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. 072
CONTENTS
Thursday, December 11, 2025
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 072
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, December 11, 2025
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), and in accordance with the enhanced transparency requirement set out in the amended policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the immense honour of tabling, in both official languages, the economic impact assessment for the Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
Government Response to Petitions
Canada-Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Implementation Act
Committees of the House
Foreign Affairs and International Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development: the fourth report, entitled “Haiti's Multi Faceted Crisis and Canada's Response”; and the fifth report, regarding the statement of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, entitled “Attacks on Christians and Wider Violence in Nigeria”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
National Framework on Sickle Cell Disease Act
moved that Bill S-201, An Act respecting a national framework on sickle cell disease be read the first time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise to introduce Bill S-201, the national framework on sickle cell disease act.
Sickle cell disease is one of the most common genetic conditions in the world, yet it remains largely invisible in our health care system. Here in Canada, thousands of people, disproportionately from Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, South Asia, the Mediterranean and other racialized communities, live with daily pain, frequent hospitalizations and systemic barriers to care.
This bill would require the federal government to work with patients, health care professionals, provinces and territories, and community organizations to develop a comprehensive national framework. It would improve awareness and training in our health system, support research and a national registry, promote universal newborn screening and timely diagnosis, and establish a national standard of care. It would also require public awareness, family supports and equitable access to essential treatments, including blood products and emerging therapies.
I want to thank all the advocates from across Canada, especially the Sickle Cell Disease Association of Canada, for their advocacy on this specific bill. It has taken a long time to get here.
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
[Translation]
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents in Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships more broadly, I am pleased to present a petition that deals with an important environmental issue and that complements Motion No. 15, which was moved by my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.
Canada is already protecting a large portion of its ecologically sensitive land through the natural heritage conservation program and land trusts in particular.
This petition calls on the Government of Canada to extend the natural heritage conservation program, to invest to help land trusts and to create an endowment fund to care for natural spaces in perpetuity.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the third time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.
Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada. Petitioners are deeply concerned about what they read in the local newspapers, including a November report that Dauphin RCMP are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants.
The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies, which directly threaten their livelihoods and their community.
I support the good people of Dauphin.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition signed by concerned citizens in Montmorency—Charlevoix and throughout Quebec. They are concerned because there is an ecological imbalance in the St. Lawrence River. For nearly 14 years now, the striped bass has been considered a protected species, but now these fish are too plentiful and are threatening other species and the river's entire ecological balance. Our fishers see this every day. The petition is not asking for much. It is just asking the government to have experts survey the damage and work with our fishers. The petitioners would also like the government to allow recreational fishing of this species to help get its population under control.
Let us work together to protect aquatic fauna and the fishers whose livelihoods depend on this resource.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition, for a second time, from Canadians alarmed by the Liberal government's manipulation of our national books. They are calling for honesty and integrity in fiscal reporting, and demanding an end to the Liberal practice of redefining “capital investments” just to shrink the deficit on paper. Under this scheme, subsidies, tax breaks and corporate handouts are magically rebranded as investments, even though they build nothing the government actually owns.
The petitioners warn—
Is the hon. member reading from the petition or from prepared comments?
When we present petitions, we cannot move into debate. I would ask the member to stay focused on the wording of the petition as opposed to making comments about government policy, because then we veer into debate, and we cannot do that in petitions.
I know the hon. member is a new member. I probably would have done the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, I take that as a compliment.
I rise today to table a petition from Canadians who are alarmed by the Liberal government's manipulation of our national books. They are calling for honesty and integrity in fiscal reporting, and demanding an end to the practice of redefining “capital investments” to shrink the deficit on paper. Under this practice, subsidies, tax breaks and corporate handouts are rebranded as investments, even though the government will actually own nothing.
The petitioners warn that changing accounting rules when deficits are ballooning, the economy is slowing and fiscal anchors have already been abandoned is reckless and dangerous, because redefining the numbers does not build confidence and does not build our economy. A government that cannot live within its means will never be able to make life affordable for those who must live within theirs.
I thank the citizens who brought this forward.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a petition on behalf of the people of Abbotsford—South Langley; 374 residents have signed off on it.
Those who struggle with mental health challenges and seek help are brave. This petition recognizes that every person deserves to live in safety and dignity. Abusing medical assistance in dying for those who want to live is a sad scar on Canadian health care history.
The petitioners look forward to hearing the government's response.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, which I rise to present for the fourth time, is on behalf of the residents of Abbotsford—South Langley who are deeply concerned about the increasing prevalence of organized crime, extortion, shootings and intimidation in our community. Recent daylight shootings, homicides and other violent incidents underscore a broader systemic public safety crisis in our country.
The petitioners mourn the tragic death of Darshan Singh Sahsi.
These residents call upon the Government of Canada to reinforce the process of public reporting so Canadians can clearly see how federal, provincial and local municipalities are working together to further prevent increases in violent and organized crime.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act
The House resumed from December 10 consideration of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑12, strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.
I want to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their thorough study of the bill and the seriousness with which they approached their work. I also want to thank the many witnesses who shared their comments and suggestions about Bill C‑12.
Our border with the United States is the longest in the world. Every day last year, nearly $3.6 billion in goods and about 400,000 people crossed the border. Our RCMP and CBSA officers work hard, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to ensure that our border remains one of the most secure in the world. However, our methods need to evolve all the time, just as the methods used by criminals and transnational organized crime groups are evolving. That is why Bill C‑12 is important. It amends our laws so that law enforcement finally has the tools and powers it needs to address the threats to our border.
There are three main thrusts to the bill: strengthening border security; combatting transnational organized crime, illicit fentanyl and illicit financing; and modernizing how we process immigration applications, including for asylum seekers.
To strengthen our border security, Bill C‑12 would amend the Customs Act to protect our borders from illicit drug trafficking, firearms smuggling and auto theft. Regarding auto theft, owners and operators of certain ports of entry and exit will be required to provide and equip facilities to enable the administration and enforcement of the CBSA's mandate, including examining and detaining goods for export. This will go a long way toward curbing the illegal export of stolen vehicles.
The bill would also amend the Oceans Act to add security activities to the range of services already provided by the Canadian Coast Guard. This will allow the Canadian Coast Guard to conduct security patrols and collect, analyze and share information and intelligence for security purposes. With respect to information sharing, the bill proposes to strengthen the RCMP's ability to share information about registered sex offenders with domestic and international law enforcement partners.
In addition to border security measures, the bill also contains measures that will strengthen our response to transnational organized crime, particularly when it comes to money laundering. Transnational organized crime groups cannot operate without access to funds. By making it more difficult for them to obtain additional funds, we are undermining their illegal activities. Bill C-12 will thus make it possible to impose tougher, higher penalties to combat money laundering. In fact, the monetary penalties have been multiplied by 40 to ensure that they have a major impact on the finances of businesses that may be tempted to tolerate money laundering operations.
The measures proposed in the bill will also enhance supervisory collaboration and support high standards of regulatory compliance. They will enable the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada, or FINTRAC, to share supervisory information on federally regulated financial institutions with the Financial Institutions Supervisory Committee, thus improving co-operation and communication.
All of the measures set out in Bill C-12 will strengthen current efforts to protect our border from coast to coast to coast. These measures include the creation of the joint operational intelligence cell, which builds on existing co-operation mechanisms between law enforcement partners and security agencies to better leverage information sharing to target transnational organized crime, money laundering and drug trafficking.
The government has also established the integrated money laundering intelligence partnership with Canada's big banks. This partnership strengthens our ability to develop and use financial intelligence to fight fentanyl trafficking and other crimes. Bill C-12 complements other measures, such as the fentanyl czar, who ensures coordination between the Canadian and U.S. governments, or the listing of eight transnational organized crime groups as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code. Of course, everyone knows that transnational organized crime groups pose a serious threat to our allies and to our own security. It serves the common good that we use every means available to neutralize them.
Bill C-12 goes hand in hand with another bill previously introduced, Bill C-2, the strong borders act. Bill C-2 also advances measures that give law enforcement access to basic information essential to police investigations. It provides for enactment of the supporting authorized access to information act, expands the inspection authority of Canada Post and imposes new restrictions on third party deposits and large cash transfers.
The government listened to the concerns of stakeholders and parliamentarians, and we drafted Bill C-12, which will advance essential measures while giving us more time to study Bill C-2.
In conclusion, Bill C-12 grants the necessary powers to take decisive action to protect Canadians. I am therefore counting on my colleagues in Parliament to quickly pass this bill so that we can implement these essential measures as soon as possible.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House to engage in debate and to ask some questions.
We have seen over time that the issue of the border is a big one. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts as to when the government is going to start the process of getting the 1,000 CBSA guards it promised in the election.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the work to determine where these officers will be stationed is already complete. The budgets were recently approved and arrangements have been made with schools in Rigaud for the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, and at the Depot Division in Saskatchewan for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP.
The president of the CBSA and the RCMP commissioner both estimate that, three years from now, these 1,000 additional officers combined will be on the job.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will add to that. The member asks about the 1,000 new border control CBSA officers' being added, which the Prime Minister committed to. There has been a substantial commitment to Canadians to deal with the issue of border security, along with crime. There are a number of pieces of legislation before the House dealing with things such as bail reform and securing the border.
Yes, it is nice that we are making some progress with legislation the opposition has allowed to pass, but would the member not agree, given the election commitment and platform, and the general feeling Canadians have of wanting things like bail reform to pass, that it would be nice if the Conservative Party would relax its stubbornness and allow us to pass other legislation like bail reform—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this time of year is indeed a good time to seek everyone's co-operation in adopting measures that the majority of members want to adopt. These include tougher penalties, bail reform, tougher measures for sex offenders and measures to protect victims.
I hope we can implement this set of measures early next year.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, it is the holiday season. We are going to be nice when we ask our questions and make our comments because we do not want to part on bad terms right before Christmas.
If we can come up with such robust, significant measures to change what is happening at the border and in immigration, because this also affects the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, what has the Liberal government been doing for the past 10 years that caused them to show up today with Bill C-12? How is it that they are forced to introduce a bill that completely overturns the laws of three departments: Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Citizenship and Immigration; and Justice? Why do the Liberals have to resort to this when they have been in power for 10 years?
Mr. Speaker, what everyone needs to understand is that the processes of both crime reduction and immigration reform are dynamic. They must evolve in response to global changes and organized crime, which is constantly using increasingly sophisticated methods to transport illegal drugs and launder money. The government must constantly improve and refocus its measures to effectively combat organized crime.
Our government has demonstrated that it is listening to law enforcement and public safety agencies in order to effectively combat crime and protect Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley as I rise to speak to Bill C-12, legislation that has potential to strengthen Canada but that unfortunately misses the mark once again.
Conservatives, to show we are a government-in-waiting, proposed multiple constructive amendments in the immigration components of Bill C-12 in an attempt to improve the legislation and fix Canada's broken immigration system. For years, Canadians have carried the weight of an economy strained by inflation, while also enduring unacceptable wait times in our health care system. At the same time, foreign nationals who have committed heinous crimes, including sexual offences, remain in Canada without being deported. Disturbingly, even the Minister of Public Safety was unable to say where these individuals are or to provide any clarity on our immigration levels.
When our country faces this degree of scarcity, it is no wonder Canadians feel jaded. The support systems they rely on are simply not there. At the core of this challenge is the overwhelming pressure placed on our infrastructure by unregulated immigration. When the Liberals accept bogus visa applications, ignore the urgent housing needs across the country and allow crime to run rampant, it is our citizens who bear the brunt of this scarcity.
There are now over three million temporary residents in Canada, far more than our country can sustainably support. This rampant and unplanned growth has crowded our housing market, pushed rents and home prices beyond reach and left fewer opportunities for our next generation of Canadians who are trying to enter the workforce. Families feel the ripple effect in every corner of their lives, from longer wait times in emergency rooms to rising classroom sizes and basic challenges of finding an affordable shelter.
This is not an abstract policy problem; it is a lived reality for Canadians who see their communities stretched thin while the federal government continues to operate without a plan. By refusing to regulate intake levels responsibly or to enforce existing systems with seriousness, the Liberals have allowed pressure to build to a point where our infrastructure simply cannot keep up. Canadians expect compassion in immigration, but they also expect competence. Right now they are getting neither.
Prior to the challenges within Bill C-12, the strain on Canadian infrastructure would have continued unchecked. The amendments proposed by the opposition would introduce a measure of steadiness, structure and accountability into the immigration system, which has grown chaotic under the Liberal government's management. It would also ensure that criminals would be prosecuted for their crimes in Canada. These proposed changes are not radical; they are responsible steps to ensure that Canada would welcome newcomers in a way that is sustainable, fair and safe for everyone.
A few of the Conservative amendments that passed with support across party lines in the Standing Committee on Public Safety, which I am proudly a part of, would instate harsher penalties for those convicted of human trafficking. Individuals convicted of human trafficking would face fines of up to $1 million or life imprisonment. Corporations would also face fines of up to $25 million for trafficking offences. The Liberals must answer why they voted down one particularly important amendment that would have denied asylum to any claimant deemed a danger to national security. Why are the Liberals so reluctant to hold people accountable for criminal behaviour?
There are also immense pressures on housing, the backlog of removal orders, the surge in temporary residents, and the gaps in enforcement. These are not problems that require another year of paperwork to diagnose; they are obvious, urgent and already well understood by Canadians.
Statistics Canada has revealed that the Liberals have failed to account for an astonishing 38% of temporary residents in the most recent census. This comes after reports earlier this fall showing that more than one million temporary residents hold visas that are about to expire, and the Liberals have admitted that they have no plan to ensure that non-citizens will depart after their visa expires. For months the Liberals even resisted Conservative calls to release basic entry and exit data. This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the information they rely on.
Throughout the process, our Conservative team has been working tirelessly to strengthen our immigration system and hold the Liberal government to account for its incompetence. Canadians are demanding tangible change. They are asking for the government to enforce its own laws, create efficiency in an overwhelmed system, protect public safety and ensure that immigration happens in a fair and sustainable way.
These amendments create a structure for greater scrutiny, but scrutiny alone is not enough. What is needed now is political will, decisive action and real, concrete reform rather than more bureaucratic delays. Canadians deserve confidence that an individual required to leave Canada will do so. The same is true for our provinces, whose hospitals and classrooms have been placed under immense strain after a decade of Liberal mass immigration.
If the Liberals actually meet their commitments to hire 1,000 new CBSA employees, there will be a vast improvement in our country's safety. However, there is a track record that keeps leaving Canadians uncertain. My community has been under constant danger with the rise of extortion and gun crime. Given that I represent a border riding, it is abundantly clear to me and my community members that the smuggling of illegal weapons is largely responsible for the spike in crime. It has taken the lives of many and fractured dozens of families across my home riding.
Many members of my community no longer feel safe, as organized crime becomes increasingly prevalent. Families and young adults frequently ask me how they can protect themselves when incidents of gun violence occur in broad daylight. My heart goes out to those who have lost parents, siblings and loved ones due to extortion. Despite its concerns, the current Liberal government has not attended any vigils or community town halls on issues such as extortion, nor has it taken meaningful action to support our communities. This leaves many of us wondering why our concerns continue to go unaddressed by the current Prime Minister.
The gaps in this bill are very simple, yet they are being overlooked. We must hire more border personnel. We must deport foreign nationals committing crimes in Canada. The results will mean our communities will become much safer. Conservatives are calling on Liberals to listen to Canadians and implement the reforms needed to make our immigration system fair and efficient, serving citizens and newcomers alike. When we begin to see immigration as a movement of people rather than a movement of numbers, our ability to foster communities across our country will naturally improve.
Everyone in Canada deserves to live with dignity. If we start by ensuring immigration occurs in a thoughtful, responsible and sustainable manner, every person, newcomer and citizen alike, will have a better chance at succeeding. Those who are entering our country from any nation deserve to see Canada as a safe, harmonious and flourishing place. This vision is only achievable if we take care of our institutions that take care of us. Enacting high standards for our immigration system not only protects our livelihoods but places the Canadian economy in a stronger position to grow and succeed.
Mr. Speaker, just to be factually correct, the government has, actually, had a summit on the issue of extortion, in Vancouver. There is another one being planned in Ontario. At the end of the day, we do take the issue of extortion very seriously.
That said, in the spirit of Christmas, I want to acknowledge that with Bill C-12, we have seen a great deal of co-operation, to the degree that we are going to be able to pass it. I think the expectation Canadians have is that we work together. That might even be one of our New Year's resolutions, that we can jointly agree it would be nice to see more legislation, more opportunity, whether it is Private Members' Business or government business, to deliver for Canadians by passing legislation.
Would the member not agree?
Mr. Speaker, photo ops are not going to bring forward policies that will make differences in Canadians' lives. Community members from our Lower Mainland are affected. The Liberals are doing these group meetings over and over again, not attending to the real root problems, actually meeting the victims and their families or understanding what is happening in our communities. This is not going to be any mystery they cannot solve. They should be able to implement change. They should have been able to implement our bill that we put forward as a Conservative team on extortion. If they really cared for Canadians, they would have adopted that a year ago.
[Translation]
In their platform, the Liberals proposed hiring 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The RCMP will be fine; it was in the throne speech. However, that is not the case for the 1,000 border services officers. According to the union, the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers to fulfill its mandate.
I would like to hear from my colleague about the government's stated intentions versus the actions it has taken to fulfill those intentions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the government has not been taking any of these precautions seriously. We have been working very well with our Bloc colleagues to make sure that in our committee meetings, when we are going through committee, we implement and hold the government to account. We need more border personnel.
Personally, I can tell members that in my community, as Abbotsford—South Langley is a border riding, we need border officials. It is something on which the government has failed us over and over again.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the residents in Vaughan—Woodbridge. I am sure my colleague is as concerned as I am, considering he comes from an area in the country where extortion is very prevalent, that over at the justice committee, we are seeing the Liberals constantly vote down motions to bring their own bail reform ahead of all of the other legislation so that we could give that the scrutiny and debate it deserves, and so that it could be reported back to the House and we could then pass bail reform as quickly as possible.
I am also wondering if, perhaps in the spirit of Christmas, the member could elaborate on why it is so crucial that the government quickly fulfills its promises and hires the CBSA agents that it said it was going to.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that we see the Liberal government, again and again at committee, filibuster and not answer the questions that Canadians want answered, whether on extortion or on religious freedoms. We need to make sure we hold the government to account. We have a couple of days left. I hope we can continue to give the questions that we need answers to, and that they can be answered by the end of this week, and hopefully, go into the new year with real, concrete movements for proper legislation, with amendments that are being brought forward by the Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in the strongest possible terms against Bill C-12, a bill that represents not only poor public policy but a profound abandonment of Canada's legal obligations, humanitarian commitments and democratic safeguards.
The legislation is not an effort to strengthen our immigration system. It is not an attempt to improve processing, bolster safety or address affordability. Rather, it is the latest chapter in a troubling pattern: Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can scapegoat migrants more harshly. It deflects blame for successive Liberal and Conservative governments' own long-standing failures in their housing policies and economic planning. It preys on the fears and insecurities of Canadians in the face of an affordability crisis through the politics of division. It codifies in law the stigmatizing narrative that treats refugees as security threats rather than human beings seeking protection.
Contained in Bill C-12 is a one-year bar on refugee claims. What does that mean? It means that anyone who entered Canada more than 12 months before filing a refugee claim becomes ineligible for the refugee protection process that has existed for decades. The bar is retroactive to June 24, 2020, based on the individual's first entry into Canada. That means someone's safety is based not on whether they have a valid refugee claim or a claim of persecution, or that their life is in danger, but on some arbitrary date.
Experts across the sector, like the Canadian Council for Refugees, women's organizations and more, have warned us of the consequences. The Canadian Bar Association's Immigration Law Section was unequivocal. It said this bill risks “exacerbating rather than alleviating existing problems”, undermines Canada's commitments to refugee protection, and erodes the checks and balances fundamental to our parliamentary democracy. It further noted that the retroactive nature of the one-year bar is “particularly offensive to the rule of law.”
Amnesty International's Julia Sande said this bill judges people on how and when they enter the country, factors that have nothing to do with whether they need protection. She warned that under this bill, even someone who first entered as a baby for a single day and who, decades later, faces persecution due to war, political violence, their gender identity or their sexual orientation would be denied the chance to have their claims heard. A date on a piece of paper could determine whether or not they can have safe harbour.
We have seen the harm caused by similar rules in the United States, where one-year deadlines have resulted in refugees being deported despite having a genuine fear of persecution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees advised Canada against this approach as far back as 1999, reminding us that under international law, the passage of time does not alter our obligation of non-refoulement, our duty not to return people to danger. These are not theoretical concerns. They are lived realities.
In a Canadian Press story from October 31, we heard from Asya Medea, a trans woman from Turkey. She came to Canada in 2018 on a student visa. As conditions for LGBTQ2S+ people in Turkey rapidly deteriorated, she filed a refugee claim 18 months after her arrival, a claim that was accepted in 2020 because the threat to her life was real. Under Bill C-12, she would never have had that opportunity. She would have been barred from seeking protection simply because her claim came after 12 months. This bill would have sent her back into the hands of a state that was targeting her for who she is.
It is also clear that the one-year bar will disproportionately harm women, 2SLGBTQ+ people, survivors of gender-based violence and trafficked persons. The FCJ Refugee Centre explained that many survivors cannot file a claim within a year due to trauma, fear, coercion by abusive partners or complexities of escaping trafficking networks. Some have abusers who have already been deported back to the country of origin and are waiting for them. Under this bill, they would be stripped of the right to seek safety. They would be sent back into the hands of those who have threatened, harmed and exploited them.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association made another critical point. The government's supposed justification for the one-year bar of deterring fraudulent claims is unfounded. Those intent on deception will simply file quickly. The people who will be excluded are those who delay filing because of trauma, confusion, language barriers or evolving circumstances. In practice, this bill punishes vulnerability and not fraud.
At committee, the NDP proposed specific amendments to protect survivors of gender-based violence, unaccompanied minors and individuals from moratorium countries. The Liberals, Bloc members and Conservatives all voted against them.
Bill C-12 also undermines due process, as it would deny individuals access to a full oral hearing before the refugee protection division. The Minister of Public Safety, a refugee himself, said to not worry and be happy because there are safeguards and guardrails in place. What are they? He cites the pre-removal risk assessment system, a process with one of the worst records in recognizing legitimate need for protection.
The NDP proposed amendments to maintain access to hearings. We proposed reducing the severity of the time limit, even though all arbitrary deadlines violate basic principles of refugee protection. Every one of our amendments was defeated.
Bill C-12 does not stop here. It also grants the government sweeping unprecedented powers to cancel immigration applications, suspend processing and revoke people's status en masse. These powers can be applied to entire classes of people without individualized assessment, without due process and without clear constraints. Families who have lived and work here for years could wake up one morning to learn that their pathway to permanent residence has simply been erased, not because of anything they did but because the minister granted themselves the authority to do so.
The Canadian Bar Association expressed “grave concerns about the vague and undefined language throughout the Bill”, describing the power as “overreaching”, “undemocratic” and specifically insulated from normal regulatory scrutiny. It warned that, once granted, these powers “will be impossible to control.”
Amnesty International reinforced this warning, noting that the bill opens the door to politically driven decisions capable of destabilizing lives, separating families and uprooting people who have built their entire future here. It cautions that this legislation risks violating international law, including the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure, the right not to be deported to danger and the prohibition on discrimination.
The NDP proposed two amendments to impose parliamentary safeguards so that any such order would require scrutiny, committee review, a tabled framework and statutory oversight. We also proposed defining “public interest” in a way that aligns with public safety, public health and genuine security concerns. These amendments were rejected by the Liberals, Conservatives and the Bloc. Instead, the Liberals adopted a sweeping and overly broad definition of “public interest”.
This bill reflects an immigration system where decisions can shift overnight and where people are denied hearings, appeals and due process, a system disturbingly reminiscent of the worst policies of Trump south of the border. The bill is not about system integrity. It is not about public safety. It is an attempt to appease Donald Trump and import a Trump-style agenda into Canadian law. It trades in fear, division, scapegoating and misinformation.
The remaining provisions of Bill C-12 that target refugees only compound the harm. The NDP proposed 13 amendments in total. None of them was accepted.
This bill would not strengthen Canada's borders. It would not make our communities safer. It would not build homes. It would not address affordability. It would not shorten immigration processing times. What it would do is push refugees, migrant workers, students, families and survivors deeper into precarity. It would ensure our neighbours live with the constant fear that their lives can collapse overnight. It punishes people who are trying to survive, people who deserve safety and who contribute daily to this country.
Let us do the right thing and vote against Bill C-12.
Mr. Speaker, I would argue that the right thing to do is to recognize that things change over time and that situations allow us to modernize aspects of our immigration and refugee policy. This legislation fits that. It absolutely makes Canada stronger and secures our borders even more.
At the end of the day, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are here under temporary visas. The member is implying, through her comments, that each and every person who comes to Canada under a temporary visa should be able to apply for refugee status. That might be great for lawyers, consultants and other types of advocates, but the reality is that we need to modernize the system.
Does the NDP member continue to support the idea that anyone who works in Canada, or visits, should be able to stay in Canada indefinitely?
Mr. Speaker, that is just nonsense.
Bill C-12 says to refugees that we will not listen to them, we will not hear them and we will not allow them to prove that their fear is real. It is cruelty dressed up as law, and this legislation has been cooked up in a haphazard way. Even at committee, critical experts like the Canadian Council for Refugees and women's organizations were not even invited. They were not witnesses at the committee who could share their concerns.
How does the government justify this? It cannot.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech. She spoke quite a bit about the one-year ban on asylum claimants, and she cherry-picked a couple of stories. I am sure we can always think of somebody who has been badly affected by any of the legislation we have.
However, there are many cases of people abusing the system. Just today, I read that in her home province of British Columbia, there were 14 extortion suspects who, once they were charged with extortion, all mysteriously claimed asylum. All 14 of them claimed asylum. This is a classic example of what happens in our system with the way it is, the way it is open and loose. This is the part that we support closing, because it needs to be fixed.
How can the hon. member support all of these criminals, rather than regular, ordinary Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, that is such nonsense. The NDP is not supporting criminals. We are supporting due process. We are supporting people having the opportunity to submit applications.
Canada has a system that sets up the IRB, which is independent from government, as an independent process to assess claims. That is the issue. The member just cherry-picked an example that preys on fear and illustrates the scapegoating approach that the Liberals and Conservatives continue to embark on.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver East made her disdain for Bill C-12 clear. It goes without saying that I respect her opinion.
There are groups that claim this bill will not stand up in court. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the possibility of certain parts of the bill being challenged in court. I would like to hear her opinion.
Does she think that is the case? Which parts are least likely to stand up in court?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, legal experts have actually expressed that opinion, so I encourage the member to read their opinions.
In fact, better still, I encourage the member to speak with them directly because they are the people who can tell him exactly what is wrong. I absolutely support their point of view. I do believe that this bill will be challenged in the courts, and I think the government is heading in the wrong direction. This is a Trump-style approach to immigration law, not an approach that Canadians want to see.
Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fairness.
Is it fair to the Canadian public that we are now going to pay for these 14 asylum claimants that my friend referred to, for the next four years? They are going to have their education, housing and health care paid for. Is that fair to the Canadian taxpayer?
Mr. Speaker, that is also just complete nonsense.
If the Conservatives want to say Canada is now closing all doors to refugees, then they should have the courage to say so. Canada signed on to the 1951 convention and is supposedly abiding by international law that says we will not send individuals back to their country of origin to face danger. If you want to go down that road, then say so, do so and stop pretending otherwise.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Order. We will be sure to address our comments through the Chair.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, it is important to note that in introducing the nearly 130-page document originally known as Bill C-2, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of the border between Canada and the United States and respecting other related security measures, the government was doing a complete 180°. I say this because, as I am sure members will recall, the Liberal government has mismanaged a lot of border crises over the past few years. I am thinking in particular of the wave of irregular immigration at Roxham Road, the human smuggling rings that sprang up at the border to take advantage of migrants and that continue to thrive, the Mexican cartels that set up shop at the border, the wave of car thefts at the port of Montreal, gun trafficking, and plenty of other examples. The Bloc Québécois believes that with Bill C-12, formerly Bill C-2, the government is indeed taking a step in the right direction. However, we also believe that this bill, if passed, leaves one major problem unaddressed, and that is the staffing shortage at the CBSA and the RCMP.
Let us go back a few months. In its election platform, the Liberal Party promised to hire 1,000 additional RCMP officers and 1,000 additional CBSA officers. The Speech from the Throne mentioned the 1,000 RCMP officers, but there was no mention of the 1,000 CBSA officers.
The customs union is saying that the CBSA needs another 2,000 to 3,000 officers in order to do its job properly. Although the government stated that the border plan it introduced in December 2024 would result in the hiring of additional officers, I am sure members will agree with me that we are still nowhere near the staffing levels the union asked for, and nowhere near the number the Liberals promised during the election campaign. This is another broken Liberal promise.
In an effort to resolve this issue, the Bloc Québécois and the customs union are asking Ottawa to allow CBSA officers to patrol between border crossings. The aim is not to replace the RCMP, but rather to give federal agencies more depth and flexibility in enforcing the law. This would not require a legislative amendment, only a regulatory change, or maybe even just an administrative change. It really depends on whether the federal government is willing to implement more effective measures to secure the border, while responding to a request from current officers. This is a straightforward and practical request that is coming from the union, but we know what the Liberals are going to say: Why do things the easy way when we can do them the hard way?
The Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to make changes for some time now. Overall, we are satisfied with the principle of Bill C‑12. We applaud the government's intention. The bill seeks to address several issues that we have been raising for months, if not years. Like all Quebeckers, the Bloc Québécois remains staunchly committed to welcoming people fleeing persecution and hardship.
The bill would mostly ensure that the system that welcomes migrants is fairer and more effective. I wish to commend my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for their tireless work on this bill. I am sure that like me, many members of the House have noticed that the important parliamentary work and committee work being done in this Parliament does not appear to be of much interest to the new Prime Minister of Canada. He seems far more interested in meeting with the leaders of what I will politely call countries with unsavoury reputations, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, parliamentarians are working diligently in committee to improve bills and to contribute to reports and recommendations on issues that are often complex and poignant. I am thinking in particular of the colleagues with whom I have the honour of serving on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, as well as my peers on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, whom I recently worked with to study Bill C-3 on lost Canadians. Our amendments to that bill received support from the majority of committee members, but they were stripped out when the bill got to the House.
Today, I must reiterate the importance of the work parliamentarians do in committee. I know that this aspect of our work requires a lot of rigour, precision and, above all, willingness to work together and improve things. Unfortunately, it is clear that this government does not seem to understand the amount of work that is involved in serving on a committee or the legislative scope of that work.
As I was saying, overall, the Bloc Québécois is satisfied with the principle of Bill C-12, and we applaud the government's intention. However, several questions remain unanswered. I am thinking about resources in particular, but also about processing times for asylum claims, which I have to say are more than problematic. After analyzing the bill, I am having a hard time understanding how those processing times will be reduced. I quickly realized what the government is really doing with Bill C-12: It is transferring the influx of claims from one place to another and it is getting away with it by saying that it has solved the problem.
The public servants who process asylum claims and those who conduct pre-removal risk assessments have different training. That was mentioned in committee. Given that the training is different, the claims will likely just be transferred from one processing centre to another, which means that the overall volume of claims will not change. The claims will just be moved from place to another. Not only will the volume of claims not change, but the processing times will skyrocket. There will likely not be enough employees with the training to deal with pre-removal risk assessments. They will not be able to deal with those claims.
Obviously, my other concern is the distribution of asylum seekers. It is not right that asylum seekers arriving in Montreal suddenly find themselves without shelter because we lack the means to properly provide for them on arrival. Meanwhile, some provinces in the rest of Canada are doing absolutely nothing. They are making no effort at all to take in their share of these asylum seekers.
I want to remind the House that, in 2024, the former immigration minister, the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, who is currently the heritage minister and is already making unseemly remarks, announced with great fanfare that he was going to form a committee and make sure asylum seekers were distributed across the country. It was all a dog and pony show. He held a big press conference alongside provincial immigration ministers from across the country. The federal government proudly proclaimed that it had finally found the solution. Since then, all that we have heard is dead silence. The committee was never mentioned again. The Liberals never came up with any more solutions. It is a damn shame.
As I was saying, we support the basic principle of Bill C‑12. I noticed the government's attempt to respond to the Bloc Québécois's priority request to remove the 14-day rule, which was included in the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement and which has created a loophole that has been exploited by human smuggling networks at the border. However, in Bill C‑12, the 14-day rule was not dealt with in the right way. The actual impact of the alternative that has been proposed is pretty hard to pin down. Quite frankly, I think that the networks that are currently exploiting migrants will still be able to do the same thing even if Bill C‑12 passes.
Simply put, the safe third country agreement should have been reopened, as requested by the Bloc Québécois, so that this provision could be removed, because that would have put an end to the exploitation of vulnerable people at the mercy of smuggling networks. The government decided otherwise, but I do not think people understand the extent to which human smuggling networks take advantage of the 14-day rule. We talk to people on both sides of the border, in the United States and here in Quebec and Canada, who work with migrants and try to help them. These people tell us that human smugglers are using the 14-day rule.
They used to just ask migrants for money to smuggle them across the border illegally. Now, they add a clause to the contract saying that they will smuggle them across illegally and, as a bonus, they will hide them for 14 days. After hiding for 14 days, migrants can apply for asylum. The thing is that these people, who have to hide for 14 days because of this provision in the safe third country agreement, are at the mercy of human smuggling networks for 14 days and do not dare to leave their hiding place because, if they do, their asylum claim might no longer be valid.
It is frankly mind-boggling. The same legislation tells migrants that they have to break the law in order to comply with the law. If they cross the border irregularly, then they have to hide in the country for 14 days. Once they have done that, once they have broken the law, they can apply for asylum, and their application will be admissible.
What G7 government asks people to break the law in order to comply with it later?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have to recognize that there has been a much higher sense of co-operation coming from all sides of the House with Bill C-12. That is encouraging because the bill would make our borders that much more secure. Even though many of us would like to see other government legislation pass, I do recognize the sense of co-operation that has taken place here.
The member made reference at the beginning of his comments to the RCMP and border control. The Prime Minister and the government, the Liberal caucus as a whole, has been very clear about 1,000 RCMP and 1,000 border control officers. That is a commitment we have made, and that will materialize. There are some hurdles that have to be overcome, and those will be overcome.
Does the member have anything else he would like to add specifically about the RCMP and border control?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there are two things to consider. First, the CBSA union has said that there is currently a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 officers. Second, according to the union, the government could grant border services officers the power to patrol outside border crossings immediately, through a simple administrative decision, without having to introduce a bill.
The union says this measure alone could help, and it would mean that not as many RCMP officers would need to be hired. Border services officers could do their job and get to the scene of a tipoff much faster than the RCMP. There are things the government can do right now, but it is not doing them. The CBSA union is asking the government to do those things. We heard from representatives of that union in committee.
CBSA officials, the minister and the deputy minister have all told us that they will not do those things. It is rather unfortunate that the government simply cannot see how quickly it could take action without even having to use Bill C-12. That would be a game-changer.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, for all the work he does on behalf of persecuted peoples from around the world with his work at the immigration committee, the public safety committee and other venues in this place. His knowledge of the bill and his effort is obviously evident from his speech.
Would the member comment on how this place could operate efficiently? We are now to a point where there is some co-operation, but the ideas of reform here were initially introduced through a large omnibus bill. Does he think that is a good idea when the government had said that it would not do that?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleague whom I have had the opportunity to work with on several committees. He works tirelessly and does so for the right reasons. Even though our views sometimes differ, we are able to debate, make progress and collaborate.
Since the government took office, it seems to have forgotten one thing: It is a minority government. It behaves as though it were a majority. Just look at the bills it has introduced since coming to power. It seems to think it is all-powerful, when in fact it needs to work with the opposition parties. We are capable of that. We did so during the study of Bill C‑12. Without my Conservative Party colleagues, Bill C-12 would not be what it is today. We worked together to make changes, and we did so by keeping in mind those who will be affected by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my esteemed colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean on his speech.
The government likes to repeat itself to give the impression that it is doing a good job. In April, the Prime Minister announced at a press conference that the government was going to hire additional CBSA officers to secure our borders. However, that request came from the Americans. It was not his idea.
Then he held another press conference in October and announced the same thing again. He said there would be an announcement in the budget. He keeps repeating the same announcements over and over again. However, he never states the number of people needed, the number that the border services union is asking for.
Does my colleague think that this government is making things up as it goes along, or does it have a plan with a very clear vision?
Mr. Speaker, what I find fascinating about Bill C‑12 is that the government is telling us that we need a drastic course correction, that we need to modernize border processes, that it is important, that what is happening at the border is terrible and that we need to change our laws on immigration, justice and public safety, because things are not going well. However, this government has been in power for 10 years. The Liberals have been in power for 10 years, but they just now realized that things are not going well and that we need to change course. Give me a break.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Bullying, discrimination, homophobia, racism and hate have no place in the House or in any corner of Canada.
During the justice committee meeting on Tuesday evening, I experienced mocking comments directed at the way I speak English and other remarks that undermined and attacked my intelligence. In addition, a non-permanent member moved my nameplate without my permission. These actions—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
This is a point of order, and I will hear the point of order. If there are other interventions afterwards, I will hear them as well.
I will ask the member to resume.
Mr. Speaker, these actions, whether intentional or not, undermine the standard of respect and decorum expected in parliamentary committees. They affect not only my ability to participate fully but also the principle that all members of the House, including those from minority and newcomer communities, deserve to be treated with fairness and respect.
I ask you to remind all members, permanent or substitutes, that committee proceedings must be conducted with courtesy and professionalism and that all materials, such as nameplates, should not be moved without the member's consent. Upholding this standard ensures that all members of the House can contribute fully and effectively and that our committees reflect the dignity of this House.
Finally, I respectfully request an apology from the member of Parliament for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, the member of Parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock so that our committees can continue to function fairly and with dignity.
I thank the hon. member for Burnaby Central for his intervention.
It would be a good time to remind all members of the importance of upholding the high standards of this place in committees. Further, I would add that the matter raised is a matter for the committee. The member has the opportunity to raise it in committee, and through the proper course, it would be for the chair to report it back to the House. I thank the member for raising the matter.
Resuming debate, hon. member for Oshawa.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning on behalf of my neighbours in Oshawa to speak to Bill C-12.
One issue has constantly been at the top of the list for the people I speak to and represent, and that is safety. They want the government to fix its broken border and immigration system and restore public safety. This concern is not limited to Oshawa, of course. Across Canada, people are living in a country they barely recognize, and they worry about the violence in their communities, about dangerous drugs devastating neighbourhoods, about weak border controls and about a chaotic immigration system. They worry that their government is failing in one of its most basic responsibilities, which is keeping Canadians safe.
For over a decade, the Liberal government has promised the opposite. It has promised safer communities, stronger borders and a credible immigration system. After 10 years, the results speak for themselves: Crime is up, border enforcement is down, hard drugs are more accessible than ever and confidence in our immigration system has collapsed. Canadians are justified in asking why this government refuses to take responsibility. This is the context in which we are debating Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act.
The bill before us is the government's attempt to convince Canadians that it now wants to repair the very problems it created. We are being told it will strengthen border processes, improve enforcement, remove individuals who pose risks and restore confidence in the system.
Canadians have heard these promises before. They heard them when the government weakened bail laws in 2019 and insisted that everything was fine. They heard them when violent repeat offenders were released time and time again. They heard them when the government claimed its drug policies were working while overdoses increased. They heard them when the government claimed that the border was secure while irregular migration surged. Canadians are right to be skeptical.
As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, I studied Bill C-12 closely. It became very clear, quickly, that the bill is incomplete and does not address many of the core concerns Canadians have raised.
Conservatives approached this process in good faith. We were ready to work, ready to improve the bill and ready to deliver solutions. Unfortunately, the government showed little interest in rising to the seriousness of the moment. Too often, it dismissed legitimate concerns and brushed aside constructive proposals, even when those proposals were aligned with what frontline and academic experts have been calling for.
We listened to expert witnesses, examined the details and brought forward roughly 40 substantive amendments focused on enforcement, accountability, border security and removal processes. These amendments were practical and grounded in the concerns Canadians voice every day. I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for her leadership on the immigration components of the bill, and the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for his contributions. Their expertise ensured that our amendments were well researched and solutions-oriented.
Our amendments targeted the major gaps in Canada's border and immigration enforcement system. We clarified what serious criminality means under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ensuring that convictions for indictable offences, including hybrid offences proceeded by indictment, are treated as serious for immigration purposes. This is simple common sense. We addressed endless deportation delays by stopping repeat removal risk assessments when there is no new evidence. Canadians expect that when someone is found inadmissible for public safety reasons, the removal actually happens.
We also modernized outdated timelines and procedures so that removal orders could be enforced more predictably. We strengthened the asylum system by deeming a claim abandoned if a claimant returns to the country they claimed to be fleeing for safety. We added quarterly reporting requirements to bring transparency to asylum pressures and costs. We gave decision-makers better tools to dismiss clearly fraudulent claims, and we placed clear limits and oversight on the extraordinary powers in part 7 of the bill, which would allow the government to extend en masse, cancel or modify immigration documents.
We insisted on transparency and parliamentary oversight so that temporary resident status could not be modified behind closed doors. These were reasonable, constructive amendments. Some even received support from our colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, yet the Liberals rejected far too many of them and in some cases attempted to gut the ones that did pass.
The safety of Canadians should not be a partisan issue. We expect a government that secures the border, enforces the laws, and manages immigration with competence and fairness. Instead, they have watched trust erode year after year. We have seen cases where individuals who clearly pose a risk to Canadians were not removed quickly, even when removal was fully justified. These failures compromise public safety and undermine confidence in the entire immigration system.
When trust collapses, the system itself begins to break down. This debate matters, because Canadians want real solutions. They want a system that prioritizes safety, fairness and order. They want an immigration system based on common sense, not on political messaging that works for a time.
In Oshawa, I hear this often from newcomers who followed every rule and are proud to be Canadian. They are frustrated by a system that no longer operates predictably or fairly. I hear it from long-time residents who support strong, sustainable immigration but want it managed securely and transparently. They want a system that rewards honesty, not loopholes. They want a border policy that treats public safety as a priority, not as an afterthought.
These voices are not extreme. They are not partisan. They are simply asking for competence and responsibility from their federal government. Canadians want compassion, but they also want accountability. They want a system that works, so if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own policy.
Conservatives believe in safe communities, secure borders and an immigration system that is firm, fair and focused on public safety as well as success. We believe trust must be rebuilt, and that begins with leadership, so I say again, if the government wants to restore trust, it must acknowledge the consequences of its own failed policies, give law enforcement and border officials the tools they need, and bring accountability back to a system weakened for nearly a decade.
We talk about trust, and it is at this point I want to mention that the members opposite in earlier questions and comments were talking about Bill C-14 and swiftly passing it, and simultaneously, their colleagues in the justice committee, as we speak, are actively blocking Conservative unanimous consent motions to move to Bill C-14. Again, this Liberal government speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It does not know what it wants to do and does not even really care, and that is the saddest part of it all.
My neighbours in Oshawa want a government that takes public safety seriously. They want order restored to our immigration system. They want leadership focused on results, not excuses. Canadians deserve better, but they should not fear: Conservatives stand ready to deliver better.
Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister or the government as a whole, we have provided for the Conservatives to do better, because we have provided substantial legislation, not only to enhance Canada's borders and provide more security there, and not only to stabilize our immigration system. There is a number of commitments that the Prime Minister has made to Canadians that Canadians want to see, like bail reform legislation. That legislation and the budget is all there before us, and the biggest roadblock to delivering it for Canadians is that the Conservative Party does not allow it to proceed.
Would the member not agree? On issues like the bail reform, we can deliver it for Canadians. We just need to get more support from the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled that the member asked me that question. Clearly, he was not listening to the last few minutes of my speech. I spoke, very clearly, on the bail reform bill and about wanting to move it forward. As we speak, Liberal members of the justice committee are blocking our motions to move on to Bill C-14, so that we can start moving that through committee. Liberal after Liberal, time and time again, is voting against moving to Bill C-14.
Perhaps the member would commit to walking over to the Wellington Building, speaking to his comrades at the justice committee and asking them to pass our motion to move on to Bill C-14, as he claims we do not—
Mr. Speaker, would the House give unanimous consent to allow Bill C-14 to pass committee and come to debate for third reading today?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I commend my Conservative Party colleague.
From 2017 to 2023, some 150,000 people crossed the border irregularly at Roxham Road. It is fair to say that, at the time, the Bloc Québécois pretty much talked itself hoarse in the House asking the government questions to try to get the situation resolved. The Conservatives were pretty quiet on this issue. In fact, they stayed completely mum.
I think that shows that there were problems at the border. The government has said several times that it is going to increase staff at the borders, but, according to the border services union, it is not enough.
I would like my colleague to explain her point of view. What would it really take to restore people's confidence in our borders and keep all the people we represent safe?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for all of the times they brought up the concerns that were shared with regard to Roxham Road. I assure him that Conservatives share those concerns.
We have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to fix our borders and strengthen our officers and their ability at the borders to do their job. It brings up another very important point that one of his colleagues has helped us bring forward for study at the public safety committee, and that is the psychologically toxic workplace at CBSA. That is not going to make things any better. We talk about 1,000 new officers, but with attrition at nearly 100%, I wonder if they mean a net 1,000 new officers or just 1,000 more to replace the 1,000 who have left.
Mr. Speaker, the member has spoken about the people who want real solutions. How do the problems of porous borders and broken trust, like drug trafficking, the potential for consumption sites near schools, gun smuggling and irregular migration, show up in her community, and what does that mean for families and local safety?
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member probably knows the answer, because, in all of our communities, we are seeing that it is difficult to walk the streets in our neighbourhoods and walk the streets where my office is in Oshawa, without watching people shoot up and overdose. The folks in my office keep Narcan on hand. It is not a safe place to live. I imagine that many places in our country are the same. A lot of that is because of the government's failure. In fact, I would say most of it is from the government's failure to protect our borders and keep hard drugs from coming into our country, and from its allowing repeat violent offenders to get out of jail free, or very close to free, to hurt and harm and sell drugs in our community.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a great time to get up to speak. We are into the Christmas season now and kind of in that spirit. I was reading this morning about something the NDP interim leader, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, said yesterday. Apparently he had asked the Prime Minister to grant party status again to the NDP in order to, in his words, make the House “function better”. I do not think it is a good idea.
I was thinking that maybe the member was just continuing his comedy shtick from the parliamentary press gallery thing a week ago, which, by the way, I think was quite funny. He was not as funny as our leader, but it was pretty good. Actually, if we are in that mode, I have a better idea of something to ask the Prime Minister, and that is to grant Canadians what they really want, which is for him to go back to his job at Brookfield and allow the Conservatives to run this country and fix the massive problems we have.
Continuing on the Christmas theme, I want to give heartfelt thanks to all the support staff in this place. There are translators, pages, people in food services, security people and all kinds of staff in this building, including our party staff and all our own staff, who work so hard. I really want to thank all of them and wish them all a very merry Christmas.
I also want to give a special shout-out to the parliamentary dining room staff. They are always missed in the thanks. I am not a very good tipper, so this is my way to make up for that. Canadians would probably be happy to know that oftentimes many of us from different parties meet in the dining room and talk about substantive issues. We actually are able to talk with each other and get business done. I want to thank Lynn, Charles, Guy and all the staff in the parliamentary dining room, as well as my dining room colleagues I talk to many times; they all know who they are. I thank them so much and wish them all a merry Christmas.
I will move on to Bill C-12. This was the marquee legislation of the government when it was introduced as Bill C-2. Just so everybody is clear, Bill C-2 is the designation for the first bill introduced by a government. Bill C-1 is kind of a technical thing. The government members put all their effort into Bill C-2; it is the most important thing. Has anyone heard of the current session's Bill C-2? No, they have not, because it became stalled because it was a mess.
The pieces of Bill C-2 that the government could rescue came into what is now Bill C-12, which is what we are debating today. This is part of the government's pledge to do amazing things at unimaginable speeds. Here we are, and there have been no amazing things done. In the whole year, I think the government has passed two bills. If that is unimaginable speed, then I do not understand the word “unimaginable”.
The purpose of the bill, partly, was to fix immigration problems around asylum and deportation, because everybody in our country knows we have tremendous problems in that area. There were some good things in it, but there were so many more things that we needed to do in order to properly fix our flawed system.
We proposed 27 different amendments, and I think eight of them were accepted, so there were many that were not accepted. I have to commend the Bloc, which worked very hard at committee to help. Its members put forward some of their own ideas, we put forward ideas, and we were able to work together and get the committee to agree to a lot of things.
Even the Liberals agreed to some things, but then of course had the Speaker turn them down once they came to the House. For example, with respect to foreign criminals, we had created an amendment that would deport people convicted of serious crimes, because there are many cases where judges are letting immigrants get lesser penalties. However, that amendment was not passed by the Liberals.
Our asylum system is so broken. There is a story today from British Columbia, where 14 people were identified by the British Columbia extortion task force and were charged with extortion. A lot of effort was put into this. Extortion is a big problem right across the country, but particularly in B.C. Guess what all 14 of these newly charged people did. They claimed asylum, so their charges are now on hold because they are in the asylum system. It is probably a four-year wait, and of course they get benefits. They receive all the wonderful benefits we choose to give to people who are claiming asylum, even though we know the claims are illegitimate.
We put forward an amendment to automatically reject asylum claims from any non-Canadian guilty of a serious offence, but of course it was rejected by the Liberal government. We put forward many amendments to restore sanity to the asylum system, such as that lying to an officer would result in an automatic removal, that knowingly withholding information would automatically terminate a claim and that not showing up or not complying with basic requirements would terminate a claim.
We also proposed that once someone had been denied, but then appealed, only emergency health care would be provided. That was rejected. We also proposed that designated learning institutions be on the hook when they bring someone into the country and that person claims asylum, but that was also rejected by the Liberals.
We did work on human trafficking, trying to get amendments for tougher penalties to protect victims, but of course the Liberals voted no. We also put forward amendments on transparency so we could bring back some basic transparency on reporting. Often we have to do deep questioning and written questions to the government to try to find answers, and the government refuses to provide some of that information. Some of the amendments were passed, but not all of them, and some of them were stripped out.
Probably the biggest success the Conservatives got was that we proposed that the government would not be able to do mass conversion of temporary residents to permanent residents; that amendment was accepted. We also proposed that the government would not be allowed to give mass extension to temporary residents with student visas and things like that.
The bottom line is that we worked very hard to toughen up and fix our weak system. Unfortunately the Liberals blocked most of this work.
Speaking of working hard, I want to mention that we on this side of the House have put a lot of effort and work into improving our immigration policies. A lot of people think the opposition's job is to oppose, and it certainly is, but we also want to propose solutions, so we have proposed many. Our entire caucus worked very hard under the leadership of our shadow minister for immigration, who is the member for Calgary-Nose Hill. She worked very hard and did a great job of making sure we had substantive policies that would actually help to fix our country.
For example, we worked to restore the value of citizenship. That is a problem we have in our country right now. For example, we were very concerned about Bill C-3. It is the bill that would generate endless chain migration, which allows people not born in the country to become citizens, have their children not born in the country become citizens, and on and on. We tried very hard to put some common-sense amendments in the bill, which, of course, were rejected.
The other big one is online citizenship ceremonies. The one-click online citizenship ceremonies are still, certainly in Saskatchewan, the majority of the ceremonies. For many newcomers to our country, the ceremony is the most important thing to them in this phase of their life. To have them sitting behind a computer at home because it is expedient for the department is just embarrassing, frankly. It does not convey the true purpose and meaning of becoming a Canadian citizen. We pushed hard to eliminate the online ceremony, and the government is, I think, slowly moving in that direction, but not fast enough, in our opinion.
We suggested an end to the temporary foreign worker program. There is a youth jobs crisis in our country right now; the unemployment rate for Canadian youth is hovering around 15%, which is far too high. The temporary foreign worker program is part of the reason.
Of course we need to consider agriculture and some other considerations, but generally we have way too many temporary foreign workers, and we do not need our immigration minister to be the chief HR officer for a place like Tim Hortons. I have nothing against Tim Hortons, but there are many Canadians who could work there. The minister confirmed, by the way, just a couple of days ago, that the program is staying. She said that nothing is going to be changing there.
We worked hard to restore the sanity of sentencing immigrant criminals. The member for Calgary-Nose Hill introduced Bill C-220 to end sentencing reduction for immigrants. This is a big issue. An editorial in The Globe and Mail said that judges in our current system “are protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, and the author lamented that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want those offenders as citizens” in the first place.
Essentially, judges look at the current rules, which say that if a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime with a sentence of six months or more in jail, they have to be deported, and they reduce the sentence to below six months so it does not affect the non-citizen's citizenship status, which we think is wrong. There should be one standard for all people. Whether they are a Canadian citizen or non-Canadian citizen, the same standard should apply, and that is not the case.
Of course, there is ending the pull factor for asylum, including getting rid of free hotel rooms, endless medical benefits, and departure tracking, which are other things we do not do in our country that the Conservatives have some good policy ideas for.
There are so many things that we worked hard on this year in order to provide good policy solutions for the government. Pretty much all of them were, of course, rejected, but the bottom line is that we worked hard on them. We believe that we can fix our system, but there are so many things that need to be done.
The Liberals took the lazy route with Bill C-12 and did the bare minimum number of things that need to be done, but there is so much more. Conservatives will continue to work to fix legislation like C-12 and continue to propose solutions to make this country better and to make our immigration system work better.
Once again I wish everyone in the House a merry Christmas.
Mr. Speaker, I might be somewhat biased, but I would ultimately argue that Canada is one of the greatest countries, if not the greatest, when it comes to democracy and our fundamental principles.
None of that would be possible if we did not have the incredible people who support Parliament. The member made reference to a wide spectrum of individuals. Whether it is the people in Hansard, security, television production or the Clerk's office, or the pages, there are so many individuals who make Parliament work, beyond the members of Parliament. I would join with the member in expressing my gratitude and appreciation for what they do.
On the issue that the member has raised, he referenced Bill C-2. In Bill C-2, there is lawful access. We had to leave that out, yet we believe it is essential. We are the only one of the Five Eyes countries that—
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 is sitting there; it has not moved forward. There is a reason that it has not moved forward, which is that it was bad legislation, which is just indicative of the way I see the government.
As I said in my speech, the bill is the very first one the government brought forward. It is the Liberals' marquee legislation. After the election, it is what the Liberals focused probably most of their efforts on as to what they should do first. They all got in a room and figured this out, put everybody to work on it and came up with the legislation. Where is it? It is still sitting there. It has not moved forward, because it is extremely flawed, and no member of the House wants to move it forward, including the government; the Liberals do not want to move it forward either. It is just a great example of how so little has been accomplished by the government in the current term.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas. I also want to thank my colleague, whom I enjoy working with at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. We work really well together. I think we are showing that it is possible to do really solid collaborative work together in committee.
Speaking of committees, things are not going very well in some of them, such as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Some of my Conservative colleagues are not very keen on the work that is being done there at the moment because the Bloc Québécois wants to repeal the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.
I will give my colleague a gift. I would like to know where he thinks his Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand on the religious exemption.
[English]
The member for Lac-Saint-Jean and I work well together on the committee. We do not always see eye to eye, but we are able to work very well, and that is what Canadians want to see when they look at Parliament. They want to see people who may not agree, and different ideas that come forward, but also that we can work in a constructive and positive way. I certainly believe we have that kind of relationship with the member for Lac-Saint-Jean.
Regarding the question, of course we are united. I cannot speak for the specific beliefs of every single person in our party, but we have a common position and we are moving forward in a common way on the legislation. What is most important is that we do move forward and that we are able to voice opinions.
The problem I see with the justice committee is that the government has continually stopped meeting. The Liberals have cancelled meetings, they have shortened meetings and they do not want to actually do the hard work that needs to be done by the justice committee.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I were elected at the same time, and I know that in that time frame, we have both found that the government is really, really bad at legislation. It is even worse at managing the House calendar.
I am just wondering if my colleague can elaborate a bit more on some of the amendments that the Conservatives put forward to strengthen the bill that the Liberals have no idea how to properly legislate.
Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, we were elected at the same time, and it has been six years of seeing very little accomplished and six years of longing for something different, and we are hoping the day will come soon.
We have put forward so many amendments. The one I just want to highlight goes back to the issue of criminality. So often, non-citizens are charged with a crime, go before a judge and are guilty of the crime, and then the judge actually lessens the sentence because the judge knows that it will impact their immigration status and may cause them to be deported; therefore the judge then reduces the sentence to something lesser than we would get, and it is just not fair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg North in his intervention described himself as only partially biased. He is clearly misleading the House, and I am wondering if you could address—
I know there is tongue firmly planted in cheek, but we will leave that for debate.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Windsor West.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Windsor West, and I am grateful for the privilege they have given me by sending me here to the House.
I rise today not just as a legislator but also as someone who spent nearly three decades in policing. Of those three decades, two decades were in policing a border community. In Windsor, the border is not a distant concept; it is part of our daily rhythm. Families cross it every morning for work or school. Trade pours through it every minute, and criminals try to exploit it every day and night. That was my lived reality for nearly 30 years in uniform.
When we work the front line in a border city, we see things that do not make the evening news. We see the family torn apart by fentanyl. We see the gun trafficked across the river showing up at a crime scene. We see CBSA officers struggling with outdated equipment, short-staffed shifts and facilities that were never meant to handle the volume they do today. We see police officers, good and dedicated people, being asked to carry the weight of government policy failures.
I remember hearing countless officers I worked with say that they are covering every gap in the system there is. That is not a complaint. It is a sober description of the reality on the ground. They are right. We are responding to mental health crises because mental health supports are not there. We are responding to addiction because treatment beds are not available. We are responding to violent offenders because bail laws send them back out the door soon after their arrest. In border communities like mine, we are responding to the consequences of smuggling operations that exploit every weakness in the system.
Former Dallas police chief David Brown, in a moment of reflection during the funeral service for five of his police officers killed in action, said that society asks police to solve every problem but only equips them for one. That line has stayed with me for years because it captures, exactly, our lived reality.
It is the same pattern with Bill C-12. The Liberals talk about strengthening the border, but this bill does not deal with the fundamentals. It adds responsibilities without adding resources. It expands authorities without addressing bail failures. It gestures at privacy protections while leaving gaps big enough for any government to drive through. It completely ignores the fact that CBSA officers in places like Windsor are being stretched thinner than ever. Windsor residents are not fools. They understand the realities of living next to the busiest international crossing in North America. They know the risks, they know the pressures, and they know when Ottawa is not listening.
Let me be clear about the lived reality these folks face: CBSA officers in my region are trying to intercept dangerous drugs and firearms with equipment that belongs several other decades behind us. They are understaffed. They are overburdened. Some units run at minimum manpower every day. While the officers do heroic work, government after government has failed to give them the tools that match the scale of their responsibility.
This bill pretends those challenges do not exist. It assumes that if we simply legislate more expectations, outcomes will magically flow. However, in policing, and in border work especially, expectation without capability is a dangerous combination. It does not work. This bill fails to address the things police officers and families talk to me about all the time. It does not fix the catch-and-release bail system that puts repeat violent offenders back into neighbourhoods before police finish their paperwork. It does not introduce mandatory sentences for fentanyl traffickers, the very people fuelling the deaths we are seeing in our emergency rooms; we have lost nearly 50,000 people since 2015. It does not impose mandatory jail terms for gang members caught with illegal firearms. It does not prevent house arrest for serious and violent crimes that devastate families and communities.
When I talk to parents, they tell me they want their kids to be safe while they are walking to school. They want their neighbourhoods to be stable. They want drug use and trafficking to be addressed at the source, not just managed on a street corner, yet at the committee, the health minister could not commit to stopping fentanyl consumption from taking place near schools or day care centres.
In Windsor, we understand what that means. We have seen neighbourhoods destabilized because the government failed to draw basic, common-sense lines. The bill even gives the Canadian Coast Guard expanded surveillance powers, but it does so without the guardrails that prevent overreach or misuse. The Conservatives fought to make sure the Minister of National Defence, not a patchwork of agencies, is accountable for how those authorities are used. That matters in a free society.
At the end of the day, this comes down to something very simple: trust. People in Windsor trust institutions when those institutions prove they understand reality, but this bill does not reflect the reality that border communities like mine live every day. It reflects talking points, not lived experience. As someone who has spent his career responding to the consequences of weak laws and under-resourced agencies, I can say exactly what works and what does not.
We need real bail reform, not more slogans. We need mandatory jail time for fentanyl traffickers and violent gun offenders. We need strong privacy protections, not blank-cheque powers. We need accountability for expanded surveillance authorities. We need CBSA resourced properly with modern equipment, adequate staffing and the capacity to interdict smuggling before it hits our streets. Above all, we need a government that understands safety and freedom must go hand in hand.
Windsor knows the truth. We live on the front line. We feel the consequences of Ottawa's decisions faster and harder than most people do in the rest of the country. What we see today is a bill that does not rise to the moment, unfortunately. After three decades in policing, I will say this plainly: We cannot protect a border, protect a community or protect a country with wishful thinking. We need clear laws, real consequences, strong institutions and a government willing to prioritize public safety over politics. The bill fails that test.
The people of Windsor have been saying this for years: It is time for change.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Canada elected a new prime minister. Since then, we have seen substantial change take place. We have bail reform legislation. We have anti-hate legislation. We have secure border legislation. We have a number of pieces of legislation and a budget that supports Canadians. We have build Canada strong legislation. All this has happened in the number of months following the newly elected Prime Minister and government.
It is up to the Conservatives to recognize this, as we have, and deliver. We want to deliver this legislative agenda. We need more co-operation from the Conservative Party.
Will the member commit to more co-operation with—
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the reminder that we elected a new prime minister seven months ago who has only managed to pass one or two bills in that time period. That is a shameful record for any prime minister in the House of Commons. This is not something that I would say is a badge of honour for any politician worth his salt in this chamber.
On co-operation, Bill C-2, the predecessor of this bill, was an abject failure. It was a disgrace. The Liberals had to go back to the drawing board and come up with this bill, and it still fails. I do not know how many times they will have to go back to the drawing board in order to come up with proper legislation so that we, on this side, can work with them.
That is the whole issue. We are ready to work, but we are not seeing any co-operation from the government, unfortunately.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The collaboration between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on improving Bill C-12 has been mentioned several times since the beginning of today's debate. In fact, the original version of the bill was unacceptable or at least, as my colleague said, parts of it were extremely hard to swallow.
The government had made commitments, including a commitment to hire Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers and Canada Border Services Agency officers, as requested by the union, which decries the shortage of 2,000 to 3,000 border services officers.
Solutions have been proposed, including some by the Bloc Québécois. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with our proposal, which is incidentally consistent with the proposal by the Customs and Immigration Union. The idea is to allow border officers to move between border crossings in order to provide better coverage and to back up the RCMP in order to fill needs not met by the government.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable that, just this past week, I heard that the government sent letters to senior officers, or officers who have several years of experience, offering them voluntary retirement. Meanwhile, it has not taken any steps to hire the 1,000 RCMP officers or the 1,000 CBSA officers it promised us. It is zero, crickets. Even the minister responsible had no idea how many people would be lost through attrition, yet there is no chance of any new hires coming on board. It is all talk and no action, unfortunately.
To my colleague's point about officers being able to go to other posts and cover gaps in the system, I say, absolutely. That makes total sense. We need to have a proper system in place, where every border crossing is covered. We need to have the right people in place to cover those contingencies and—
Mr. Speaker, I have come to know my colleague from Windsor West over the last several months, and I want to thank him for his years of service as a police officer, protecting Canadians and our borders. I appreciate his service to our country.
My riding is at the opposite end of Lake Erie, and we share similar border issues. We just learned, for example, that the CBSA has eliminated 40% of its capacity for custody of people coming illegally into the country. The government talks about hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers when there is no capacity to actually train 1,000 new people. It has now reduced capacity for the custody of people breaking the law and coming into the country illegally.
I wonder if my friend could comment on that in relation to the weaknesses of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the failures and weaknesses in the system are nothing new. They have been around for a long time and are being exacerbated by the policies instituted and the new legislation brought about by our friends opposite. It is a disgrace to see this kind of legislation being brought forward. It is an insult to the officers working the border posts and the police officers working the border communities, because they are not seeing the help they need. These kinds of cuts are undermining and eroding the trust not just of police officers in the communities but also of us here in this chamber.
The government is all talk and no action. People out there are saying that they have had enough of the smoke and mirrors show. They want results. They want action. They want the government to show them that it is doing something for them, rather than just putting out slogans and playing politics with their lives and their future.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker: (John Nater): The question is on Motion No. 1.
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 recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47 and 49 to 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires a question to be put on Motions Nos. 22 and 48.
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 recorded division on Motion No. 2 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47 and 49 to 51.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded divisions stand further deferred until later this same day at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
I believe the member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to suspend until 2 p.m.
Royal Assent
[Royal Assent]
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
December 10, 2025
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 10th day of December, 2025, at 5:04 p.m.
Yours sincerely,
Ken MacKillop
Secretary to the Governor General
The schedule indicates the bill assented to was Bill C-17, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026—Chapter 6.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Christmas
Mr. Speaker, during the Advent season, the themes of hope, peace, joy and love guide meaningful reflection and provide a unique opportunity for spiritual renewal as we await Christ's birth.
Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of hosting Christmas on the Hill. Our caucus welcomed guests from across the country to celebrate the season with music, faith, food and fellowship. I am proud that our Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the freedom of expression and the freedom of religion.
I want to wish people from my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt and across Canada of all faiths the happiest of holidays, a happy Hanukkah, a happy Kwanza and a very merry Christmas.
Car Accident in Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the victims of a tragic vehicle accident.
On November 11, three high school students, Tyson Varley, Damon Davis and Haley Keffer, from John Diefenbaker Senior School in Hanover, aged 16 to 17, lost their lives in a devastating crash on the rural road between Hanover and Durham. A fourth student, Landon Preiss-Hillier, was critically injured and airlifted to the hospital.
Damon loved to be loud and do things his way, but under that tough exterior was a little boy with a huge heart. Haley loved her dog Bella and her mismatched socks. Tyson was well known for his love of cars and tinkering with them. He knew well how to make and fix things. This unimaginable loss has shaken the entire community of Hanover and surrounding areas.
On behalf of all the constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, I send my deepest condolences to the family, friends and communities grieving this heartbreaking loss. May Damon, Haley and Tyson rest in peace, and may their loved ones find strength and comfort in the days ahead.
International Human Rights Day
Mr. Speaker, December 10 is International Human Rights Day.
Human rights are the backbone of freedom and democracy. It serves as a reminder that rights are not privileges. They are the foundation of dignity, equality and inclusion. This year's theme, “Human Rights, Our Everyday Essentials”, speaks to the truth that these principles are not just ideas on paper; they shape how we live, work and treat one another.
Canada is seen as a global leader in advancing human rights. For me, human rights are deeply personal. Strong communities are built on fairness, respect and the courage to stand up when something is not right. These values guide me every day as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian. They mean ensuring every person can live without fear or discrimination, speak freely and be treated with dignity.
Today and every day, let us lead by protecting these essentials in our homes, our communities, our country and around the world.
[Translation]
André Voyer
Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to pay tribute to André “Pépé” Voyer and thank him for the exceptional legacy he is leaving our family and the history of Quebec.
From his early years in Abitibi to the present day, he has always been driven by a contagious energy for politics, notably by getting involved and supporting people like Guy Dallaire, Réal Caouette and even René Lévesque. He has remained a proud member of the Parti Québécois, attending party meetings until the remarkable age of 97. His commitment has never wavered, and he always defends our defining points: our French language, our unique culture and Quebec's essential place as the cornerstone of Canada. At 101, his passion and memory continue to inspire me.
I am immensely proud to be saying his name here in Ottawa's Parliament, where I now sit, to highlight his contribution to the political life of our Quebec nation.
I thank André “Pépé” Voyer for his example, his influence and his love of Quebec. The Parliament in Ottawa wishes him a wonderful 101st birthday.
Holiday Season in LaSalle—Émard—Verdun
Mr. Speaker, as my first year in the House draws to a close, I am proud of what we have accomplished together, including presenting our first budget and supporting major projects like the Nouveau Monde Graphite mine.
[English]
Now comes my first holiday as a member of Parliament. Let us just say, it is not quite what I am used to. Most years I would be home, trying and failing to get my Christmas lights to work. Instead, I will be at Maison d'Entraide St-Paul et Émard sharing a warm meal with the community.
[Translation]
Normally, I would be rushing around doing my last-minute shopping, but this year, I will be handing out holiday hampers with the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul. Instead of spending an evening wrapping presents, I will be proudly attending the 55th anniversary of the 796 LaSalle Air Cadet Squadron at the LaSalle Legion.
[English]
If this is what a holiday looks like as an MP, I am grateful for every moment.
[Translation]
I wish every member of the House and the people of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun a very happy holiday season.
[English]
Flood Protection
Mr. Speaker, communities across the Fraser Valley and the interior are under evacuation orders as rising waters threaten homes, farms and critical infrastructure. The border is shut, highways are closed and supply chains are disrupted.
The 2021 floods taught us hard lessons, yet today we find ourselves confronting the same vulnerabilities. Our roads, dikes and drainage systems remain inadequate to withstand the realities of changing weather patterns. These failures put lives and our economy at risk. I call upon the government to take immediate and decisive action. We must invest in modern, resilient infrastructure, strengthen emergency preparedness and ensure that rural and agricultural communities are not left behind. The cost of inaction will far exceed the cost of prevention.
British Columbians deserve a plan that protects them, not just for today but for the future. I implore the Minister of Infrastructure to act on the requests from Abbotsford and other vulnerable communities. We must prioritize investment in flood protection to safeguard our food supply and national supply chains.
British Columbians matter. We need action.
Holidays in South Shore—St. Margarets
Mr. Speaker,
As the season slowly gentles on South Shore—St. Margarets land,
there is a warmth across our villages that only we understand.
From Lunenburg's bright storefronts to Cape Sable Island's cold sprays,
our communities shine brighter than the shortest of winter days.
The lobster boats are twinkling as they head out on the dawn,
and the families gently gather as the holiday lights come on.
In Liverpool, Tantallon and Bridgewater, and the coves that line our shores,
kindness moves from door to door and lifts our spirits evermore.
This time of year reminds us of the ties that truly bind,
the neighbours who step up for us, the generous hearts we find.
From volunteers to small businesses, from first responders to friends,
the magic of our riding is the way that never ends.
So as we look to the new year, with hope in every heart,
may peace and joy find you all wherever you may start.
South Shore—St. Margarets, my gratitude rings clear.
Happy holidays to everyone. A bright, resilient year.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians a win with the President by July 21. Five months later, there is no win, no elbows and no deal.
From factories to steel mills, Conservatives will always stand with the workers who feed, power and protect this country, and today, those Canadians are paying the price. Back in May, the Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Well, food bank usage doubled, grocery bills doubled and 86% of families are cutting back on meat just to get by. Food should not be a luxury in Canada. Conservatives propose to scrap the four Liberal hidden taxes on food, because no family should have to choose between paying the power bill and a nutritious meal.
What is worse is that the Liberal Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes per year, and he is delivering just 5,000. Housing starts have collapsed, and now Canadians are being told to lower their expectations and give up on the dream of home ownership altogether. Conservatives propose to scrap the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million and get shovels in the ground now.
Conservatives will bring home hope, stronger take-home pay, safer streets, secure borders and a self-reliant Canada where, once again, our Christmas cards can say, “Merry Christmas and happy new year”, and actually mean it.
From my family to everyone, merry Christmas and happy new year.
[Translation]
Holiday Helpers
Mr. Speaker, after an eventful year, the holiday season is already upon us. Quebeckers are doing their Christmas shopping. Christmas tree sellers are offering us the forest's finest specimens, which we will drape with garlands. Families are planning where they will spend Christmas Eve, and children are counting down the sleeps.
This season is not easy for everyone. That is why volunteers are conducting door-to-door food drives and why the food donation boxes in supermarkets are filling up. Let us spare a thought for our neighbours and share what we can, so that this season can truly be a time of joy.
The air is crisp, and Quebec is covered with a thick white blanket of snow. It is cold outside, but our hearts are warm. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish everyone a very merry Christmas, a wonderful holiday season and a 2026 that lives up to our expectations.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, as we bring this year to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my constituents in Willowdale the most joyful of holidays and a wonderful and exceptional year ahead.
The residents of Willowdale appreciate full well that Canada stands at the cusp of a defining moment. Allow me to reassure them that our new government has been moving at an unprecedented scale. We are undertaking some of the most ambitious nation-building efforts in generations, renewing essential infrastructure, driving clean energy and critical mineral projects forward at an unprecedented pace and accelerating homebuilding throughout our beautiful country. These initiatives demonstrate the urgency with which we are acting to meet the needs of Canadians today and stand as a testament to our commitment to strengthen the foundations of our economy for tomorrow.
Allow me to conclude by wishing all of the wonderful individuals working in Parliament and, indeed, all the members of the House the happiest of holidays.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, for a decade, the Liberals have dismantled criminal laws, gutted jail sentences and allowed gangs and extortionists to rule our streets.
Since 2015, violent crime is up nearly 55%. Sexual assaults have surged over 75%. Gun crime has skyrocketed 130%, and extortions have exploded 330%. Conservatives have put forward many solutions, among them reversing Liberal bail and bringing in jail, not bail; listing the Bishnoi gang as a terrorist entity; taking urgent action on extortion from Surrey to Brampton; firing the embattled public safety minister, whose gun buyback scheme will only punish law-abiding hunters and farmers; using all legislative tools to ensure that child sex predators are receiving the worst punishments possible; and properly punishing intimate partner violence once and for all.
Together, Conservatives will repeal reckless Liberal policies, put victims first and restore safety to our streets.
Former Member of Parliament for St. Boniface—St. Vital
Mr. Speaker, my predecessor as MP for St. Boniface—St. Vital, the first minister of northern affairs and the first indigenous cabinet member from Manitoba, the hon. Dan Vandal, is in the gallery today with his wife, Brigitte.
[Translation]
One of eight children, Dan left high school to become one of Canada's top professional boxers. He then earned a bachelor's degree in social work. When he realized that the young people he worked with needed more resources, he became a city councillor in order to get them funding.
[English]
Dan's impact, nationally, regionally and locally, has been definitive. It includes the Nunavut devolution, the port of Churchill and the Musée de Saint-Boniface. He is deservedly proud of the work that the Government of Canada did to make real progress and investments in reconciliation when he was an MP and minister. To many of his former staffers, he is still the boss. To his family, he is the devoted pepère.
[Translation]
To me, he is a friend.
Thank you, Dan.
Immigration
Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration system used to be the envy of the world, but like so much else the Liberals broke it.
Public support for immigration has collapsed, as too many newcomers, too fast, made housing unaffordable, health care unavailable and youth jobs impossible to find. As a government-in-waiting, this fall, Conservatives not only opposed failed mass migration policies but also proposed concrete solutions to fix them, like ending the wage-depressing, opportunity-stealing temporary foreign worker program; ensuring that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault are deported; strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship by ending one-click virtual citizenship ceremonies; placing limitations on automatic citizenship for descendants of temporary residents; and preventing illegal migrants with bogus asylum claims from accessing benefits that most Canadians cannot get.
Let us be clear. While the Liberals support mass migration policies, Conservatives will always fight for Canadians.
[Translation]
Democratic Republic of Congo
Mr. Speaker, today, I am very honoured to announce the creation of the Canada-DR Congo Interparliamentary Friendship Group. This group will provide a dynamic platform to promote dialogue, encourage meetings and deepen our collaboration in key areas such as education, the Francophonie, the energy transition and student mobility.
With a population of nearly 100 million people, the Democratic Republic of Congo is now the largest francophone nation in the world and a key partner in the Francophonie.
I would like to thank my fellow parliamentarians who have already expressed an interest in this initiative, and I invite all those who wish to join us to do so. Together, we can build strong bridges between our nations for a stable future for the Francophonie.
[English]
Cost of Living
Mr. Speaker,
Thanks to these Liberals, this Christmas is looking bleak,
Because so many Canadian families' paycheques are too weak.
With Grinchy Liberal ways, Canadians face a bleary plight,
High taxes and spending stealing Christmas magic and light.
And just like the Grinch swiped every morsel, decoration and treat,
Liberal inflation robs their joys, leaving families in defeat.
While 2.2 million visit food banks, month on month they plead,
Hoping for a food hamper, a simple happy deed.
These Grinchy Liberals' hearts are oh so small.
Disconnected from realities, Liberals let these families fall.
But like little Cindy Lou, who made the Grinch's mind see,
Christmas doesn't come from a store; it's so much more, you see.
So our ask is simple, a change we hope they make:
Listen to Conservatives for Canadian families' sakes.
Bring back affordability, let their hearts grow in size,
And bring back Christmas joy right before our very eyes.
Holiday Greetings
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my family joining me in Ottawa today. I thank them for their love and support, and as a special shout-out to my sister, I say, happy birthday.
I want to extend my warmest holiday wishes to everyone across the Cardigan riding, Prince Edward Island and indeed Canada, especially those volunteers and those working in essential services throughout the holidays, who are keeping our communities safe, healthy and supported, and our farmers, who work every day of the year to provide homegrown, nutritious food for Canadians and the entire world. I give a very special “thank you” to our dairy farmers, who ensure Santa has fresh milk to go with the cookies.
This season reminds us of the strength we find in family, the support in community and the progress we make when we come together for Canadians. When members of the House work with that same spirit, we can build Canada strong. To all members of the House, I wish happy holidays and joyeux Noël.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, I wish everyone a merry Christmas. It is the holiday season; it is a time of hope. Of course, the Conservative Party is the party of hope. We share that hope with everyone today.
However, for too many people, life has become too expensive. Single mothers and seniors cannot afford food, and the Prime Minister is threatening Canadians with another gas tax hike that will increase the cost of food.
Will the Prime Minister make an announcement before Christmas about cancelling his hidden taxes on groceries to give Canadians some hope of eating well?
Mr. Speaker, no one calls the Conservative Party the “party of hope”.
This holiday season, I want to wish even the grinch across the way, the Leader of the Opposition, a very merry Christmas. My wish for the entire Conservative caucus is that they will stop imagining taxes, taxes that do not exist, taxes that Canadians do not have to pay and will never have to pay. What we are actually going to do is provide supports for all Canadians.
I wish everyone a merry Christmas.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted him to defend, for once, the rising cost of living caused by the taxes the Liberals are imposing on grocery prices.
However, that is not all. There is also crime. The Liberals are blocking their own bail legislation. Conservatives have moved 17 motions in the last two days to push the bail legislation ahead. The Liberals are the ones who caused this problem by releasing criminals under the provisions of Bill C-75.
Will they allow us move their bill forward, before Christmas, in order to repair the damage they have done?
Mr. Speaker, it is important to not twist the facts just because it is the holiday season and everyone is feeling generous. The Conservatives spent September, October, November and December filibustering the most ambitious crime-fighting agenda in Canadian history.
Now, at the eleventh hour, on the very last day, they show up and want to rearrange everything. We have bills on bail, on combatting hate and on combatting violence and extortion. The Conservatives need to get out of the way.
[English]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, let me wish everyone a merry Christmas, the time of hope. Of course, Conservatives are the party of hope, and we share that hope right across the House of Commons, as I do with the Prime Minister, inviting him to stand up.
Unfortunately for many Canadians, it is the time of Liberal inflation. As they go down the grocery aisles, they see the costs of food rising before their eyes as the Prime Minister increases hidden taxes on the costs of making and selling food, with a 7¢-a-litre gas tax he plans for the new year.
Will he rise today and give Canadians some hope by announcing he is reversing that latest Liberal tax hike?
Mr. Speaker, rather than focusing on imaginary taxes like the opposition does, we stay focused on helping Canadian families. It is why Canada child benefit cheques will be delivered early this month, so families can have the money when they need it most, as they get ready for a happy holiday and merry Christmas. We are focused on supporting Canadians and Canadian families, something that I would hope members of a party that talks about hope would want to do.
Mr. Speaker, the member might be suggesting that her own government department is imagining things again. I am reading right here from the environment department's impacts of the CFR on gasoline and diesel prices. For 2026, that is 7¢ a litre, another tax increase on fuel.
While the Prime Minister promised to flip-flop on carbon taxes and copy Conservative ideas, once again it is the costly counterfeit version on his side. That tax will increase the cost of producing and delivering food to grocery stores.
Just in time for Christmas, will he get rid of this latest Liberal tax on energy and food?
Mr. Speaker, we always seek more hope, which will never come from the Conservatives, that they will actually read a full report in its entirety and understand the actual implications. In fact, the fuel regulations do not have the impacts the member described. Let us go a little bit further. Let us talk about the opportunities. I hope he is thinking about canola farmers too. The regulation reduces emissions, but it creates opportunities for canola farmers. They have specifically said it is not a tax.
Once more, it spurs innovation and creates opportunities. That is what we are about. That is what hope is about.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, it is very telling that the Prime Minister is not prepared to stand up and defend his own tax. Just to prove that it is another counterfeit, the Liberals say a tax on the diesel that farmers use is going to help farmers, just like releasing criminals, they say, will reduce crime.
Conservatives have been fighting to end Liberal bail for a very long time. The Liberals pretended to agree with us, introducing a watered-down bail bill, but now they are blocking their own bill. Conservatives have moved 17 times to push the bail bill forward, and 17 times Liberals have blocked it. There has not been one second of study at their own justice committee.
Will they get out of the way so that we can scrap Liberal bail and bring safety by Christmas?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader lives in a bit of a parallel universe if he thinks we are the ones in the way of the most ambitious crime-fighting agenda that has been presented to this Parliament ever.
The Conservatives are blocking progress on bail reform. They are blocking progress on immigration reform. They are blocking progress against extortion, child pornography and all manner of crimes.
Will that leader stand up right now, turn around and tell his caucus to get out of the way of the Liberals fighting crime?
[Translation]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, this year we will be presenting a shareholders' report instead of our usual session review, because Canada has essentially become a business.
Under this Prime Minister, the Liberals are not even pretending anymore. The fight against climate change is over. The environment is a roadblock to trade. Bill C-5, Bill C-15 and Bill S-4 throw compliance with the law out the window because it slows down business. Quebec's distinctiveness does not matter anymore. The Prime Minister joined the challenge to Bill 21 as fast as he dropped his French lessons.
Are the Liberals aware that Quebeckers did not vote for their Canada Inc.?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians voted for a Canada that is not only built strong, but also built well. That is exactly what we are giving them. We are committed to strengthening the industrial carbon price. We are committed to strengthening methane regulations. We are committed to encouraging continued clean electricity generation. In Quebec especially, people will see that that it is going to continue. We are going to commit to do even more.
We are getting the job done. We are fighting climate change and building a strong Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals do not have a prime minister, they have a CEO. He does not listen to social priorities like health care or seniors. He does not listen to the ministers who are resigning just to be heard. He does not listen to voters, given his Conservative budget. He does not listen to Quebeckers who voted for him because they were afraid of Donald Trump, given that all he has to say about his relationship with Washington is “Who cares?”
He is a CEO. However, if a real CEO racked up such a huge deficit, they would be fired. Will the Liberals remind him that we are in a democratic Parliament?
Mr. Speaker, if my esteemed colleague wants to review our track record, we can talk about the 180,000 jobs created in Canada in the past three months or the unemployment rate that has fallen for three months in a row and is now 5.1% in Quebec. We can also talk about major investments in Canada, like the $19-billion investment Microsoft announced this week. How about the fact that inflation is within the Bank of Canada's range and that wages are rising faster than inflation?
If we review the Bloc Québécois's record, what do we have? It did not make a single cultural or environmental request ahead of the budget. The Bloc even voted against the national food program for the most vulnerable young people, against investments in culture and against investments in a social safety net in Quebec.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, the most generational thing about the Liberal record is Canada's climate betrayal.
According to the former environment minister, the government's abandonment of all its green policies in favour of an oil deal with Alberta is a fire sale. The Liberals' shift to oil will scuttle any chance of meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets. They are sacrificing everything older Quebeckers have done to help the climate. They are passing problems on to the next generation.
When the Liberals say “generational”, is that the legacy they want to leave?
Mr. Speaker, I do not see this as a betrayal. The strategy is changing, but the objectives remain the same.
Our country will be able to meet the targets, but we have to deal with a different reality. We are changing our strategies, but we are sticking to the same vision. That is what building Canada is all about.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, before telling Canadians to judge him by grocery prices, the Prime Minister should have removed hidden food taxes like the industrial carbon tax, the Liberal fuel standard and the food packaging tax. The verdict is in, and it is very expensive. An average family of four will pay an extra $1,000 in grocery costs next year. In fact, weekly groceries have doubled under the Liberals from $160 a week to $340 a week.
Do executives at Brookfield need to start lining up at food banks before the Prime Minister gives a damn about lowering food prices?
Mr. Speaker, here we go with imaginary taxes again. If the Conservative leader actually cared about the economy, he would not have spent the last 20 years in this House voting against it.
On this side, we are not playing procedural games. We have been governing. We passed a historic budget to build our economy. The Conservatives hid behind the curtains. The proof is in the pudding. In the face of a trade war, our economy is growing. We have added 180,000 jobs in three months alone.
I hope his heart grows two sizes bigger and he becomes more focused on affordability for Canadians. Let us get on with building the economy.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing Canadians on housing. They are breaking their promise of 500,000 new homes per year, and their fourth housing bureaucracy is a mess with the independent budget watchdog confirming it will only build 5,000 homes per year. Buyers cannot buy, sellers cannot sell and builders cannot build, yet the Liberals refuse to adopt our Conservative plan to axe the GST on all new homes built under $1.3 million to boost building immediately.
Why is it that when the Liberals make a promise, things get more expensive every time and things stay the same again and again?
Mr. Speaker, I have some good news to share with the House. On Monday, the Prime Minister and Mayor Sutcliffe announced a new partnership with the City of Ottawa for 3,000 mixed-income and affordable homes that will be built across the city. Through this joint investment, the City of Ottawa will fast-track the construction of 2,000 units of mixed-income and affordable housing on federal lands. Build Canada Homes will be financing 1,000 affordable homes from the City of Ottawa's slate of projects. This is fantastic news, streamlining the approvals and getting homes built fast.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, this fall, the Liberals voted against the most comprehensive immigration reforms in recent history, despite their promise to get immigration under control. Conservative proposals presented would have boosted wages and opportunities for Canadian youth by ending the temporary foreign worker program, ensuring non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault are deported and preventing illegal immigrants with bogus asylum claims from accessing benefits that Canadians do not get.
Why is it that whenever the Liberals say they are going to change, the results are always higher costs, more crime, fewer homes and more of the same?
[Translation]
[English]
Major Projects Office
Mr. Speaker, we found out today that the Prime Minister's signature Major Projects Office is directing Bay Street corporations, capital investors and banks to lend or second staff to the MPO, asking the companies to top up their pay. Here is how greasy this is: Banks, energy companies, mining companies and Brookfield could end up with employees on the inside of the MPO, giving them the inside track and advice on projects they are working on while these companies pay their salaries and provide lucrative bonuses.
Under this scheme, just to spell this out, the Prime Minister's corporate buddies will be paying to have insiders work at the MPO. How is this ethical?
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we want to thank our friend for his excellent conspiracy theory work. We think only the Conservatives would be shocked that quality women and men with experience in the private sector would step forward to work with a government that is going to build Canada strong and get major projects done. We are proud of the people who want to come forward and serve Canadians, and we regret that the Conservatives find that is somehow a problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's Bay Street buddies who are sounding the alarm. If someone is on Bay Street and wants a mine built, it is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help. If they want a reactor built, that is no problem either, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help them. Are they a large capital investor, say like, I do not know, Brookfield, and want to fund a green project that pads the Prime Minister's portfolio? That is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help.
This is wrong, unethical and corrupt. How is this happening?
Mr. Speaker, again, on this side of the House, I remember being an opposition member of Parliament. I was very impressed with some of the quality people from Bay Street whom then prime minister Harper recruited to serve as chief of staff in his office, for example. It was not a scandal then that people with business experience could serve in the government. We are proud that this government and this Prime Minister are able to recruit that talent to join the talented women and men in Canada's public service to get things done and to grow the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister and his government are looking to stack the Major Projects Office with corporate insiders and then have corporations send money to the Major Projects Office, Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. The firms paying those so-called top-ups to government employees are the same ones that are going to benefit from fast-track decisions made by the Major Projects Office.
Why is it that the only pipeline the government is getting built is one that funnels cash from Bay Street to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office?
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, the member earned the nickname “Death Valley well driller”. The Death Valley well driller is that lonely guy out in the desert who has gone looking for water and never finds it. Here he is once again, winding up the big pitch, and it all ends in nothing.
Of course, there are talented men and women joining with the government. We are going to help build the country. We are going to build Canada strong, notwithstanding the naysayers and the Death Valley well drillers.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the depths of the corruption from the Liberals and these ministers, including those who sit in the front bench today, who have been found to have broken Canada's ethics laws. The Prime Minister is the one who has the market cornered on shadow lobbying, and now it looks very much as though he is inviting more of his Bay Street buddies to have the inside track and have Bay Street pay for access so that his government can fast-track their projects.
Canadians are lined up at food banks, and Liberal insiders are lined up at the Prime Minister's front door. Why will he not—
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a time to be generous toward those who are less fortunate. For the Liberals, that does not seem to be a priority, because they are cutting $25 million from homelessness assistance programs in Quebec. Last Thursday, the minister confirmed that he is ending the encampment and crisis response program as of March 31.
How can the government announce cuts to homelessness programs in the middle of winter, when the crisis has never been so bad?
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague across the way that the Canadian government brought in the Canadian dental care plan, which is having an impact on the lives of Canadians. Nearly six million Canadians, including the least fortunate, are already covered by this program. Many people are now able to see dentists and hygienists for the first time in their lives. I invite my colleague across the way and all my colleagues to connect with their constituents and encourage them to enrol in the dental plan.
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was reading from the wrong notes.
This $25 million per year is paltry when set against an $80-billion deficit. It makes no sense to cut funding for the fight against homelessness. This means tens of thousands of dollars less for each of our community organizations at a time when they are concerned that the crisis is affecting increasingly vulnerable people, particularly women, who now represent about 30% of people experiencing homelessness, double what we saw before.
Is now really the best time to cut funding to Quebec and to our organizations?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague; this is an important issue. The homelessness situation in Canada and Quebec is of particular concern to us.
That is why we have had a strategy to combat homelessness for several years now, backed by significant investments. I invite my colleague to review the 2025 budget, which, I would remind her, she voted against. This budget provides $1 billion for transitional housing to support people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. I invite her to rethink her position on the 2025 budget and to support our efforts to combat this very serious problem.
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, here in the House, all members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. The Conflict of Interest Act states that “no public office holder shall personally solicit funds” if it places them “in a conflict of interest”.
However, Quebec's anti-corruption squad is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the Liberal flim-flammery in Ottawa. The Liberal member for Laval—Les Îles appeared on TVA two weeks ago and promised that he would make a statement explaining his possible ties to this matter.
Does the member for Laval—Les Îles have the courage to stand up and explain to Quebeckers what his possible involvement was in this affair?
Unfortunately, I was a bit distracted during the question. I really did not hear the question. I will listen to it properly this time, but it seems like it could be problematic.
It was one of your colleagues who was heckling me, so let us be careful with the sarcasm.
The hon. member can start from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, listen to this question carefully.
Here in the House, all members are subject to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Well, the Conflict of Interest Act states that “no public office holder shall personally solicit funds” if it places them “in a conflict of interest”.
However, Quebec's anti-corruption squad is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the Liberal flim-flammery in Ottawa. Two weeks ago—
This question is not about the government caucus. It has no connection with the administration of the federal government either. As I see it, the question appears to be off topic. However, I will let the government decide whether to answer. Since no one wants to answer, we will move on to the next question.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask a question again. Right now, Quebec's anti-corruption squad is investigating the Liberal flim-flammery in Ottawa—
This has nothing to do with government administration. I am not aware of what Quebec's anti-corruption squad is currently investigating. It seems to me that this is the same question as the previous one.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask another question. The fact remains that the whole affair is currently being covered by the media. It is being discussed everywhere. We saw the member for Laval—Les Îles make a statement on TVA saying that he would be issuing a statement to explain his involvement in this scandal, which is currently under investigation by Quebec's anti-corruption squad.
My question now is on the Prime Minister's decision to choose Mark Wiseman as the next Canadian ambassador to the United States, knowing full well that he claims to be the co-founder of the Century Initiative, which advocates increasing Canada's population to 100 million by 2100, and that he has said that he does not care what Quebeckers think about it. What is more, Mr. Wiseman is against supply management.
Can the Prime Minister change his mind and not appoint Mark Wiseman as ambassador?
Mr. Speaker, our colleague is lucky. After four tries, his question was deemed in order. However, he is having some difficulty with the facts. He talks about people who are not in government and public policies that are not government policies. He knows full well that our government supports supply management and that we will not negotiate this issue with the Americans under any circumstances. Despite his efforts, his facts are still a little off.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, food banks are overwhelmed, but the Prime Minister is living on another planet.
While Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, this Liberal Prime Minister spent $736,000 of taxpayers' money to travel on a private jet when a government plane was available at a third of the cost. Meanwhile, 86% of Canadians are cutting back on meat because they cannot afford it.
When will he stop making us pay for his whims while people are struggling to put food on the table?
Mr. Speaker, the ones living on another planet are the Conservative members, like my esteemed colleague, who voted against a budget that provides such direct assistance to their constituents. Take, for example, the Canadian dental care plan, which is helping at least 20,000 people in the member's riding. Another example is the Canada child benefit, which has reduced child poverty in Canada by 38%.
I invite the member to visit the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul in my region to discuss the impact these policies have had on the lives of Quebeckers, policies that she has consistently voted against.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk to him about the consequences of his own policies.
One 75-year-old senior in my riding spends half of her income on rent and medication. In front of a grocery store shelf, she realized she could not afford anything and left the store in tears. She admitted that she felt ashamed, that she had worked all her life and that she never imagined she would one day have to ask for food.
That is the reality of their useless policies.
Mr. Speaker, the theatrics are remarkable, but votes speak louder than theatrics. The member voted against an increase in the guaranteed income supplement, which helps the most vulnerable seniors. She voted against the Canada child benefit, against the Canadian dental care plan and against a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. She voted against affordable housing.
Next year, I encourage the Conservatives to rethink their approach and figure out how they can truly help their constituents, instead of engaging in theatrics in the House every day.
[English]
Child Care
Mr. Speaker, the early learning and child care program is already providing families across Canada with thousands of dollars of savings each year. In my home province of Manitoba, the program saves families an average of $2,800 a year.
Last month, the Minister of Jobs and Families announced an extension of child care agreements with Saskatchewan and Ontario, ensuring that families in those two provinces continue to have access to this incredible program.
Could the minister please update us on the status of early learning and child care in Alberta?
Mr. Speaker, we have good news, and just in time for Christmas. Tomorrow we will be signing the extension of the early learning and child care agreement with Alberta. Now all the provinces and territories have agreed to continue this important program. This means that in Alberta, child care costs have been reduced to $15 per day, which saves families, on average, $7,600 per year. That is money that families have to put on mortgages, to buy groceries, to save for their children's education or even to pay for hockey.
Merry Christmas to Alberta.
Justice
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives asked the Liberals 17 times at the justice committee to start working on the bail bill. We moved 17 motions to get to bail, and 17 times the Liberals blocked it. They voted against our jail not bail act. They voted against our three strikes motion. Now they are blocking their own bill.
At what point will the government stop voting against every single measure to finally scrap Liberal bail?
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that what he calls Liberal bail is supported by the Canadian Police Association, the Ontario police association, the police chief in my community and the police chief in his community. In fact, when his police chief showed up at committee, he urged all members, including the Conservative Party, to actually accelerate the process.
The member is citing revisionist history. If we go back and look at the tapes, we will see that he and his colleagues spent the entire fall filibustering, talking about kittens and puppies, not crime and safety.
We are here to defend Canada's communities and the people who call them home. I wish the Conservatives would get out of the way and do something to promote public safety in this country.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should actually show up at the justice committee and see what his colleagues are doing. We showed up, ready to fix the Liberals' broken bail system, but after more than 17 attempts to prioritize Bill C-14, the answer from the Liberals is always no. It is clear the government is unwilling to take even modest steps toward keeping Canadians safe. Still, today, it continues to block tougher bail measures at every turn.
When will it stop obstructing, so we can finally scrap Liberal bail once and for all?
Mr. Speaker, after several months of obstruction and delay, and getting in the way of measures to improve public safety, my hon. colleague has finally realized that people are seeing that it is he and his colleagues who have been delaying and denying justice, preventing it from advancing in this country. Right now, not only do we have an opportunity to move forward on bail and sentencing reform, but he is actively delaying legislation that is meant to help communities that are seeing their synagogues defaced, their mosques attacked, and their communities face harassment in the form of assault in our grocery stores and on our university campuses. We can combat hate and reform the bail system at the same time. I wish he for once would co-operate.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult, day in and day out, to see the Liberals claim to have the solutions for the problems they have created. For the last 48 hours, Liberals have rejected 17 attempts by Conservative members to advance critical bail reforms, because they will not get off their desire to attack the religious freedoms of Canadians. Canadians want real reforms to bail, not Liberal obstruction.
When will the Liberals get serious about real crime instead of thought crime?
Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has been the main culprit who has been filibustering all the crime bills at the justice committee this season. The Conservatives have been talking about cats and dogs when hate crimes have gone up over 70% in this country. The reason we brought this bill was to help protect those worshippers. We are doing everything on this side of the House to protect Canadians and to protect public safety, and they have been opposing, they have been stalling and they have been blocking it.
Mr. Speaker, I will not allow the secretary of state to point fingers, when the very communities she is claiming to be speaking for have been the ones to cry—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I think we are going to hear that line many more times if it continues to be too noisy on this side.
The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, from the top, please.
Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state is pointing fingers because she does not want to look at the millions of fingers that have been pointing at the Liberal government for allowing these problems to fester. Even today, Liberal members of the justice committee said that the Minister of Justice would come before committee only if we agreed to wave through their divisive and toxic Bill C-9.
Why are the Liberals putting conditions on transparency and accountability, and obstructing their own legislation? Why will the Minister of Justice not appear before committee, and why will he not stand up now instead of pointing fingers?
Mr. Speaker, it is just a fact that the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has been blocking all crime bills at the justice committee since the beginning of the current Parliament. He has been talking about his pets instead of talking about the safety of Canadians.
This is a clear pattern that we are seeing from the Conservatives; they have been weak on crime since they got here. They have been blocking the bail reform bill. They have been blocking protections for peaceful worshippers. They will not allow the police to have the powers they need to stop extortionists and pedophiles.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, food prices have doubled and Canadians are struggling to get by.
There are now 2.2 million food bank visits in a single month, with one in 10 of those users being a senior. Paul, a 70-year-old from Woodstock, was forced out of retirement and is now working night shifts to stock shelves just so he can survive. The seniors who helped build this country are now the people struggling to afford to live in it.
Will the Liberals not finally stop driving costs up so our seniors could afford to eat and to retire with dignity?
Mr. Speaker, let us remember when the Grinch tried to steal Christmas. He drove all the way up to the top of Mount Crumpit because he had everything he needed and was going to throw away the gifts the Whos deserved because he thought they did not deserve to have nice things.
That is kind of like the Leader of the Conservative Party. For 25 years he has had dental care because he has had a job here in the House of Commons, so he votes against dental care for nine million Canadians. He has secure housing; he lives comfortably at Stornoway in government-owned housing, so he votes against affordable housing for millions of Canadians.
My Christmas wish is that the Leader of the Conservative Party would come back in January with a heart that has grown three sizes and that he would try to help a Canadian for once in his 21-year career.
Mr. Speaker, we were once promised that hard work meant a great life, but with the Liberals, that promise is gone.
Ryan, a single father from Thamesford, works extremely hard but is struggling to put food on the table. He is struggling to put gas in his car, and he is struggling to keep his house warm for Christmas. Just like millions of other Canadians, he is now relying on a food bank to feed his family.
With grocery prices going up $1,000, will the Liberals finally stop their reckless inflationary spending and scrap their hidden food taxes so citizens like Ryan can afford to eat once again?
Mr. Speaker, we know that “Bah humbug” is just a name for the opposition leader's management style. Thank God the human emotion of joy is not deductible, because the Conservatives would find a way to claw it back right before Christmas. They will not help us feed children in school. They will not help us build affordable housing. They will not help us give and to deliver to families a well-earned tax break before Christmas. What is next, the Christmas tree? Are they going to try to take that away too? Even the Grinch had the good sense to give people their presents back before Christmas.
When will the Conservative Party stand up and actually support Canadians? They said they were “Canada first”, so why do they put Canadians last every chance they get?
Mr. Speaker, while Canadians cannot afford the basics, the Liberal Prime Minister spent nearly $800,000 on a private jet.
In Newfoundland and Labrador we have the highest unemployment rate in the country, at more than 10%. Families are stretched thin. “Canada's Food Price Report” shows that the grocery bill has more than doubled since 2015, rising from $159 a week to $338. Next year families are expected to pay even more.
When will the Liberals stop their inflationary spending and cut the industrial carbon tax and their new fuel tax so Canadians can afford to eat?
Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to stand and address their misinformation, their imaginary taxes and their general disengagement from what matters in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Budget 2025 is about investment. It is about building this country. It is about investment in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, like the rest of the country: roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. It is about support for 46,000 families in the province who need the Canada child benefit, indexed to inflation.
The member voted against all these—
Mr. Speaker, that answer is not acceptable, and I am going to tell you why.
A woman in my riding shared a moment that she said she will never forget. She was in the grocery store and saw a senior couple standing at the meat counter. The elderly wife looked at her husband and quietly said, “I know I need to buy something, but I do not know what to buy because everything is so expensive.” The woman who witnessed this exchange told me she went to her car and cried. She never thought she would see seniors in Newfoundland and Labrador struggling like that.
When will the Prime Minister finally take these struggles seriously and make life affordable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to deal in facts.
Supports for seniors are indexed to inflation. Housing supports help seniors find affordable places to live. There are supports for families and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. The school food program, which another member from Newfoundland and Labrador called “garbage”, feeds children. There is $800 a year for a family of two in savings. I can go on and on.
The Conservative members vote against everything that supports families and seniors.
Mr. Speaker, across Saskatchewan, families are being crushed by soaring grocery prices. I recently spoke with a farm family, people who feed this country and the world. After paying their bills, they now rely on a local food bank to get by. This should never happen in a country like Canada. The Liberal government should be ashamed that there are now 27 cases of scurvy in Saskatchewan because people cannot afford healthy food after 10 years of Liberal inflation and higher taxes.
How does the government defend its record when farm families need food banks and when Canadians are now being diagnosed with scurvy?
Mr. Speaker, as with any serious disease, the government will respond to this. We will work with all the officials involved, including our provincial counterparts.
The House leader, who has a very kind heart, said to be kind when he answered the questions in some of your interventions. I am going to wish you all the gift of greater tolerance for all people. In the new year, I wish the Conservatives would place the priorities of Canada above your own political agenda. In this new year—
Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, in the great north Arctic, families face some of the highest costs of living for housing and basic necessities. In just a few months, the new government has announced several affordability measures for Canadians, as well as for those in the north.
Can the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs share how our government is working, including through Bill C-4's affordability measures, to deliver financial relief to the northern communities that need it most?
Mr. Speaker, for the first time in generations, we are making historic investments in housing and infrastructure across the north, building homes, roads and community facilities. We are investing in clean energy, better Internet and stronger transportation links, all in partnership with indigenous communities.
Bill C-4 would deliver tax cuts, GST housing credits and enhanced benefits so families can heat their homes and feed their children. This is generational change for the north.
Automotive Industry
Mr. Speaker, yesterday at committee the finance minister condescendingly said that he was a lawyer and would be happy to explain the Stellantis contract.
Well, one does not have to be a lawyer or even an accountant to know that 4,475 jobs is fewer than 8,000 jobs. The incompetent Liberals signed a contract with Stellantis that was going to pay Stellantis billions of dollars, and it guaranteed 4,400 jobs, when Stellantis at the time had 8,000 jobs. This allowed Stellantis to fire 3,000 workers and ship the jobs down to the United States.
How do the Liberals explain this unbelievable level of incompetence?
Mr. Speaker, we signed that deal on behalf of the government for every worker, every employee and every member of that community. Stellantis broke that deal. In our opinion, it is in default. We are going to get that money back, or the jobs are coming back, period.
Mr. Speaker, yeah, except when Stellantis was at committee, its president said it is not in default of the contract. It is probably relying on the section in the contract that said it would guarantee 4,475 jobs, when at the time, the company had 8,000 jobs, and 4,475 jobs is about 3,500 fewer than 8,000. I know that is hard for the Liberals to comprehend, and that is why they feel as though when Stellantis fired 3,000 workers it was not in default.
Guess who benefits again from this. It Donald Trump and America, where all those jobs went, along with a $13-billion investment from Stellantis. What—
Mr. Speaker, instead of repeating Stellantis talking points and talking points from south of the border, perhaps the party on the other side should be joining with us to agree that the company is in default, and it should be joining us in encouraging the company to come to the table and either return those jobs or give our money back, period.
Mr. Speaker, at industry committee again yesterday, the finance minister falsely claimed there were the strongest protections for auto jobs at Stellantis. Well, we all know the outcome of that: 3,000 job losses in Brampton and $13 billion of investment by Stellantis in the United States. The contract was so badly written that the job numbers were only cloaked, aspirational, with no penalties.
How can the Liberals claim they are supporting auto workers when there are zero job guarantees in the contract?
Mr. Speaker, speaking of jobs for the good people of Brampton, Ontario, the new government is making a record $2-billion federal investment for the new SMR energy project in Darlington, Ontario. This will create 18,000 new jobs.
Our energy sector is world-renowned and will continue to open doors for new exports around the world.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives stand in the way of progress, our government is relentless in delivering for Canadians, including by bringing forward two pieces of trade diversification legislation in the current parliamentary session. Trade diversification benefits the entire country, which is why we are moving swiftly to advance the trade deal with Indonesia, a market of 275 million people.
Can the minister share how the Canadian-Indonesian trade agreement will create real opportunities for Canadian businesses and workers?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his good work on the international trade committee and, of course, for the good people of Mississauga.
Indonesia is the eighth-largest economy in the world, with a population of 280 million potential consumers. The trade agreement we tabled this morning will cut tariffs and open new opportunities in aerospace, agri-food, agriculture, critical minerals and so much more.
Together we are opening doors for Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian products to new global markets around the world.
Health
Speaker, on October 2 the health minister's assistant deputy minister for controlled substances told the health committee that no federal funding was used to buy crack pipes. This week, the very same official was caught lying to committee when she revealed that Health Canada was in fact buying crack pipes with tax dollars.
If an average Canadian lies on a government forum, they face real consequences, so can the health minister tell us what consequences her senior official will face for lying to Parliament about funding crack pipes?
[Translation]
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Uqaqtittiji, the Quw’utsun Nation aboriginal title case is an important decision affirming first nations' rights. Let us be clear: This decision is not about taking land from private owners. The federal government must focus its efforts on reconciliation and the honour of the Crown.
Will the minister convene negotiations with all affected parties to ensure an orderly transition toward respecting the ancestral, spiritual and cultural rights of the Quw’utsun Nation?
Mr. Speaker, yes, we will continue to work collaboratively with all parties to uphold the principles of reconciliation, transparency and legal responsibility. We remain available for dialogue with all parties involved; that includes British Columbia, the City of Richmond, Musqueam Indian Band and Tsawwassen First Nation, as well as the Quw’utsun.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are promising massive profits to resource extraction companies by fast-tracking projects on indigenous lands while investing nothing in community safety. Violence against indigenous women and girls, including sexual assault, trafficking and child sexual exploitation, spikes around man camps. This is a reality that was confirmed in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, yet this year's budget offers zero.
Do our lives matter, or is the government going to turn its back on us yet again?
Mr. Speaker, the crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is unacceptable, and our government is taking concrete action. Through the national action plan and the federal pathway, we are funding new shelters and safe spaces, supporting indigenous-led safety programs, improving policing standards and advancing culturally grounded services for families and survivors.
We know progress must be faster. We will continue working directly with indigenous partners to implement the calls for justice and to deliver real, measurable change. This is our—
Mr. Speaker, while Standing Order 18 is of interest with respect to the government House leader's calling me the Death Valley well digger, what I would say is that I will stop digging if they stop burying stuff.
[Translation]
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
With all due respect, I would like to address the questions from a Conservative Party member that were rejected earlier because they were deemed irrelevant. I would like to address two points.
First, it seems to us that questions can be legitimate if they raise doubts about people who have previously served in the House, or even about people who have already been—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
This is a point of order; we must listen to what the member has to say.
The member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Mr. Speaker, I will resume my speech.
As I was saying, it seems to us that questions can be legitimate if they raise doubts about people who have previously served in the House or about people who might even be federal employees. We are not accusing anyone, but we think it is entirely legitimate for the people's elected representatives to raise questions here in the House, especially given that Quebec's anti-corruption squad is currently conducting an investigation. If the anti-corruption squad were to find that federal elected officials were involved, I think the question might be relevant.
That was my first point, but I am not finished. Here is my second point.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Yves Perron: Mr. Speaker, may I have my colleagues' attention?
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé can continue, since I am obviously trying to follow his argument.
Mr. Speaker, I will begin the second part of my speech.
In good faith, Bloc Québécois members tried to clarify this issue. We asked you whether questions can be filtered and whether we can at least ensure that the answers are relevant and—
I delivered a ruling on the second point earlier this week. Questions must be relevant, but I have no control over the content of the answers. This is in accordance with practice and with the Standing Orders of Parliament.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think this assessment could be reconsidered, because the Standing Orders state that the answers must be related to the question, which is not always the case. There seems to be a disconnect here.
If we place limits on one side, we should place limits on the other side. Members should be allowed to ask legitimate questions.
I have already ruled on the second point.
As for the first point, I will think about it, but I believe that the interpretation of the member and other members is so broad that almost every question could fall under the administration of the federal government. I am not sure I would agree with what the member is saying, but I will look into it.
The hon. Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I would like to make a modest suggestion. There will be a provincial election in 2026, and if the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles want to run—
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
It being 3:18 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motions at report stage of Bill C-12.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 56)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Idlout
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Ma
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Zimmer
Total: -- 147
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jaczek
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 188
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 1 defeated.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 2. A vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47, and 49 to 51. A negative vote on Motion No. 2 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 22 and 48.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this one, with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting yes.
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 57)
YEAS
Members
BoulericeDavies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Gazan
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
May
McPherson
Total: -- 8
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Kmiec
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 327
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 2 defeated. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 3 to 21, 23 to 47, and 49 to 51 defeated.
The question is on Motion No. 22.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting no.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 58)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Kmiec
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 327
NAYS
Members
BoulericeDavies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Gazan
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
May
McPherson
Total: -- 8
PAIRED
Nil
I declare Motion No. 22 carried.
[English]
The question is on Motion No. 48.
The hon. chief government whip.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yea.
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats agree to apply the results of the last vote to the current vote, with New Democrats voting nay.
[Translation]
(The House divided on Motion No. 48, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 59)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAcan
Aitchison
Al Soud
Albas
Ali
Allison
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Auguste
Baber
Bailey
Bains
Baker
Baldinelli
Bardeesy
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Bendayan
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Bittle
Blair
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Blois
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Brassard
Brière
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chambers
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Chong
Church
Clark
Cobena
Cody
Connors
Cooper
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dalton
Dancho
Dandurand
Danko
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
d'Entremont
DeRidder
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duclos
Duguid
Duncan
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Epp
Eyolfson
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Freeland
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gallant
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gerretsen
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gould
Gourde
Grant
Greaves
Groleau
Guay
Guglielmin
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Gunn
Hajdu
Hallan
Hanley
Hardy
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Ho
Hoback
Hodgson
Hogan
Holman
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Jackson
Jaczek
Jansen
Jivani
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Kelly
Khalid
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Klassen
Kmiec
Konanz
Koutrakis
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lantsman
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
Lawrence
Lawton
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Leitão
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lightbound
Lloyd
Lobb
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Maloney
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKenzie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Melillo
Ménard
Mendès
Menegakis
Michel
Miedema
Miller
Mingarelli
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Morrissey
Motz
Muys
Myles
Naqvi
Nater
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Plamondon
Poilievre
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Royer
Ruff
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Scheer
Schiefke
Schmale
Seeback
Sgro
Sheehan
Shipley
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Small
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
St-Pierre
Strahl
Strauss
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thomas
Thompson
Tochor
Tolmie
Turnbull
Uppal
Valdez
van Koeverden
Van Popta
Vandenbeld
Vien
Viersen
Villeneuve
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Watchorn
Waugh
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zimmer
Zuberi
Total: -- 327
NAYS
Members
BoulericeDavies (Vancouver Kingsway)
Gazan
Idlout
Johns
Kwan
May
McPherson
Total: -- 8
PAIRED
Nil[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.
An hon. member: Mr. Speaker, I propose it be adopted on division.
(Motion agreed to)
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Liberals have decided to allow for Bill C-14 to pass. We have, on 17 occasions over the last number of hours, asked for the Liberals to expedite Bill C-14 and to allow for consideration of the bill. The Liberals continue to obstruct this bill, putting forward limitations on religious freedom in Bill C-9. Conservatives will continue to oppose those measures but would like to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians by providing what we believe is a counterfeit version of what Canadians are demanding in terms of fixing Liberal bail. We believe that the provisions would at least provide some level of protection.
Will the House leader give us an update as to when that might happen?
While I am on my feet, it is now the Christmas season, and this may be my last opportunity to stand in the House to thank all members for their dedication and support to their constituents. As they return home, we hope they will have a safe holiday season.
I want to thank the pages, who have dedicated hours to the House and to our service. We want to thank the table officers, the interpreters and all staff who support us, both here in the administration and in the House, as well as in our Hill and constituency offices.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Merry Christmas to you.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the chief opposition whip, for at least the festive part of that statement. If he wants to stand and propose that Bill C-14 be read at all stages and passed, we will absolutely support that on this side of the House.
Before discussing the business of the House, I would like to join with my hon. colleague and take this opportunity to thank all members of Parliament and their staff, who work hard every day for Canadians, whether here in the House of Commons or in their ridings.
[Translation]
I would also like to wish very happy holidays and a merry Christmas to all those who help us here in the parliamentary precinct: the clerks, the pages, the interpreters and the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service.
[English]
Many of them are residents in my own riding of Gatineau, which I continue to be very proud to represent in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent in the House for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House:
(a) Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be deemed read a third time and passed on division, and that the opposition of the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted;
(b) Bill C-13, An Act to implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade;
(c) Bill C-12, An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures, be deemed read a third time and passed on division, and that the opposition of the Member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted;
(d) following the adoption of this order, the House shall proceed immediately to the consideration of Private Members' Business, and during that time, no quorum calls, dilatory motions, or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair;
(e) no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 be taken up today; and
(f) when the House adjourns later this day, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 26, 2026, provided that, for the purpose of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, December 12, 2025.
Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act
[Government Orders]
(Bill C‑4. On the Order: Government Orders:)
December 1, 2025—Resuming consideration of the
motion of the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne
(Minister of Finance and National Revenue), seconded by the
Honourable Wayne Long (Secretary of State (Canada Revenue
Agency and Financial Institutions))—That Bill C‑4, An Act
respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and
another measure, be now read a third time and do pass.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership
(Bill C‑13. On the Order: Government Orders:)
December 3, 2025—Resuming consideration of the
motion of the Honourable Maninder Sidhu (Minister of
International Trade), seconded by the Honourable John Zerucelli
(Secretary of State (Labour))—That Bill C‑13, An Act to
implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and
Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on
International Trade.
(Bill read a second time and referred to a committee)
Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act
(Bill C‑12. On the Order: Government Orders:)
The Minister of Public Safety—An Act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures—Order respecting proceedings at third reading stage—December 11, 2025
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the good wishes of my two colleagues. The Bloc Québécois would also like to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to all Quebeckers, to the members of all parties and their staff, to all House of Commons staff, including the clerks, the law clerks, the analysts, the pages, the Parliamentary Protective Services, the friendly cafeteria staff, the maintenance team, the IT technicians, the Sergeant-at-Arms' team, and, last but certainly not least, the interpreters. They are going through a rather difficult time at the moment. Our thoughts are with them, as we have a special relationship with them.
Best wishes to all.
[English]
Points of Order
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, my votes were recorded in error, and I would like them stricken from the record.
I would like thank the hon. member for Provencher. Pursuant to Standing Order 45, and in line with precedence of members inadvertently voting when they should not have, I wish to inform the House that a corrigendum will be published in today's Journals and that the results of division Nos. 53, 54 and 55, in the Journals of December 8 and December 9, as well as the other records, will thereafter be corrected by removing the member's votes.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic caucus and my colleagues, I would also like to extend our best wishes this holiday season to all of the members of the House and all of the staff on the Hill. I cannot do better than my colleague from the Bloc, who, I think, enumerated all of the very many people who, every day, not only make this place work but provide such a foundational support for Canadian democracy.
On their behalf, I wish everybody a merry Christmas and the best of the holiday season. Have a safe and happy holiday.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Green Party and as its leader, I would like to extend my best wishes for the holiday season to everyone.
[English]
Merry Christmas, joyeux Noël and happy Hanukkah to everyone, whether or not one has a faith, and I do have a profound faith and look forward to celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. I also recognize that people of no faith and of different faiths are all bound together here in this place by our common love of country and our commitment to work for democracy, which is under threat all around the world this Christmas season.
To everyone, everybody who has been mentioned already, our wonderful interpreters, our wonderful pages, the students who deserve to have a great Christmas at home with their families, and every one of my dear friends here in this place, to every MP, please be safe this holiday season. Come back, and when we resume Parliament, let us start with a spirit of shared commitment and co-operation.
[Translation]
Before we adjourn, I would like to take a moment to thank all staff members of the House of Commons and wish them a very happy holiday season. Without the dedication and professionalism of each and every one of you, it would be exceedingly difficult for the House to function on a daily basis.
[English]
From the staff that keep our workplace clean and safe to the cafeteria, restaurant and catering staff, our Parliamentary Protective Service, the bus drivers, interpreters, translators, pages, table officers, committee clerks, administrative staff, IT and communications professionals, research analysts and Library of Parliament staff, protocol officers and exchange officers, and everyone else who is here to serve Parliament, I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Their work matters and, through their excellence, they make the House of Commons work in the service of Canada's parliamentary democracy.
[Translation]
I hope that the coming weeks will give you the opportunity to rest a little and spend some quality time with your loved ones.
[English]
While members of Parliament take time over the coming weeks to reconnect with their constituents back in their ridings, I hope that they will also take the time to reconnect to what is most important to them.
[Translation]
That way, we will come back at the end of January refreshed and ready to continue our work for Parliament and for Canadians. I wish everyone a very happy holiday season.
[English]
Have a wonderful holiday. We will see everyone back on January 26.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Living Donor Recognition Medal Act
The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-234, An Act respecting the establishment and award of a Living Donor Recognition Medal, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a private member's bill brought forward by my colleague, the member for Edmonton Manning. His bill proposes something simple: a national medal of recognition for every living organ donor in Canada to raise awareness and education about the power of living donation.
My family has lived with the cruelty of Alport syndrome, a genetic disease that steals kidney function. Generation after generation, it has been a quiet, constant shadow in our family. I grew up with adults speaking in hushed tones about test results, doctor's appointments and the next person whose kidneys were beginning to fail.
When I was a little girl, my dear grandmother, Magdalena Villavicencio, died on my bed. I remember the sounds of adults crying around me. I remember the heaviness in the room, and I remember not fully understanding what had happened but knowing that our family had lost another fight in a long war. My uncle, Jose Gabriel Cobena, died too, and now my cousins, the next generation, have been fighting the same battle. Both brothers needed transplants as teenagers. The eldest received a kidney from his father, but the father only had one to give, so the younger brother, at 19 years old, had no donor match.
There is nothing more frightening than waiting to see whether someone we love will live or die. Death appeared close, and even closer with each passing day, and then something extraordinary happened: My brother, Gabriel Cobena, stepped forward. He was young and healthy, with his whole life ahead of him, and he said, “Test me. If I am a match, he will not die.” Although these words may sound simple, the situation was not.
My cousin was in Ecuador in a very delicate state, so weak he could not travel. If the transplant were to happen, it would have to be in a public hospital where there was no hot water, no toilet seats and no modern comforts, just faith and the courage that only God puts into the hearts of ordinary people. My brother walked into the surgery knowing the risks were high. He walked in knowing that complications were common. He walked in knowing that in that hospital, donating a kidney could very well be a death sentence, but he did it anyway.
For four hours we waited. It was four hours of pure agony, praying with every breath that God would guide the surgeon's hands and that both young men, my brother and my cousin, would come out alive, and by the Lord's mercy, they did. My cousin recovered. He finished university, and this past summer he got married. My brave, selfless brother gave him a future he would never have had. He too got married, and he has two handsome young sons.
When I speak to this bill, I speak with the deepest of convictions because my father, Gilmerth Cobena, who donated his kidney to his mother, is a hero. My brother, Gabriel Cobena, is a hero. The sponsor of this bill, the member for Edmonton Manning, who donated part of his liver to his son Tyler, is a hero, and every Canadian who has given an organ so that someone else can live is a hero.
This medal would be about recognizing that, among us, walk women and men who have offered a part of their own body so that another human being might get one more sunrise, one more breath, one more chance at life. This bill would simply allow Canada to say that we see them, we honour them and they are the best of us.
This is a moment for every Canadian to feel proud of the House because, together, across all parties, we are standing in unity to support this private member's bill, reflecting our shared commitment to the people we serve.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her wonderful speech.
Yesterday, Quebec lost one of its greatest photojournalists, Jacques Nadeau. A leading figure at Le Devoir and La Presse, he devoted more than 30 years to chronicling our society through his camera with rare humanity and admirable sensitivity.
Personally, I have lost a friend. For years, Jacques and I would chat when we went to the gym in the morning. Through our conversations about politics and current events, I discovered a warm human side to him that I will miss.
I offer my sincere condolences to his family, his wife, his loved ones and the entire journalistic community. I thank Jacques for everything he has done.
I am also rising to speak in support of Bill C-234, an act respecting the establishment and award of a living donor recognition medal. This bill recognizes the courage, generosity and profound humanity of Canadians who choose to donate an organ during their lifetime. It creates a national honour for those who have made what the preamble rightly calls the “gift of life”.
[English]
Organ and tissue donation is one of the most selfless acts a person can undertake. It is not compelled, offers no material reward and often carries medical risk. Living donors step forward not for recognition and not for reward, but because they believe in the value of another human life. As the bill notes, they often do so at personal risk and with no expectation of reward. Their actions save lives and strengthen our communities by reminding us of the compassion and solidarity that define Canada at its best. These are not small virtues; they are the very qualities that strengthen our social fabric.
When a Canadian chooses to donate an organ, they are saving a life. They are also helping families stay whole and reminding communities across the country of what is possible when people act with kindness. Their actions inspire us. They, especially my colleague from Edmonton Manning, set an example for all of us in the House and for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Canadians are rightly proud of those who perform acts of extraordinary generosity. However, pride alone is not enough. Bill C-234 proposes a formal mechanism, a national honour, to ensure that their contributions are publicly recognized and celebrated. This is a thoughtful and meaningful initiative. I would like to thank the sponsor of this bill for introducing legislation that shines a light on the unsung heroes among us.
According to the Canadian Organ Replacement Register of the Canadian Institute for Health Information, in 2023, nearly 50,000 Canadians were living with end-stage renal disease. Of these, approximately 30,000 were on dialysis, while 20,000 had received a functional kidney transplant. As of December 31, 2024, more than 4,000 Canadians were waiting for a solid organ transplant, and 71% of them needed a kidney. These are not just statistics; these are real people. They are our neighbours, our friends and our loved ones.
[English]
Tragically, in 2024, 691 Canadians were removed from the transplant wait-lists. Every year, hundreds of patients waiting for a life-saving organ transplant are removed from waiting lists due to declining health or due to the development of other health issues. Unfortunately, many Canadians also die while waiting for a transplant. It is a sad reality. Every one of those lives lost is a stark reminder of the urgency of this issue.
Dialysis, while life-sustaining, is not a long-term solution. The five-year survival rate for dialysis patients is only 45%, compared to 92% for kidney transplant recipients. A transplant not only doubles life expectancy but also dramatically improves quality of life. For patients, a successful transplant often means returning to work, regaining independence and reclaiming a sense of normalcy.
The case for increasing living organ donation is clear. Demand continues to grow, and every person on a wait-list represents a life on hold, a family in distress and a community affected. Living donations often offer better outcomes and reduce pressure on dialysis programs.
In 2023, the average wait time for a living donor kidney was 1.5 years, compared to 3.9 years for a deceased donor kidney, but there is another dimension we must address: equity. Health Canada reports that access to living donor kidney transplants among South Asian, African, Caribbean and Black populations is 50% to 75% lower than the national average. This disparity underscores the need for targeted awareness and culturally sensitive outreach. Living donation is not a complete solution; however, where we can recognize the impact of living donors, we can help catalyze change by raising awareness and inspiring action.
[Translation]
Recognition matters. It is not merely symbolic. It is transformative. When we celebrate donors' stories, we dispel the myths and fears surrounding organ donation. We make it accessible and tangible.
Inspiration leads to action. Sharing donors' journeys creates a powerful narrative that encourages others to consider donating. Encouragement also leads to change. As awareness increases, participation follows. Expanding the donor pool means saving more lives.
Recognition, whether in the form of honours, public acknowledgements or personal gratitude, is also a profound affirmation of a donor's generosity. It shows them, as well as our country, that their act of kindness matters.
[English]
Health Canada remains committed to supporting patients, families and donors. It works closely with provincial and territorial partners; national organizations such as the Canadian Blood Services and the Canadian Society of Transplantation; clinicians; researchers; and also indigenous communities, all with a patient-centred approach.
In 2024, Health Canada launched the pan-Canadian governance framework for organ donation and transplantation. As part of this, Health Canada advocated for the creation of a patient advocate advisory committee, providing an independent platform for people with lived experience to inform policy and improve systems. These efforts ensure that the voices of patients, families and donors are heard and respected.
Stakeholders consistently emphasize the importance of recognizing living donors. Organizations such as the Kidney Foundation of Canada and countless individuals with lived experience have told us that recognition really matters. It validates their sacrifice and encourages others to follow their example.
[Translation]
Too many Canadians are in urgent need of life-saving organ transplants. Every week, about four people die waiting for a transplant. Increasing the number of living donations is a key step in saving lives and improving quality of life. Recognizing living donors can have a significant impact.
I urge all members to consider the profound impact of living donors. Together, we can build a system that not only saves lives but also celebrates the generosity of living donors.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak about an important piece of legislation, Bill C-234.
First, I would like to take a moment to recognize my friend, a Conservative colleague and the member for Edmonton Manning, as the sponsor of this bill. His hard work, dedication and personal experience with living organ donation is truly inspiring.
This bill supports a low-cost solution that can have a huge impact for Canadians. I believe that Bill C-234 can be supported by all parties in the House and by all Canadians.
Every Canadian has their own personal experience with health. Regardless of age, sex, culture or background, our health and well-being determine how well we live our lives. Every day our actions directly affect our health. From taking daily vitamins to watching our diets or making some time for exercise, we take actions because our health impacts our quality of life. At the end of the day, we all have to have our health. While many Canadians are fortunate to lead healthy lives, there are many who struggle with health challenges. Unfortunately, we all know friends, family members and neighbours who have spent months or even years facing serious health issues, fighting a terminal illness or a chronic disease.
Here in Canada, we must recognize that our health care system is broken. Right now, 6.5 million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor. Canada is short at least 23,000 doctors and 60,000 registered nurses. Health care workers are burnt out from millions of hours of overtime. Emergency rooms are closing across the country. A recent report by the Canadian Institute for Health Information revealed that between April 2024 and March 2025 there were more than 16 million unscheduled emergency department visits in Canada. That is up from almost 15.5 million in the previous year. It is a harsh reality, but we must recognize that Canadians are literally dying as they wait for care.
However, not all Canadians are waiting in the same line. Some Canadians have needs that cannot be met with a doctor's appointment or getting a prescription. This brings me to the key component of Bill C-234. Right now, there are 4,700 Canadians on a wait-list to receive a life-saving organ transplant. A common misunderstanding is that life-saving organs can only come from deceased donors. That is not true.
Canadians may not realize how living organ donation works. Living organ donors bravely step up and give all or part of their own organ for those who need it. Part of this process depends on availability of organs, which is based on medical compatibility between the donor and the recipient. That means, depending on the organ, the donor organ must match in blood type, tissue type and size to ensure it is accepted by the body of the recipient. After this donation, these heroes then recover and continue on with their lives.
Bill C-234 seeks to formally recognize those brave living organ donors by recognizing this priceless gift they gave. It establishes the formal presentation of a medal by a representative of the Crown, a senator or a member of Parliament. The legislation honours those individuals who have donated one or more organs here in Canada.
Unfortunately, Canada's organ donation rate is low. Having a formal process of recognition would shed light on this problem and encourage more people to give. We know there are 4,700 people currently on the transplant wait-list and each of their lives is at risk. They could be our family, friends or neighbours. Anyone, regardless of their health, can suddenly require an organ donation and have their name added to the list.
Living organ donors give the gift of life. I want to highlight the impact they have on the lives they save. Of the 4,700 people in need of an organ, 75% specifically require a kidney transplant. Living organ donors are special because they can meet this demand. That is because, despite being born with two kidneys, the human body can survive with just one. We can also safely donate part of our liver, as it will continue to grow back and function. Regardless of the situation, life for Canadians waiting to receive an organ donation is extremely challenging. Needing a donation means their lives are on hold and their health outcomes get worse the longer they wait.
I would like to look specifically at individuals on the wait-list for a kidney transplant, who represent three-quarters of the 4,700 individuals on the wait-list. Without functioning kidneys, they could be forced to undergo multiple dialysis treatments every week just to stay alive. Each treatment causes stress and takes hours of their time.
I represent the constituency of Riding Mountain, a region of Manitoba that is larger than the province of Nova Scotia. Patients and their families needing dialysis in our area could be forced to drive hours just to get to a facility where they could receive the treatment. In most cases, these people would also need to take time away from their jobs. This may add financial strain on top of the heavy emotional toll that comes with this difficult process. Each person on the wait-list is living these realities. That is why the generosity of one person is so remarkable and life-changing.
A living organ donor can volunteer to sign up for a donation, be tested to find a medical match, schedule and have their surgery, and then continue leading a healthy and normal lifestyle after donating. Members can think about that. A single organ donation can save a life, freeing a fellow Canadian on the wait-list and their family from this immense burden of uncertainty. Canadians already do this. They give without compensation for their life-saving donation. It is hard to imagine a more significant example of generosity and compassion than volunteering to give a piece of oneself to a person in need.
Canadians have a proud reputation for being kind and have a long history of organ and tissue donation. The priceless value of life and the special connection that exists between the organ donor and the recipient cannot be overstated. One remarkable act can extend another person's precious life and drastically improve the quality of it, and yet, here in Canada, we do not have a process for formally thanking these brave heroes for their gifts. When I think of the sacrifice, I think of our men and women in uniform. Whether military or first responders, they are exceptionally brave every day. We recognize these individuals for their continued service to Canada. We recognize volunteers and those who are generous in the name of a good cause, but we do not have a formal process to acknowledge living organ donors. I believe these donors exemplify each of these characteristics, and they deserve more than a simple thank you.
However, recognizing these individuals is just one part of the potential that Bill C-234 would have if passed. Bill C-234 could also be a source of education for Canadians who may not realize how to sign up to be a living organ donor. It could help with misunderstandings about organ donations by honouring those who have successfully donated. We could spark public awareness to encourage more conversations about donations.
A crucial recognition that Bill C-234 would put into law would not just honour those who have donated; I believe it would inspire others to donate as well. If more Canadians know about living donation as a way to contribute, the wait-list can shrink. More donations means fewer people waiting for an organ donation while their lives are at risk. It means getting them out of hospital beds and back to being productive members of society. It means they can work again and live with the dignity they deserve. It also means that thousands of health care dollars can be saved on treatments like dialysis. It can open up more hospital beds when Canadians need them. As Canada faces significant challenges with our health care capacity, it is important to seek simple solutions. Bill C-234 is a solution.
With that, I ask for unanimous consent to pass the bill at second reading.
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Health.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer