public confidence in a system that too many Canadians believe is failing to protect them. It would have amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to make foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences resulting in sentences of six months or more inadmissible to Canada and subject to removal. It sought to close loopholes that allowed serious offenders to avoid removal proceedings through lengthy appeals and technicalities. We have heard time and time again in this place, in question period and in debate, just a small sampling of the examples from across the country where this is happening in real time. The consequences for our communities are palpable, real, tragic and avoidable. The Liberals voted it down.
Additionally, the Liberals just voted down Bill C-232, which dealt with blocking transfers of dangerous offenders who pose a risk to public safety, like Paul Bernardo, to medium- or low-security prisons, ensuring they remain in maximum-security prisons.
When Parliament finally had an opportunity to study Bill C-14, the Liberals repeatedly blocked progress there as well. If we think back to December, they prevented the justice committee from studying this legislation not once, not twice, but 18 separate times. If the government was so anxious to get this legislation enacted and have it receive royal assent, it had every opportunity at innumerable times to progress it through the parliamentary process. It would be in force today, and we would not be having this debate in the House. I cannot help but think what the impact is in communities because we, the Liberal government, delay. If we had been permitted to do this work earlier, we would be much further along in the process.
I would like to share some stories from my home, from where I live, remarks on the impact of crime and the impact of repeat offenders. At home, it is now commonplace to hear about copper theft. It may seem like a fringe or a fad, a petty theft kind of circumstance, but the impact to communities and, in this particular case, farmers is significant and massive. Petty criminals will go and raid an irrigation pivot for less than $100 of copper, sometimes less than $50 of copper, but the cost to get that equipment repaired is tens of thousands of dollars. More importantly, that machine is not available when the crops need water. It impairs the farmer's ability to grow food. It makes the farmer feel vulnerable. He does not know what kind of bad actor he is going to run into when he is out in the field, checking the equipment and doing the work, growing the food for Canadians.
I have visited multiple RCMP detachments across my riding. I make a point to visit them. Every time I have a chance to visit a community, I stop by the detachment. I speak to the sergeant in charge and to the constables. I ask them what they worry about. I ask them what problems they see. Habitually, it is the repeat offenders who have been kicked out on bail, who have not been rehabilitated and who keep coming back into the system. They deplete RCMP resources in these areas that are, using the words of the constables, “police deserts”. There is a 40-minute or an hour to two-hour response time. That is what the detachment staff tell us.
I know this from personal experience. I had bad actors out in the middle of the field in the middle of the night, and it was four hours before the RCMP were able to get there, to get to us. My neighbours and I were alert all night long, in the middle of the night, in the winter, vigilant to make sure nothing bad was going to happen. It turned out that the individual was wanted on a Canada-wide warrant and from Winnipeg. He had been on the lam for more than a year and had been in and out of the justice system again and again.
These are not petty crimes. These are crimes and activities that tug at the fabric of the communities that hold Canadians together. Also, these long wait times do not impact just the community at large but sworn members themselves. They fear they are going to miss a call when something bad happens. They are stretched too thin because they are consistently dealing with repeat people. They cannot be in the community where they need to be when they want to be there because they are busy dealing with failures of the justice system. We cannot let this stand. It is my hope that we do not.
I think of the impact on farmers, small towns and rural communities, whether it is pickup trucks, cars and vehicles parked in front of the local co-op that are stolen in broad daylight or a spree of 14 vehicles, in a town that only has 150 residents, stolen over the course of a day and a half because the perpetrators are out on bail and looking for a joyride. It is irresponsible of the government to allow this to happen. It is because of these realities that Canadians expect Parliament to strengthen public safety. We need to strengthen these measures, not weaken them. These measures were debated in the House, and the House of Commons gave clear direction as to what the expectations were prior to sending the bill to the Senate.
That is precisely what the amendment before us would do. It concerns sureties. For the Canadians watching at home, a surety is not someone who simply signs paperwork. They play a critical role in the bail system. They are expected to supervise the accused, to encourage compliance with bail conditions, to report violations and to help ensure the accused attends court and does not pose a danger to the public. These are serious responsibilities. Being a surety is a privilege, not a right. That is why the House adopted a simple and common-sense rule: If someone has been convicted of an indictable offence within the previous 10 years, they are not eligible. They have not earned back the trust of society to stand as the caretaker of someone who is in the system. The principle is straightforward. If a person has recently demonstrated a serious disregard for the law, they should not be entrusted with supervising another individual accused of breaking the law. Most Canadians would consider that common sense. The House agreed. Parliament agreed.
However, the Senate has now chosen to weaken the rule. I cannot understand why. The Senate amendment would create an exception that allows judges to approve individuals with recent indictable convictions as sureties if the judge believes no other surety is available and that doing so would be in the interests of justice. This is a loophole we could drive a bus through. This exception swallows the rule whole, like Jonah and the whale. Jonah escaped, but I am not sure we will. The original provision was clear that a recent indictable conviction would mean an individual is not eligible. It was simple. The Senate amendment would change that standard: eligible whenever no better option could be found. Public safety and the public perception of safety demands better than that. That notion transforms the prohibition into a guideline, which then, with the judicial culture we have today, makes it optional, an exception, if the judge feels like it. When safeguards become optional, they are no longer safeguards.
We were deliberate in the provisions that were put in the bill sent from this place, and they were debated vigorously. Canadians should ask a simple question. Parliament determined that a recent indictable conviction makes someone unsuitable to supervise an accused person, so why does that person suddenly become suitable simply because there are no other alternatives? Well, it is because there usually are alternatives, but the accused person does not like them. The answer is that they do not have to like them. The standard has simply been lowered.
The Senate presents a false choice. It suggests that if an accused person cannot find an eligible surety, then detention becomes the only option, but that is not so. It is simply not true. Canadian courts already possess numerous tools within the bail system. Courts can require financial pledges, impose cash deposits and set a number of other conditions in order to ensure that the public remains safe. The answer is not lowering the standard that Parliament deliberately established but maintaining confidence in the integrity of the system. The public demands it, and our honour demands that we deliver that to the public.
Polling cited during the Senate debate found that 72% of Ontarians supported limitations on who may act as a surety, 71% supported cash bail for violent and repeat offenders and two-thirds believed that Canada's bail system was not strict enough. Canadians are clearly asking for stronger safeguards, not weaker ones.
The Senate amendment would also undermine accountability. Sureties are expected to supervise accused persons, report breaches, encourage compliance and ensure attendance in court. Those responsibilities require trustworthiness. Canadians expect the person carrying out these responsibilities to have demonstrated respect for the law and, if they have lost it previously, that they have earned it back adequately. It is not an unreasonable expectation. It is common sense.
The Senate amendment relies heavily on the phrase “the interests of justice”. That sounds reasonable, but it is vague. When I spoke earlier about judicial culture, that is the thin edge of the wedge allowing the system to accommodate unreasonably. Different judges may interpret it differently. Different courts may apply it differently. This place deliberately established a clear rule, and clarity to the judiciary is required to meet the expectations of Parliament. The Senate is replacing certainty with discretion, and therein lies the loophole.
Canadians deserve clear standards, consistency and confidence that public safety measures will actually be applied. Bill C-14 was introduced because Canadians have lost confidence in the bail system. They have watched violent crime increase, repeat offenders cycle through the system and governments talk about public safety while failing to deliver meaningful reform. The House provision would help restore confidence. The Senate amendment would weaken that confidence.
The Senate has argued that some marginalized communities may face difficulties. We should absolutely recognize the challenges faced in some communities, but compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. The purpose is not merely to find someone willing to sign a form but to find someone capable of providing meaningful supervision and accountability. If finding a surety is difficult, the answer cannot be lowering the standards.
The amendment focuses almost entirely on the circumstances of the accused, but what about victims, families and communities? The threads of the fabric of our communities are at risk. What about law-abiding Canadians who expect the justice system to prioritize their safety? Victims deserve meaningful safeguards before accused persons are released into their communities. Weakening those safeguards does not strengthen confidence in the justice system. It weakens it.
This debate ultimately comes down to a simple question: When public safety and convenience come into conflict, which side should Parliament choose? Conservatives believe the answer is clear, and it is that recent indictable offenders should not supervise accused persons released on bail. The Senate amendment abandons that principle and replaces it with a loophole. Bill C-14 was supposed to strengthen bail, and the Senate amendments would weaken it.
For that reason, and for the countless Canadians who expect Parliament to put public safety first, Conservatives cannot support these amendments, and we hope the government will reject them as well.
Mr. Speaker, bail reform has been on the agenda for months. I can recall standing in this place six months ago, as I indicated earlier, pleading, begging and offering leave for this legislation to pass. Constantly, the Conservative Party puts up a roadblock.
The Prime Minister made an election platform commitment to bring in bail reform legislation. The member says he checks with the RCMP on a regular basis. Has he asked how the RCMP feels about Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation? Law enforcement, as a whole, has been exceptionally supportive of Bill C-14. Has the member asked about lawful access, another piece of legislation that the Conservative Party has indicated it is going to be voting against? How does the member justify or reconcile those two issues?
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the almost conciliatory tone of the member across the way. He was being nice, which is refreshing.
An hon. member: I am sure you will get to answering the question soon.
David Bexte: Mr. Speaker, at some point, I will answer the question far better than a Liberal government will answer a question.
I have spoken with members across my riding, and they are so concerned about the repeat offenders who are going to get out. If they are unsupervised or supervised by someone who has not earned the trust of society, then the problems are not being solved. The root cause and the root problem here is that the amendment undermines the entire premise of the bill.
The Liberal government had 11 years to work on this and fix it. I have already talked about December last year and all the work that was done in committee to advance this. It is rich that the government is urgently getting to it now.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on the bail issue, I can understand my colleague's position on the Senate amendment. However, it does come with certain guidelines. A judge who grants a person who has committed a crime in recent years the opportunity to be designated as a surety must demonstrate that it is in the interest of justice and must record the reasons for their decision in the case file.
Does my colleague not think that refusing this amendment is a bit of an affront to judges' ability to make sound decisions on a case-by-case basis, allowing them, where justified, to authorize a surety that would otherwise have been inadmissible?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the accommodation by the member down the way in giving me time to make sure I clearly understood her question.
It goes, I guess, to the root of the problem, in that there is a concern about the public trust in the judiciary, the judgment of our judges. It is a separate arm of government. We have to have an independent judiciary, but it is equally incumbent on the Parliament of Canada to have absolutely clear legislation as to what we expect judges to do. It is the ambiguity in the loophole that brings into question the problem. That brings into question judges having the latitude to interpret things that Parliament has already decided must happen. In those cases, we need to tighten up the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for getting to the crux of the challenges with bail reform and the fact that, when this bill went through the House, it was supported completely. The issue around sureties was discussed and an amendment was unanimously agreed to by all parties in this chamber before it went to the Senate. I do find it somewhat hypocritical of the government to not reject this amendment, like the other amendments that have come back from the Senate on this bill.
As the member indicated, it creates vagueness. I know the member referred to rural crime. I have the same challenge in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, where the same repeat offenders, who are robbing our farmers and our rural people, are getting back out on bail. That is why we need bail reform so badly after 11 years of the Liberal government.
I am now concerned that, with this loophole in the bill, these people, who do have to convince the judge, will have the ability to get back out when they should be spending time in jail if they cannot find somebody to cover for them or to be their surety.
Mr. Speaker, it goes again to the same thing, which is the confidence the Canadian public demands of Canada's justice system. If there are loopholes in the system, then the bad guys will learn how to use them. They will figure out how to convince unreasonable leniency from the courts. To the Bloc member's point, I have numerous cases of events here in Bow River and around southern Alberta where the judges just did not bother to write the reasons down. It was arbitrary.
There are so many things that go into this circumstance about resources to police and resources to the judiciary that contribute to this. I grant that. However, that should not be a free pass for Parliament to water down legislation when we had already unanimously clear expectations in the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Bow River did not answer the question of the parliamentary secretary. In his speech, he said he spoke with RCMP all the time. The parliamentary secretary asked what the RCMP told him about bail reform and lawful access. In his answer, in which he ironically first started off by accusing Liberals of never answering the question, he then skated around the whole question and talked about what his constituents are saying to him. Why do we not ask the member again what the RCMP has been saying to him?
He will not answer that question because law enforcement is wholly behind this bill. That is why he does not want to answer it. Will he just come to terms with the fact that he is at odds with the RCMP and law enforcement on this?
Mr. Speaker, I take a directly opposed view of the circumstance.
I spoke with numerous members across the riding, and unanimously they wanted tougher bail conditions without fail. The RCMP's sworn members, in every detachment that I visited in my riding, universally wanted tougher bail conditions without loopholes and without judicial discretion because they know that the bad people need to be dealt with in the system and not unleashed on the public.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his strong speech. After years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies that drove violent crimes up, Canadians are sadly paying the price in their communities every day, as he spoke of in his speech. Conservatives improved Bill C‑14 with key amendments in the House, but the majority Liberal, Trudeau-appointed Senate has once again watered it down, prioritizing criminals' rights over public safety.
Will my colleague join me in calling on the government to reject these weakening Senate amendments and restore the strong public safety version that Conservatives helped build?
Mr. Speaker, I absolutely and unreservedly will join this member in calling for this legislation to be passed in the original form without the amendment as proposed.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Liberals' bill, where they say they are putting back mandatory minimum sentences, but they have this safeguard or whatever they want to call it where it is actually optional, I want to ask my colleague, the member for Bow River, is that not akin to putting seat belts in vehicles and then never requiring anybody to use them?
Mr. Speaker, that is a fantastic analogy that I wish I would have included in my material. We were absolutely clear on what we expected this legislation to do. We need to revert to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be relatively brief in my comments on the amendments proposed by the Senate. Let us not forget that we are actually debating the Senate's proposed amendments today, as opposed to the substance of Bill C-14, since we have already debated it in the House and it was passed on division. I will nevertheless take the liberty of making a few comments on the substance of the bill, but only very briefly.
The Bloc Québécois proposed amendments to improve the bill. Some were adopted, for example the fact that, in the Youth Criminal Justice Act or what was known as the Young Offenders Act, the use of a firearm was added to the definition of violent offence. This made the courts' work easier because, otherwise, it was always up to the Crown, on a case-by-case basis, to prove that an offence committed with a firearm was in fact a violent offence. We finally corrected something that seemed obvious.
It was also at the suggestion of the Bloc Québécois that the government included in the bill the obligation for parliamentarians to review the legislation after five years of its coming into force, which we think is an excellent thing, especially in a context where aspects of the legislation deal with the issue of the presumption of innocence.
We pointed out at the time that we were less in agreement with the idea that certain offences should be increased or that consecutive sentences should be handed down for offences that did not necessarily involve violence. These measures seemed designed to address a political issue rather than a legal one. For example, I am thinking of the issue of auto theft. We know, as recent history has shown, that consecutive sentences or longer sentences for auto theft are not the way to solve the problem. Rather, we can solve the problem by investing in border security. That is why we have recently seen a drop in the number of auto thefts.
Among the changes set out in Bill C‑14, there were some we considered acceptable and others we did not like. All things being equal, we felt that the bill still had more benefits than drawbacks, and so we decided that we would vote for it if the bill were put to a vote at third reading. It was passed on division and went to the Senate. That is how we ended up debating Senate amendments today.
As far as our position on the amendments go, I am about to spoil the surprise. We agree with the government's position on the Senate's amendments, accepting some and rejecting others. I will briefly run through them.
The Senate had a few concerns, a few fears, particularly about the disproportionate impact of incarceration on certain marginalized groups, such as indigenous people, racialized people, youth, and individuals experiencing homelessness. Allow me to go over the proposed amendments.
Bill C-14, as drafted, automatically prohibited anyone convicted of an indictable offence within the past 10 years from acting as a surety. We just discussed this during questions and comments. The government accepts the less stringent amendment proposed by the Senate, and so do we. It allows a judge some discretion in situations where no one else could act as a surety for an accused. For example, a newcomer may not necessarily have family here.
In our view, there are still sufficient safeguards in place. The judge must explain how it would serve the interests of justice for a person who has been convicted of an indictable offence in the past to act as a surety. The judge must explain this and must enter the reasons into the record. In exceptional cases, this allows a judge to let someone who has been convicted of an indictable offence act as a surety. We believe this strikes an appropriate balance.
Take, for example, a person who has previously been convicted of vandalism. I would remind the House that there are major and minor offences. Should someone who once committed an act of vandalism be prevented from being named as surety? If it has been less than 10 years and the person committed a truly serious crime, then surely they would still be in prison, which would immediately disqualify them, so that seemed to be an appropriate balance to us.
There is also the matter of whether we should add an obligation for judges to systematically ask defendants whether they belong to any of the groups mentioned in section 493.2 of the Criminal Code, namely racialized or minority groups, and to include that information in the court record. The government rejected the Senate amendment in that regard. We agree with the government. The amendment makes it mandatory to ask the question, when we know that judges are already required to include in the record the fact that they took those criteria into consideration.
In my opinion, and this is why we oppose the amendment, we should not force a judge's hand when it comes to how they comply with this obligation to ensure that the person is not part of a targeted group. That gives judges some discretion because it is not always necessarily relevant, appropriate or reasonable to ask a person whether they are part of a targeted group. We will leave it up to the judge to decide how to meet that obligation in each case, since they are required to indicate in the court record that they took those factors into consideration.
I know that the Senate heard testimony that the obligation to document that the criteria had been considered was not always being met. This section has only been around for two years, since 2024. Since it is already not being complied with, I respectfully suggest that, rather than creating a new section, we should instead ensure that the section that was created two years ago is complied with and that judges are more careful about including a statement that they have properly taken this obligation into consideration in the record.
There are also amendments about an annual report on interim release. It is not an amendment, since it already existed in Bill C‑14, but the Senate wants to improve it in various ways. One of the proposed changes is to add the rates of detention in custody before trial to this report. The government agrees with the amendment, and the Bloc Québécois supports it as well. Having real, accurate statistics will help us gain a better understanding of the reality of preventive detention and will probably help better inform future debates on this issue.
However, one of the amendments proposed by the Senate is a requirement to consult Statistics Canada and experts in data collection when preparing the annual report. We believe that this amendment might be a little too restrictive. The courts and the minister already have the option of consulting Statistics Canada and engaging with various experts, but making this mandatory might remove some flexibility in how things are documented. It might be more rigid than necessary. We therefore agree with the government that the amendment should not be adopted.
Another Senate amendment would change the implementation date for all the amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act, particularly regarding the confidentiality of records. A certain degree of flexibility is required to implement these changes. By allowing a certain period of time to do so, we ensure that it will be done properly. The amendment delaying the coming into force date is therefore entirely justified and appropriate. The government supports it, and we support it as well.
I think I have finished walking us through the Senate's amendments, the government's position and our position. Some of the amendments do indeed improve Bill C‑14, and we support them. We share the government's position on them. The rejected amendments are not necessarily bad, but they are already addressed, to a certain extent, by existing Criminal Code provisions. Strengthening them further might take away some of the flexibility that is required in criminal matters.
I did not mean to needlessly belabour my observations on the amendments. In closing, I would say that we agree with the government's response to the Senate concerning the amendments it accepts and those it rejects.
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the Senate amendments. One of them recommends changing the bill's coming into force date.
Why is that a good idea?
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned briefly, this amendment deals with the confidentiality of records. Bill C‑14 addresses legislative gaps in the Youth Criminal Justice Act regarding how long records should be kept.
For example, in cases where the charges were withdrawn or discharged, there were inconsistencies, and in some cases, no time limit was specified at all. To ensure the law is properly applied, a short grace period is being granted to allow the courts to update their IT systems, for example, and to enable police forces to ensure that records are kept properly. It makes sense to allow for a grace period rather than bringing the bill into force immediately upon royal assent.
We felt that this amendment was entirely justified and that the time frame was reasonable.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.
I want to take this opportunity to share a few very important observations. I have always felt very passionately in terms of the residents of Winnipeg North advocating and sharing with me about the issue of crime. This is something I feel very strongly about. In the last federal election, people at the doors were genuinely concerned about crime. I am very proud of the fact that, during the election, Canada's newly elected Prime Minister made a commitment to deal with the issue of crime in a very proactive way.
He committed to bringing forward bail reform legislation, and that is exactly what we have before us today. Going even further than that, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to strengthen our criminal laws and take action where we can to make our communities safer and healthier. The Prime Minister often talks about building a strong and healthy Canada that is going to be there to serve all Canadians and that all Canadians are able to access. A part of that means feeling that sense of security in the communities we represent.
We have brought forward a series of pieces of legislation. Members will recall that, back in November or December, I stood in my place, literally begging and pleading with the Conservatives to allow Bill C‑14, which we are debating today, to pass. Bill C‑14 is all about bail reform legislation. This is something that has been supported by municipalities and law enforcement agencies. Most importantly from my perspective, this is something the constituents in Winnipeg North want to see.
I believe that every member of the Liberal caucus will advocate for the need for bail reform and, like me, feel frustrated, to a certain degree, with the amount of opposition and filibustering that we have seen. Back in November, as I indicated, I was virtually begging the Conservatives to allow the legislation to pass. Six months later, once again, we have the legislation before us. This is something that has to pass before the summer. Members can talk to municipalities, law enforcement, Crowns, provinces and, most importantly, the people of Canada, who all want it. We should deliver. This House has the ability to do that today.
It is not only about Bill C‑14 for me. As I indicated, the government has put forward a series of legislative initiatives to build safer communities. I could talk about Bill C‑9, which deals with hate propaganda and protecting us in different ways, in particular our churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and gurdwaras, and making sure people have access to those facilities.
I could talk about Bill C‑16, which the Conservatives have come out in opposition to. Let us take a look at what Bill C‑16 does: recognizing the issue of femicide in a very strong and powerful way, raising it to a first-degree murder in certain situations virtually automatically. We can talk about coercive behaviour, again, with one spouse using coercive behaviour that leads to certain situations.
For my constituents, it is all about reinstating a number of mandatory minimums. Recognizing that this is something our constituents want to see, I am disappointed because I would have thought there would be unanimous consent in the House, but the Conservatives have made the decision to vote against that legislation.
I can talk about Bill C-22, which stems from Bill C-2. We could not get Bill C-2 passed back in September. We tried all last fall. Ultimately, we had to break it up. Bill C-22 incorporates a part of Bill C-2 that we continue to push, yet we get resistance from the Conservative Party. It is all about lawful access. It deals with things such as the exploitation of children and extortion. We hear a great deal about those issues. Law enforcement, in particular, want to see lawful access. Canada is the only country of the Five Eyes nations that does not have lawful access. The reason we do not have it today is that the members across the way in the Conservative Party refuse to allow that legislation to pass.
If we go back to Bill C-2, we see aspects of it that we have not been able to secure passage of. I am thinking of the issue of individuals putting fentanyl into envelopes and mailing them anywhere in Canada. We do not have the authority to search those envelopes. I articulated extensively on why this is important. If Conservatives believe there are issues around drug abuse, particularly in dealing with things like fentanyl, I would think they would recognize the value of this legislation and, at the very least, allow it to pass. It is one of the ways we can deal with fentanyl. I am disappointed that the Conservative Party still has not changed its position on it. In fact, many members of the Conservative Party have stood in their place and mocked me personally on the issue, not fully understanding its significance and its importance.
The bail reform legislation deals with things such as protecting first responders if there is an aggravated situation. These are the people on our front lines, whether police, paramedics or firefighters. This is something we know Conservatives tell first responders they support. We could have passed it last fall because it is incorporated in the legislation.
What is interesting is that some speakers today talked about how the government is not passing their private members' bills. This Prime Minister has likely seen and supported more opposition private members' bills than in the entire four years of Stephen Harper. The current leader of the Conservative Party did not pass anything back then unless it was a Conservative measure. Bailey's law is a Conservative measure. We looked at it, saw the benefits and saw it go through, even when we had the majority and could have prevented it. I can assure the members opposite that is what Stephen Harper would have done.
I can tell the House something about the Prime Minister. Under his leadership, we have seen laws related to the crime file. Members cannot identify a prime minister in generations who has done more to fight crime and work collaboratively with provinces and law enforcement than this Prime Minister. Members cannot name another prime minister who has brought forward so much in the legislative agenda. We have even taken into consideration certain aspects of Private Members' Business.
At the end of the day, I would ask my Conservative friends to stop filibustering, to stop looking at their own politically vested interests of raising money and so forth and to get behind and support good legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about the Liberal commitment to bail reform, justice reform and listening to police and constituents. Would he not agree that we are here today because of Liberal policies that are soft on crime? We are here today because of Bill C‑75, the principle of restraint and bail reform; Bill C‑5 on mandatory minimums; and Bill C‑83, the “least restrictive environment”, which allows Paul Bernardo to be in a medium-security institution. The Liberal backbench voted against my legislation, Bill C‑232, so Paul Bernardo is allowed to stay in medium security. The Liberals talk a good game, but we know, truly, who they are.
Why is the member here today dictating to us about this concern when they are actually fixing the problems they created?
Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points. First, the member might not necessarily be aware of this, but let me tell him about it. The highest number of prisoner transfers from maximum security to medium security happened when his leader, today's leader of the Conservative Party, was in government. That is the reality. Now they are in opposition, and they have other ideas. It is truly amazing. They say one thing in opposition and another when they are in government. Second, I can assure the member that this Prime Minister was elected only just over a year ago. The member might want to bring up the previous years, but he cannot accuse this Prime Minister and this government, which was elected just over a year ago, when we have over 70 new Liberal MPs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, last year, in our election platform, we wrote: “A strong Canada means strong protections in our communities and a Criminal Code which is responsive to emerging issues and protects victims of crime and keeps our kids safe.”
Since then, we have introduced several bills: Bill C‑14 makes it harder to get bail and imposes harsher penalties on criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders; Bill C‑16 better protects victims of crime; and Bill C‑22 gives law enforcement access to the tools they need, particularly to fight crimes committed using modern technology. We have also introduced legislation to strengthen security at our borders.
I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the work we have done over the past year to fulfill the campaign promises we made to make our communities safer.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the core message I want to get across is that the motivating factor goes beyond the election platform; it is all about victims and making our communities safer. That is where I believe the thrust has come from in terms of pushing forward what is likely the most aggressive legislative agenda dealing with crime in generations. I can assure members that every Liberal member of Parliament sees this as a top priority. It is all part of building Canada strong.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not happy with the addition of consecutive sentences for offences that do not constitute crimes against the person. For example, while it is true that car theft is a major problem, we do not believe that consecutive sentences will actually deter criminals. Several studies have proven that.
I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to recognize that justice is a shared responsibility, and I will use the example of auto thefts. Jurisdiction is with both the federal government and the provincial government, and we must not underestimate the importance of law enforcement. In Manitoba, I think it was from about 2004 to 2007, we had the highest per capita vehicle theft rate by a long shot. While we were able to work with Ottawa, it was the province and MPI that were able to resolve the situation.
The short of it is, we recognize that the federal government has to play an important role. This government, under this Prime Minister, is doing exactly that by demonstrating leadership and bringing in the legislative changes that are necessary. We need to continue now to work with our provincial and law enforcement agencies to make our communities safer.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-14, as well as the Senate amendments that have come forward. I will start off by talking about the importance of passing this legislation quickly and getting it into law. I will then give a bit of detail about the Senate amendments and my thoughts on those before I sum it up.
First of all, I want to say that this is not a partisan issue. Every Canadian wants to be safe in their community and safe in their home. It does not matter which party we come from; we all think that. Every Canadian is tired of seeing violent repeat offenders out on the streets when they should be behind bars.
In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, we had a very tragic incident happen recently at Lambton College, where an innocent student, Dane Nisbet, was shot by someone who has been involved in crime previously, and he died. He was 20 years old. People in my community are outraged now because the perpetrator has been let out on bail. This is why Bill C-14 needs to go into play. Bill C-14 would prevent these things from happening, and I will talk a little about how it would do that.
Over the last few years, there have been unintended consequences, from Bill C-75, for example, with the principle of restraint. The principle of restraint was making judges think that they had to let people out at the earliest possible opportunity with the least possible punishment. Bill C-14 would actually clarify this. It would clarify how police and courts apply the principle of restraint to specify that it does not mean automatic release where detention is justified to protect public safety. This is an incredibly important part of Bill C-14 and something that we definitely are going to need.
Also, Bill C-14 would add aggravating factors, making sure we do not have sentences that are too light in extreme cases. When the offence is committed against victims who are first responders, it would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as repeat violent offenders with previous convictions within the last five years and organized retail theft. I heard a question earlier about auto theft. This kind of thing would be an aggravating factor in sentencing, as well as offences interfering with essential infrastructures, which we see in copper theft and some of the drug-trafficking offences. All of those things are very good measures.
The other thing this bill would do is align to the military justice system to make sure both systems are consistent.
With respect to the Senate amendments that have come forward, some are good, and some we would prefer not to have. I think the one that would allow the measures for the youth justice system to come into force, that would allow some time to get that right, would be very, very important.
I have heard discussion from the Conservatives today that they do not like the measures that the Senate has submitted on sureties, but one of the things that Conservatives continue not to understand is that when an independent court is making a decision, it has to have discretion. We have seen mandatory minimum penalties fail at the Supreme Court because they do not give the judges discretion and the judges are independent. Therefore, this is an important principle that we see represented here.
It is only part of the story. When it comes to preventing violent crime in our neighbourhoods and in our communities, we have to have the laws, and then we have to enforce the laws. There is an opportunity to do a better job on enforcement. We have to also look at where we are going to put the people. A lot of times, people are being released because there is no room in the prisons. That is a shared responsibility, federally and provincially, and something that we need to look at. However, if we can get the deterrence to crime right and enforce the law, we are going to see fewer people in the prisons, which is what we saw previously.
That, in a nutshell, is why it is critical that we get this legislation passed. The sooner it is passed and gets royal assent, the sooner it would get into law. Then we can stop seeing these repeat and violent offenders out on the streets and getting sentences that I consider to be inadequate.
I am very proud of the government for the measures that it put in place, and not just Bill C‑14, as Bill C‑16 is exactly what we asked for at the status of women committee, which I am a part of. It addresses coercive control, femicides, deepfakes and a lot of the things that we brought forward. I think the government is serious about addressing crime in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. She talked about unintended consequences a lot, which was a bit strange for somebody who, just months ago, told Canadians that it was the Liberals making her communities less safe and that it was their “bail not jail” policies and legislation that favoured criminals over victims. In fact, that member said that criminals are making out very well under the Liberals. She was right. These policies have not changed. The only thing that has changed is where she sits. She also said that MPs who cross the floor should go back to their constituents for a fresh mandate.
If she truly believes the principles she spent years defending, including that Liberal soft-on-crime policies have made her community less safe, when is she going to go back to constituents and find out who they want to elect to represent them?
Mr. Speaker, I would thank the member opposite for that question, but I do not think it was a very good question. What I would say is that everything I have said is on the public record. The Prime Minister is aware of what I think. All of the members of the Liberal caucus are, and they welcomed me, with my Conservative views, into this caucus. I am very proud to be part of this team.
My view has not changed. As I said, the things that were done that undermine the justice system are being repaired here in Bill C‑14, and that is why it is critical that we get this legislation passed.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): 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.
Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę Act
moved that Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today to speak to the second reading of the legislation that would give legal force to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. It is very timely that we are having this debate now as we celebrate National Indigenous History Month. While this month is a celebration, it is also a reminder, not only for Canadians but also for us as parliamentarians, of the work we need to do to help build a stronger, more equitable future for indigenous peoples.
By advancing this legislation today, all members of the House have the opportunity to support a stronger future for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. This moment has been a long time in the making. All of us know that the heart of this legislation is in the north, in the Sahtu and with the people of Norman Wells. It began with elders, leaders and families that carried a vision for their nation. It began with their determination to see their governance restored, their authority recognized and their future placed back in their own hands.
When we speak about progress, we must also speak about legacy. In the Sahtu, that legacy is profound. More than 30 years ago, the signing and enactment of the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement fundamentally changed the landscape of indigenous governance and land management in Canada. It was a landmark for not only the Sahtu but also the entire country. It created certainty, stability and a foundation strong enough to support other self-government negotiations into the future. The agreement brought clarity to land stewardship and resource management across a vast region that has since shaped decisions, influenced national policy and guided how we approach modern treaties across Canada. It set a precedent, and communities across Canada refer to it as they advance their own agreements. It made space for new models of partnership between indigenous governments and Canada, between communities and industry, and between northern peoples and the federal system.
The 1993 agreement changed the way Canada understands shared responsibility for land, water, wildlife and resources. It proved that reconciliation, when grounded in respect, can create not only fairness but also stability for investment, planning and shared prosperity for future generations. From that foundation came the first self-government agreement in the Sahtu, the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement, which was a milestone that inspired and encouraged others across the region.
Today, we are here to advance the second of five potential agreements that were envisioned all those decades ago, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę self-government treaty. This treaty is not an isolated achievement. It is part of that continuum, a living legacy of a region that has consistently led the way on land claims, self-determination and innovative governance. Today, we build on that legacy through Bill C-27. If passed, it would establish the agreement as a self-government treaty in Canadian law. It would formally recognize the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government as the government of the Sahtu, Dene and Métis of Norman Wells and would affirm what has always been true, which is that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę hold inherent rights of self-government, rights affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. This is practical, meaningful and legally binding recognition.
The treaty confirms the authority of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę to make their own laws; elect their own leaders; protect and revitalize their languages; strengthen their culture; deliver their own programs and services, including education and health care; manage land use and development decisions within their jurisdiction; and chart their own path forward as a nation. However, I also want to consider what this means not just for governance but also for people.
Fundamentally, self-government is a deeply human concept. It affects the classrooms in which a child learns. It affects the homes in which families live. It affects the care a grandparent receives, the language heard in the community hall, the decisions made at the council table and the confidence and optimism of young people imagining their futures. Self-government means that programs are designed locally by people who understand the community. It means language and culture are protected, not as an afterthought but as central priorities when developing policies and programs. It means that governance reflects Sahtu values rooted in respect, responsibility and relationships. For the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this treaty is a return to an age-old system of governance grounded in culture and social and spiritual practices passed down over countless generations.
Their ancestors governed themselves long before Canada existed, and this legislation would recognize that truth and restore the space for indigenous decision-making to flourish again. These authorities reflect what the community has long envisioned: decisions being made by the people who live there, who know the land, who share the culture and who carry the responsibility for future generations. This legislation would honour commitments, renew relationships and, just as importantly, help unlock new opportunities for the nation to build and prosper on its own terms.
I can say with confidence, because the community has shown it again and again, that the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę are ready. After 20 years of negotiation, countless meetings and tireless leadership, they are ready to take on self-government.
One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the foundation it would establish for economic opportunity. Under the legislation, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę would have jurisdiction with respect to direct taxation of its citizens within its land and authority over internal and local affairs, as well as the ability to finance their self-government. These tools would help support long-term planning, create jobs and generate their own revenue.
As an indigenous government, the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę government would be positioned to engage directly on development projects, ensuring that benefits flow into the community and that development reflects local priorities and values. This is good news for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. It is good for the region, it is good for the Northwest Territories, and it is good for Canada.
Stable governance encourages investment. It speeds up decision-making, gives clarity to investors and aligns economic development with cultural and environmental stewardship. It also means that projects can move forward with community support. This is how the north succeeds, by making certain that the people who live closest to the land have a real voice in how it is used.
Before I close, I want to take a moment to thank everyone who played an important role in getting us to where we are today. I thank leaders, elders, youth, negotiators and community members. They have shown what can be achieved when partnership is genuine and relationships are built on trust. To the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, mahsi cho for their leadership, mahsi cho for their patience and mahsi cho for their partnership. As a proud northerner, as a minister of the Crown and as someone who has spent my life working with and learning from communities across the Northwest Territories, it is an honour to play even a small role in this moment.
As we observe National Indigenous History Month, this legislation gives us the chance to live up to our highest ideals as a country, to honour our commitments and to walk forward with indigenous peoples together. I urge all members of the House to join me in working to pass this critical piece of legislation without delay.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her tabling of the legislation and her work on the file.
In regard to pushing forward Bill C‑27, we did note that, in 2022 to 2024, then prime minister Trudeau announced an expansion of one million square kilometres within the Northwest Territories, covering 25% of its land and waters, and to reach that goal by 2025. That announcement was included.
Now, Imperial Oil in Norman Wells announced just a few months ago that it will be ceasing operations within that village. The village itself receives about 70% of its tax base from the operations of Imperial Oil. There is a pipeline that would take energy from Norman Wells down to Alberta, line 21, that is caught in three separate environmental assessments.
What is the minister doing to spark economic activity for the people of Norman Wells?
Mr. Speaker, what is before the House would be an important part of that, meaning the establishment of the self-government of the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. One of the other initiatives that Parliament approved was funding for Our Land for the Future, which is a land guardian program. It is working with indigenous governments across the Northwest Territories to develop the land guardian program.
Another indigenous government in the Sahtu region is Fort Good Hope. I was just talking to them yesterday about their land guardian program. It is creating 2 million dollars' worth of local wages, which is 12 full‑time positions and over 100 community members participating throughout the year. It has been important for land, for culture, for wildfire protection and for many more things, so I tip my hat to all the land guardians across the Northwest Territories.
The other thing I would note in the Sahtu is the recent Mackenzie Valley Highway. We are working to expedite that project, and we have seen that Rio Tinto is looking to explore for copper in the region.
Mr. Speaker, the government speaks quite often about creating this economy and doing it in speeds never felt in generations, yet we have an existing pipeline, line 21, that runs from Norman Wells to Alberta that has already been in operation for decades. It now needs to be replaced because it is coming to the end of its useful life, yet the government has turned the Northwest Territories basically into a park. It has caught this pipeline up in three separate environmental assessments, causing Imperial Oil to shut down its operation in Norman Wells. There are 750 people in Norman Wells on the verge of unemployment because the government cannot get its act together. This is an emergency. We need our energy sector strong.
Why is the government not acting quickly to get this pipeline approved?
Mr. Speaker, it is important to go through the regulatory process. One of the initiatives that will support the Mackenzie Valley region, including Norman Wells, is the government's announcement of referring the Mackenzie Valley Highway project to the Major Projects Office. That is the opportunity to work with communities as well as the territorial government, which is the proponent on this project, to accelerate it. With the Mackenzie Valley Highway, it would benefit residents with local food supply and fuel being able to be shipped all year and not depending on barges and winter roads. Already we are seeing more mineral exploration in the region, and we are continuing to support that through critical mineral investments that were announced in budget 2025.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her leadership and her work on this file. This is truly the result of many years of hard work.
I am wondering whether my colleague can tell us a little more about the consultation process that led to the drafting of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, this is a treaty, so it was negotiated with the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. Following the negotiations, we came to the draft. A consultation then occurred with 30 indigenous nations, which had minor amendments that were then incorporated. The community then ratified this in March 2025. The territorial government ratified it in March 2026. I am looking for the House to expedite this so we can have this approved before the summer.
Mr. Speaker, what we see in the House is that when the government does the job correctly, legislation can move fairly quickly through this place. However, we have growing unease in British Columbia that continues to create a massive amount of uncertainty. Now we have U.S. tribes trying to get legal standing within the British Columbia framework for energy projects that affect Canada. We also have the fact that these U.S. tribes are moving in on the consultation process and requiring their say-so to approve energy projects within Canada.
The government has really done nothing to stand up to these U.S. tribes to say, no, there is no foreign interference on projects on our soil. When do we expect that to happen?
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the legal challenges from the United States-based indigenous groups against the Province of British Columbia. However, Canada is not a party to this litigation. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that decisions about consultation with non-resident groups may be required in certain circumstances. However, the federal government is monitoring all legal cases when it comes to duty to consult and accommodate, and we are updating when necessary. Again, we are monitoring the B.C. legal challenges closely and we remain committed to building Canada strong.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our new government has been very focused on securing the Arctic and unlocking the north's potential over the past year.
I am wondering whether my colleague can tell us a bit more about how the agreement before us today will support Canada's broader objective of defending, developing and transforming the north.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, beyond the investments such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the Slave geological province and the Taltson hydro expansion, the important thing about accelerating this legislation is really the importance of the self-governance to the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę. With that, it would be able to make its own laws, elect its own leaders and protect and revitalize its language and culture. This is incredibly important. Without this legislation, it is right now an organization that has to follow the not-for-profit guidance, and so it is a bit disrespectful, really. We should be passing the self-government agreement. This is part of the 1993 land claim agreement that we would be going on to self-government. This would be the second of the five communities that would be seeking self-government. Again, I urge my colleagues to pass this as quickly as possible.
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the minister for her excellent presentation and for explaining very clearly why this bill is so important.
I wonder if she could share with us what this means for the people who will be impacted by this legislation and why it is so important for them to be able to enact their own legislation.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is important to note that the self-government agreement is legislated under the Constitution: their legal authority to pass their own laws, to set up their own elections and to protect their culture. The first self-government agreement was the Déline Final Self-Government Agreement. It will be having its 10th year anniversary this year, and we have really seen how incredibly important it has been in the community of Déline.
I really look forward to seeing the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę's self-governance as it continues to grow in the community of Norman Wells. There is the opportunity to also consider moving to the indigenous public governance. However, at this stage, it is not looking to have that authority.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech on this self-government agreement, which she says could inform future agreements.
There is the Musqueam recognition rights agreement in Vancouver, which has become very controversial. It says that it is not a land agreement, and it goes on to add some comfort that nothing in this agreement is going to impact any aboriginal rights. What is missing is some comfort for the other party, the three million people in Vancouver, who are worried about private property rights. Perhaps it could say something like, “the protection and inalienability of fee simple property rights for all Canadians”.
Would that be an improvement?
Mr. Speaker, in February, we did sign three Musqueam agreements. One was a framework agreement, which is really outlining how we will work nation to nation. Included in that is section 5.1, which says that it is not a land claim, and section 5.2. Again, I encourage the members opposite to look them up, as they are available online. For the other two agreements, one was about fisheries and one was about marine stewardship, but they are not about private property.
Today, for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, this is a self-government agreement. The land claim was settled in 1993.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-27, legislation to implement the final self-government agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, for the Sahtu Dene and Métis of Norman Wells in the Northwest Territories. The name breaks down into two main parts: Tłegǫ́hłı is the place where the oil is, and Got’įnę is the government of the people.
At the outset, I want to be clear about the Conservative position. We will be supporting this legislation at second reading and to send it to committee for further study. I mentioned this a few moments ago, but we do so because we recognize the importance of meaningful reconciliation. We respect the rights of indigenous communities to pursue self-governance, and we believe that decisions affecting northern communities are often best made by the people who live, work, raise families and build their futures there.
This agreement before us is the product of decades of mostly Conservative-led negotiations. It builds upon the 1993 Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement and represents another step in the long evolution of governance in Canada's north. It recognizes that TGG's inherent right to self-government establishes a new indigenous government and creates a framework through which that government can exercise authority over matters that are of importance to its citizens.
Those are goals, of course, that Conservatives can support. In fact, support for northern self-government and devolution is not new to our party. It is part of a long Conservative tradition that stretches back decades. In 1993, under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and then minister of, at the time, Indian and northern affairs, Tom Siddon, whose wife Pat, I am told, was a strong advocate of good local and constituency work and often attended events on his behalf when he was working elsewhere, Canada signed the Sahtu Dene and Métis comprehensive land claim agreement. This agreement provided certainty. It recognized rights. It established the foundation upon which agreements like the one we are debating today are built.
Years later, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Conservatives advanced one of the most ambitious northern agendas in Canadian history. Our government at the time recognized that Canada's north was not simply a remote region to be administered from Ottawa. It is home to vibrant communities, rich cultures, extraordinary natural resources and tremendous economic potential. Prime Minister Harper at the time developed a comprehensive northern strategy built around four pillars: one, exercising Canada's sovereignty; two, promoting social and economic development; three, protecting our natural and environmental heritage; and four, improving and devolving northern governance.
This strategy reflected the simple but very important principle: Northerners are in the best position to make decisions about the future of the north. That principle guided us throughout our term in government. The north has always been a defining part of our national identity, but for too long, decisions affecting the north were made thousands of kilometres away by people who would never experience the consequences of those decisions. Conservatives worked to change that. Then minister of indigenous affairs Bernard Valcourt described devolution as one of the final major steps in the political evolution of the Northwest Territories. He argued that northerners should have the same opportunity as others to make decisions about their lands, their waters, their resources. He was right then, and he is right today.
The Northwest Territories Devolution Act was not simply about transferring administrative responsibilities. It was about trust. It was about recognizing that northerners understand northern realities better than federal bureaucracies ever could. It was also about economic opportunity. Conservatives understood that when communities have greater authority over their own affairs, they can respond more quickly to opportunities that attract investment, create jobs and build prosperity. The success of the Yukon following its devolution demonstrated exactly that. Greater local control led to stronger economic growth, increased investment and greater confidence in the future. This same principle applies today.
Self-government and devolution are not merely constitutional exercises. They are practical tools that allow communities to chart their own course and build a stronger future for the next generation.
That principle guided our support, the Conservative government at the time, for the expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve, announced at the time by the late Jim Prentice, who was environment minister, and the late Chuck Strahl, the minister of Indian and northern affairs. Again, that guided our efforts to improve northern regulatory systems. It guided the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, and it guided our support for indigenous self-government agreements throughout the north.
Indeed, in 2015, Bernard Valcourt, Conservative member of Parliament and then minister of Indian and northern affairs, introduced Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. During debate on the legislation, Minister Valcourt noted that the opportunities and challenges facing the north are best handled by the people who understand them best: the people who live there. That, again, remains true today. The north is not strengthened when decisions are imposed from Ottawa. The north is strengthened when local communities are empowered to shape their own future. That is why Conservatives have always supported devolution.
We believe that local governments understand local needs. We believe that communities understand local priorities. We believe that people are more likely to achieve prosperity when they have greater control over the decisions that affect their lives. The TGG agreement is consistent with that principle. It recognizes that the indigenous population of Norman Wells should have a stronger voice in matters affecting their community, their culture and their future. It creates governance structures that are accountable to their citizens. It allows the community to exercise authority over matters such as citizenship, culture, language, social services and governance.
While we may not always agree with every element of every self-government agreement, we recognize that moving beyond the Indian Act and empowering indigenous communities to govern their own affairs can represent meaningful progress. This agreement contains unique provisions, reflecting the realities of Normal Wells. Unlike the Déline agreement, which the minister spoke about a little while ago and which combined indigenous and municipal governance, this agreement keeps the two separate but has the possibility for a future merging.
The Town of Norman Wells will continue to exist as a municipal government, while the TGG exercises authorities in areas assigned to it under the agreement. At the same time, this agreement contemplates the possibility that municipal powers could eventually be transferred if certain demographic thresholds are met. Importantly, the agreement contains provisions intended to ensure that if such a transaction occurs, the democratic rights of all, indigenous and non-indigenous, are protected. Residents of Norman Wells, indigenous and non-indigenous, would continue to have voting rights and the ability to seek elected office, and of course that matters. Reconciliation and self-government should strengthen democracy, not weaken it. The agreement must work for not only the TGG citizens, but also the broader community that calls Norman Wells home.
One of the most compelling aspects of this agreement is the potential contribution to economic reconciliation. Too often, reconciliation is discussed only in terms of governance, structures and legal frameworks. Those matters are important, but reconciliation must create all kinds of opportunities. Communities need jobs. Families need incomes. Young people need reasons to stay, build careers and raise families in their home community, if they so choose. Economic reconciliation means ensuring that indigenous communities have the tools necessary to participate fully in the economy.
Norman Wells, unfortunately, now faces some significant economic challenges. The region has long depended on resource development. The energy sector has provided employment, investment and revenues that support local services and community infrastructure. Unfortunately, recent announcements regarding the winding down of operations have created uncertainty about the future, and that is the operations of Imperial Oil, as I mentioned a little while ago.
Now, the story of Norman Wells is inseparable from the story of northern economic development. For more than a century, oil production has been part of the community's identity. It is actually in the name of the bill we are discussing today, in the indigenous translation. Norman Wells helped fuel northern development, supported generations of workers and families, and provided economic stability for the entire region.
As I have mentioned many times, the planned wind-down of Imperial Oil operations has created understandable concern throughout the community. Jobs are now at stake, local revenues are at stake and future opportunities are at stake. The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have been very clear that greater local control over economic decision-making can help address these challenges. They want to be active participants in shaping the future of their region instead of just observers. Conservatives can very much support that objective. We believe indigenous communities should be partners in economic development. We believe resource projects should create opportunities for all. We believe northern communities should have a meaningful role in determining how development occurs within their region.
The future of Norman Wells cannot be built solely on government transfers and bureaucratic programs. It must also be built on jobs, investment, entrepreneurship and responsible development. That is what economic reconciliation looks like. It means ensuring indigenous communities possess not only the authority to govern, but also the tools necessary to create prosperity for their people.
The Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę have argued that greater local control over those development decisions can help support economic growth, attract investment and ensure future opportunities benefit the community. Unfortunately, as I mentioned a little while ago, the Imperial Oil company has decided to shut down its operations. It has a pipeline that has existed for decades, line 21, taking energy from Norman Wells into Alberta. The pipeline has come to the end of its useful life. It is caught within three separate environmental assessments. The Prime Minister tells us that we need to build at speeds not known before, yet we are seeing a pipeline in existence for decades, creating jobs, opportunity and wealth, being shut down because of a lack of action by the government.
There are 750 or so people living in the village of Norman Wells and 70% of their tax revenue is from the energy sector. Those people need those jobs, and the government is turning its back on those people. As members have probably guessed, we have always believed that responsible resource development and indigenous participation go hand in hand. We reject the false choice between economic activity and indigenous prosperity. The reality is that everybody, indigenous and non-indigenous, wants jobs. They want opportunities. They want infrastructure. They want partnerships. They want the ability to make their own decisions about development on their own terms.
Economic reconciliation means saying yes to prosperity. It means creating conditions that allow communities to benefit from resources located within their traditional territories. It means ensuring that indigenous governments are partners in growth rather than spectators. That is why Conservatives have consistently supported responsible resource development in the north. For those reasons, Conservatives, again, can support this piece of legislation. We look forward to dealing with it as it goes through committee, probably in the very near future.
We also look at how the government has dealt with a few other indigenous issues within Canada; British Columbia, for one. Of course, the Cowichan Tribes court decision created a lot of questions about fee simple property within the city of Richmond. The government, unfortunately, through a series of bad decisions, led us to the point that we have arrived at today.
In 2018, a directive by the government given to their lawyers not to argue for private property rights was given. The province did the same. Only the City of Richmond argued for fee simple property. Why? We have no idea, but it is the uncertainty that was created because of those decisions.
Now there is a K’ómoks Treaty that has passed the B.C. legislature that will be coming to Parliament at some point. It has neighbouring nations questioning whether consultation was done properly. Neighbouring nations want to wait. They have interests in the territory mentioned in this treaty, overlapping jurisdictions. They have what is called a living document, which means it can be opened every 10 years. That goes against the whole view of establishing a treaty. It is a finality that everyone is looking for; this legislation gives that finality. However, it is not given in the K’ómoks Treaty. Why? We have no idea.
Again, as I said at the start, when things are done correctly, legislation can move very quickly through this House. However, the government continues to do things that boggle the mind, perhaps to create a level of uncertainty within British Columbia so that no development ever happens again. That seems to be what the government is doing here. On the other hand, it is saying it wants to build as fast as possible and get the economy back on track. It cannot do the two at the same time. It cannot create uncertainty in a province that needs access to the Pacific coast. That scares off investment. There has to be that certainty. There has to be the ability to attract that investment. That is the certainty people are looking for, as well as the protection for private property owners so they know their property is protected. That is the underpinning of our society.
I mentioned the Déline agreement earlier. It was negotiated under Stephen Harper and Minister Bernard Valcourt. It was a self-government agreement, as the minister mentioned in her speech, one of five potentially coming our way. The government at the time recognized the potential for people to create their own path forward. Again, that is something we support wholeheartedly. Also, as I mentioned a bit in my speech, although I did not get into it as much as I wanted to, as I am running out of time, a hybrid indigenous-municipal government was created as a result. The town of Fort Franklin is now known as Déline because of the actions by the Harper government to recognize that opportunity means opportunity for all.
Reconciliation means reconciliation on both sides, creating a strong economy and a level of certainty to attract investment and create jobs, opportunity and wealth. What has this government done? In 2022, it basically announced that the Northwest Territories would be a park, shutting down development, shutting down existing pipelines already in operation and shutting down the ability to create opportunities for the local population. That is deeply unfortunate, because the north has so much potential and so much going for it. These are amazing people, and we want to see them succeed.
As the opposition, we will support this piece of legislation, Bill C-27. However, we would like to see the government take a more focused approach to creating economic activity and employing more people in the Northwest Territories.
I only have a few moments left, so I will yield the rest of my time and take questions.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition for supporting this legislation.
As mentioned, this is one community of five. Déline was approved in 2016. We are moving forward with this one. The consultation is in process for Colville Lake, which is one of the other communities. If that legislation comes forward and is similar to Déline and Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę, I wonder if the members opposite would support an expeditious passing of that legislation as well.
Mr. Speaker, I am excited to see those future agreements when they come forward. I would like to say that the government knows where our lines are in the sand. If it is going to impact private property, that is something we cannot really accept on this side of the House. However, if the legislation is laid out clean, as it is here, I think there is greater potential for that to happen.
Mr. Speaker, it has been a real pleasure to hear the speech of my colleague, and I deeply appreciate his work for first nations. As everybody know, I am very proud to be a member of the House, because I represent Wendake, in my riding, and I am very proud to have been the representative of its people for the last 18 years here in the House of Commons and before that in the national assembly.
Let me remind members that many years ago, on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the crimes that had been done at the residential schools, but a lot of things have not been done yet, especially one of the key elements in our policy when we talk about the first nations as partners in prosperity. Could the member explain to Canadians what we mean when we are using the words “partners in prosperity” with respect to first nations?
Mr. Speaker, in this context, we are talking about prosperity if we are to build energy projects pretty much anywhere in the country, but mostly we are focused on expanding opportunities to the Pacific. That is a lot of what we are talking about. A lot of these projects, pretty much all of them, run through first nations land, either treaty territory or land claims.
Therefore, if we are going to build in that direction, out west, we need to ensure that consultation is done properly, ensure that first nations are active partners in projects and ensure that they are receiving benefits through jobs, impact benefit agreements; what we were proposing before the election, the resource charge; and transferring and ceding tax room on the federal level, providing the opportunity for the companies to pay the nations directly for those taxes. We need to ensure that they are getting all benefits available to them, to ensure that they share in the prosperity of all.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to get clarity. When the government brings forward self-government agreements, as long as they are focused on areas like governance, citizenship, culture, language and education and they are not focused on land or private property, is it the Conservative position that the Conservatives would be supporting self-government agreements?
Mr. Speaker, that would be impossible to say, because most self-government agreements include a land claim, so those two things are not separate. They can have modern treaties that involve land in what we would be supporting.
What I was going to say to supplement, and should have said during the first round, is that what makes this piece of legislation very easy to accept is that the land claim was done in 1993. The land claim was already settled. This one, however, is focused on government, but there are many treaties that have come forward that we have supported, one being that of Whitecap Dakota Nation, that actually involved land and that we supported and rushed through the House in just a few days. Therefore, there are opportunities for treaties that involve land, as long as they are not impacting private property, or they include protections for private property. That is a line we cannot cross.
Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate today, we heard the minister say that this agreement is a model to inform future treaties, yet the most recent treaty, the K'ómoks Treaty, which my colleague also mentioned, introduces the concept of UNDRIP, a foreign document. This is not made in Canada. Could my colleague comment on how important it is for Canada to stick to made-in-Canada solutions when we are drafting our treaties?
Mr. Speaker, that also brings the point we were discussing earlier, and yesterday in committee, that there are U.S. tribes that are trying to seek legal standing in decisions to be made in Canada, specifically around consultation, whether about energy projects or otherwise. U.S. tribes should not be interfering in decisions made in Canada. These are our projects and our resources, and these are our benefits to achieve. We do not need interference from any outside sources, so the government should be doing everything it can to ensure that our decisions are made domestically, not internationally.
Mr. Speaker, again, for the House, I will say that a comprehensive agreement can include a self-government piece as well as a land piece. There are agreements that are just about land, but there are also agreements that are just about self-government. If it is not about land, are the Conservatives supportive of legislation that is just about self-governance?
Mr. Speaker, we understand that solving land claims and self-governance are good things. They are not always mutually exclusive. They often intertwine and are the same. We are more than happy for land claims be resolved and for there to be self-government over those lands. We would be very supportive, but the government is mixing up the two. The land claim here, and I am talking about Bill C-27, not anything else at this moment, was already dealt with, so we are dealing only with the governance structure of it.
Whitecap Dakota Nation had the self-governance and cleaned up the land claim as well, which was supported. They both can become one, and they both can be supported by us, except when the government creates something where it stops arguing for fee simple property, such as in the Cowichan decision, which allowed uncertainty to take hold in the city of Richmond. That is something we have an issue with. There is a Musqueam agreement that is like a menu, in which the government, knowing the uncertainty Cowichan created, did not ensure that private property was not available for negotiation. It may not include private property at the end of the day, but the fact that the government failed to take it off the table is a shortfall on its part.
Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is important that we distinguish among self-government agreements, land claim agreements, comprehensive agreements and constructive arrangements, such as parks agreements. It would be important to understand the Conservative position when it comes to only self-government agreements, because they are sometimes stand-alone agreements that are separate from land agreements and other constructive agreements.
If I could understand the Conservatives' position when it comes to self-governance, that would be really appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered this.
It depends what the government is putting on the table. I think we have outlined what we will support and what we will not. If the minister, in the time available, would like to lay out a specific example, maybe I could give a better answer. She is throwing out, “Will Conservatives support this?”, but we do not know what would be in it. If the K'ómoks Treaty were done properly, I think we would have a better chance of pushing it through the House. If the Cowichan decision were argued properly, I think we would have a different outcome for the people of the city of Richmond.
To answer this broad question that could include anything, when the government is not putting anything on the table, is very difficult.
Mr. Speaker, Westbank First Nation is one of the indigenous communities in my riding. It obviously has its own governance agreement.
Would the member enlighten us and say what he believes is a good message for people, not just in the Okanagan but right across B.C.? What would they like to hear from the Conservative Party right now?
Mr. Speaker, I think what I laid out in my speech is that economic activity and economic reconciliation benefit all people, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We need to build quickly, and the government is not doing that. If we build quickly, we have jobs, opportunity and wealth, but the government is throwing every barrier in the way.
In addition, I mentioned Tom Siddon and his wife, Pat, and the member will be happy to know that I mentioned the work they did on the land claim in 1993 to finalize it for those nations.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): 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.
I declare the motion carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 8 p.m. and perhaps call it a week.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer